NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by the "biblical contradictions" thread, I decided to open my own challenge to believers. Anyone who believes a biblical prophecy has been fulfilled, please reference the passages, and I will demonstrate how the prophecy was not fulfilled, or was not even a prophecy.

Unlike the intellectual lightweight in that other thread, I will take all challenges seriously.

Inspired by the "biblical contradictions" thread, I decided to open my own challenge to believers. Anyone who believes a biblical prophecy has been fulfilled, please reference the passages, and I will demonstrate how the prophecy was not fulfilled, or was not even a prophecy.

Unlike the intellectual lightweight in that other thread, I will take all challenges seriously.

Don't you love it that Cabinia attacks the other people tolookmore respectful?

Sometimes people react beter when you don't attack others, just a thought.

This is not an attack. This is an intellectual challenge. The fact that you perceive it as an attack says quite a bit about you.

Don't you love it that Cabinia attacks the other people tolookmore respectful?

Sometimes people react beter when you don't attack others, just a thought.

I didnt see any attacks.

Speaking of biblical prophecies how about Revelations. It says right on he first page, the very first page, "All this shall come to pass in the generation of Christ". Unless of course Jesus wasn't Christ then the events of Revelations would have had to happen about 1900 years ago because that the outside time for anyone in Jesus's generation being alive. 2000 years ago being alive a hundred years was a lot rarer than it is today.

Of course if it did happen 2000 to 1900 years ago then according to prophecy Jesus had control for that 1000 years we now call "The Dark Ages" followed by a 1000 years when Satan's got control, (final battle soon to come at the end of Satan's rule). That would mean that the end of Satan's rule would be anywhere from fifty to a hundred years from now roughly. Untill then anyone of importance or power rules by the grace of Satan.

A little something for you Fundies to chew on. :D

On that same note, Jesus repeatedly told his followers, in all 4 gospels, that he would return within the span of their natural lives. So, either the Second Coming happened long ago, and we all missed it... or it was just more false prophecy that failed to be fulfilled.

On that same note, Jesus repeatedly told his followers, in all 4 gospels, that he would return within the span of their natural lives. So, either the Second Coming happened long ago, and we all missed it... or it was just more false prophecy that failed to be fulfilled.

[Emphasis mine.]

Chapter, verse and proof it was Jesus saying this rather then the Gospel writer being hopeful?

no one knows the time, place, or specific date when christ will come back so its all speculation, all i have to do is be patient and wait for my savior to come back...wether thats in my lifetime or not idc i know where im going ;)

i know this is a trap but check with the great prophet isaiah 13

Hey guys. I will be the first to admit that I'm not a great Bible scholar, but I'll try to help you out if I can.

First of all, in response to what you're discussing now, I looked up one of those verses (Matthew 24:34) and apparently "generation" could also be translated as "race," meaning the Jewish nation would not pass away until Christ came again. Also there are disputes over what exacty he's refering to. Some of the events in that passage relate to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70, which did in fact occur before the literal generation passed away.

Now, as far as prophecy goes, the book "The Case for Christ" has an entire chapter devoted to the question of whether or not Jesus fulfilled prophecy. It's much more scholarly than anything I could give you, and shows how Jesus and only Jesus completely fulfilled prophecy.

I won't bore you with prophecy after prophecy, but take a look at Isaiah 53:3-9 and 12. "Despised and rejected by men", "took up our infirmities", "pierced for our transgressions", "punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed", "led like a lamb to the slaughter." All of these are descriptions of Jesus long before he was born.

Deut 6:9 "And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates."

Fulfilled by the mezzuzah on my doorpost. PWNED!

I didnt see any attacks.

You mean the last sentence where the poster obviously insulted the originator of another thread?

Granted: the comment makes sense - the other person didn't answer any of the challenges that I saw.

Inspired by the "biblical contradictions" thread, I decided to open my own challenge to believers. Anyone who believes a biblical prophecy has been fulfilled, please reference the passages, and I will demonstrate how the prophecy was not fulfilled, or was not even a prophecy.

Unlike the intellectual lightweight in that other thread, I will take all challenges seriously.fine i will make you one challenge presonaly i want you to make some sort of bible challenge for me and ill make one for you deal

deal?

Here's something you might not know, the Church's canon is actually a very small and filtered list of books which make up the modern bible. In actuality there were many more accounts written about god/jesus etc which were not accepted. Could it be that the Church only accepted ones(accounts) which did not contradict it's philosophy/viewpoint?

...Here, think this over.
It said the appocalypse would occur when a world leader (which I remember being a president...) with a pleasing look (Otherwise he or she will be absolutley positively gorgous). And since Americans are more likley to choose a canidate who is pretty, if they don't care or don't know what they're voting for, I think that we will elect a president who will take over the world with the Anti-Christ as his "advisor".
George...6 letters...second term...so 6 again...so far thats two sixes, we're very close...(66 instead of 666)

Here's something you might not know, the Church's canon is actually a very small and filtered list of books which make up the modern bible. In actuality there were many more accounts written about god/jesus etc which were not accepted. Could it be that the Church only accepted ones(accounts) which did not contradict it's philosophy/viewpoint?

Meh ... Torah is still Torah.

Inspired by the "biblical contradictions" thread, I decided to open my own challenge to believers. Anyone who believes a biblical prophecy has been fulfilled, please reference the passages, and I will demonstrate how the prophecy was not fulfilled, or was not even a prophecy.

Unlike the intellectual lightweight in that other thread, I will take all challenges seriously.

Well, seeing as how all of the prophecies of the bible occured in the past or will happen in the future, except of course the reign of Christ and all... so either you believe they happened, or not. There's not much proof either way, other than the bible itself.

Chapter, verse and proof it was Jesus saying this rather then the Gospel writer being hopeful?

Sure. I'll give you one example from each. Matt 16:28, Mark 13:30, Luke 9:27, and John 21:22. The John reference is less overt than the other three, but the return is implied.

Hey guys. I will be the first to admit that I'm not a great Bible scholar, but I'll try to help you out if I can.
...
I won't bore you with prophecy after prophecy, but take a look at Isaiah 53:3-9 and 12. "Despised and rejected by men", "took up our infirmities", "pierced for our transgressions", "punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed", "led like a lamb to the slaughter." All of these are descriptions of Jesus long before he was born.

Good post, Holborn. If I had come to this thread earlier, I would have made some of those same points.

Someone give me a prophecy. And where it is EXACTLY in the bible and I will tell you (from what I know*) weither or not it came true. If you're in NS, feel free to telegram me.

*Meaning directly from the bible and common knowege today. And a few books I've read and TV shows I've watched...

i know this is a trap but check with the great prophet isaiah 13

I'm not sure what in this chapter you believe has occurred, but there's plenty of false prophecy here. In particular, let's look at Isaiah 13:19-22:

And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there. But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there. And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.

The ancient city of Babylon is no longer populated, but there have been no documented sightings of either satyrs or dragons.

Sure. I'll give you one example from each. Matt 16:28, Mark 13:30, Luke 9:27, and John 21:22. The John reference is less overt than the other three, but the return is implied.

Matt 16:28 was referring to the ascention of Christ, which happened fourty days after rising from the grave. Luke 9:27: The members of the body of Christ are already part of the kingdom of heaven. John 21:22, as you said, doesn't say he did tarry until Christ returned. The passage was pretty vague. If you really see it as evidence, explain how.

I'm not sure what in this chapter you believe has occurred, but there's plenty of false prophecy here. In particular, let's look at Isaiah 13:19-22:

The ancient city of Babylon is no longer populated, but there have been no documented sightings of either satyrs or dragons.

It's called being figurative. And even so, it doesn't say when it will happen. If it were literal, for all you know some day large genetically engineered lizards will be wondering around there.

they didnt take any books out that were contradictory, every book that is in the bible is inspired by God

First of all, in response to what you're discussing now, I looked up one of those verses (Matthew 24:34) and apparently "generation" could also be translated as "race," meaning the Jewish nation would not pass away until Christ came again. Also there are disputes over what exacty he's refering to. Some of the events in that passage relate to the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70, which did in fact occur before the literal generation passed away.

That was not the Matt reference I chose. The one I chose did not use the word "generation." It is quite explicit that the event will take place within the natural lives of his listeners: "Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Matt 16:28) Your Matt reference corroborates this one.

I won't bore you with prophecy after prophecy, but take a look at Isaiah 53:3-9 and 12. "Despised and rejected by men", "took up our infirmities", "pierced for our transgressions", "punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed", "led like a lamb to the slaughter." All of these are descriptions of Jesus long before he was born.

Problems:

1) "There was in him no stately bearing to make us look at him, nor appearance that would attract us to him." - Jesus attracted notice, and followers.
2) "He was spurned and avoided by men, a man of suffering, accustomed to infirmity, One of those from whom men hide their faces, spurned, and we held him in no esteem." Jesus was not accustomed to infirmity. There are no reports of him ever being unwell. And again, he was held in high esteem, and looked up to.
3) "While we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted. - Again, he was not generally "stricken" or "afflicted," these terms being used to describe ailments and not torture.
4) " But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins" - If you're going to get excited about the piercing (per John's tale of the spear wound), then you have to give the crushing equal literal meaning. Also, there is nothing here to indicate crucifixion.
5) "Though he was harshly treated, he submitted and opened not his mouth; Like a lamb led to the slaughter or a sheep before the shearers, he was silent and opened not his mouth." - Jesus was not silent.

Overall, it appears Isaiah was talking about someone who could not have been Jesus... a man cursed by God in the manner of Job.

I'm not sure what in this chapter you believe has occurred, but there's plenty of false prophecy here. In particular, let's look at Isaiah 13:19-22:


And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there. But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there. And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.


The ancient city of Babylon is no longer populated, but there have been no documented sightings of either satyrs or dragons.

Thats because you are quoting a bad translation of the bible. That verse was talking about desert creatures, not muythical creatures. Here is the same verse in several of the more accurate modern translations.

But desert creatures will lie there, jackals will fill her houses; there the owls will dwell, and there the wild goats will leap about. Hyenas will howl in her strongholds, jackals in her luxurious palaces. Her time is at hand, and her days will not be prolonged.

Wild animals of the desert will move into the ruined city. The houses will be haunted by howling creatures. Ostriches will live among the ruins, and wild goats will come there to dance. Hyenas will howl in its fortresses, and jackals will make their dens in its palaces. Babylon's days are numbered; its time of destruction will soon arrive.


But desert creatures will lie down there, And their houses will be full of owls; Ostriches also will live there, and shaggy goats will frolic there. Hyenas will howl in their fortified towers And jackals in their luxurious palaces. Her fateful time also will soon come And her days will not be prolonged.

Problems:

1) "There was in him no stately bearing to make us look at him, nor appearance that would attract us to him." - Jesus attracted notice, and followers.
2) "He was spurned and avoided by men, a man of suffering, accustomed to infirmity, One of those from whom men hide their faces, spurned, and we held him in no esteem." Jesus was not accustomed to infirmity. There are no reports of him ever being unwell. And again, he was held in high esteem, and looked up to.
3) "While we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted. - Again, he was not generally "stricken" or "afflicted," these terms being used to describe ailments and not torture.
4) " But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins" - If you're going to get excited about the piercing (per John's tale of the spear wound), then you have to give the crushing equal literal meaning. Also, there is nothing here to indicate crucifixion.
5) "Though he was harshly treated, he submitted and opened not his mouth; Like a lamb led to the slaughter or a sheep before the shearers, he was silent and opened not his mouth." - Jesus was not silent.

Overall, it appears Isaiah was talking about someone who could not have been Jesus... a man cursed by God in the manner of Job.
1) He wasn't particularly beautiful, or kingly looking. He drew followers with his words and actions.
2) A lot of men did avoid him. A lot of men followed him too, but he was avoided. And he suffered in the desert for forty days before starting his ministry. He probably was accustomed to these things. And even if they didn't afflict him on a daily basis, he was always around suffering and infirmity. He didn't stay in a big house on the hill or anything.
3)Again, he was stricken in the wilderness before starting his ministry. He travelled with fishermen and tax collectors, associated with lepers and harlotts- he wasn't an upperclass guy.
4) I'd like to look up the word crushed in that verse. Where is it?
5) He absolutely held his peace. He spoke to loved ones, to others on the cross, and to God, but not to those torturing him. While they blindfolded him, beat him, and cast lots on his clothes, he didn't utter a word. He said, "I thirst," to a guard shortly before he died, but there's no evidence that that guard personally tortured him.

This has to do with the second coming I believe.

3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

(King James Bible, 2 Peter)

Matt 16:28 was referring to the ascention of Christ, which happened fourty days after rising from the grave. Luke 9:27: The members of the body of Christ are already part of the kingdom of heaven. John 21:22, as you said, doesn't say he did tarry until Christ returned. The passage was pretty vague. If you really see it as evidence, explain how.

Matt 16:27 reads thus:

"For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct."

In other words, Jesus is coming down with backup, in the form of angels, and he will reward the faithful and punish the wicked. This can only mean the Second Coming, because he certainly did NOT do this prior to the ascension. The next words, in 16:28:

"Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

In layman's terms, the Second Coming will happen during the span of your natural lives. It could not be any plainer. Or any more wrong. And that pretty much seals the case.

"Thats because you are quoting a bad translation of the bible. That verse was talking about desert creatures, not muythical creatures. Here is the same verse in several of the more accurate modern translations."

Every translation is a bad translation according to bible-worshipers

Matt 16:27 reads thus:

"For the Son of Man will come with his angels in his Father's glory, and then he will repay everyone according to his conduct."

In other words, Jesus is coming down with backup, in the form of angels, and he will reward the faithful and punish the wicked. This can only mean the Second Coming, because he certainly did NOT do this prior to the ascension. The next words, in 16:28:

"Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

In layman's terms, the Second Coming will happen during the span of your natural lives. It could not be any plainer. Or any more wrong. And that pretty much seals the case.

verse 27 is not directly leading into verse 28. It's a separate thought, a separate paragraph. If it were a continuation of the same thought, it would not have said "Amen I say unto you" or "verily I say unto you" or "truly I say unto you" depending on your translation, it would have said something to the effect of, "For I say unto you." These are related, but it's not a continuation. 27 tells of his return, 28 of his ascension. In layman's terms, he's saying, The Son will come back in the glory of God with angels. As a matter of fact, some of you here will see him come into that kingdom!

You know its not funny to trie and hurt someones belifs I think god is real I believe in the bible why do you wnat and prove to everyone god dosent exist if I found out he wasnt real I would simply kill myself. You also have to remember the bible isnt accuriate it was written after jesus's death so there.

Every translation is a bad translation according to bible-worshipers

Not at all. There are some very good translations. I listed several of the better modern translations, all of them were more accurate than the King James. That is to be expected, our knowledge of ancient languages and access to older documents has increased greatly since the time of King James.

"Thats because you are quoting a bad translation of the bible. That verse was talking about desert creatures, not muythical creatures. Here is the same verse in several of the more accurate modern translations."

Every translation is a bad translation according to bible-worshipers

The closer to the original, the closer to the truth. The key isn't looking to other english translations, it's looking to hebrew, aramaic, and greek translations. God has made sure that the truth has been preserved, for those willing to dig deep enough for it.

Thats because you are quoting a bad translation of the bible. That verse was talking about desert creatures, not muythical creatures. Here is the same verse in several of the more accurate modern translations.

And then you go on to quote even more questionable versions of the Bible. I admit I was quoting KJV at that time, which isn't the most accurate version. However, the NIV is best described as a modern apologist Bible. They deliberately change the meanings of words and phrases because the translators think they know what the author "meant" to say. The NLT is even worse. The NASB is a rather literal translation, but it was done primarily by evangelicals, which casts serious doubt on particular areas.

The NAB is my favored translation, when I need one. It's in fairly easily readable English, and like the NASB was translated literally. Unlike the NASB, it was done by the Catholic church... and the Catholics in this case had the integrity to copy things down as they saw them, keeping their comments in the footnotes where they belong.

And like the KJV, the NAB found satyrs in Isaiah 13:21 -
"But wildcats shall rest there and owls shall fill the houses; There ostriches shall dwell, and satyrs shall dance." And in the footnote, the NAB editors let us know for certain what they mean when they say "satyr": " Satyrs: in the popular mind, demons of goatlike form dwelling in ruins, symbols of immorality; cf Lev 17:7."

And then you go on to quote even more questionable versions of the Bible. I admit I was quoting KJV at that time, which isn't the most accurate version. However, the NIV is best described as a modern apologist Bible. They deliberately change the meanings of words and phrases because the translators think they know what the author "meant" to say. The NLT is even worse. The NASB is a rather literal translation, but it was done primarily by evangelicals, which casts serious doubt on particular areas.

The NAB is my favored translation, when I need one. It's in fairly easily readable English, and like the NASB was translated literally. Unlike the NASB, it was done by the Catholic church... and the Catholics in this case had the integrity to copy things down as they saw them, keeping their comments in the footnotes where they belong.

And like the KJV, the NAB found satyrs in Isaiah 13:21 -
"But wildcats shall rest there and owls shall fill the houses; There ostriches shall dwell, and satyrs shall dance." And in the footnote, the NAB editors let us know for certain what they mean when they say "satyr": " Satyrs: in the popular mind, demons of goatlike form dwelling in ruins, symbols of immorality; cf Lev 17:7."

Anyone who knows more than one language can tell you that a word for word translation is a terrible idea. If you want proof of why it is a terrible idea, try using babelfish to translate a web site. You get the general meaning of what it says most of the time, alot of the time you dont, but never do you actually get a full grasp of what the web site says. The NIV is phrase for phrase rather than word for word, which is a much better approach. It was made by a commission from various denominations and doesnt have any particular bias. It is generally accepted as one of the most reliable english translations. Nevertheless, I still included a word for word translation in case you preffer that.

I won't bore you with prophecy after prophecy, but take a look at Isaiah 53:3-9 and 12. "Despised and rejected by men",


Soldiers during Vietnam.


"took up our infirmities",


So... MASH.


"pierced for our transgressions",


Who got shot.


"punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed",


blood transfusion


"led like a lamb to the slaughter."


The Draft.


All of these are descriptions of Jesus long before he was born.

Not that hard to fulfill those you used.

1) He wasn't particularly beautiful, or kingly looking. He drew followers with his words and actions.
Show me a biblical reference to support this claim.

2) A lot of men did avoid him. A lot of men followed him too, but he was avoided. And he suffered in the desert for forty days before starting his ministry. He probably was accustomed to these things. And even if they didn't afflict him on a daily basis, he was always around suffering and infirmity. He didn't stay in a big house on the hill or anything.
Show me a biblical reference to support the claim that people avoided him. It is contradicted by all the ones stating he drew followers.
3)Again, he was stricken in the wilderness before starting his ministry. He travelled with fishermen and tax collectors, associated with lepers and harlotts- he wasn't an upperclass guy.
You're taking extreme liberties with the definition of "stricken" here. You've stretched the word past its breaking point. Isaiah is talking about a man disfigured by disease.

4) I'd like to look up the word crushed in that verse. Where is it?
Uhhh... it's right there, in the referenced quote. You mean you didn't even bother looking this stuff up before challenging what I said about it? That explains a lot.
5) He absolutely held his peace. He spoke to loved ones, to others on the cross, and to God, but not to those torturing him. While they blindfolded him, beat him, and cast lots on his clothes, he didn't utter a word. He said, "I thirst," to a guard shortly before he died, but there's no evidence that that guard personally tortured him.
I don't know what you hope to prove by this. Jesus spoke to the Sanhedrin, to Pilate, and even spoke circuitously to the soldiers as they hung him up. As for the flogging, the mention is too brief to draw any conclusions regarding conversation.

Anyone who knows more than one language can tell you that a word for word translation is a terrible idea. If you want proof of why it is a terrible idea, try using babelfish to translate a web site. You get the general meaning of what it says most of the time, alot of the time you dont, but never do you actually get a full grasp of what the web site says. The NIV is phrase for phrase rather than word for word, which is a much better approach. It was made by a commission from various denominations and doesnt have any particular bias. It is generally accepted as one of the most reliable english translations. Nevertheless, I still included a word for word translation in case you preffer that.
"word for word" is not the same as "literal." The literal translation takes the literal meaning of words and phrases and puts them as much into logical order as is possible without violating the meaning of the scentence.

verse 27 is not directly leading into verse 28. It's a separate thought, a separate paragraph. If it were a continuation of the same thought, it would not have said "Amen I say unto you" or "verily I say unto you" or "truly I say unto you" depending on your translation, it would have said something to the effect of, "For I say unto you." These are related, but it's not a continuation. 27 tells of his return, 28 of his ascension. In layman's terms, he's saying, The Son will come back in the glory of God with angels. As a matter of fact, some of you here will see him come into that kingdom!

You're killing yourself here. "Amen I say unto you" and your other examples are all transitional phrases which very much means the same as "For I say unto you." The presence of the transitional phrase means that they are connected statements.

Anyone who knows more than one language can tell you that a word for word translation is a terrible idea. If you want proof of why it is a terrible idea, try using babelfish to translate a web site. You get the general meaning of what it says most of the time, alot of the time you dont, but never do you actually get a full grasp of what the web site says. The NIV is phrase for phrase rather than word for word, which is a much better approach. It was made by a commission from various denominations and doesnt have any particular bias. It is generally accepted as one of the most reliable english translations. Nevertheless, I still included a word for word translation in case you preffer that.
All biblical translations have a Christian bias, whether they were denominational or not. There have always been individual passages which have been an embarassment to the faith, and a new translation, particularly a non-literal one, gives them the irresistible opportunity to clean those passages up. This is what makes the NAB stand out in comparison, for while it was also done by Christians, it was an honest translation nevertheless.

As for literal, it doesn't mean word-for-word... but Ra hurfarfar already told you that.

I conceed my statement wasn't fully true.

Just a trend I see, is that when some one quotes a phrase of the bible that doesn't agree with someone elses, the other person quotes a different version.

Its really hard to tell which to lean towards. The consistency is pretty good, but keywords seem to be the pivitol point of alot of arguements.

I appreciate the doods who type clearly and with well-thought out points. Some, on the other hand, I can't read their posts because it just makes no sense.

Show me a biblical reference to support this claim.


Show me a biblical reference to support the claim that people avoided him. It is contradicted by all the ones stating he drew followers.

You're taking extreme liberties with the definition of "stricken" here. You've stretched the word past its breaking point. Isaiah is talking about a man disfigured by disease.


Uhhh... it's right there, in the referenced quote. You mean you didn't even bother looking this stuff up before challenging what I said about it? That explains a lot.

I don't know what you hope to prove by this. Jesus spoke to the Sanhedrin, to Pilate, and even spoke circuitously to the soldiers as they hung him up. As for the flogging, the mention is too brief to draw any conclusions regarding conversation.

1) I believe you've already quoted my proof. The prophecy in itself. The gospels never go into any detail on his physical appearance while he is a flesh and blood human.

2) I know he had followers. the prophecy said people avoided him, but that doesn't mean everyone had to avoid him. He was a politically polarizing figure. A lot of people loved him, a lot of peole hated him. My evidence is, once again, that the prophecy said so. The gospels don't say that a lot of the people who didn't like him didn't avoid him, so we assume the prophecy held true.

3) It doesn't say that, though. And half the point of going into the wilderness was being tempted. If you're being tempted, the offer should be tempting. He didn't eat the whole time. He was probably a little sick by the time he got back to civilization, don't you think?

4) sorry, I must have skimmed past that part. I'll be looking that up shortly.

5) Allow me to correct myself. He did speak to a guard earlier when the guard hit him, but he wasn't even convicted yet. He was not yet sent to the slaughter. Also, when he said, "I thirst," it doesn't say who he said it to. According to the account in John, which is the only account that mentions it, he might have been talking to his own family, though it was the guard brought over the hyssop. And for the record, I never said he didn't speak to Pilate, but Pilate didn't crucify him. He begrudgingly consented to it, but he didn't do it. It was the elders of the temple who wanted him crucified, and Jesus never speaks to them at all. And he never moaned or whined or begged or resisted, he allowed himself to be led to the slaughter, just like a sheep. If what I've said is wrong, give me chapter and verse.

As far as the overall image of the prophecy goes, in the end, despite all the followers he had, they weren't around for his hour of need. In the end he was indeed a tortured outcast.

You're killing yourself here. "Amen I say unto you" and your other examples are all transitional phrases which very much means the same as "For I say unto you." The presence of the transitional phrase means that they are connected statements.

No, "for" means something to the effect of, "in light of this", or "given this".
Verily, truly, and amen, all mean to express that this is the strict truth, it doesn't at all imply a continuance of the previous thought.

Sure. I'll give you one example from each. Matt 16:28, Mark 13:30, Luke 9:27, and John 21:22. The John reference is less overt than the other three, but the return is implied.

And proof of Jesus actually saying this rather then the writer putting words into Jesus's mouth out of hope/so more would convert ?

1) I believe you've already quoted my proof. The prophecy in itself. The gospels never go into any detail on his physical appearance while he is a flesh and blood human.

A prophecy cannot prove itself. Circular fallacy.

2) I know he had followers. the prophecy said people avoided him, but that doesn't mean everyone had to avoid him. He was a politically polarizing figure. A lot of people loved him, a lot of peole hated him. My evidence is, once again, that the prophecy said so. The gospels don't say that a lot of the people who didn't like him didn't avoid him, so we assume the prophecy held true.

The gospels have nothing to say about people avoiding him, and lots to say about people following him, so we know the prophecy was false.

Once again, the prophecy cannot prove itself. It requires external validation.

3) It doesn't say that, though. And half the point of going into the wilderness was being tempted. If you're being tempted, the offer should be tempting. He didn't eat the whole time. He was probably a little sick by the time he got back to civilization, don't you think?
You're clutching at straws here. Affliction is the Isaiah character's habitual state.

5) Allow me to correct myself. He did speak to a guard earlier when the guard hit him, but he wasn't even convicted yet. He was not yet sent to the slaughter. Also, when he said, "I thirst," it doesn't say who he said it to. According to the account in John, which is the only account that mentions it, he might have been talking to his own family, though it was the guard brought over the hyssop. And for the record, I never said he didn't speak to Pilate, but Pilate didn't crucify him. He begrudgingly consented to it, but he didn't do it. It was the elders of the temple who wanted him crucified, and Jesus never speaks to them at all. And he never moaned or whined or begged or resisted, he allowed himself to be led to the slaughter, just like a sheep. If what I've said is wrong, give me chapter and verse.

There are so many more significant problems with the Isaiah prophecy that I'm not even going to bother with this point anymore. It doesn't prove anything either way.

As far as the overall image of the prophecy goes, in the end, despite all the followers he had, they weren't around for his hour of need. In the end he was indeed a tortured outcast.
Uhh... no. He's surrounded by loved ones at the end.

No, "for" means something to the effect of, "in light of this", or "given this".
Verily, truly, and amen, all mean to express that this is the strict truth, it doesn't at all imply a continuance of the previous thought.
Wrong. Verily, truly, and amen are adverbs signifying assent. The use of such an adverb at the beginning of the sentence connects that sentence to the previous one, because the assent applies to the preceeding sentence.

For example:

I have interpreted the sentence correctly. Certainly, you can't disagree.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/English:Adverbs

Wrong. Verily, truly, and amen are adverbs signifying assent. The use of such an adverb at the beginning of the sentence connects that sentence to the previous one, because the assent applies to the preceeding sentence.

For example:

I have interpreted the sentence correctly. Certainly, you can't disagree.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/English:Adverbs

Actually, in that context, "Amen" "Verily" and "Truly" are commands meaning, roughly, "Believe." The Christ did come back in the natural lives of His disciples - He rose from the dead a mere three days after they rolled the stone over His grave. And Earth is the Kingdom of Man - Christ came into His Kingdom when He Ascended to live with His Father in Heaven to await His Second Coming.

On the point of the satyrs in Babylon, I believe the prophecy refers to when Babylon will be rebuilt during the reign of the Antichrist and they will be the beasts of immorality that that era will embrace and love. Only those who come to the Lord during that time will see the city for the horror that it will be.

Also, Jesus was despised by many. After all, His own people, the Jews, chose to free a murderer over Him when given the choice by Pontius Pilate. And Jesus did not say any more to Pilate, Herod, or the Sanhedrin than absolutely necessary to refute their claims to His guilt. In that passage, He never denied that He was the Christ. He spoke no more to the guards at His crucifix than to ask for a drink before He died - He spoke to the men on either side of Him, to His mother and to John, but no more.

I can honestly respect you for trying to refute these claims, but you're not open to debate - you're going into this with an attitude that you can refute the existence of God to anyone who will challenge you, and that makes you as bad as the religious zealots. Open-mindedness has to come from both sides. If you claim to be Atheist and you want to try to refute the existence of God, fine. But, at least be open to the possibility that you're wrong. I don't think you have that openness. Pope John Paul II, perhaps one of the greatest popes the Catholic Church has ever seen spent his papacy trying to unite the religions of the world and break down the barriers of intolerance between them. With his death and the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI, let's not breed the intolerance that the late Holy Father attempted to take away by fighting and screaming rather than debating in a kind manner.

Actually, in that context, "Amen" "Verily" and "Truly" are commands meaning, roughly, "Believe." The Christ <i>did</i> come back in the natural lives of His disciples - He rose from the dead a mere three days after they rolled the stone over His grave. And Earth is the Kingdom of Man - Christ came into His Kingdom when He Ascended to live with His Father in Heaven to await His Second Coming.

But Jesus did not come down with angels at his back, and hand out justice, when he rose from the dead. Therefore, the prophecy is false.

On the point of the satyrs in Babylon, I believe the prophecy refers to when Babylon will be rebuilt during the reign of the Antichrist and they will be the beasts of immorality that that era will embrace and love. Only those who come to the Lord during that time will see the city for the horror that it will be.

Then, if the prophecy applies to the Second Coming, then it has not been fulfilled.

Also, Jesus was despised by many. After all, His own people, the Jews, chose to free a murderer over Him when given the choice by Pontius Pilate.

It's also the most specious scene in the bible:

1) There is no historical support for any tradition of releasing a prisoner on special occasions.
2) It runs contrary to everything we know about Pilate through historical records. He was generally brutal.
3) The contradiction between the triumphant entry on the back of an ass and the curse at the trial has never been adequately explained.

Paul was a Roman citizen, and his stated goal was to internationalize Christianity. There is no way that would have been successful if the Christians blamed the Romans for the death of their god. Therefore, changes needed to be made.

And Jesus did not say any more to Pilate, Herod, or the Sanhedrin than absolutely necessary to refute their claims to His guilt. In that passage, He never denied that He was the Christ. He spoke no more to the guards at His crucifix than to ask for a drink before He died - He spoke to the men on either side of Him, to His mother and to John, but no more. As I said before, this is a trivial point in regards to the other Isaiah claims. It's pure semantics. But Isaiah said his lamb would go silently to the slaughter, and all you've got to offer is exceptions to the rule. That's not a very strong argument.

I can honestly respect you for trying to refute these claims, but you're not open to debate - you're going into this with an attitude that you can refute the existence of God to anyone who will challenge you, and that makes you as bad as the religious zealots. Open-mindedness has to come from both sides. If you claim to be Atheist and you want to try to refute the existence of God, fine. But, at least be open to the possibility that you're wrong. I don't think you have that openness. Pope John Paul II, perhaps one of the greatest popes the Catholic Church has ever seen spent his papacy trying to unite the religions of the world and the break down the barriers of intolerance between them. With his death and the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI, let's not breed the intolerance that the late Holy Father attempted to take away by fighting and screaming rather than debating in a kind manner.

Ad hominem, and totally wrong besides. The very fact that I have opened this debate and answered every challenge should be sufficient proof that I am "open to debate."

A debate requires two contrary positions, and so if this debate is going to go anywhere at all, I must adopt a position. I have dealt with every challenge to that position so far in an honest manner. This makes me VERY different from the zealots. I resent your implication.

A prophecy cannot prove itself. Circular fallacy.

A prophacy can prove itself by coming true. Isiah was a prophet. Moses was a prophet. Jesus himself a prophet (According to most scholars of various faiths INCLUDING THE ISLAMIC faith)

I can make a prophacy right now that I will get married before I'm 30. If I get married before I'm 30 then my prophacy proved itself true.

The gospels have nothing to say about people avoiding him, and lots to say about people following him, so we know the prophecy was false.

Proof?

Once again, the prophecy cannot prove itself. It requires external validation.

See 1st statement.

You're clutching at straws here. Affliction is the Isaiah character's habitual state.

Proof?

There are so many more significant problems with the Isaiah prophecy that I'm not even going to bother with this point anymore. It doesn't prove anything either way.

It does prove that Isaiah was right about the coming Christ as was all the other Prophets of the Old Testiment. So yea it is proven. You really need to stop using the Bible to defeat the Bible.

Uhh... no. He's surrounded by loved ones at the end.

Proof of this statement please?

But Jesus did not come down with angels at his back, and hand out justice, when he rose from the dead. Therefore, the prophecy is false.

It hasn't come true yet Cabinia. I feel sorry for you when you meet God because right now, your really pushing it.

[Emphasis mine.]

Chapter, verse and proof it was Jesus saying this rather then the Gospel writer being hopeful?

Then what's not to say everything in the bible is from that vein?

Meh ... Torah is still Torah.

He's refering the the New Testament and many of the other Gospels that were never included. I've heard somewhere there were around 7 that "didn't make it".

I think your main problem is literal interpretation of prophecy. If you are looking for proof in the bible that there was a faction of people in Jerusalem and that region with whom He was unpopular, I think the contrast between the triumphant entry on the donkey and the crucifixion days later provides excellent proof - it was obviously His devout followers and those who believed Him to be the Christ who laid the palms at his feet during the entry, while the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin managed to sway those on the fence and make those who were opposed to Him as the Christ more vocal at the choice between Barrabus and Christ. If you have a problem with the ritual itself, that is not biblical proof. Also, Pilate's historical cruelty was demonstrated when he refused to free the innocent man and washed his hands of the blood of Christ when the people elected Barrabus to be freed.

Beyond that, the Bible does say that the Heavens opened and Angels escorted Him into His Kingdom when He Ascended 40 days after He rose from the dead. Also, Isaiah's silent lamb was Jesus - you have to look at the silence as meekness, acceptance of His fate. That is not to say He did not have doubts - He spent an entire night in Gethsemane praying, but the key is that He never claimed to be the Christ to Pilate, nor did He perform any acts to save Himself, which surely He could have done. That is the silence - when Pilate asked Him, "Are you the Christ?" He said, "It is you who say that I am." By refusing to deny Pilate's claim or defend himself, he forced the Roman ruler to follow through on the punishment for blasphemy, ultimately beating and crucifixion.

Resent my implication if you wish - the very title of your forum implies intolerance. Your first post says, "Anyone who believes a biblical prophecy has been fulfilled, please reference the passages, and I will demonstrate how the prophecy was not fulfilled, or was not even a prophecy." That does not open you for debate, that sets you up to tell people how unintelligent they are. Whether you want physical proof or not, you will never completely convince believers because they are just that - believers. So much of what religion is is belief. The satyr quote, for instance. Most religious scholars would agree that it refers to New Babylon and the immorality of the reign of the Antichrist. In that case, thankfully, it has not been fulfilled yet. Personally, I would rather not be around to see it fulfilled. I am not saying what you are doing is wrong - I respect debate, but only debate with tolerance.

A prophacy can prove itself by coming true. Isiah was a prophet. Moses was a prophet. Jesus himself a prophet (According to most scholars of various faiths INCLUDING THE ISLAMIC faith)

I can make a prophacy right now that I will get married before I'm 30. If I get married before I'm 30 then my prophacy proved itself true.

You're not negating my point. If you prophecy you will get married before you're thirty, and that is verified to have been recorded before you were married, and before you were thirty, then if you go on to marry before your thirtieth birthday, that prophecy will be true. To validate that it happened as you say, though, we would need to see the marriage license. That license provides external proof that the prophecy came true.

You cannot prove that you got married before thirty when your only evidence to support it is the prophecy. That just proves you predicted it, but does not prove it actually happened. The prophecy cannot prove itself.

Proof?
You're just being lazy here. There are so many places talking about Jesus and his followers that you could drop a copy of the gospels on the floor and it would open to a page with a reference. I said there are none of people avoiding him... why don't you go dig up a reference that invalidates my claim?

Proof?
Again with the laziness. We already discussed this. It's right here in the forum. Look it up.

It does prove that Isaiah was right about the coming Christ as was all the other Prophets of the Old Testiment. So yea it is proven. You really need to stop using the Bible to defeat the Bible.

As mentioned previously, the person Isaiah described does not fit the description of Christ. We've already had this conversation. Try to keep up.

Proof of this statement please?
More laziness.

"Standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary of Magdala. When Jesus saw his mother 11 and the disciple there whom he loved, he said to his mother, 'Woman, behold, your son.' Then he said to the disciple, 'Behold, your mother.' And from that hour the disciple took her into his home." - John 19:25-27

He's refering the the New Testament and many of the other Gospels that were never included. I've heard somewhere there were around 7 that "didn't make it".

The versions of the bible that are not specifically Catholic lack seven books from the original publishings. Those books are, I believe, all Old Testament - Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch. If you want to say that the Catholic version omitted some of the information not in accordance with her teachings, consider that the Catholic Old Testament is almost twice as long as the Jewish Old Testament...

I think your main problem is literal interpretation of prophecy.

Oh, you want to be figurative. Sure. Jesus was afflicted with... err.. hangnails! Prove that he wasn't! HAHAHAHAHA! p0wned!

If you are looking for proof in the bible that there was a faction of people in Jerusalem and that region with whom He was unpopular, I think the contrast between the triumphant entry on the donkey and the crucifixion days later provides excellent proof - it was obviously His devout followers and those who believed Him to be the Christ who laid the palms at his feet during the entry, while the Pharisees and the Sanhedrin managed to sway those on the fence and make those who were opposed to Him as the Christ more vocal at the choice between Barrabus and Christ.
The silence of every account of Jesus, canonical and otherwise, argues against such a campaign by the Pharisees and Sanhedrin. Try to avoid making up history as you go along.

If you have a problem with the ritual itself, that is not biblical proof. Also, Pilate's historical cruelty was demonstrated when he refused to free the innocent man and washed his hands of the blood of Christ when the people elected Barrabus to be freed.
And yet he allowed a convicted murderer to go free. How very uncharacteristically kind of him.

Beyond that, the Bible does say that the Heavens opened and Angels escorted Him into His Kingdom when He Ascended 40 days after He rose from the dead. Also, Isaiah's silent lamb was Jesus - you have to look at the silence as meekness, acceptance of His fate. That is not to say He did not have doubts - He spent an entire night in Gethsemane praying, but the key is that He never claimed to be the Christ to Pilate, nor did He perform any acts to save Himself, which surely He could have done. That is the silence - when Pilate asked Him, "Are you the Christ?" He said, "It is you who say that I am." By refusing to deny Pilate's claim or defend himself, he forced the Roman ruler to follow through on the punishment for blasphemy, ultimately beating and crucifixion.
Being escorted into heaven and being accompanied out of it are very different things.

And to repeat (ad nauseum), there are a whole lot more problems with the Isaiah prophecy and its connection to Jesus than the semantic argument over how meek Jesus was.


Resent my implication if you wish - the very title of your forum implies intolerance. Your first post says, "Anyone who believes a biblical prophecy has been fulfilled, please reference the passages, and I will demonstrate how the prophecy was not fulfilled, or was not even a prophecy." That does not open you for debate, that sets you up to tell people how unintelligent they are. Whether you want physical proof or not, you will never completely convince believers because they are just that - believers. So much of what religion is is belief. The satyr quote, for instance. Most religious scholars would agree that it refers to New Babylon and the immorality of the reign of the Antichrist. In that case, thankfully, it has not been fulfilled yet. Personally, I would rather not be around to see it fulfilled. I am not saying what you are doing is wrong - I respect debate, but only debate with tolerance.
You are making up history to fit your preconceived notions, and I am the one who is intolerant. Fascinating.

As for the Babylon argument... someone offered it as a prophecy that has been fulfilled, and I countered with arguments which suggest that is not the case. Here you are offering another argument which suggest that is not the case. You're only helping me here.

The versions of the bible that are not specifically Catholic lack seven books from the original publishings. Those books are, I believe, all Old Testament - Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch. If you want to say that the Catholic version omitted some of the information not in accordance with her teachings, consider that the Catholic Old Testament is almost twice as long as the Jewish Old Testament...

No. I'm talking Gospels. I forget where it was I heard it or what they called them, but there were several Gospels written by early Christians. However, some of them were in conflict with the later church and they were omitted.

Then what's not to say everything in the bible is from that vein?

Nothing, which is kinda what I was hinting at.

It seems strange to prove Biblical prophecies wrong by assuming that what was written in them is 100% true.

No. I'm talking Gospels. I forget where it was I heard it or what they called them, but there were several Gospels written by early Christians. However, some of them were in conflict with the later church and they were omitted.
There is no telling how many gospels were written and then destroyed, but we do have several non-canonical gospels from the Nag Hammadi discovery. A couple of the more interesting ones are the Gospel of Thomas (a sayings gospel similar to the hypothesized Q) and the Gospel of Mary ("the disciple whom he loved").

Oh, you want to be figurative. Sure. Jesus was afflicted with... err.. hangnails! Prove that he wasn't! HAHAHAHAHA! p0wned!


The silence of every account of Jesus, canonical and otherwise, argues against such a campaign by the Pharisees and Sanhedrin. Try to avoid making up history as you go along.


And yet he allowed a convicted murderer to go free. How very uncharacteristically kind of him.


Being escorted into heaven and being accompanied out of it are very different things.

And to repeat (ad nauseum), there are a whole lot more problems with the Isaiah prophecy and its connection to Jesus than the semantic argument over how meek Jesus was.



You are making up history to fit your preconceived notions, and I am the one who is intolerant. Fascinating.

As for the Babylon argument... someone offered it as a prophecy that has been fulfilled, and I countered with arguments which suggest that is not the case. Here you are offering another argument which suggest that is not the case. You're only helping me here.

I find it fascinating that I am trying to honestly provide you with something to chew on and offer insight into perhaps a better way to approach what you are doing and all you can offer me is sarcasm and the same arguements over and over again. You accuse me of ad hominem, but I have yet to attack you personally. In fact, I said that I respect you for what you are doing. And it is fine that I assist you with the Babylon prophecy - it has not been fulfilled. If you do not wish to accept the Ascension as proof of the Angels coming with him, fine - but he did rise from the dead, which has nothing to do with coming down. The Second Coming has yet to happen, thankfully, again because it will be proceeded by the reign of the Antichrist, and I do not believe even you will be happy when that comes.

Anger, sarcasm, and general disrespect are what turn debates into a yelling, screaming, intolerant display of rampant stupidity. I have avoided them thus far, but apparently you are unable to do so. I wish you luck with your life and hope that you find Jesus before your eternity gets very, very warm.

Nothing, which is kinda what I was hinting at.

It seems strange to prove Biblical prophecies wrong by assuming that what was written in them is 100% true.

I'd settle for 50%.

I'd settle for 50%.
Which 50?

I find it fascinating that I am trying to honestly provide you with something to chew on and offer insight into perhaps a better way to approach what you are doing and all you can offer me is sarcasm and the same arguements over and over again.

The fact that you believe you have a better way says all that needs to be said about your approach to this debate. Enjoy your sense of false superiority.

You accuse me of ad hominem, but I have yet to attack you personally. In fact, I said that I respect you for what you are doing.

Then you'd probably better get busy editing all those posts where you call me closed-minded and intolerant.

And it is fine that I assist you with the Babylon prophecy - it has not been fulfilled. If you do not wish to accept the Ascension as proof of the Angels coming with him, fine - but he did rise from the dead, which has nothing to do with coming down. The Second Coming has yet to happen, thankfully, again because it will be proceeded by the reign of the Antichrist, and I do not believe even you will be happy when that comes.

Don't hold your breath.

Anger, sarcasm, and general disrespect are what turn debates into a yelling, screaming, intolerant display of rampant stupidity. I have avoided them thus far, but apparently you are unable to do so. I wish you luck with your life and hope that you find Jesus before your eternity gets very, very warm.
You've accused me of closed-minded intolerance, compared me with religious zealots, and threatened me with the hobgoblin of eternal damnation repeatedly. What was it Jesus said about the mote and the beam?

That's okay. I really haven't seen any reason to expect better behavior from a mere Christian.

Speaking of biblical prophecies how about Revelations. It says right on he first page, the very first page, "All this shall come to pass in the generation of Christ".

Actually what it says is "shortly come to pass" or "soon come to pass". As this book was written between 30 and 50 years after Christ's death, your argument needs a little revision. Also, when you're dealing with an eternal God for Whom "a day is as a thousand and a thousand years as a day", defining "shortly" or "soon" may be a little problematic.

Rule #1 of the internet: Don't feed the trolls. :)
Why does anyone care about this guy's supposed challenge? Regardless of how good your intentions, he has obviously already decided that he doesn't believe a single Bible prophecy could possibly come true... do you really think you can change his mind? I know I can't. And I don't care to try. ;)

Wow Cabinia you're so determined to try and change people and make them believe that thier religion is wrong. I can't wait until you meet your maker. Here's a thought, quit wasting your time trying to change people or prove them wrong and learn to tolerate other people's beliefs. I absolutely despise people such as yourself,who basically just think they know it all. Go get a hobby.

Amen to the two people who posted before this. You guys rock.

On that same note, Jesus repeatedly told his followers, in all 4 gospels, that he would return within the span of their natural lives. So, either the Second Coming happened long ago, and we all missed it... or it was just more false prophecy that failed to be fulfilled.

Or the prophecies were mixed between the the fall of Jerusalem and the Second Coming in such a way that they have been grossly misinterpreted. The fall of Jerusalem happening during their life time and the Second Coming happening later when the state of the world is as it was in the "days of Noah", in a time of "increased knowledge" when "the love many has grown cold" and at a time when the world does not expect it and "peace and safety" is preached...

I would just like to point out that most of the rejected books were either not inspired by God or were blasphemy. i mean, honestly, would they just accept books from any old people?

Sure. I'll give you one example from each. Matt 16:28, Mark 13:30, Luke 9:27, and John 21:22. The John reference is less overt than the other three, but the return is implied.

For Matt. 16:28 and Luke 9:27 all you need do is read Rev. 21... John, who was there present, saw the Second Coming, albeit in vision, but he saw it just the same.

John 21:22 is clearly mitigated by John 21:23.

And Mark 13:30 could be referring to any number of antecedents and or could easily be explained in the same manner as the passages from Matt. and Luke.

Wow... more ad hominem. I thought Christians were supposed to be good people? You wouldn't know it by this thread.

I don't know if you guys noticed this or not, but the title of this thread is not "convert the Christians." It's simply a discussion about prophecy, and whether any of it is valid. But apparently your intellectual skills are as effective as your emotional ones.

He's refering the the New Testament and many of the other Gospels that were never included. I've heard somewhere there were around 7 that "didn't make it".
John 21:25

"And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen."

I would just like to point out that most of the rejected books were either not inspired by God or were blasphemy. i mean, honestly, would they just accept books from any old people?

But then, why did they accept MMLJ? They were just people as well, and are likely composites of a group of people at that.

On that same note, Jesus repeatedly told his followers, in all 4 gospels, that he would return within the span of their natural lives. So, either the Second Coming happened long ago, and we all missed it... or it was just more false prophecy that failed to be fulfilled.

Thats a duel prophecy, that part and the part about no stone on top of another refers to the destuction of the Temple by the romans which happened later and in their lifetimes (AD 60 I think, not sure)

I'm not sure what in this chapter you believe has occurred, but there's plenty of false prophecy here. In particular, let's look at Isaiah 13:19-22:



The ancient city of Babylon is no longer populated, but there have been no documented sightings of either satyrs or dragons.

I think you need a better translation. The words for "satyrs" and "dragons" are just as likely translated Ostriches and Jackels.

lets all mull over this, interesting to say the least, found it on google:


Malachy's Prophecies - The Last 10 Popes

1. The Burning Fire. PIUS X. 1903-1914. This Pope showed a burning passion for spiritual renewal in the Church.

2. Religion Laid Waste. BENEDICT XV. 1914-1922. During this Pope's reign saw Communism move into Russia where religious life was laid waste, and World War I with the death of millions of Christians who were carnage in Flanders Field and elsewhere.

3. Unshaken Faith. PIUS XI. 1922-1939. This Pope faced tremendous pressure from fascist and sinister powers in Germany and Italy, but he was an outspoken critic of Communism and Fascism which enraged Hitler.

4. An Angelic Shepherd. PIUS XII. 1939-1958. This Pope had an affinity for the spiritual world and received visions which have not been made public. Peter Bander says Pius XII "has emerged as one of the great Popes of all time," and he "was in the truest sense of the word an Angelic Pastor to the flock..."

5. Pastor and Mariner. JOHN XXIII. 1958-1963. John was a pastor to the world, much beloved, and the Patriarch of Venice. The connection to "mariner" is thus remarkable.

6. Flower of Flowers. PAUL VI. 1963-1978. Paul's coat-of-arms depicts three fleurs-de-lis, corresponding to Malachay's prophecy. His coat of arms included three fleurs-de-lis (iris blossoms).

7. Of the Half Moon. JOHN PAUL I. 1978-1978. John Paul I was elected Pope on August 26, 1978, when there was a half moon. He reigned 33 days, that is, about one month, when he died, although many think he was murdered. He was the 109th Pope - is "De Medietate Lunae" (Of the Half Moon). The corresponding pope was John Paul I (1978-78), who was born in the diocese of Belluno (beautiful moon) and was baptized Albino Luciani (white light). He became pope on August 26, 1978, when the moon appeared exactly half full. It was in its waning phase. He died the following month, soon after an eclipse of the moon.

8. The Labor of the Son. JOHN PAUL II. 1978-2005. Pope John Paul II was the most traveled Pope in history. He circled the globe numerous times, preaching to huge audiences everywhere he went. He survived an assassination attempt. He has written a book which has enjoyed a large circulation. Like the sun which never ceases to labor and provides light daily, this Pope has been incessant. He was born on May 18, 1920. On that date in the morning there was a near total eclipse of the sun over Europe. Prophecy - The 110th Pope is "De Labore Solis" (Of the Solar Eclipse, or, From the Toil of the Sun). Like the sun he came out of the East (Poland).

9. The Glory of the Olive. The Order of St. Benedict has said this Pope will come from their order. It is interesting that Jesus gave his apocalyptic prophecy about the end of time from the Mount of Olives. This Pope will reign during the beginning of the tribulation Jesus spoke of. The 111th prophesy is "Gloria Olivae" (The Glory of the Olive). The Order of Saint Benedict has claimed that this pope will come from their ranks. Saint Benedict himself prophesied that before the end of the world his Order, known also as the Olivetans, will triumphantly lead the Catholic Church in its fight against evil.

10. PETER THE ROMAN - This final Pope will likely be Satan, taking the form of a man named Peter who will gain a worldwide allegiance and adoration. He will be the final antichrist which prophecy students have long foretold. If it were possible, even the very elect would be deceived. The 112th prophesy states: "In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Petrus Romanus, who will feed his flock amid many tribulations; after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people. The End."

Malachy's final words, "Rome, the seat of the Vatican, will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people."

Wow... more ad hominem. I thought Christians were supposed to be good people? You wouldn't know it by this thread.

Haha, classic trolling. The irony of that particular post is comical. :)
The suggestion that fellow posters are not good people is, in itself, ad hominem. :) What was that about intellectual skills?

For Matt. 16:28 and Luke 9:27 all you need do is read Rev. 21... John, who was there present, saw the Second Coming, albeit in vision, but he saw it just the same.

John 21:22 is clearly mitigated by John 21:23.

And Mark 13:30 could be referring to any number of antecedents and or could easily be explained in the same manner as the passages from Matt. and Luke.

A debater enters the conversation. Thank you.

You have a point on the John reference. "What's it to you? Mind your own damned business" is one possible way to interpret the dialogue.

As for the Revelations reference... I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Please elaborate.

i would like to commend New Kaza for speaking the truth. Testify, dude! and no offense, but if the majority of you keep this up, you're just dancing on the edge of hell (pardon my language)

Thats a duel prophecy, that part and the part about no stone on top of another refers to the destuction of the Temple by the romans which happened later and in their lifetimes (AD 60 I think, not sure)

Reference, please.

Problems:

1) "There was in him no stately bearing to make us look at him, nor appearance that would attract us to him." - Jesus attracted notice, and followers.
2) "He was spurned and avoided by men, a man of suffering, accustomed to infirmity, One of those from whom men hide their faces, spurned, and we held him in no esteem." Jesus was not accustomed to infirmity. There are no reports of him ever being unwell. And again, he was held in high esteem, and looked up to.
3) "While we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted. - Again, he was not generally "stricken" or "afflicted," these terms being used to describe ailments and not torture.
4) " But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins" - If you're going to get excited about the piercing (per John's tale of the spear wound), then you have to give the crushing equal literal meaning. Also, there is nothing here to indicate crucifixion.
5) "Though he was harshly treated, he submitted and opened not his mouth; Like a lamb led to the slaughter or a sheep before the shearers, he was silent and opened not his mouth." - Jesus was not silent.

Overall, it appears Isaiah was talking about someone who could not have been Jesus... a man cursed by God in the manner of Job.

1) not on the basis of his appearance
2) I'd say sweating blood and surviving the 40 lashes minus 1 would constitute infirmity.
3) 40 days without food, bearing the weight of the sins of all humanity, I'd call that afflicted...
4) "crushed" is more often translated "bruised" or "wounded" and in any case, our sins did crush the life out of Him
5) He was silent in the face of false acquisation to the point of causing Pilot to marvel. Good enough for me...

Quote:

Yesterday, 11:19 PlM
New Kaza

no one knows the time, place, or specific date when christ will come back so its all speculation, all i have to do is be patient and wait for my savior to come back...wether thats in my lifetime or not idc i know where im going

reference enough for ya?

and do you watch this forum night and day?

Wow... more ad hominem. I thought Christians were supposed to be good people? You wouldn't know it by this thread.

I don't know if you guys noticed this or not, but the title of this thread is not "convert the Christians." It's simply a discussion about prophecy, and whether any of it is valid. But apparently your intellectual skills are as effective as your emotional ones.

First off, nice job stereotyping, you've missed one thing though: Everyone is a sinner, whether you think you know it all or not. *Nods at Cabinia*

Secondly, your right, "the title of this thread is not 'convert The Christians.'" However, the title of this thread does imply that Biblical prophecies are false. You may not think you are trying to "convert the Christians" but in the process of your so called "discussion," you have certainly come off as trying to do so. Again sir, get a hobby/life and GO OUTSIDE! :D

"Once again, the prophecy cannot prove itself. It requires external validation."

Well, I'm no bible scholar, but here's my take. In John 20, towards the end, he speaks of Thomas, who didn't believe that Jesus came. In fact, he asked for external validation. Well Jesus came and asked him to feel the nail marks and the wound in his side. I'm not really challenging you here, but Jesus doesn't give us external validation on all prophecies, but he does say:

"Have you come to believe becuase you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and believed."

um cabinia...can someone say *hack, wheeze* blasphemy?

Wow... more ad hominem. I thought Christians were supposed to be good people? You wouldn't know it by this thread.

I don't know if you guys noticed this or not, but the title of this thread is not "convert the Christians." It's simply a discussion about prophecy, and whether any of it is valid. But apparently your intellectual skills are as effective as your emotional ones.


Excuse me, but not all of us have insulted you. Lumping all "christians" together is even more of a stretch than lumping all "Americans" or all (insert racial group) together. Also, your pension for insulting the "intellectual skills" of others is rather offensive as well. Even if you are correct about someones intellect, pointing it out in this way does little for your own reputation.

cabinia might note that we are not openly dissing hiim/her, as much as we might like to

A debater enters the conversation. Thank you.

You have a point on the John reference. "What's it to you? Mind your own damned business" is one possible way to interpret the dialogue.

As for the Revelations reference... I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Please elaborate.

Specifically that John did witness both the Second(pre-millenial) and Third(post millenial) comings of Christ, albeit in vision or dream. It is also argued by many that Peter, James and John's witnessing of the "transfiguration" of Christ also constitutes fulfillment of this prophecy. You also run into the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to apply these statements to the Second Coming portion of Christ's predictions or just the parts that deal with the fall of Jerusalem, not that either of us could prove which He was referring to without speaking to Him directly on the subject, which is unlikely to happen this side of Heaven.

Thats a duel prophecy, that part and the part about no stone on top of another refers to the destuction of the Temple by the romans which happened later and in their lifetimes (AD 60 I think, not sure)

The temple was destroyed in 70 A.D.

First of all, to the Christians getting all bent out of shape, you aren't doing anything to this guy's opinion. All you're doing is damaging our integrity and the integrity of the Bible. The only one who can change his opinion is God.

Second, the dude who started this forum is looking for flamers and trolls, and he found them. If you honestly wanted to prove that biblical prophecies were false, go talk to yourself; you could probably get farther in your discussion and increase your self-esteem.

Lastly, the only real way for a good translation of the Bible is to have the side-by-side version that parallels the English, Greek, Hebrew, Latin, and Aramaic texts with each other. Who cares if the dragons in the verse about Babylon are real dragons? The Bible also talks about dogs and swine in referrence to despicable people. It's called symbolism.

Problems:

1) "There was in him no stately bearing to make us look at him, nor appearance that would attract us to him." - Jesus attracted notice, and followers.
2) "He was spurned and avoided by men, a man of suffering, accustomed to infirmity, One of those from whom men hide their faces, spurned, and we held him in no esteem." Jesus was not accustomed to infirmity. There are no reports of him ever being unwell. And again, he was held in high esteem, and looked up to.
3) "While we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted. - Again, he was not generally "stricken" or "afflicted," these terms being used to describe ailments and not torture.
4) " But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins" - If you're going to get excited about the piercing (per John's tale of the spear wound), then you have to give the crushing equal literal meaning. Also, there is nothing here to indicate crucifixion.
5) "Though he was harshly treated, he submitted and opened not his mouth; Like a lamb led to the slaughter or a sheep before the shearers, he was silent and opened not his mouth." - Jesus was not silent.

Overall, it appears Isaiah was talking about someone who could not have been Jesus... a man cursed by God in the manner of Job.1) not on the basis of his appearance
2) I'd say sweating blood and surviving the 40 lashes minus 1 would constitute infirmity.
3) 40 days without food, bearing the weight of the sins of all humanity, I'd call that afflicted...
4) "crushed" is more often translated "bruised" or "wounded" and in any case, our sins did crush the life out of Him
5) He was silent in the face of false acquisation to the point of causing Pilot to marvle. Good enough for me...

1) There is no way you can support this argument, because his appearance is never described in the Bible. But we do have a description from the apocrypha. From the Acts of John: "For when he had chosen Peter and Andrew, which were brethren, he cometh unto me and James my brother, saying: I have need of you, come unto me. And my brother hearing that, said: John, what would this child have that is upon the sea-shore and called us? And I said: What child? And he said to me again: That which beckoneth to us. And I answered: Because of our long watch we have kept at sea, thou seest not aright, my brother James; but seest thou not the man that standeth there, comely and fair and of a cheerful countenance? But he said to me: Him I see not, brother; but let us go forth and we shall see what he would have."

The sons of Zebedee appear to find Jesus attractive.

2) But infirmity was not his normal manner... he was not "accustomed" to it.

3) Again, after 40 days, he was free to be healthy and hale.

4) Now you're getting figurative, which was basically my point. You can't get excited about a literal piercing and then dodge a literal crushing within the same line. Either it's all literal, it's all figurative, or it's all bunk.

5) Not according to John. Jesus has a rather extended dialogue with Pilate in that particular version. This is in strong contradiction to the version in Matt and Mark, which you appear to be referencing. Luke does not weigh in on the matter. But even in Mark and Matt, he wasn't totally silent.

5) Not according to John. Jesus has a rather extended dialogue with Pilate in that particular version. This is in strong contradiction to the version in Matt and Mark, which you appear to be referencing. Luke does not weigh in on the matter. But even in Mark and Matt, he wasn't totally silent.
Jesus made five statements. That's not exactly an extended conversation.

You will not sway his opinion and he will not sway yours. Both of you are running around in circles and getting nothing accomplished.

Cabinia was simply looking to start a flame war. The troll spirit burns brightly within him! There is no point in "debating" a matter of faith. Faith and proof counteract one another. They are antitheses. As proof increases, faith decreases. If all answers were given, faith would diminish, as there would be no need for it.
"Without faith, it is impossible to please him [God]." (Hebrews 11:6)
"Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." (John 20:29)

The thread has no spiritual merit. If it continues, it is really just a secular debate, which, in the end, proves nothing. At best, we are all blind men describing an elephant, metaphorically speaking. Just because we arrive at a conclusion does not make it correct. No prize, no accolade, no feeling, no fame, no numerical increase of any kind, defines truth. Something either is true, or it is not.

Don't feed the trolls. :)

Reference, please.

Mark 13: 1-4

1) There is no way you can support this argument, because his appearance is never described in the Bible. But we do have a description from the apocrypha. From the Acts of John: "For when he had chosen Peter and Andrew, which were brethren, he cometh unto me and James my brother, saying: I have need of you, come unto me. And my brother hearing that, said: John, what would this child have that is upon the sea-shore and called us? And I said: What child? And he said to me again: That which beckoneth to us. And I answered: Because of our long watch we have kept at sea, thou seest not aright, my brother James; but seest thou not the man that standeth there, comely and fair and of a cheerful countenance? But he said to me: Him I see not, brother; but let us go forth and we shall see what he would have."

The sons of Zebedee appear to find Jesus attractive.

2) But infirmity was not his normal manner... he was not "accustomed" to it.

3) Again, after 40 days, he was free to be healthy and hale.

4) Now you're getting figurative, which was basically my point. You can't get excited about a literal piercing and then dodge a literal crushing within the same line. Either it's all literal, it's all figurative, or it's all bunk.

5) Not according to John. Jesus has a rather extended dialogue with Pilate in that particular version. This is in strong contradiction to the version in Matt and Mark, which you appear to be referencing. Luke does not weigh in on the matter. But even in Mark and Matt, he wasn't totally silent.

1) If your arguement suggesting that His appearance isn't discussed in the Bible, which is for the most part correct, you would be hard pressed to prove that the prophecy, in this regard, was unfulfilled. As to you extra-bibilical sources, I'm not conviced of their voracity and therefore will refrain from comment one way or the other.
2) This is going to turn into a sematical argument very quickly, I can see. His experiences as recorded in the Gospels are sufficient for me to say that this portion of the prophecy was clearly fulfilled. I understand you disagree and you are entitled to your opinion. I'd rather not argue semantics if that is okay with you.
3)Still clearly endured the suffering and deprivation generally described by the prophecy. Of course, we don't really know what else may well have fulfilled this during the time between his 12th year and 30th year...
4)Is there a rule somewhere that says a prophecy has to be all literal or all figurative? I haven't read it anywhere. Further, I'd say the sins of the world crushing the life out of Him was even more literal than the piercing as it was sufficient to kill Him.
5)I'm not sure I'd call a few sentances an "extensive" conversation. And you are still missing the point of the prophecy which indicates primarily that He won't put up a fight and would not be defiant toward those who crucified Him. That He would be a willing Victim. Interesting that you brought up the passage in John, I read that for my worship this morning. One of the things that struck me as I read, was that He almost(though not completely) excuses Pilot for his part in this. Also, if you back up a chapter, He is willingly taken into custody by the Jews in the garden and led "as a lamb to the slaughter".

You mean the last sentence where the poster obviously insulted the originator of another thread?

Granted: the comment makes sense - the other person didn't answer any of the challenges that I saw.

Exactly, so he was an intellectual lightweight. I probably am too in terms biblical matters, its not really an insult, though i'd like not to be if i had the time.

Mark 13: 1-4
Mark 13 as a whole is an apocalyptic prophecy. Mark 13:2-3 are clearly suggestions that the temple will fall. However, in 13:4 Jesus is asked when it will happen... and Jesus goes on to describe a series of spectacular events which correspond to the Second Coming. 13:26 makes that explicitly clear.

The other parts of the apocalypse predicted in Mark 13 did not come to pass in conjunction with the fall of the Temple. Therefore, this prophecy cannot be said to have been fulfilled at that time.

1) "There was in him no stately bearing to make us look at him, nor appearance that would attract us to him." - Jesus attracted notice, and followers.

Refering to the crucifixtion time itself, he was abandoned by all his followers and denied by peter. Even if it is on apperance, I bet after being floged and beeten rather badly he wouldnt have been somone who you would want to be seen with.


2) "He was spurned and avoided by men, a man of suffering, accustomed to infirmity, One of those from whom men hide their faces, spurned, and we held him in no esteem." Jesus was not accustomed to infirmity. There are no reports of him ever being unwell. And again, he was held in high esteem, and looked up to.


Infrimity, possibly meaning inablity to survive properly. Say at the crucifixtion or in the desert for 40 days. And the lack of esteem, again crucifixtion time. He was hated by all


3) "While we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted. - Again, he was not generally "stricken" or "afflicted," these terms being used to describe ailments and not torture.

Can you prove that?


4) " But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins" - If you're going to get excited about the piercing (per John's tale of the spear wound), then you have to give the crushing equal literal meaning. Also, there is nothing here to indicate crucifixion

Crushing could equal the suffication of crucifixtion, which is how most crucifixtion victims die.


5) "Though he was harshly treated, he submitted and opened not his mouth; Like a lamb led to the slaughter or a sheep before the shearers, he was silent and opened not his mouth." - Jesus was not silent.

He refused to answer to any of the charges brought before him. Except when they asked him if he was the son of God.

Mark 13 as a whole is an apocalyptic prophecy. Mark 13:2-3 are clearly suggestions that the temple will fall. However, in 13:4 Jesus is asked when it will happen... and Jesus goes on to describe a series of spectacular events which correspond to the Second Coming. 13:26 makes that explicitly clear.

The other parts of the apocalypse predicted in Mark 13 did not come to pass in conjunction with the fall of the Temple. Therefore, this prophecy cannot be said to have been fulfilled at that time.

Or it can be said that there were two prophies here. One about the early church and the other about the apoclypise.

Cabinia was simply looking to start a flame war. The troll spirit burns brightly within him! There is no point in "debating" a matter of faith. Faith and proof counteract one another. They are antitheses. As proof increases, faith decreases. If all answers were given, faith would diminish, as there would be no need for it.
"Without faith, it is impossible to please him [God]." (Hebrews 11:6)
"Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." (John 20:29)

And yet, faith is based on evidence and instruction and is itself one of the gifts of the spirit. So it isn't just a random throwing of darts and saying I chose to believe simply anything...

Complete proof of anything is impossible, at least for the finite. Unless we know everything it is always possible to offer an alternate explanation for any information, Biblical, scientific or otherwise. It is not unreasonable to discuss the evidences of Biblical truth. And, while I suspect you are right about the unlikelihood of convincing Cabinia, having provided a reasonable alternative to his arguements may benefit someone else who is undecided and may therefore be of value.

Further, belittling Cabinia or making light of him does little to display the love of Christ and at least carries the appearance of being intentionally inflamitory. You are entitled to say what you want and think what you want, but it might be worth thinking about how others will perceive your responses in terms of how well or unwell you represent Christ who truly was silent before His accusers in terms of defiance or contentiousness...

I guess this would be kind of off topic...

But when I was younger I use to challange other people's beliefs and faiths. That is until I personally began to understand what it all really meant.

Although I may not believe in what the next person does what benefit did I ever get out of attempting to prove them wrong? Nothing. If anything I took that person's hope. Faith is hope in something greater or better...

It's not mine to take.

I guess this would be kind of off topic...

But when I was younger I use to challange other people's beliefs and faiths. That is until I personally began to understand what it all really meant.

Although I may not believe in what the next person does what benefit did I ever get out of attempting to prove them wrong? Nothing. If anything I took that person's hope. Faith is hope in something greater or better...

It's not mine to take.

very interesting perspective. Rather insightful and mature. :)

4)Is there a rule somewhere that says a prophecy has to be all literal or all figurative? I haven't read it anywhere. Further, I'd say the sins of the world crushing the life out of Him was even more literal than the piercing as it was sufficient to kill Him.

If you don't establish some sort of consistency, then all you're doing is cherry-picking the evidence. The problem with that is, I could cherry-pick evidence to prove I had fulfilled some prophecy or other. That doesn't make it true.

5)I'm not sure I'd call a few sentances an "extensive" conversation. And you are still missing the point of the prophecy which indicates primarily that He won't put up a fight and would not be defiant toward those who crucified Him. That He would be a willing Victim. Interesting that you brought up the passage in John, I read that for my worship this morning. One of the things that struck me as I read, was that He almost(though not completely) excuses Pilot for his part in this. Also, if you back up a chapter, He is willingly taken into custody by the Jews in the garden and led "as a lamb to the slaughter".
It looks like you're playing rather fast and loose with interpretation here. There is nothing to suggest the lamb is a willing victim in Isaiah 53... nor do I see how Jesus could be interpreted as willing. You're also stretching to say "he wouldn't put up a fight and would not be defiant." That is very different from "he was silent and opened not his mouth."

And of course, Jesus opened his mouth. Isaiah is pretty explicit on this point, stating it twice for emphasis. That suggests he means exactly what he says, and nothing else.

I guess this would be kind of off topic...

But when I was younger I use to challange other people's beliefs and faiths. That is until I personally began to understand what it all really meant.

Although I may not believe in what the next person does what benefit did I ever get out of attempting to prove them wrong? Nothing. If anything I took that person's hope. Faith is hope in something greater or better...

It's not mine to take.
This conversation is not about faith, or conversion. It is about prophecy.

However... having made the conversion from believer to rationalist, I have to say that the process did not involve a loss of hope. Quite the opposite, in fact. To know that I am not the helpless pawn of a higher being fills me with greater confidence in myself. And Christianity involves too much guilt. Being free of that is worth all the temples in the world.

It looks like you're playing rather fast and loose with interpretation here. There is nothing to suggest the lamb is a willing victim in Isaiah 53... nor do I see how Jesus could be interpreted as willing. You're also stretching to say "he wouldn't put up a fight and would not be defiant." That is very different from "he was silent and opened not his mouth."

And of course, Jesus opened his mouth. Isaiah is pretty explicit on this point, stating it twice for emphasis. That suggests he means exactly what he says, and nothing else.

He did open his mouth only to say that he was the son of God. Also that he would sit at the right hand of God. Other than that he ignored all charges.

And Christianity involves too much guilt. Being free of that is worth all the temples in the world.

I would argue that the centre of Christianity (the death and resurection of Christ) is central to getting rid of the guilt. Through his death our sins are forgotten by God if we accept him. We dont need to have guilt because our sins are not counted against us.

If you don't establish some sort of consistency, then all you're doing is cherry-picking the evidence. The problem with that is, I could cherry-pick evidence to prove I had fulfilled some prophecy or other. That doesn't make it true.


It looks like you're playing rather fast and loose with interpretation here. There is nothing to suggest the lamb is a willing victim in Isaiah 53... nor do I see how Jesus could be interpreted as willing. You're also stretching to say "he wouldn't put up a fight and would not be defiant." That is very different from "he was silent and opened not his mouth."

And of course, Jesus opened his mouth. Isaiah is pretty explicit on this point, stating it twice for emphasis. That suggests he means exactly what he says, and nothing else.

This issue of "cherry-picking" the evidence, is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. After 25 years of studying the Bible, looking at it as a whole rather than singleing out specific lines to attempt to falsify, these are the conslusions I have come to. I find them consistant with the rest of scripture and to fit the prophecies clearly.

In some respects I'm surprised that you aren't arguing that opening His mouth would have to mean that He literally didn't open His mouth a day in His life for this prophecy to be valid. Or maybe I missed that part. Anyway, if you need a literal fulfillment you could argue that He didn't speak while they were nailing Him to the Cross or between the time He made His comments to the weeping daughters of Jerusalem until after He was already crucified. I still think the message of Isaiah in this passage has more to do with Christ's attitude and reaction to persecution than a literal, not speaking or being silent.

Regarding this verse:

"Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."

Which means they will not die until Jesus enters Heaven. Jesus' kingdom is Heaven, not Earth. Obviously there were many who lived past the supposed ressurection.

About Revelations: I doubt it's actually real. Many believe it's just a metaphor for the Roman Empire, which persecuted Christians at the time. However I don't doubt that Jesus Christ will return a second time, since it's said or implied in many other books.

...um, isn't the bible supposed to be "inspired by god"? And it was in Latin to begin with. Since the priests and such were rather currupt back then, maybe they possibly changed the parts they didn't like. But the bible is rather vauge about many things, such as the difference between good and evil. You can't help that.

...um, isn't the bible supposed to be "inspired by god"? And it was in Latin to begin with. Since the priests and such were rather currupt back then, maybe they possibly changed the parts they didn't like. But the bible is rather vauge about many things, such as the difference between good and evil. You can't help that.

Old Testiment was translated from Hebrew and the New Testiment was Translated from Greek.

It wasn't in Latin to begin with.

...um, isn't the bible supposed to be "inspired by god"? And it was in Latin to begin with. Since the priests and such were rather currupt back then, maybe they possibly changed the parts they didn't like. But the bible is rather vauge about many things, such as the difference between good and evil. You can't help that.

Actually, it was written in at least 3 other languages before being translated into Latin. Interestingly, even the passages that were translated into Latin and then to english and other languages have lost very little in translation when compared to manuscripts that predate the Latin ones, but that were hidden until this century, a.k.a. the Qumaran Scolls, often referred to as the "Dead Sea Scrolls".

<snip> Since the priests and such were rather currupt back then, maybe they possibly changed the parts they didn't like. <snip>

The Dead sea scrolls closed a lot of that controversy, for the Old Testament anyway.

EDIT: eh, Personal responsibilit you beat me.

I'm going to try and sum up basically why this thread is moot.

1. A specific prophecy is quoted.
2. One person demands why this hasn't been fulfilled.
3. Religious person says it's because the meaning isn't literal.

Well if nothing is literal how can anything be debated?? There is nothing to debate upon!! "Faith" cannot be swayed by facts nor logic. As one of the previous posts stated "blessed are those who believe without seeing." This clearly calls for unconditional suspension of doubt.

I'm going to try and sum up basically why this thread is moot.

1. A specific prophecy is quoted.
2. One person demands why this hasn't been fulfilled.
3. Religious person says it's because the meaning isn't literal.

Well if nothing is literal how can anything be debated?? There is nothing to debate upon!! "Faith" cannot be swayed by facts nor logic. As one of the previous posts stated "blessed are those who believe without seeing." This clearly calls for unconditional suspension of doubt.

Not unconditional supension of doubt, just not demanding empirical proof for everything. There is a lot of room in between.

I'm going to try and sum up basically why this thread is moot.

1. A specific prophecy is quoted.
2. One person demands why this hasn't been fulfilled.
3. Religious person says it's because the meaning isn't literal.

Well if nothing is literal how can anything be debated?? There is nothing to debate upon!! "Faith" cannot be swayed by facts nor logic. As one of the previous posts stated "blessed are those who believe without seeing." This clearly calls for unconditional suspension of doubt.

All the "religious people" are not playing the non-literal card. Theres a little more to it than that. I also think faith can be swayed by facts and logic.

I’m not sure if this has been covered or not but from what I’ve picked the prophecies that you are trying to disprove can not be disproved as they are open to interpretation because they are the prophet’s interpretation of the future or Gods words and are translated into text that would be understood at that time.

Nostradamus predicted the two world wars, which no one could understand until after the fact because his understanding of what he foresaw was limited to the level of understanding of science and technology of the era in which he lived, which was the medieval times, I think.

I would argue that the centre of Christianity (the death and resurection of Christ) is central to getting rid of the guilt. Through his death our sins are forgotten by God if we accept him. We dont need to have guilt because our sins are not counted against us.

The central tenet of Christianity is that you are an awful, horrible person, and there's nothing you can do about it. And some guy who was able to transcend innate human awfulness and live up to a fictitious, impossible ideal was wrongly and viciously slaughtered to pay for your awfulness.

How does that get rid of guilt?

This issue of "cherry-picking" the evidence, is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. After 25 years of studying the Bible, looking at it as a whole rather than singleing out specific lines to attempt to falsify, these are the conslusions I have come to. I find them consistant with the rest of scripture and to fit the prophecies clearly.

If you can't put a prophecy side-by-side with the events it allegedly predicted, and find striking similarities (and no glaring contradictions), then you can't prove the prophecy. Apparently, your study of the Bible as a whole meant that by the time you got to the NT, you had forgotten all but the basics of what Isaiah was saying. I am putting them side-by-side for your reconsideration, but apparently you're not interested.

In some respects I'm surprised that you aren't arguing that opening His mouth would have to mean that He literally didn't open His mouth a day in His life for this prophecy to be valid. Or maybe I missed that part. Anyway, if you need a literal fulfillment you could argue that He didn't speak while they were nailing Him to the Cross or between the time He made His comments to the weeping daughters of Jerusalem until after He was already crucified. I still think the message of Isaiah in this passage has more to do with Christ's attitude and reaction to persecution than a literal, not speaking or being silent.
Your argument for the meek death is weak. My argument against the meek death is stronger, but still not particularly solid. I don't know how many times I have to point this out. You're wasting time.

The stronger argument against the Isaiah-Jesus connection is that the Isaiah character is supposed to be ugly, reviled, and cursed with poor health. There is not a shred of evidence in the NT to support any of these characteristics as belonging to Jesus. I gave one extra-biblical reference to contradict that he was ugly. NT testimony contradicts him being reviled. And given Jesus' ability to heal the sick, it would be ridiculous to conclude that he was personally afflicted.

If you want to have a meaningful conversation on the Isaiah prophecy, address this. The "meek" conversation can only go in a circle.

This is not an attack. This is an intellectual challenge. The fact that you perceive it as an attack says quite a bit about you.


Quit whining cabinia.

<snip> Since the priests and such were rather currupt back then, maybe they possibly changed the parts they didn't like. <snip>The Dead sea scrolls closed a lot of that controversy, for the Old Testament anyway.

EDIT: eh, Personal responsibilit you beat me.

A letter from Clement of Alexandria referring to the Carpocratians closed the controversy for the New Testament. In that letter, Clement discusses a change that was made to the Gospel of Mark, and why it was made. Apparently the Carpocratians made much of a passage describing a sleepover featuring Lazarus and Jesus, and decided it meant that homosexuality was not only a good thing, but a great way to celebrate their love for Jesus.

Clement's letter provides incontrovertible proof that the Gospels were indeed edited for content. Additionally, the fact that no copies of the Gospels exist which predate the 4th century cannot be a coincidence. The Council of Nicea met at that time.

So you want a real challenge-eh?

No pack drill on this one sunny boy.

Tell us what the 'one thing different' between Mary and Martha is/was/ still is(you think you is an omnipotent bibloteck(snigger), so you can find the reference easily enough.

I won't lose sleepexpecting you can reply on this one!!

Pinx Of Iwannaland

A letter from Clement of Alexandria referring to the Carpocratians closed the controversy for the New Testament. In that letter, Clement discusses a change that was made to the Gospel of Mark, and why it was made. Apparently the Carpocratians made much of a passage describing a sleepover featuring Lazarus and Jesus, and decided it meant that homosexuality was not only a good thing, but a great way to celebrate their love for Jesus.

Clement's letter provides incontrovertible proof that the Gospels were indeed edited for content. Additionally, the fact that no copies of the Gospels exist which predate the 4th century cannot be a coincidence. The Council of Nicea met at that time.

My point was that the Dead Sea Scrolls shows a basic consistancy of the OT manuscripts. I agree with the Gospels. Each writer took parts and edited. Anyone can see that. I have a book called "Gospel Parallels." It has all the gospels in columns lined next to each other. You can see what each author added and took out. Also the same stories are told differently, in diferent orders and with different quotes. Jesus words are also changed. If anyone has never noticed this, i urge you to look at the Gospel Parallels by Throckmorton

On that same note, Jesus repeatedly told his followers, in all 4 gospels, that he would return within the span of their natural lives. So, either the Second Coming happened long ago, and we all missed it... or it was just more false prophecy that failed to be fulfilled.

jesus was reborn on easter sunday within those peoples lives. he was died then came back what about that?

1st coming: birth
2nd coming:rebirth

If you can't put a prophecy side-by-side with the events it allegedly predicted, and find striking similarities (and no glaring contradictions), then you can't prove the prophecy. Apparently, your study of the Bible as a whole meant that by the time you got to the NT, you had forgotten all but the basics of what Isaiah was saying. I am putting them side-by-side for your reconsideration, but apparently you're not interested.


Your argument for the meek death is weak. My argument against the meek death is stronger, but still not particularly solid. I don't know how many times I have to point this out. You're wasting time.

The stronger argument against the Isaiah-Jesus connection is that the Isaiah character is supposed to be ugly, reviled, and cursed with poor health. There is not a shred of evidence in the NT to support any of these characteristics as belonging to Jesus. I gave one extra-biblical reference to contradict that he was ugly. NT testimony contradicts him being reviled. And given Jesus' ability to heal the sick, it would be ridiculous to conclude that he was personally afflicted.

If you want to have a meaningful conversation on the Isaiah prophecy, address this. The "meek" conversation can only go in a circle.

Again, you are entitled to your opinion.

However, the prophecy doesn't say that He would be ugly, it just says that He wouldn't be so beautiful that people would be attracted to Him on the basis of physical appearance and there is no scriptural reference that He was attractive or unattractive while here on earth.

He was clearly reviled by the leaders of His time. Mocked, ridiculed, lacking anywhere to lay His head (a home), poor along with its afflictions etc.

I'd say we've had meaningful conversation about this, you just don't agree with me so you think my arguments hold no merit. Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but trying to belittle me and my arguement as weak or lacking meaning simply because you disagree is poor form.

I've attempted to give you the benefit of the doubt in terms of your intentions, but am beginning to believe that what you really are doing is looking for excuses to belittle and insult those with beliefs differing from your own.

I'm willing to accept that you don't see things the way I do about this prophecy, but please don't suggest that I am less than intelligent for seeing things differently than you do.

Great reply Holborn :p

I’m not sure if this has been covered or not but from what I’ve picked the prophecies that you are trying to disprove can not be disproved as they are open to interpretation because they are the prophet’s interpretation of the future or Gods words and are translated into text that would be understood at that time.

Nostradamus predicted the two world wars, which no one could understand until after the fact because his understanding of what he foresaw was limited to the level of understanding of science and technology of the era in which he lived, which was the medieval times, I think.
Nostradamus predicted nothing, either. But that's another thread for another time. Here's a taste, though... a Nostradamus prediction that allegedly applies to Hitler:

"Near the Rhine from the Austrian mountains
Will be born a great man of the people, come too late.
A man who will defend Poland and Hungary
And whose fate will never be certain"

Breaking this down:

Born near the Rhine from the Austrian mountains: Nope. Hitler was born next to the Inn River in an area of flood plain and alluvial forest. The Inn River is a Danube tributary.

A great man of the people, come too late: Arguments can be madefor "great man of the people," but "come too late" doesn't make any sense. Too late for what?

A man who will defend Poland and Hungary: Not only no, but HELL no. Hitler was a Polish invader, not defender, and he could not defend either against the Soviets.

And whose fate will never be certain: The only "yes" answer, since it does appear that controversy surrounding Hitler's death will exist in perpetuity.

However, the prophecy doesn't say that He would be ugly, it just says that He wouldn't be so beautiful that people would be attracted to Him on the basis of physical appearance and there is no scriptural reference that He was attractive or unattractive while here on earth.
People who are stricken with physical ailments are usually pretty ugly. Especially in his day.

He was clearly reviled by the leaders of His time. Mocked, ridiculed, lacking anywhere to lay His head (a home), poor along with its afflictions etc.

He was not reviled by all the leaders... see Pilate. Also, he was loved by many followers. This contradicts Isaiah.

There is no indication anywhere in the NT to suggest he suffered any deprivations due to poverty. And it's silly to conjecture that anyone who could make food and wine at will would ever be forced to do without.

I'd say we've had meaningful conversation about this, you just don't agree with me so you think my arguments hold no merit. Again, you are entitled to your opinion, but trying to belittle me and my arguement as weak or lacking meaning simply because you disagree is poor form.

I've attempted to give you the benefit of the doubt in terms of your intentions, but am beginning to believe that what you really are doing is looking for excuses to belittle and insult those with beliefs differing from your own.

I'm willing to accept that you don't see things the way I do about this prophecy, but please don't suggest that I am less than intelligent for seeing things differently than you do.

Ad hominem. You are not in a position to judge my motives, which presumes a knowledge about me you simply do not have. Any guesses you make about my motives say more about you than they say about me. That's why I'm content to let the random people coming in to abuse me pass without comment... they're making their religion look bad on their own, and doing a wonderful job of it, so clearly they need no help from me.

Additionally, ad hominem is recognized as a logical fallacy because it simply does not matter what my intentions are. My arguments stand or fall on their own merits, and whether they came from me, Albert Einstein, or Dan Quayle would not change their strength in any way.

1) "There was in him no stately bearing to make us look at him, nor appearance that would attract us to him." - Jesus attracted notice, and followers.

Refering to the crucifixtion time itself, he was abandoned by all his followers and denied by peter. Even if it is on apperance, I bet after being floged and beeten rather badly he wouldnt have been somone who you would want to be seen with.


2) "He was spurned and avoided by men, a man of suffering, accustomed to infirmity, One of those from whom men hide their faces, spurned, and we held him in no esteem." Jesus was not accustomed to infirmity. There are no reports of him ever being unwell. And again, he was held in high esteem, and looked up to.


Infrimity, possibly meaning inablity to survive properly. Say at the crucifixtion or in the desert for 40 days. And the lack of esteem, again crucifixtion time. He was hated by all


3) "While we thought of him as stricken, as one smitten by God and afflicted. - Again, he was not generally "stricken" or "afflicted," these terms being used to describe ailments and not torture.

Can you prove that?


4) " But he was pierced for our offenses, crushed for our sins" - If you're going to get excited about the piercing (per John's tale of the spear wound), then you have to give the crushing equal literal meaning. Also, there is nothing here to indicate crucifixion

Crushing could equal the suffication of crucifixtion, which is how most crucifixtion victims die.


5) "Though he was harshly treated, he submitted and opened not his mouth; Like a lamb led to the slaughter or a sheep before the shearers, he was silent and opened not his mouth." - Jesus was not silent.

He refused to answer to any of the charges brought before him. Except when they asked him if he was the son of God.

I completely agree with you!!!

I completely agree with you!!!

Are you talking to me? You need to quote someone when making that kind of statement.

My point was that the Dead Sea Scrolls shows a basic consistancy of the OT manuscripts. I agree with the Gospels. Each writer took parts and edited. Anyone can see that. I have a book called "Gospel Parallels." It has all the gospels in columns lined next to each other. You can see what each author added and took out. Also the same stories are told differently, in diferent orders and with different quotes. Jesus words are also changed. If anyone has never noticed this, i urge you to look at the Gospel Parallels by Throckmorton
I concur with you on both the OT and the NT. Any problems with the OT date back to before the end of the Babylonian Captivity, because it all existed as a strictly oral tradition for the centuries prior. Only after Cyrus the Great of Persia liberated the Jews and sponsored the reconstruction of the temple was the attempt made to write any of it down.

To me, the single most illuminating Gospel parallel involves the events from the crucifixion to the end. Matt, Mark, and Luke are so similar that they have been concluded to have come from a common source. Put them in the order they were written (Mark, Matt, Luke), and compare the events from death onwards, and you will see that three tales which were very similar in a lot of ways suddenly diverge in a striking manner. Mark's version from there on is quite ordinary in comparison with what comes later... the tale becomes more outrageous with each telling. John comes along afterwards and tells a story even more fantastic still.

At this point, even the Synoptic Gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke) contradict each other, where they were previously in general concordance. This leads me to believe that the original source material did not include any information beyond the death of Jesus, and the writers were left to make it all up.

Why do you want so badly that people don't believe in Jesus? What does it give to you? What do you wanna prove?

Why do you want so badly that people don't believe in Jesus? What does it give to you? What do you wanna prove?

the thread was started to look at prophecy. thats what he wants to prove, that it is false.

Is anyone going to respond to my points or are they going to ignore me?

Refering to the crucifixtion time itself, he was abandoned by all his followers and denied by peter. Even if it is on apperance, I bet after being floged and beeten rather badly he wouldnt have been somone who you would want to be seen with.
You are being overly selective by referring only to the brief moment in his life in which he was tried and executed. Also, you're quite wrong. John's gospel tells us one disciple was standing at Jesus' side when he died.

Infrimity, possibly meaning inablity to survive properly. Say at the crucifixtion or in the desert for 40 days. And the lack of esteem, again crucifixtion time. He was hated by all

Again, not hated by all. Gross overgeneralization. You're stretching the definition of "infirmity" beyond the breaking point.

Can you prove that?

afflicted

adj 1: grievously affected especially by disease [syn: stricken] 2: mentally or physically unfit [syn: impaired]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Crushing could equal the suffication of crucifixtion, which is how most crucifixtion victims die.
Another argument for another time... but completely false. The primary cause of death in crucifixion is exposure. The John gospel tells us of a mercy move to break the legs of the condemned. With their legs broken, they would suffocate.

He refused to answer to any of the charges brought before him. Except when they asked him if he was the son of God.
He did not refuse to answer.

Great answer!!!

Don't get scared, if you really repent, you can also be saved.

Don't get scared, if you really repent, you can also be saved.

stop talking...please...

He did not refuse to answer.

Erm, yeah he did see Matthew 27:14. The only thing he answered to was if he was the son of God or not.

Erm, yeah he did see Matthew 27:14. The only thing he answered to was if he was the son of God or not.
John 18:33-37, 19:10-11.

John 18:33-37, 19:10-11.

He did not answer the false accusations towards him, as a normal person would. He asked questions and debated but he did not answer the untrue accusations.

He did not answer the false accusations towards him, as a normal person would. He asked questions and debated but he did not answer the untrue accusations.
Jesus answers the accusation in 18:36.

Jesus answers the accusation in 18:36.

All he said was when asked if he was the Son of God was "I am"

Other than that Cabinia, he didn't.

John 18:36 "Jesus said 'My Kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

Care to show me where he answered the accusation in this verse?

John 18:36 "Jesus said 'My Kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

Care to show me where he answered the accusation in this verse?

John 18:36 directly answers Pilate's first question in 18:33 "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus gets semantic in 34, Pilate redirects in 35, and Jesus then answers the question. Pilate is concerned about the Jews in his world, so if Jesus claims dominion of another, Pilate has no reason to be concerned.

So, Jesus answered the original charge, and Pilate is satisfied with the answer. He effectively defended himself in court. The lamb metaphor is therefore invalid. Lambs are not known for talking their way out of trouble, only to be damned by their fellow lambs.

John 18:36 directly answers Pilate's first question in 18:33 "Are you the King of the Jews?" Jesus gets semantic in 34, Pilate redirects in 35, and Jesus then answers the question. Pilate is concerned about the Jews in his world, so if Jesus claims dominion of another, Pilate has no reason to be concerned.

Actually no. He never truely answered his question. He actually ignored it. All it says is his kingodm is not of this world. He never stated that he was King of the Jews.

So, Jesus answered the original charge, and Pilate is satisfied with the answer. He effectively defended himself in court. The lamb metaphor is therefore invalid. Lambs are not known for talking their way out of trouble, only to be damned by their fellow lambs.

He wasn't satisfied! In Verse 37 he did state "your a king then!" and Jesus replied in the same verse: You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

In reply Pilate asked in verse 38 "what is truth?"

So no, he really wasn't satisfied with the answer.

Actually no. He never truely answered his question. He actually ignored it. All it says is his kingodm is not of this world. He never stated that he was King of the Jews.

Of course he never stated he was king of the Jews... he denied it. If Jesus did not have a kingdom in this world, then he was not a king in the sense that Pilate was concerned with. From Pilate's perspective, the problem was solved. Jesus denied that he was the king of the Jews, and Pilate acquitted him based on that testimony.

He wasn't satisfied! In Verse 37 he did state "your a king then!" and Jesus replied in the same verse: You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

In reply Pilate asked in verse 38 "what is truth?"

So no, he really wasn't satisfied with the answer.
The very next words Pilate says, in verse 38, are "I find no guilt in him." That's a pretty strong indication of satisfaction. Pilate's question "What is truth?" is a very sensible rhetorical question, given the nonsense Jesus had just said in 37. The Romans were very well versed in philosophy, and Pilate would have been well-enough educated to recognize that truth is relative. Jesus' statement is more than a tad ignorant.

Of course he never stated he was king of the Jews... he denied it. If Jesus did not have a kingdom in this world, then he was not a king in the sense that Pilate was concerned with. From Pilate's perspective, the problem was solved. Jesus denied that he was the king of the Jews, and Pilate acquitted him based on that testimony.

Has it ever occured to you that he didn't come for the Jews but for the Gentiles? He came to save the non jews and not the Jews themselves. He was the Son of God and was part of the Kingdom of God.

The very next words Pilate says, in verse 38, are "I find no guilt in him." That's a pretty strong indication of satisfaction. Pilate's question "What is truth?" is a very sensible rhetorical question, given the nonsense Jesus had just said in 37. The Romans were very well versed in philosophy, and Pilate would have been well-enough educated to recognize that truth is relative. Jesus' statement is more than a tad ignorant.

How is what Jesus said nonsense in verse 37?

I'll reply when I get back from a family outing.

Wow... more ad hominem. I thought Christians were supposed to be good people? You wouldn't know it by this thread.

I don't know if you guys noticed this or not, but the title of this thread is not "convert the Christians." It's simply a discussion about prophecy, and whether any of it is valid. But apparently your intellectual skills are as effective as your emotional ones.



Dang. Im only quasi-Christian, and I can see the Merit in what this man has to say. Why is it that we always take so much offense when we percieve other people to attack us?


Go on, Cabinia. I commend you.