[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[DavidG]

Originally posted by Krsqk:
[QB]

"Proving" the prophetic nature of the Bible is a matter of determining the date of its writing and comparing the written account to the actual event. As such, it is dependent on the timeline debate. My observation is that you have not presented proof for your argument regarding the timeline aspect of this debate.

Is that all clear?
[QB]

Nope. I have admitidly only followed these science vs releigon threads loosly but I have yet to see a single case were a proponent of the prophetic bible has given a single example from the bible. Can't anyone give an reference and the historical event it predicts? I get the impression that those claiming the bible predicts future events think it will become true if they repeat it a hundred times.

[Fyron]

I do not have ready access to proof of the relative timeline, so I can not post it.

Be careful when you use the word "written", cause some people will go off on a tangent about oral tradition at the mention of writing something down, even though you may not have meant the literal date of when it was put to paper.

Nope. I have admitidly only followed these science vs releigon threads loosly but I have yet to see a single case were a proponent of the prophetic bible has given a single example from the bible. Can't anyone give an reference and the historical event it predicts? I get the impression that those claiming the bible predicts future events think it will become true if they repeat it a hundred times.

Actually, Rags did say that the Bible predicted the fall of Babylon and Assyria, though that is all he said about it. He gave no book references or anything like that, and he gave no evidence that the relevenat book of the Bible was actually written/composed/created before those events took place. He made a nice argument from authority though.

[ March 11, 2003, 01:03: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Puke]

now driving this OT thread OT from its original topic, I have recently been made aware that the famed Grace Cathedral on top of Nob Hill in San Francisco contains a Starbucks franchise.

merchants hocking their wears in the temple? didnt JC throw a fit about that, and kick over a few pop-stands? I dont care if your religious or not, I think this is far more hypocritical and offensive than the recent sex scandals in the church, because its so overt.

[Narrew]

Originally posted by Rigelian:
or (much worse) Von Daniken plug here I hope?

Haha, I never heard of this guy so did a search to see what he thinks, and he seems a loonie, but I do like watching Stargate SG1, you think that is based on the truth? (I mean, its on TV, so it must be true J/K).

[Narrew]

Originally posted by Puke:

merchants hocking their wears in the temple? didnt JC throw a fit about that, and kick over a few pop-stands? I dont care if your religious or not, I think this is far more hypocritical and offensive than the recent sex scandals in the church, because its so overt.

Rigelian mentioned about being dragged kicking and screaming into reforming or evolving towards a truer reflection of New-Testament values, well the sex scandal is such a sick thing it just proves how hypocritical the Cathloic church truly is, if they could have swept if under the carpet (and they tried very hard to do just that) they would have. So a Starbucks in there? Why should that supprise or offend you? It is not about religion any more, it is about money, power and control. If it wasnt, birth control (as an example) would be encouraged by the Church to protect against STDs, over population and unwanted children, but no... that would cut into their money, even if it was the "right" thing to do.

If JC were here today (not debating if he exicts or not) I doubt that the Coffee shop would be the first thing on his list, maybe turning the corrupt leadership into pillar of salts perhaps.

[Krsqk]

I do not have ready access to proof of the relative timeline, so I can not post it.

Fine, but until you do, any posturing about "arguing from authority" rings rather hollow.

For a couple of specific prophecies, try:

• Isaiah 7. The destruction of the Northern Kingdom of Israel by Assyria is prophesied.
  
• Isaiah 39. Isaiah (who lived contemporaneously with Hezekiah) prophesies the plunder of the royal treasure by Babylon.
  
• Isaiah 44:28-47:15. The destruction of Babylon is predicted, including the name of the king (Cyrus) who would defeat them. Furthermore, the rebuilding of Jerusalem and of the temple (at Cyrus' orders) are predicted--which is significant, considering they hadn't yet been destroyed in Isaiah's day.
  
• The dozens of prophecies regarding the Messiah are a book in themselves--his lineage, his place of birth, his virgin birth, the related infant massacre, the flight into Egypt, his ministry in Galilee, his ministry as a prophet and as a priest, his rejection, his triumphal entry, his betrayal by a friend, his accusation by false witnesses, his silence when accused, his death with sinners, the piercing of his hands and feet, the prayer for his enemies, the casting of lots for his coat, his burial with the rich, his ressurection, and his ascension, to name a few. Specific references are too numerous to list; they are fairly well-documented on the Net.
  Try Google with "Messianic prophecies" or some such.

Now, of course, you're going to respond with "Well, those were all written after the fact." 1) The books in question claim to be written by certain people who lived/interacted with people who verifiably lived at certain times (kings and such); 2) Thousands of years of Jewish scholarship and tradition agrees that they were written at the times claimed; 3) No reasonable doubt has been cast on the integrity of the authors, or the verity of their works; 4) No evidence has been presented which casts reasonable doubt on the traditionally accepted dates of writing.
That should be enough to keep this debate roiling until I can check back up on it.

RE: the current state of the RCC (and many churches today)--I don't think anyone's claiming that most churches today even try to live up to the Bible. The vast majority who claim Christianity do not follow the Bible--why is it a surprise when most churches don't? Without a doubt, the intentions of the churches in question are noble (with the exception of those involved simply for power's sake), but that doesn't compensate for the drift away from the Bible. You can only go so far away from its teachings and still really be considered Christian. The word "Christian" as popularly seems to encompass much, much more than its strict definition would allow.

[Fyron]

Isaiah 7. The destruction of the Northern Kingdom of Israel by Assyria is prophesied.

If only things were that simple... the predictions on when and how it will be destroyed were not accurate at all. Neither were the "prophecies" that predicted the fall of Babylon. They said that it would fall in a sudden catastrophe, when it took centuris of conquests before Babylon was destroyed. That is just like saying, "the US will fall." It will undoubtedly fall one day; nothing Lasts forever. But, this does not make such a statement very prophetic.

Isaiah 39. Isaiah (who lived contemporaneously with Hezekiah) prophesies the plunder of the royal treasure by Babylon.

Again, this is meaningless. I predict that Fort Knox will be plundered. It will undoubtably be robbed one day. But, this does not make me any sort of prophet.

Isaiah 44:28-47:15. The destruction of Babylon is predicted, including the name of the king (Cyrus) who would defeat them. Furthermore, the rebuilding of Jerusalem and of the temple (at Cyrus' orders) are predicted--which is significant, considering they hadn't yet been destroyed in Isaiah's day.

Considering that Jerusalem has always been in the neighborhood of people that are not very friendly to the Hebrew people, it is a safe bet to say that it will be destroyed one day. Saying that it will be rebuilt is also a safe bet, as it is the holy city of the Jews. Why would they not rebuild it if it were to be destroyed? These are not prophetic at all, they were safe bets for Isaiah to make.

Trying to find legitimate web sites that accurately discuss ancient history and are not steeped full of religious mumbo-jumbo is rather difficult... I just love the internet...

The mention of the name Cyrus in Isaiah is most certainly an indication that one of 2 things occured:
1) The book was indeed written after the events took place (or even while they were taking place).
2) The book was altered after the events that were a safe bet to predict occured so that the necessary details would be correct.

The dozens of prophecies regarding the Messiah are a book in themselves--his lineage, his place of birth, his virgin birth, the related infant massacre, the flight into Egypt, his ministry in Galilee, his ministry as a prophet and as a priest, his rejection, his triumphal entry, his betrayal by a friend, his accusation by false witnesses, his silence when accused, his death with sinners, the piercing of his hands and feet, the prayer for his enemies, the casting of lots for his coat, his burial with the rich, his ressurection, and his ascension, to name a few. Specific references are too numerous to list; they are fairly well-documented on the Net.

All of this assumes that you believe both the myth of the prophecy and the myth of JC. It is essentially rather circular reasoning because you have to already believe one part of the Bible in order for the other part to be verifiable. You can not support one supposition with another supposition.

1) The books in question claim to be written by certain people who lived/interacted with people who verifiably lived at certain times (kings and such)

Has it ever occured to you that the authors of the books may not have been telling the truth? People often stretch the truth in order to get their message across. Oh no, these mythic figures could not possibly have lied. They were the authors of the Bible, so they had to be telling the truth, cause the authors of the Bible would never lie. (more circular reasoning)

2) Thousands of years of Jewish scholarship and tradition agrees that they were written at the times claimed

1000s of years of maintaining the same flawed information that was designed to support their pre-conceived beliefs. Yep, sounds accurate enough to me.

3) No reasonable doubt has been cast on the integrity of the authors, or the verity of their works

Says who? People that already believe what the Bible says, and so are blind to anything that does not support their beliefs?

4) No evidence has been presented which casts reasonable doubt on the traditionally accepted dates of writing.

No traditionally accepted dates of writing have been presented.

Myths are always at least loosely based off of reality. The Bible is (whether you wish to accept it or not) a myth. After all, mythology is a collection of stories that define the moral values of a culture that are not meant to be literal. The Bible is a set of stories that Christians and Jews use to define their sense of morality. Myths are most often not (well, never) literal representations of fact; that is not their purpose.

All of these arguments are nice, but they detract from the heart of the matter. None of you yet has successfully answered my question as to why you accept Christian mythology and reject all other mythology as being false. Why is Christianity so special as to be right, and everything else is wrong? Because the Bible says so? Because you believe that the Bible has prophetic powers (even though it does not), so it must be true? I am certain that if we looked, we could find other religious writings that have the same sort of "prophecies" as the Bible.