[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[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.