A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
I disagree. Though I do think the large majority of desires are rooted in happiness.
Definitely not.
- Status
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
I really liked this article. While I did not agree with every single one of his points, there was quite a lot that I did agree with. I agree that there is almost nothing we can know with absolute certainty and I do not believe that all belief in God is inherently irrational. I am definitely not one to uncritically accept something just based on the author without considering the content.
G
good1
Guest
T
twb1621
Guest
I understand what you are referring to but you have to consider the fact the JW make their own prophecies and when they fail, they revise them over and over again. Also, the JW were not established as such until around 1932. This is a big difference compared to 2000 years of steadfast teachings and their beliefs are greatly distorted and in many ways contrived when compared. You will never see the Catholic Church in the teachings of Jesus “revising” His teachings.
T
twb1621
Guest
That’s great. I don’t mind making an effort if it is at least considered and I know you usually do that.
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
Some of my replies in previous messages were a little short, so I’ll try to expand more on my reasoning so you can try to identify where you think I’m in error.
The other issue you raise is why Jesus would act as he did. Even if many of the details in the Bible are wrong, it seems likely that Jesus did anticipate his own death and accept it. I didn’t mean to imply that this was insignificant. The truth is that I have no idea what happened or why he did the things he did. I just think that it’s important to consider whether natural explanations for something before treating it as evidence of the supernatural. For example, I think it is possible that Jesus genuinely believed what he preached. Sometimes people are generally pretty normal, except they have one weird belief. There have been plenty of people who have been willing to die for false beliefs. I think it is much more likely that Jesus believed he was the messiah and wasn’t (and he wouldn’t have been the first to hold such a belief), than that he actually was.
), but I just think that it would not have been too difficult to perform a convincing trick or illusion. Much like magic shows today, when the audience tells the story again later, they make it sound even more impressive. But again, I’m not completely convinced that the miracle accounts were rooted in real events.
By the way, regarding the modern miracles, I completely agree. I think skeptics have harshly criticized those miracles that rest on very shaky foundations. I agree with you that we do not have natural explanations for many of the Catholic Church’s claimed miracles. So if you define a miracles as that for which there is no complete natural explanation, then I agree that there have been many miracles. I just think that if you define miracles like that, they aren’t evidence of God. If you define them in that way, then thousands of years ago, there were an unbelievable amount of miracles taking place, merely because medical knowledge was so poor. But over the years, these would have changed from miracles to non-miracles. I do not assume that our understanding of the human body is perfect, far from it (just think about how little we still know about the brain). Because of this, I just don’t think that miracles should be taken as evidence of God, unless we have a convincing reason to believe that they will never have a natural explanation.
Well I guess there were two parts to your paragraph. You talk about the degree to which it matches Old Testament prophecy, and you say it wouldn’t make sense for Jesus to accept death like he did. Regarding prophecy, I still don’t think there’s convincing evidence of successful prophecy since it is easy to read prophecy into anything after the fact, and because I really don’t think we can know how much of the details in the New Testament are accurate, especially given how frequently the gospels disagree on the specific details (such as the events surrounding the resurrection). So that’s why I currently don’t think that biblical prophecy is good evidence.
The other issue you raise is why Jesus would act as he did. Even if many of the details in the Bible are wrong, it seems likely that Jesus did anticipate his own death and accept it. I didn’t mean to imply that this was insignificant. The truth is that I have no idea what happened or why he did the things he did. I just think that it’s important to consider whether natural explanations for something before treating it as evidence of the supernatural. For example, I think it is possible that Jesus genuinely believed what he preached. Sometimes people are generally pretty normal, except they have one weird belief. There have been plenty of people who have been willing to die for false beliefs. I think it is much more likely that Jesus believed he was the messiah and wasn’t (and he wouldn’t have been the first to hold such a belief), than that he actually was.
I agree that the gospels were probably based on the stories handed down by the apostles. I just think that it’s possible for there to have been some mythologization in the intervening years. I also think it’s possible, though less likely, that some of the miraculous events were based on real non-supernatural events. Jesus could have performed tricks in order to convince people. I don’t think it would necessarily have been considered dishonest to perform marvelous acts to demonstrate God’s power. I saw an interesting show (Ancient Discoveries: Machines of the Gods) on all the technologies that religions used around the time of Jesus in order to make it appear that miracles were happening in the temples. They were so impressive that if I had been around then and had experienced them, I am pretty sure that I would have been convinced with absolute certainty that God exists. Now I’m not saying that Jesus constructed elaborate mechanical devises (though he was a carpenter
), but I just think that it would not have been too difficult to perform a convincing trick or illusion. Much like magic shows today, when the audience tells the story again later, they make it sound even more impressive. But again, I’m not completely convinced that the miracle accounts were rooted in real events.Well we had been talking about the miracles stories in the New Testament. Much as it’s often impossible to know how a magician did his trick just based on someone’s account of it (since they probably didn’t notice the sleight of hand, or the device he used to fool the audience), it’s hard to verify something as a miracle based only on the 2000-year-old testimony of believers. And I doubt that the non-Christians back then would have been able to debunk them since there wouldn’t be tangible evidence to prove or disprove the miracle.
By the way, regarding the modern miracles, I completely agree. I think skeptics have harshly criticized those miracles that rest on very shaky foundations. I agree with you that we do not have natural explanations for many of the Catholic Church’s claimed miracles. So if you define a miracles as that for which there is no complete natural explanation, then I agree that there have been many miracles. I just think that if you define miracles like that, they aren’t evidence of God. If you define them in that way, then thousands of years ago, there were an unbelievable amount of miracles taking place, merely because medical knowledge was so poor. But over the years, these would have changed from miracles to non-miracles. I do not assume that our understanding of the human body is perfect, far from it (just think about how little we still know about the brain). Because of this, I just don’t think that miracles should be taken as evidence of God, unless we have a convincing reason to believe that they will never have a natural explanation.
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
Sorry if I’m making you repeat yourself, but what information do you think negates this possibility? There are other cases, such as suicide cults, where people even lay down their lives for false beliefs.
Oh, I didn’t mean to imply that at all. I wasn’t saying that since Jehovah’s Witnesses have revised their beliefs, the Catholic Church does/will too. I was just trying to say why I don’t consider it a major violation of cause and effect for the apostles to become convinced that Jesus was resurrected.
T
Timbothefiveth
Guest
Here’s my thoughts: First of all, you should rule out religions that get you nothing. That rules out pretty much anything with reincarnation and it rules out atheism and agnosticism. Then you can eliminate religions one by one. Now, I think the Bible is perhaps the most easily substantiated, and the most trustworthy. The 11 apostles saw Jesus risen from the dead, and they were willing to be executed by the Roman government for their faith. This makes it just about certain they really did see that, because who is willing to die for what they know is a lie?
Now, if we choose from the biblical religions, that leaves mostly protestants, orthodoy, and catholicism. Matthew 16:18 rules out protestantism and orthodoxy, because both of these left that original church, and the latter part of the verse especially rules out protestantism.
Also, catholics should be saved according to the protestant standard, faith. By the catholic standard, however, protestants would most likely not.
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
But I’m trying to know what is true, not what will give me the most benefits. If there is no God, I would rather be an atheist than a Christian.
Of the major religions I’ve looked at, Christianity does seem to have the most evidence in its favor. However, I don’t think I can conclude that all the smaller religions have less evidence unless I actually sat down and thoroughly studied every one of them (since what is popular is not always what is true). Of course, I could trust an outsider’s assessment of them, but this doesn’t seem like a fair way of looking at religions. I doubt you would want my only knowledge of Catholicism to come from a Protestant.
As far as the apostles, I think there are some viable natural explanations. The one I find most likely is that some of the apostles had dreams or visions of Jesus after his death and believed they were real appearances. Only for a few apostles do we have good evidence of how they died, and even in those cases we can’t know whether they could have escaped death by recanting their beliefs. That’s a quick version of my thoughts on this, but I can expand on it if you want to know more about some aspect of it.
Based on what I’ve read so far, I don’t think the evidence in favor of Christianity is very strong, and I think the evidence against it is stronger (though not conclusive). I’ll try to give a couple of examples which make me think that Christianity is not true. For one, I don’t think it makes sense why God would sacrifice himself to himself in order to atone for our sins. Since he’s all powerful, God could have brought about the same result without Jesus dying. Some people say that it’s because of God’s justice, but this never really made sense to me. If someone stabs someone, I can’t go to jail in their stead. Also, if the Christian God existed, I would expect him to give more evidence of his existence, so all those who sought him could find him. I would also expect a world with an omnibenevolent God to have less evil. To me the world seems more consistent with no God or a morally ambivalent God.
So those are some of the reasons why I might dismiss Christianity. There could be explanations for them, and I don’t think that they disprove Christianity, but if you accept things like Joseph Smith’s shaky back-story as evidence for dismissing Mormonism, these could be considered evidence for dismissing mainstream Christianity (for there could also be explanations for why God would choose someone like Joseph Smith).
Can you think of any reasonable way of ruling out religions that would enable me to rule out all other religions, but which would not lead to me rule out Catholicism?
I know that Protestants do have responses to Matthew 16:18, but I haven’t studied it enough to know whether any of their responses are reasonable. If I ever got it narrowed down to Christianity, I would probably want to look through some of the threads discussing that passage and read some articles on the subject. But right now, the issue that interests me far more is the existence of God.
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
I think you give some reasonable explanations for why God might not reveal himself (though the Catholic view of free will doesn’t make sense to me). If he did appear to me, I think that I would probably suffer some without him. But I think this would be far offset by the immense sense of purpose that I would have, and the strong desire I would have to bring others to God. I don’t get why it was good for God to appear to Thomas, but not to others. I don’t think Thomas’ life was made worse by the experience.
You could be right, but I’m not just talking about scientific evidence. I’m just saying that when taking everything into account, it seems like he is unlikely to exist.
I appreciate you taking the time to talk with me. I think many people would give up and assume that I must be someone who wants to disbelieve despite the evidence when I am not immediately convinced by the same arguments that convinced them. I can tell that you are a man of great faith and you sincerely believe that everyone who looks for God will find him eventually.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, EvilAtheist,
How can you possibly come up with such statistics? Is the existence of God a coin-flip?
Looking at coin tosses - if you had 10 coins and flipped them, the odds of getting all 10 to have heads (or tails, for that matter) is 1: 1024. In other words, for every 1024 flips (on average) I would get 10 heads. Now, for 11 coins all coming up heads the number doubles to 1 : 2048 and then adding another coin, making the group now 12 - and wanting all heads doubles our odds again to 1 : 4096. But, you can say this would take a lot of time… and, you would be right. But, just look around and see what it is we are talking about: all eternity. Your ‘bet’ with your immortal soul is that there is no God - but, you would believe if you had a 51% chance of success in this belief. I am telling you that as you look around and see all of these patterns and uniformly predictable actions in our universe and in our surroundings and in our own bodies - this was all created by God.
With the ‘wager’ you are making… it would seem to me that you have far more then the 51% you asked for. But, that means you are now challenged to live by this belief - in an All Mighty God. As Catholics we are followers of Jesus Christ and the Church He founded on Peter - and know our God to be All Loving. Christ demands certian behaviors of us if we are to be true followers of His. Christ gave us the following as a starter: to love God with our whole heart and our neighbor as ourself. He does expect other things from us - but that would be another thread…
God bless
How can you possibly come up with such statistics? Is the existence of God a coin-flip?
Honestly, if you are going to reduce this to some kind of statistic… then, in my opinion, yo are just spining wildly out of control. The various aspect of ‘certain’ knowledge you have been given, you have rejected. Yet, you still are looking for something to hang your hat on… some aspect of belief. To look at your statement above, I am forced to wonder… just who is setting these odds? Are you telling me that based on our finite and flawed ability to evaluate reality - you would not believe if it was just 49% instead of your threshhold amount of 51%?
Looking at coin tosses - if you had 10 coins and flipped them, the odds of getting all 10 to have heads (or tails, for that matter) is 1: 1024. In other words, for every 1024 flips (on average) I would get 10 heads. Now, for 11 coins all coming up heads the number doubles to 1 : 2048 and then adding another coin, making the group now 12 - and wanting all heads doubles our odds again to 1 : 4096. But, you can say this would take a lot of time… and, you would be right. But, just look around and see what it is we are talking about: all eternity. Your ‘bet’ with your immortal soul is that there is no God - but, you would believe if you had a 51% chance of success in this belief. I am telling you that as you look around and see all of these patterns and uniformly predictable actions in our universe and in our surroundings and in our own bodies - this was all created by God.
With the ‘wager’ you are making… it would seem to me that you have far more then the 51% you asked for. But, that means you are now challenged to live by this belief - in an All Mighty God. As Catholics we are followers of Jesus Christ and the Church He founded on Peter - and know our God to be All Loving. Christ demands certian behaviors of us if we are to be true followers of His. Christ gave us the following as a starter: to love God with our whole heart and our neighbor as ourself. He does expect other things from us - but that would be another thread…
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hold on there, EvilAtheist…
You really can not have it both ways!
I would encourage you to return to the link above and read this material. This is the first time I read it and I was quite impressed with it.
God bless
You really can not have it both ways!
This is an excellent link you were given (2001principle.net/2005.htm ) and you appear very dismissive about it. You claim scientists doubt God’s existence - yet - you have been given a site where scientists are giving scientific reasons as to why there has to be a Creator. One can not just keep on saying “…it was a coinsidence…” and maintain credibility. One can say, “I refuse to believe - now, what are you going to do about it?!!” and that is really a totally different - and profoundly sad - topic.
I would encourage you to return to the link above and read this material. This is the first time I read it and I was quite impressed with it.
God bless
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
I don’t think it’s something you can easily put precise odds on it. I wasn’t trying to. I was just trying to make the point that even if all I had was evidence that made it likely that God exists, that would be enough. I’m not demanding ironclad proof. And no, I wasn’t saying that 49% wouldn’t be enough. I didn’t want to try to put an exact number on what would be sufficient because as you point out, it’s not something that you can easily reduce to a statistic and say that as long as God meets a certain threshold, you will believe in him. 5% might be plenty. I don’t know. Currently, I think the chances are a lot less than that. I realize that my ability to evaluate reality is imperfect, as it is for all of us. But that’s no reason for me to try to force myself to go with Christianity. If my reason is completely unreliable then I can’t say that any religion is more likely than any other. Because I only know a tiny percentage of all there is to know, I’m always trying to learn more from other people. But in the end I have to use my imperfect reason to evaluate their claims or I would just end up believing everything, and would make a lot of Nigerian email scammers quite happy.
I just don’t see why patterns couldn’t arise in the universe even if there was no God. I don’t see anything about the universe that makes me think that there is a God, and some things that make me think that there isn’t.Looking at coin tosses - if you had 10 coins and flipped them, the odds of getting all 10 to have heads (or tails, for that matter) is 1: 1024. In other words, for every 1024 flips (on average) I would get 10 heads. Now, for 11 coins all coming up heads the number doubles to 1 : 2048 and then adding another coin, making the group now 12 - and wanting all heads doubles our odds again to 1 : 4096. But, you can say this would take a lot of time… and, you would be right. But, just look around and see what it is we are talking about: all eternity. Your ‘bet’ with your immortal soul is that there is no God - but, you would believe if you had a 51% chance of success in this belief. I am telling you that as you look around and see all of these patterns and uniformly predictable actions in our universe and in our surroundings and in our own bodies - this was all created by God.
With the ‘wager’ you are making… it would seem to me that you have far more then the 51% you asked for. But, that means you are now challenged to live by this belief - in an All Mighty God. As Catholics we are followers of Jesus Christ and the Church He founded on Peter - and know our God to be All Loving. Christ demands certian behaviors of us if we are to be true followers of His. Christ gave us the following as a starter: to love God with our whole heart and our neighbor as ourself. He does expect other things from us - but that would be another thread…
God bless
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
I’m not saying that it was a coincidence; I’m saying that I don’t think the odds that are typically given are accurate. When you know very little about what constraints there might be on what values of these constants are possible, then regardless of what range of values would result in life permitting universes, as long as it’s finite, the odds could be calculated to be infinitesimal. If the value of some constant was 1 in our universe, and we knew that any value from 0 to 1,000,000,000 would result in a life permitting universe, you could still calculate the odds of that happening out of a range from 0 to 10^109, and end up with the odds of a life permitting universe as 10^100. Based on reading things from both sides of the debate, it seems like scientists really do not have a good idea of what the range of possible values is. If I guessed that the range was 0 to 10^109, and it was really 0 to 100 or 0 to 2,000,000,000, then the “fine-tuning” becomes much less impressive.Hold on there, EvilAtheist…
You really can not have it both ways!
This is an excellent link you were given (2001principle.net/2005.htm ) and you appear very dismissive about it. You claim scientists doubt God’s existence - yet - you have been given a site where scientists are giving scientific reasons as to why there has to be a Creator. One can not just keep on saying “…it was a coinsidence…” and maintain credibility.
When claims have metaphysical implications, I like to carefully evaluate how scientists reached their conclusions. For example, Richard Dawkins presents a scientific case for why God almost certainly does not exist. But I don’t just immediately assume that because he’s a respected scientist, I should take his word for it. I examined some of his arguments, and realized that they are flawed. So I do not believe or disbelieve because of either claim.
I’m not surprised you found it convincing. If I hadn’t read a bit on the fine tuning argument from both sides beforehand I probably would have found it extremely convincing too.One can say, “I refuse to believe - now, what are you going to do about it?!!” and that is really a totally different - and profoundly sad - topic.
I would encourage you to return to the link above and read this material. This is the first time I read it and I was quite impressed with it.
God bless
T
twb1621
Guest
Thank you for your kind words. Let me make a suggestion to you. Looking beyond your responses to the substance you refer to in supporting your doubts, I think it would be a great help to you if you take some quiet time where you can concentrate on the recent posts I offered you regarding miracles and prophecies and side by side compare the differences with the events you compared them with but also considering circumstances along with what went into determining their authenticity AND what the specific details were. For one, consider that lepers were incurable yet were cleared of their diseases by Jesus in front of witnesses. Still today this is a disease that is incurable. Now this is not something that magic can convince bystanders of and if people today are miraculously cured instantly at places like Lourdes, there should be little doubt that these events also occurred then but at the direct hand of Jesus. Look at the comparison you offered to this, a preacher throwing someone down by the head and healing them only to later be found a fraud. There is no comparison in this. Your comparison to magic or claiming there may be other circumstances is nothing more than disregarding the events that offer support for the supernatural and the miraculous. If you compared what you support your doubts with you will see there is no relation or similarity. Once you realize that, you can take a step further in your search for truth. But you have to disregard supporting your doubts with incomparable “possibilities” as you do or you will never get anywhere. Now, you can say you recognize something may be supernatural, God is supernatural. What God does is supernatural and God is the author of the prophecies through divine revelation. So you may say how can this be proven? It can be proven for one by the prophecies which are supernatural. You claim the prophecies could be of anything so I say, offer me a comparison of events that will fit every prophecy fulfilled so far in the same depth of description and the order they have been called to take place. In other words, show me a reasonable comparison. Now, Jesus as the Messiah has fulfilled every prophecy not just a few which no other has. Over 1000 years before His birth, for Him to fulfill every prophecy would be impossible if not for the fact He was the one who was written about. You can not appreciate the validity of scripture and the information presented to you if do not look into what is offered and you can not see the difference between the events of miracles and prophecies if you do not realize what you compare these with are unparalleled.
By the way, if there is something you particularly would like a response to that I missed, point it out to me as I am trying to catch up and I know I have not responded to each specific issue.
A
anEvilAtheist
Guest
I’m not saying that all the supposed miracles were merely magic tricks. My main point is that I don’t see a reason to believe that they actually happened. For example, if someone I trusted said that he had personally witnessed someone teleport, I would think it more likely that he was mistaken than that it actually happened. I wouldn’t have any idea of what actually happened if all I had was his account of it, but I would figure that there was probably a natural explanation. Maybe he had turned away for a half second and the person had merely run/walked around the corner, maybe he misremembered it, maybe it was a magic trick, maybe he had a dream and thought it was real, maybe he had been on drugs, or maybe he just misremembered what happened. Even though I generally consider him trustworthy, I’d even consider it more likely that he was trying to deceive me than that it actually happened. And in this case, I know that I’m getting the information from an eyewitness, and that he is a trustworthy witness. So it’s more of a general problem with thinking that the gospels are good evidence of miracles.
Thanks for suggesting that I try to look at things from a different perspective. I’m trying to do that, but right now I think that based on my current knowledge; I don’t think I could even manage a very weak faith in an intelligent first cause. I see it as very possible, but I don’t think I have good reasons to say that it probably does exist. But I’ll try to keep looking at it from both sides. I know from personal experience that once you pick an option you tend to focus mainly on the reasons why that was the right choice, and the reasons why the other choice was the wrong choice. I imagine this is one reason you see so many bad arguments by people on both sides of the God debate.
I’m not saying there are such events. But how do we know what were intended as prophecies? And how do we know that the prophecy fulfillment details actually happened? There would certainly be an incentive to add prophecy fulfillment to the narrative, and someone who believed that Jesus was the messiah would have believed that he fulfilled all prophecies that he could find in the Old Testament. So even if no record of fulfillment existed, logic would indicate that it must have taken place. Matthew 21:2-5 seems like it may be an example of something like this happening.
Maybe you can help clear something up for me. I was under the impression that Jesus did not fulfill all prophecies and there are some that will not be fulfilled until the second coming. I also thought that the Jews expected the messiah to fulfill all prophecies and did not have a concept of a second coming. If that’s the case then it seems like anyone could just claim to have fulfilled all the prophecies because he could just have said that he would come back later to fulfill the rest.
I guess I would be most interested in getting your response to posts 941, 943, and 959.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
twb
Your reference to leprosy.
Still today this is a disease that is incurable.
Actually, it is curable.
diseases.emedtv.com/leprosy/cure-leprosy.html
By the way, Blessed Damien of Molokai, the priest who sacrificed his life to treat lepers in 19th Century Hawaii, will be canonized October 11, if I’m not mistaken.
Your reference to leprosy.
Still today this is a disease that is incurable.
Actually, it is curable.
diseases.emedtv.com/leprosy/cure-leprosy.html
By the way, Blessed Damien of Molokai, the priest who sacrificed his life to treat lepers in 19th Century Hawaii, will be canonized October 11, if I’m not mistaken.
D
djeter
Guest
Thought you might enjoy a twist on Jean-Paul Sartre;
payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/08/04/learning-from-sartre/
In Christ,
dj
payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/08/04/learning-from-sartre/
In Christ,
dj
T
twb1621
Guest
No other has met all of these prophecies. The following is offered by Jews who studied the theories.
“all the first followers of Jesus were Jews. In fact, the rabbis of that time period and afterwards were well aware of the many Messianic prophecies which Christians claimed were fulfilled in Jesus. So for instance, although the Talmudic rabbis concurred that Isaiah 53 was a prediction of the Messiah, by medieval times the pressure from those who applied this prophecy to Jesus was so great that Rashi, that greatest medieval Biblical scholar, reinterpreted the chapter and said it referred to the nation of Israel. This interpretation is maintained today by many Jewish scholars, though it only dates back to the Middle Ages.
What, then, are some of the credentials of the Messiah? Only a few can be listed below; there are many others. All of these passages were recognized by the early rabbis as referring to the Messiah:
- Messiah was to be born at Bethlehem: Micah 5:1
- Messiah would be from the tribe of Judah: Genesis 49:10
- Messiah would present himself by riding on an ***: Zechariah 9:9
- Messiah would be tortured to death: Psalm 22
- Messiah would arrive before the destruction of the Second Temple: Daniel 9:24-27
- Messiah’s life would match a particular description, including suffering, silence at his arrest and trial, death and burial in a rich man’s tomb, and resurrection: Isaiah 52:13-53:12
In the first place, he claimed to be the Messiah! When a woman said to him, “I know that Messiah is coming.” he replied, "I who speak to you am he."1 Naturally, that doesn’t prove anything one way or the other. But if Jesus had never made the claim to be the Messiah, why would we bother to try and prove that he was? His own claim lays the groundwork for the rest of the evidence.
Also, Jesus’ life is in sharp contrast to that of the false Messiahs, and it is a positive demonstration of what we would expect the Messiah to do. Thus, Jesus worked many miracles of healing, bringing wholeness into people’s lives, forgiving sin and restoring relationships. In contrast with Shabbetai Zevi, for instance, Jesus carried out the Law of Moses as a devout Jew. And in contrast with Bar Kochba, although Jesus also died, he was resurrected!
The resurrection is a third piece of additional evidence, and it is perhaps the most convincing vindication of Jesus’ claims. It is interesting that an Israeli scholar, Pinchas Lapide, has written a book which has attracted no small amount of attention in the Jewish community. The reason is that Lapide has said that the resurrection of Jesus is well within the realm of possibility. After all, he reasoned, the Hebrew Scriptures give a number of accounts of people coming back to life. Why not Jesus as well? Regrettably, Lapide fails to note that the resurrection of Jesus is described in terms that go far beyond the resucitations of the other stories; and, he fails to come to grips with the fact that Jesus predicted his own resurrection, which vindicated his claims to Messiahship.”
Continued…
T
twb1621
Guest
Continued from previous post…
The Old Testament verses are the prophecy; the New Testament verses proclaim the fulfillment. Check them all out for yourself!
· Born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:21-23)
· A descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 22:18; Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16)
· Of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; Luke 3:23, 33; Hebrews 7:14)
· Of the house of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Matthew 1:1)
· Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-7)
· Taken to Egypt (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:14-15)
· Herod´s killing of the infants (Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:16-18)
· Anointed by the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2; Matthew 3:16-17)
· Heralded by the messenger of the Lord (John the Baptist) (Isaiah 40:3-5; Malachi 3:1; Matthew 3:1-3)
· Would perform miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6; Matthew 9:35)
· Would preach good news (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:14-21)
· Would minister in Galilee (Isaiah 9:1; Matthew 4:12-16) Would cleanse the Temple (Malachi 3:1; Matthew 21:12-13)
· Would first present Himself as King 173,880 days from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25; Matthew 21:4-11)
· Would enter Jerusalem as a king on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 21:4-9)
· Would be rejected by Jews (Psalm 118:22; I Peter 2:7)
· Die a humiliating death (Psalm 22; Isaiah 53) involving:
The Old Testament verses are the prophecy; the New Testament verses proclaim the fulfillment. Check them all out for yourself!
· Born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:21-23)
· A descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 22:18; Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16)
· Of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; Luke 3:23, 33; Hebrews 7:14)
· Of the house of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Matthew 1:1)
· Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-7)
· Taken to Egypt (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:14-15)
· Herod´s killing of the infants (Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:16-18)
· Anointed by the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2; Matthew 3:16-17)
· Heralded by the messenger of the Lord (John the Baptist) (Isaiah 40:3-5; Malachi 3:1; Matthew 3:1-3)
· Would perform miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6; Matthew 9:35)
· Would preach good news (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:14-21)
· Would minister in Galilee (Isaiah 9:1; Matthew 4:12-16) Would cleanse the Temple (Malachi 3:1; Matthew 21:12-13)
· Would first present Himself as King 173,880 days from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25; Matthew 21:4-11)
· Would enter Jerusalem as a king on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 21:4-9)
· Would be rejected by Jews (Psalm 118:22; I Peter 2:7)
· Die a humiliating death (Psalm 22; Isaiah 53) involving:
- rejection (Isaiah 53:3; John 1:10-11; 7:5,48)
- betrayal by a friend (Psalm 41:9; Luke 22:3-4; John 13:18)
- sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:14-15)
- silence before His accusers (Isaiah 53:7; Matthew 27:12-14)
- being mocked (Psalm 22: 7-8; Matthew 27:31)
- beaten (Isaiah 52:14; Matthew 27:26)
- spit upon (Isaiah 50:6; Matthew 27:30)
- piercing His hands and feet (Psalm 22:16; Matthew 27:31)
- being crucified with thieves (Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 27:38)
- praying for His persecutors (Isaiah 53:12; Luke 23:34)
- piercing His side (Zechariah 12:10; John 19:34)
- given gall and vinegar to drink (Psalm 69:21, Matthew 27:34, Luke 23:36)
- no broken bones (Psalm 34:20; John 19:32-36)
- buried in a rich man’s tomb (Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:57-60)
- casting lots for His garments (Psalm 22:18; John 19:23-24)
· Would rise from the dead!! (Psalm 16:10; Mark 16:6; Acts 2:31)
· Ascend into Heaven (Psalm 68:18; Acts 1:9)
· Would sit down at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1; Hebrews 1:3)
- Status