Fulfilled Prophecy

[warpspeedpetey]

You seem to miss the point of this debate. I am not proposing that they are wrong, I am asking for you to show that they are right.

Yes, you are claiming they are wrong. If you accept them than why aren’t you Catholic?

And your claim that they are witness productions is notably false, the Gospels were not written by witnesses, nor was Genesis, can you show that any of the books were produced by actual witnesses of the stories they propose?

If you have some evidence that any of the books is somehow false, then offer it.

This is what we are trying to analyze, the authenticity and credibility of the Bible, you cannot do that honestly if you charge in and set a criteria that the Bible is correct on everything it states, that removes the whole purpose of analysis and achieves nothing other than ensuring circular reasoning.

Why are you trying to analyze the credibility and authenticity of the Bible? We are trying to analyze how Messianic Prophecy can be used to verify Christianity. There are 73 books written by different men over the course of thousands of years, that all tell essentially the same story. If you have any real evidence of collusion, then offer it. If you don’t then I do not see any valid reason for you to doubt the credibility of those books.

Before we can claim collusion we have to be given the prophecy, I am suggesting that collusion is a possibility if the person that ‘fulfills’ the ‘prophecy’ was aware of the ‘prophecy’ and specifically set out to fulfill it. So, present a prophecy and then we can discuss collusion.

When we settle terms I will present the list of prophecies. My terms have already been stated. Starting to debate that would be tacitly agreeing to your terms.

 

[joe370]

It is in some cases and most certainly is here. We have every reason to expect hundreds of reports on the 10 plagues and most certainly of the Pharaoh’s death.

No, many creation sites tell everybody that there is but there is no possible way that the flood could have occurred as described in Genesis. I can list many of the problems here. First the aquatic and plant life would be almost completely destroyed from the mix of salt and fresh water and the pressure the flood caused. Two animals is not enough to restart an entire species as the breeding issues cause massive deformities. Animals could not arrive at the ark from other continents. The water is supposedly higher than the tip of every mountain which would subsequently make the air unbreathable, it is also too cold at that altitude and would freeze everything to death, the food shortage on the ark could not have been reconciled naturally. All of this aside, I’m sure one could say that, sure God could reconcile all of those problems by using his supernatural abilities, at which point I would say, why the hell did he do it in the first place, it makes no sense to kill everyone and everything because he’s unhappy with humans. If he really though the humans were a problem why not just kill them?

But yes, this is probably material for a different thread.

Perhaps we can think outside the big box for the moment. Just one quick question regarding this off topic issue:

In your opinion, hypothetically speaking, could the creator of the universe (time and space) - Who existed outside of time and space, even prior to time and space - make all of the above happen in view of the fact that the creator put it all into existence, from absolutely nothing, the first time around - or would it have been an impossibility for the creator to manipulate created things?

What you say, from a purely human (creature) - perspective makes really good sense, but from a purely divine (creator) - perspective, how impossible would it be for the creator to do all that you deem as simply impossible, for mere creatures?

 

[meltzerboy]

I think I understand. Regarding prophecy, you are looking for verifiable, empirical, irrefutable proof that said prophecy was fulfilled by a man named Jesus Christ, and of course you are also looking for verifiable, empirical, irrefutable proof that Jesus existed as well, totally negating any need for faith, even though, in the face of such proof, people would still disbelieve, as I am sure you know? That’s cool! I used to be the same way. I asked the same questions regarding atheism and the origin of the universe… That whole bit about the universe being infinite and possessing design beyond mankind’s comprehension, with no need of an infinite designer of course, really frustrated me to the point of realizing I needed much more faith to be an atheist, but I digress friend… I will take one more stab at it:

Based on my research, it seems that crucification, by way of cross, was brought into use about 500 BC by the Persians and then the Carthaginians, and in the the 4th BC Alexander the Great is believed to have spread the use of crucifixion to Egypt, and the Roman Empire eventually adopted it.

King David, (coupled with the exact detail of the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22) - author of the following Psalm 22, lived in the 11th century and prophesied, long before the use of crucification, the following:

“Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet. All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment…”

Isaiah, in the 8th century, predicted (Isaiah 9:5-7) - that king David’s kingdom would be established forever just as king David, in the 11th century, was told by God, but how could David have known that the Messiah would die in such a manner - piercing of the hands and feet?

Virtually every prophecy of Isaiah, David, and elsewhere in the OT regarding Jesus has been rebutted by Hebrew scholars. The one you quote from Psalm 22 is a mistranslation of the Hebrew verse, which should read: “As a lion, they ARE at my hands and feet.” The Hebrew word does not correctly translate to “pierce.” Furthermore, the verse is taken out of context from the whole Psalm, which, in its entirety, cannot be referring to a crucifixion at all. This is typical of so many of these prophecies: mistranslation, lack of context, and also tense changes. The only way to believe Christianity, Judaism, or any other faith is by means of a leap of faith, not by reason and not by empirical, historical evidence. And the mystery of faith is fine with me.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Yes, you are claiming they are wrong. If you accept them than why aren’t you Catholic?

Where did i claim that they are wrong? This whole time I have repeated that I have come across no reason to believe they are true. This doesn’t mean i have some knowledge that they are false and nor do i claim such, I am just left with the default position of disbelief because nobody has presented sufficient evidence to support the prophecies. You are free to show me up right here.

If you have some evidence that any of the books is somehow false, then offer it.

Again, you misplace the burden of proof, I don’t need to do anything, the burden lays on those making claims, if you think it is true, tell me what evidence supports it. If you want me to support my claims on the authorship of the Gospels I will happily do so but i hope you know that the entirety of Biblical scholarship recognizes that the Gospel authors were anonymous and the disciple names were attached at some point during the second century.

Why are you trying to analyze the credibility and authenticity of the Bible? We are trying to analyze how Messianic Prophecy can be used to verify Christianity. There are 73 books written by different men over the course of thousands of years, that all tell essentially the same story. If you have any real evidence of collusion, then offer it.

There are to many claims of prophecy for me to just run off my mouth claiming what is and is not correct. If you want to discuss a prophecy, present it, I don’t know what you consider to be a true prophecy, opinions vary widely among Christians.

If you don’t then I do not see any valid reason for you to doubt the credibility of those books.When we settle terms I will present the list of prophecies. My terms have already been stated. Starting to debate that would be tacitly agreeing to your terms.

Your terms are unreasonable and set up a logical fallacy known as circular reasoning. If we are analyzing the authenticity and truth of the Biblical claims of prophecy, if we add to our criteria that the Bible is correct in it’s claims of prophecy then we essentially make this whole process pointless.

The Bible has been proven true because of it’s fulfilled prophecies.
The fulfilled prophecies are true because the Bible says they are.
The Bible is true because of it’s fulfilled prophecies…

This is not how textual analysis works and it is blatantly dishonest and discredits your argument that Christianity is true due to it’s fulfilled prophecies.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Perhaps we can think outside the big box for the moment. Just one quick question regarding this off topic issue:

In your opinion, hypothetically speaking, could the creator of the universe (time and space) - Who existed outside of time and space, even prior to time and space - make all of the above happen in view of the fact that the creator put it all into existence, from absolutely nothing, the first time around - or would it have been an impossibility for the creator to manipulate created things?

Yes.

What you say, from a purely human (creature) - perspective makes really good sense, but from a purely divine (creator) - perspective, how impossible would it be for the creator to do all that you deem as simply impossible, for mere creatures?

That’s the problem though, now all we have left is an unsubstantiated claim that a God made it happen. We know it is physically impossible for that to occur and historically we can say with certainty that it didn’t occur.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

I think I understand. Regarding prophecy, you are looking for verifiable, empirical, irrefutable proof that said prophecy was fulfilled by a man named Jesus Christ, and of course you are also looking for verifiable, empirical, irrefutable proof that Jesus existed as well, totally negating any need for faith, even though, in the face of such proof, people would still disbelieve, as I am sure you know?

Pretty much, if a prophecy is ambiguous or likely to happen without supernatural interference then it is unreasonable to conclude that it happened as a result of supernatural interference.

That’s cool! I used to be the same way. I asked the same questions regarding atheism and the origin of the universe… That whole bit about the universe being infinite and possessing design beyond mankind’s comprehension, with no need of an infinite designer of course, really frustrated me to the point of realizing I needed much more faith to be an atheist, but I digress friend… I will take one more stab at it:

I would have to disagree with you on your feelings as an atheist or and faith playing a role in atheism.

Based on my research, it seems that crucification, by way of cross, was brought into use about 500 BC by the Persians and then the Carthaginians, and in the the 4th BC Alexander the Great is believed to have spread the use of crucifixion to Egypt, and the Roman Empire eventually adopted it.

King David, (coupled with the exact detail of the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22) - author of the following Psalm 22, lived in the 11th century and prophesied, long before the use of crucification, the following:

“Dogs surround me, a pack of villains encircles me; they pierce my hands and my feet. All my bones are on display; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment…”

Isaiah, in the 8th century, predicted (Isaiah 9:5-7) - that king David’s kingdom would be established forever just as king David, in the 11th century, was told by God, but how could David have known that the Messiah would die in such a manner - piercing of the hands and feet?

I have encountered this before and as has already been mentioned, the translation is not necessarily ‘pierce’, here is a source that details the difference in translation. In my opinion the context of the Psalm does not imply crucifiction or even messianic prophecy and as a result this falls under the problem of ambiguity.

 

[joe370]

Hey TugBoat, I am afraid you are probably not going to find what you are looking for here at CAF regarding incontrovertible, empirical proof/evidence regarding the prophecies (or so called prophecies in your case) - found in the bible just as you won’t find (or at least I could not find) - incontrovertible, empirical proof/evidence regarding atheism and all of its claims; there simply is no hard and fast proof/evidence for either, but I do wish you luck on your journey to truth my friend, whatever that may be!

Pretty much, if a prophecy is ambiguous or likely to happen without supernatural interference then it is unreasonable to conclude that it happened as a result of supernatural interference.

I would have to disagree with you on your feelings as an atheist or and faith playing a role in atheism.

I have encountered this before and as has already been mentioned, the translation is not necessarily ‘pierce’, here is a source that details the difference in translation. In my opinion the context of the Psalm does not imply crucifiction or even messianic prophecy and as a result this falls under the problem of ambiguity.

 

[joe370]

Yes.

That’s the problem though, now all we have left is an unsubstantiated claim that a God made it happen. We know it is physically impossible for that to occur and historically we can say with certainty that it didn’t occur.

One more thing if you don’t mind: we know that humans (creatures as opposed to the creator) - on this planet didn’t make it happen (creation of the universe that is) - like you said, that would be physically impossible, which leaves us with what other reasonable option(s), regarding the creation of the universe, other than: I have no idea?

Also, I have examined the flip side of your claim, which states: “historically we can say with certainty that it didn’t occur.” I see proof to the contrary with one exception: I would never say, I can say "with certainty that it did occur," for I cannot, nor would I or could I say: “historically I can say, with certainty that it didn’t occur!” I guess it comes down to the opinion of each individual as they are moved by the evidence, and of course reason, in the end, for no one was actually there to witness the events - agreed?

Well, at any rate, take care friend and again, good luck…

 

[joe370]

I have encountered this before and as has already been mentioned, the translation is not necessarily ‘pierce’, here is a source that details the difference in translation. In my opinion the context of the Psalm does not imply crucifiction or even messianic prophecy and as a result this falls under the problem of ambiguity.

I almost forgot:

Above you seem to be pitting one faith based system (Judaism) - against another (Christianity) - to support your theory that the translation is not necessarily ‘pierce.’ I was hoping you were going to at least provide some sort of scientific analysis, stepping outside the purview of faith based systems, regarding said theory…

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Hey TugBoat, I am afraid you are probably not going to find what you are looking for here at CAF regarding incontrovertible, empirical proof/evidence regarding the prophecies (or so called prophecies in your case) - found in the bible

I didn’t expect to but somebody seemed to infer that these prophecies were well known to be fulfilled and that fact alone guaranteed the Christianity was correct and subsequently all other religious positions were false. I challenged this claim and this is the only way that I can really do that.

just as you won’t find (or at least I could not find) - incontrovertible, empirical proof/evidence regarding atheism and all of its claims; there simply is no hard and fast proof/evidence for either, but I do wish you luck on your journey to truth my friend, whatever that may be!

I was unaware that atheism made any claims? Perhaps you are specifically referring to strong atheism. If you were after a bit more information on the different kinds of atheism feel free to check this out.

If you don’t mind: we know that humans (creatures as opposed to the creator) - on this planet didn’t make it happen (creation of the universe that is) - like you said, that would be physically impossible, which leaves us with what other reasonable option(s), regarding the creation of the universe, other than: I have no idea?

I actually think the answer, “I don’t know,” is very reasonable in this situation because honestly I don’t. The Big Bang has received a lot of support and is fairly well evidenced by the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, Metcric Expansion of space and the Redshift, beyond that however speculation appears to be meaningless. For all I know a God kicked off the Big Bang.

Also, I have examined the flip side of your claim, which states: “historically we can say with certainty that it didn’t occur.” I see proof to the contrary with one exception: I would never say, I can say “with certainty that it did occur,” for I cannot, nor would I or could I say: “historically I can say, with certainty that it didn’t occur!” I guess it comes down to the opinion of each individual as they are moved by the evidence, and of course reason, in the end, for no one was actually there to witness the events - agreed?

Historically we can say with certainty because in history miraculous claims are given no credence. When overlooking miraculous claims within historical documents, they are dismissed and natural explanations are deduced. Similar to the scientific method, history only concerns itself with natural explanations as supernatural answers are unreliable and they do not answer questions to any meaningful degree.

Above you seem to be pitting one faith based system (Judaism) - against another (Christianity) - to support your theory that the translation is not necessarily ‘pierce.’ I was hoping you were going to at least provide some sort of scientific analysis, stepping outside the purview of faith based systems, regarding said theory…

It is not about faith systems as we know there is a discrepancy in the text that appeared before the times of Jesus so the different translation is most likely a mistake that occurred one way or the other rather than an intentional change created to make it appear like a prophecy. These texts are historical documents and they are analyzed as such.Due to the Psalm generally not describing any kind of prophecy for a messiah but rather about praising God for helping David and implying that God helps everyone in similar ways, I cannot trust that this document is a prophecy for a messiah. It falls under the problem of ambiguity, if you could present a clear prophecy that can be shown to have been fulfilled without threat of collusion then this discussion would go a lot smoother.

 

[joe370]

The only way to believe Christianity, Judaism, or any other faith is by means of a leap of faith, not by reason and not by empirical, historical evidence. And the mystery of faith is fine with me.

That was my point exactly!

 

[joe370]

Hey Filthy Tugboat, you said:

It falls under the problem of ambiguity, if you could present a clear prophecy that can be shown to have been fulfilled without threat of collusion then this discussion would go a lot smoother.

Could you give me a hypothetical example of something you would consider a viably supernatural prophecy if in fact it was found in the bible?

I didn’t expect to but somebody seemed to infer that these prophecies were well known to be fulfilled and that fact alone guaranteed the Christianity was correct and subsequently all other religious positions were false. I challenged this claim and this is the only way that I can really do that.

I understand now.

I was unaware that atheism made any claims? Perhaps you are specifically referring to strong atheism. If you were after a bit more information on the different kinds of atheism feel free to check this out.

I don’t mean to derail the thread; all I meant was: atheism claims that something (the universe) - was created, and given enough time, the creature will one day possess the answers as to how everything works within creation and how creation started, or, that it simply does not matter and that the universe, just, always existed - no beginning… The whole - given enough time thing - something propounded by many atheists from my past experience, as a former atheist, (even if it is proven true one day) - still relies on something outside of time and space for our being here in this universe to begin with. logically speaking, something must have preceded everything that exists within time and space, if in fact everything created needs a beginning - at least in my humble opinion.

I actually think the answer, “I don’t know,” is very reasonable in this situation because honestly I don’t. The Big Bang has received a lot of support and is fairly well evidenced by the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, Metcric Expansion of space and the Redshift, beyond that however speculation appears to be meaningless. For all I know a God kicked off the Big Bang.

That’s cool! That all seems reasonable.

Historically we can say with certainty because in history miraculous claims are given no credence. When overlooking miraculous claims within historical documents, they are dismissed and natural explanations are deduced. Similar to the scientific method, history only concerns itself with natural explanations as supernatural answers are unreliable and they do not answer questions to any meaningful degree.

From a purely scientific standpoint I suppose miraculous claims should not be given credence for the simple fact that miracles cannot be scientifically understood, but I don’t believe they should be summarily dismissed. They can drive our faith, if nothing else. Take for example the apparitions of Garabandal, one of the things that brought me to the Catholic Church even though they have yet to endorse said apparitions. What the 4 little girls did there for almost 4 years were clearly supernatural as can be attested by thousands who witnessed the events. It’s undeniable and empirical. Ironically, science seems OK with remaining clueless regarding the origin of many natural phenomenons within the universe as well as the origin of the universe without dismissing them out of hand.

We don’t know who or what created the universe; we do know it was not the creature(s) within the universe. Would it be a stretch to suggest that the universe itself was supernaturally created?

I agree with you; similar to the scientific method, history only concerns itself with natural explanations as supernatural answers are unreliable, from a scientific/naturalistic perspective, and therefore they do not answer questions to any meaningful degree, and I also agree that by assuming that miraculous claims, within historical documents, are always bogus, one is left with only a natural explanation of a super natural event, which leaves the reader wanting and doubting…

It is not about faith systems as we know there is a discrepancy in the text that appeared before the times of Jesus so the different translation is most likely a mistake that occurred one way or the other rather than an intentional change created to make it appear like a prophecy. These texts are historical documents and they are analyzed as such.Due to the Psalm generally not describing any kind of prophecy for a messiah but rather about praising God for helping David and implying that God helps everyone in similar ways, I cannot trust that this document is a prophecy for a messiah.

I understand.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Where did i claim that they are wrong? This whole time I have repeated that I have come across no reason to believe they are true…

If you do not accept them as true, then you reject them as false. Things are either true or false. There is no middle ground because the choice not to act is itself a choice to act. This is why all claims to agnosticism fail.

This doesn’t mean i have some knowledge that they are false and nor do i claim such, I am just left with the default position of disbelief because nobody has presented sufficient evidence to support the prophecies.

Each book is evidenced by the fact that there are 72 other documents that tell essentially the same story, considered as a whole they can be verified mathematically because prophecies written on early books are fulfilled in later books. The default position is that they are true.

You are free to show me up right here.

Why are you worried about being shown up? This statement makes me feel like what is true does not matter to you, what gratifies your ego does. Do you mean it like this? That would explain you being unable to admit being wrong, even when faced with mathematical proof.

Your terms are unreasonable…

My terms are absolutely reasonable. You want proof of the claims of Christianity. We gave you 73 different documents as evidence. Now you are asserting that there is something wrong with our documentation. As I keep telling you. If you have evidence disproving one of our documents, then provide it. As you admitted that you did not, then it seems you should accept ours as true. If we did as you asked, I would have to provide evidence of the evidence of the evidence of the evidence of the evidence of the evidence of the evidence…ad infinitum. Therefore my terms are completely reasonable and not accepting them amounts to a less than forthright attempt to stack the deck in favor of your cherished beliefs. Nor should someone who refuses to accept the veracity of mathematical proofs utter the word dishonest, for fear their pants will burst into flame.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Could you give me a hypothetical example of something you would consider a viably supernatural prophecy if in fact it was found in the bible?

Something specific, anything that details events that can later be shown to have happened, however this is made increasingly difficult because of the historical unreliability of the Gospels.

I don’t mean to derail the thread; all I meant was: atheism claims that something (the universe) - was created

As far as I’m aware, atheism makes no such claim, you might mean, ‘some atheists’.

and given enough time, the creature will one day possess the answers as to how everything works within creation and how creation started

I personally do not associate with this claim.

or, that it simply does not matter and that the universe, just, always existed - no beginning… The whole - given enough time thing - something propounded by many atheists from my past experience, as a former atheist, (even if it is proven true one day) - still relies on something outside of time and space for our being here in this universe to begin with. logically speaking, something must have preceded everything that exists within time and space, if in fact everything created needs a beginning - at least in my humble opinion.

If we look into the Big Bang in the beginning we had a [Gravitational Singularity](http://en. Wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_singularity/), there is no meaning to speculate beyond this point. Some people like to ask how it got there and such but it is absolutely meaningless to speculate. The singularity was not apart of space or time as it precedes the existence of the universe and is believed to have formed the universe. But your right, this is off topic, if you want to discuss the nature of atheism or anything else, feel free to start a new thread, if you let me know, I’ll happily participate.

From a purely scientific standpoint I suppose miraculous claims should not be given credence for the simple fact that miracles cannot be scientifically understood, but I don’t believe they should be summarily dismissed. They can drive our faith, if nothing else. Take for example the apparitions of Garabandal, one of the things that brought me to the Catholic Church even though they have yet to endorse said apparitions. What the 4 little girls did there for almost 4 years were clearly supernatural as can be attested by thousands who witnessed the events. It’s undeniable and empirical. Ironically, science seems OK with remaining clueless regarding the origin of many natural phenomenons within the universe as well as the origin of the universe without dismissing them out of hand.

I don’t know much about that event, all I know is that both science and history have no place commenting on the supernatural, science fortunately can completely ignore claims of the supernatural however history is confronted with it because of the religious and mythic claims made all throughout history. Historically speaking, no miracles have ever occurred. This doesn’t mean that they didn’t it just means that the historical method can only conclude on natural explanations and when confronted with the option of a miracle or a natural explanation, the natural explanation will take precedence.

We don’t know who or what created the universe; we do know it was not the creature(s) within the universe. Would it be a stretch to suggest that the universe itself was supernaturally created?

I think it would be a stretch just given the lack of evidence supporting the notion. The phrasing of this already presumes an answer though, the question is it who or what created the universe? It is, was the universe created or did it arise through natural phenomena? The later question being, what was that phenomena?

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

If you do not accept them as true

What grounds do i have to accept them as true?

then you reject them as false.

What grounds do i have to reject them as false?

Things are either true or false.

Agreed but I can be unsure of it’s truth and ultimately have no reason to believe it is either true or false. If I have no reason to believe it is true, that doesn’t mean i have reason to believe it is false to maintain disbelief in it.

There is no middle ground because the choice not to act is itself a choice to act. This is why all claims to agnosticism fail.

I was unaware a choice could be made “not to act”. There certainly is choices to act differently but I don’t see how we could choose “not to act” at all. How does acting in this case have any relation to what we believe or what evidence we possess in favor of certain beliefs?

Each book is evidenced by the fact that there are 72 other documents that tell essentially the same story

Can you support the claim that they all tell essentially the same story? What exactly do you mean by that? How does this count as evidence in favor of each individual documents truth?

considered as a whole they can be verified mathematically because prophecies written on early books are fulfilled in later books.

Ok, if they can be verified can we verify them to support your claims?

The default position is that they are true.

That doesn’t sound like a default position, from what I read above quite a bit of analysis is required to suggest that they are true.

Why are you worried about being shown up? This statement makes me feel like what is true does not matter to you, what gratifies your ego does. Do you mean it like this? That would explain you being unable to admit being wrong, even when faced with mathematical proof.

Poor phrasing on my part. Feel free to support your claims and potentially change my view of the prophecies in the Bible.

My terms are absolutely reasonable.

I disagree.

You want proof of the claims of Christianity.

I do.

We gave you 73 different documents as evidence.

Yes, now all you need to do is show how these documents support your claims, not just tell me that they do.

Now you are asserting that there is something wrong with our documentation.

No I am not, I am asking you to show me that the documentation supports your claims and then show that the documentation is verifiably accurate.

As I keep telling you. If you have evidence disproving one of our documents, then provide it. As you admitted that you did not, then it seems you should accept ours as true.

You’ve told me that it is evidence but you have not shown me why. Why do you consider the bible evidence? Can you show that the Bible is reliable?

If we did as you asked, I would have to provide evidence of the evidence of the evidence of the evidence of the evidence of the evidence of the evidence…ad infinitum.

No, I supplied quite strict criteria that asks for verification of the evidence. You do not need to provide an infinite amount of evidence however I feel the evidence that would be required to support your claims is unattainable. Until the evidence is supplied however, i see no reason to believe your claims of the Bibles authenticity or the Biblical claims of prophecy are true.

Therefore my terms are completely reasonable and not accepting them amounts to a less than forthright attempt to stack the deck in favor of your cherished beliefs.

Would you expect the deck to be in your favor in a situation like this? Why? I’m not making any claims, I don’t have to organise evidence in my favor, it is on those making claims to support those claims so the deck will rarely be in their favor.

Nor should someone who refuses to accept the veracity of mathematical proofs utter the word dishonest, for fear their pants will burst into flame.

What mathematical proofs? Can you present them or reference them? Or will you only tell me that it’s in a book somewhere? That’s all I’ve got from you about this ‘mathematical proof’ it’s in a book that a guy wrote. Please present it or reference it so I can actually look at it.

 

[joe370]

Filthy Tugboat;7847379]Something specific, anything that details events that can later be shown to have happened, however this is made increasingly difficult because of the historical unreliability of the Gospels.

That’s what I thought. Saved us both some time; it would be a waste of your time, and my time as well, to proceed, for in the end, like I mentioned earlier, you view scripture itself as historically unreliable, again, which is why I said that you probably won’t find what you are looking for here at CAF, but I hope you do in the end! At best all efforts on our part here at CAF would prove quite futile leading to nothing but a circular argument, from your perspective, if in fact the historicity of scripture cannot be trusted…

Take care friend…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What grounds do i have to accept them as true?

Each book is evidenced by the fact that there are 72 other documents that tell essentially the same story, considered as a whole they can be verified mathematically because prophecies written on early books are fulfilled in later books. The default position is that they are true.

What grounds do i have to reject them as false?

If you are not rejecting them as false, then we wouldn’t have anything to talk about. You are rejecting them as false. There is no middle ground. It’s a basic Law of logic. The Law of the Excluded Middle.

Ok, if they can be verified can we verify them to support your claims?

Yes, of course. I have said so several times

Would you expect the deck to be in your favor in a situation like this?

You seem to think it was OK when you tried it.

Why? I’m not making any claims, I don’t have to organise evidence in my favor, it is on those making claims to support those claims so the deck will rarely be in their favor.

Yes, you are claiming the documentation we have is faulty. If you want to make that claim then provide evidence. Otherwise, accept them as evidence of my claims as presented. You don’t seem to get that the burden of proof falls on you, it always falls on the atheist, because of this. Other Christians let them get away with it, I don’t. We made the claim that Christianity is true, and then backed it with documentation. Any assertion that our evidence is faulty requires some evidence of some kind, just like any other assertion.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

Each book is evidenced by the fact that there are 72 other documents that tell essentially the same story

How do i know they tell the same story? Would I have to analyze them before I could verify this? Ok, so a decent analysis is required before this conclusion can be made.

considered as a whole they can be verified mathematically because prophecies written on early books are fulfilled in later books.

Could we guarantee this without analysis? No, we would need to read them and double check the facts on the dates of the authorship and the intent of those ‘fulfilling the prophecies’. Ok, so a decent analysis is required before this conclusion can be made.

The default position is that they are true.

It doesn’t seem to look like it as the conclusions you think show it’s truth appear to require some decent analysis so without that analysis we would have no reason to conclude it’s truth. So no, the default position is disbelief until analysis is performed.

If you are not rejecting them as false, then we wouldn’t have anything to talk about.

Of course we would, just because I do not have evidence against them doesn’t mean they are true, it could mean that they are unfalsifiable or they are false and I just haven’t looked very hard into the matter. This is the problem, in order to accept something as true, it has to be shown to be true or otherwise you might as well accept The Cosmic Teapot as true.

You are rejecting them as false.

Why do you think you know what I am or am not doing even after I informed you that this is what i am not doing? I’ll do it again, I am not rejecting them as false.

There is no middle ground. It’s a basic Law of logic. The Law of the Excluded Middle.

I am well aware of this and you are well aware that I do not affirm this documents truth, however I am not arguing here that it is false, the point of this thread is to analyze and give you a chance to support your claims of prophetic powers in the Bible. That’s it.

Yes, of course. I have said so several timesYou seem to think it was OK when you tried it.

To put the deck in my favor? What is my favor in this? I am not making an argument, I am presenting criteria for historical analysis and it mirrors that of The Historical Method. Are you suggesting we should abandon the historical method because it doesn’t favor your specific religion?

Yes, you are claiming the documentation we have is faulty.

Where did I do this?

If you want to make that claim then provide evidence.

I do not want to make that claim, it appears that you want me to though.

Otherwise, accept them as evidence of my claims as presented.

I do accept it as evidence, now we need to analyze them to better understand and conclude upon the quality of this evidence.

You don’t seem to get that the burden of proof falls on you, it always falls on the atheist, because of this.

So if I don’t make a claim and you do, the burden of proof falls on me to disprove your claim and you are under no obligation to suggest that it is true? This appears to be Begging the question, a very well known logical fallacy.

Other Christians let them get away with it, I don’t. We made the claim that Christianity is true, and then backed it with documentation.

That is exactly why i am giving you the opportunity to show everybody that the documentation is accurate, this is an analysis of your claimed evidence.

Any assertion that our evidence is faulty requires some evidence of some kind, just like any other assertion.

I never called your evidence faulty, I am suggesting we analyze it so that you can show that it holds truth.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

…The Historical Method…

We are doing a mathematical analysis. Hence the agreement that each prophecy will be considered a mathematical bit regardless of content. Only the prophecy preceding the fulfillment is of importance and that is demonstrated by the Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, and 5,000 years of Jewish history.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

We are doing a mathematical analysis. Hence the agreement that each prophecy will be considered a mathematical bit regardless of content.

What agreement? Take a look at the OP, it is specifically directed at analyzing the content of the “prophecy”. Why wait until 4 pages of posts before mentioning that the whole focus of this thread is not what you thought it was?