Fullfilled Bible prophecy

of the FAMILY of bethlehem. isaiah is speaking of a specific messiah (being a GENERAL term) who would rescue them as a millitary leader from a specific occupation. it has nothing to do with jesus. also, the verse says young woman. the virginal connotation came from greek, because it meant "young woman still of her father's house" which to the locals implied that she wasn't sleeping with anybody.it seems funny then when the gospels stretch to have a virgin give birth to jesus, who btw was not called immanuel, but yeshua (joshua, symbolic of the person who led the hebrews over the jordan and into the promised land)the name "emmanuel" is only used by matthew, but that's because he's trying to convert jews who would have read isaiah. notice it's used NOWHERE ELSE?and uh, this is assuming jesus's existance can be proven, which it cannot.i might look at the rest later, but it's common knowledge alot of the gospels were fudged (having been written mostly 100 years after the fact) to fit jesus into unrelated old prophesies, such as above. so lazarus must be the son of god too?voodoo has zombies that rise from the dead all the time. are they all sons of god? how about gilgamesh? he conquered death without having to die first, didn't he? is he the son of god?frankly, the difference between jesus and all of those is that we worship jesus. which, btw, is idolatry. we are to worship the father, not anything made in the image of the father, as per the "10" commandments.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 06-05-2004 05:52 AM

the latest thallus covers is 92 ad. 52 is wrong. josephus was forged. this is common knowledge. he writes two sentances about jesus, only mentioning him very vaguely, making it the shortest entry in all of his work. it also doesn't fit his style of writing, at all. oops. his descriptions is about the claims of the church and who they follow. he was in ROME, not galilea. little late don't you think? which is when most of the references were written. hm. ironically we do have a few records from galilea of OTHER messiahs. one of them even lead an army against jerusalem. uh, lots of other religions have books. lots of book even.and buddha's been resurrected from the dead 44 times! you can even talk to him today. find me jesus's tomb. i'll give you a hint, it's not in a garden.

haha! someone should nominate this for post of the month.anyhow, at face value, his statement is true. we can't TECHNICALLY prove the age of the earth. HOWEVER, we can prove that oldest rock we've found on earth is 4.3 billion years old, which means the age of the earth has to be older that 4.3 billion years.

i'm not sure myself. my girlfriend is mormon, so i'll probably read it at some point.however, the portrait of satan in the book of moses is almost event-for-event paradise lost, names satan lucifer, etc. these concepts did not exist in moses's time, or even jesus's. revelation places the fall at the end times, not the beginning.

and neither is recognition of evidence. i'm still waiting for him to answer how he can call h. erectus the same as a modern human with its gross anatomical differences.but anyhow. i was just picking nits. i'll shuttup now.

moved here: Message Three of the Is there evidence that dating methods MUST be invalid? in the Dates And Dating ForumThis message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 06-09-2004 11:25 PM

so, the pythogrean theorem is also wrong because it's based on certain geometric axioms (assumptions) such as "parallel lines do not cross?"

i thought that's what those little bumps between the lanes were for...

this is a standard fundamental christian view. i get it from other christians alot. it basically boils down to the assumption that only their specific sect or church of christianity is right, and everyone else is going to hell. of course, they've learned not to SAY that anymore...do i have a "clandestine athiest worldview?" i guess by his definition, i do. i was raised as an athiest and a skeptic, and a militant one at that. when i was little, i wanted to be a paleontologist, and so i studied a lot of geology for a kid. i have a very good understanding of things like the geologic record, the age of the earth, evolution, and things of that nature.when i converted to christianity as a teenager... what was i supposed to do? reject things i knew to be true, because some minister warned about the dangers of "evilution" and that we had to accept his particular interpretation of the bible to get into heaven? no, i know better than that. in fact, i know more archaeology and history than to allow me to believe the bible wholesale as the complete and inerrent word of god. it is impossible for me to look at any other view as anything but ignorant of the things i have learned.i have studied the bible and its history, i know a lot of it has A LOT of problems. almost all of it was written with an agenda. for some portion of the new testament, that agenda is anti-semitic, and anti-woman. two views very obviously not contained in the old testament. paul even teaches things in opposition to christ's teachings. tell me, is it ok to reject these parts because they don't make any sense? because that's the book of john, parts of even matthew, and all of paul's letters. (and probably the histories too, i've never been interested enough to read them)i understand that much of the bible has been subject to editting, re-writing, bad copying from original sources, hearsay recorded as history, bad translations, bad translations from bad translations, and wholesale removal of views that did not fit the church because they were too mystical or too jewish. is it ok then to take the good book with a grain of salt, and have the idea that it's subject to error? or does god's inaction in stopping this equate to his personal stamp of approval?i understand that hebrew people fabricated much of their so-called history in favor of a mythical, moral teaching system. they borrowed stories from their neighbors. (including the creation story and the flood story. why are we arguing over babylonian myths?) the disregarded details in favor of more important allegorical agendas. is it ok to not take them literally then?i take the bible pretty much as it was meant to taken, a guide to morality written, editted, and translated by men who were often very flawed and not always of the best intention. i try to find the true meaning, the good message buried within that. i think it's not me who's butchering holy writ, but those who would call it holy writ.i'm not an athiest. i believe in god. and i'm a christian.