Mike,
You just don't get this do you. Did you miss the part about Garfield?
"my words shall never pass" - was an extreme statement for a person who you yourself say, the Jews didn't even accept as Christ. Yet, 2 thousand years later, I am reading 4 similar accounts of Jesus, who gives us no choice but to believe he is the Christ. I have not conjured up Christ in my mind, the NT does exist, it would be wishful thinking on my part if I were to believe Garfield was the Messiah.
And two thousand years later the Jews still don't accept Christ was the messiah, who am I to believe?
Produce independent evidence that Jesus was the messiah, Mike, & we can all go home.
I couldn't give a rats arse how many different alleged biblical accounts you can lay your hands on, there is no reason I should accept any of them as anything other than myth. Religions make things up, why should I think yours is any different? In case it had escaped your notice the bible is a religious text & not a historical one. You do understand the difference don't you? I'm sure you
believe it is historical, I'm sure you
believe Jesus the messiah was a real thing. But the rest of us don't, we need EVIDENCE. No evidence = no acceptance.
You mention you have four different accounts of Jesus, all biblical accounts, right? All therefore logically invalid circular arguments when attempting to support the bible with the bible. As far as I'm concerned it's a load of people reinterpreting the same myth. Of course, you have a golden opportunity to rub my nose in it by providing the required
independent evidence that would validate the bible, rather than making circular arguments from within it.
I'm sure the Quran says hundreds of times that it is the direct word of God through Mohammed, but let me guess, you don't accept that do you? Exactly the same premises & one conclusion you accept, the other you don't. There's a word for people like you.
You think 2,000 years is a long time? How old do you think Shiva is? Vishnu? By your own standard you accept other pantheons based on their great age? No, of course you don't. You are a hypocrite.
Let me make it very, very clear to you Mike. I accept that the NT exists, what I don't accept that it speaks the truth on the strength of its own text. In exactly the same way you don't accept the truth of other religions texts. Unlike you, I am not a hypocrite, I'll ignore them all on the strength of the same argument.
You on the other hand accept the NT
because its still around after 2,000 years, but reject Vishnu
et al despite them being even older. You accept the truth of your religious text on the strength of its own words, & reject the others despite them. A tad inconsistent, a tad hypocritical?
You jumped into a discussion with Buzz who was claiming he had independent evidence, you clearly haven't, either, so why the fuck do you think you have anything new to add?
The existence of Jesus the alleged messiah is not independent evidence in support of the bible until you have independent evidence that there was a bloke called Jesus who was the messiah. GET IT?
Much like the Muslims, we have nothing but their
religions word for it that the Quran is the word of God through Mohammed. Same goes for Jesus the messiah.
So far I am gullible and I have a religion, and I think wishfully. Aim again! You might come within a mile this time.
There are two options.
1/ I'm bang on target.
2/ I'm a mile off base & you are withholding evidence to make me look good.
If rule1 is not biased why need it mention Christs prophecy?
Because the original discussion was with a christian. It was only an example, in any case. Ive given a completely non religious example, let alone non-christian example that you have ignored. But whilst we are on the subject, there are
always rumours of war, it is entirely uninformative if we are trying to pin down a particular moment. Wouldn't you agree? If so, that's why it's not a good prophecy, it's not specific enough. If Mohammed said, "there will be fish in the sea" would you think that would be a good indicator of fulfilled prophecy? Somehow I think not, & the same principle applies. You just got bent out of shape because it was a christian example that was used, that's all.
Here it is again:
Mike writes:
The first rule is laughable, basically if you don't have complete justification via your will then it's not a prophecy? - Lol, sorry that's not the way it works.
& I wrote:
mark24 writes:
Really? So if I prophecised that a particular car will come down my street in the next five minutes & "a" car did come down my street, you would happily accept that I meant that particular car despite there being tens, if not hundreds of millions of cars in the world?
Now I want to know what specifically is wrong with rule one as it pertains to my example. Because it seems to me you are just sore that it excludes your religion rather than making an objective critique of the rule.
So am I a reliable prophet if I make the above prophecy? No? Perhaps rule 1 isn't so laughable after all, then?
Please answer the bolded questions.
Mark
[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-09-2004]
™ Version 4.2