quote:
I consistently apply corroborated evidence in debating the Biblical record. That includes the prophecies.
No you don't because, outside the books of the New Testament, there isn't any. I'll bet you haven't even run consistency checks with other books such as the dead sea scrolls and the Gnostic gospels either.
quote:
Jesus, the NT messiah/christ, meeting the corroborated conditions predicted in the OT Jewish scriptures, himself used some of those OT prophecies to proclaim his role. He also corroborated the OT prophets by his own Luke 21 prophecy that the city of Jerusalem would be occupied by the Gentiles until the end times when their occupation would cease.
Err...the last 'prophecy' is tautologous. Whichever way it works out the prophecy is bound to be right. Clearly as long as there is a single non-Jew in Jerusalem the ''prophecy' is OK. Is it conceivable that there would NOT be at least a few non Jews in Jerusalem? No, it isn't. Therefore the 'prophecy' is actually simply a statement of the bleedin ovbious.
A prediction that says 'There will be Mancs in Manchester for a long time' would be laughed at as a joke, yet you take this seriously?
You also seem to be confused about corroborating things. Jesus could not possibly have 'corroborated' any of the OT 'prophecies'. He already new the Tankah, probably off by heart. Therefore any action or words of his that are said to fit with the OT were done with perfect 20-20 hindsight and to call that corroboration misses the whole point of the word.
As an analogy - I know the PG Woodehouse books pretty well. I know that Blandings castle is frequenlty the scene of Bertie Wooster's madcap adventures. I want to pretend I am Bertie Wooster incarnated. I therefore go to Apley Hall in Stockton and prance about like Wooster. Now, I know that many scholars of Woodehouses think that he based Blandings castle on Apley Hall so it is not a difficult thing to plan. In a few days the papers are proclaiming the new Bertie Wooster (me) and calling experts in to say that Apley Hall is thought to be Blandings Castle. I knew all this beforehand - just like Jesus did.
That is about the level of 'proof' we have with this nonsense about Jesus. HE KNEW the OT better than you or me and he could have done any number of things that he knew would be seen as fullfilling some passage or other from Isaiah or Micah or Psalms etc. To think that is evidence boggles my mind.
Did you ever see the Southpark show on Mormons and Joseph Smith? Remember the constant background refrain? "dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb" as Joseph Smith made up one rificulous story after another? Well this is very similar.
As for specific predictions about Jesus in the OT/Tankah- there are none - not a one. Look for the word Jesus in the OT - you won't find a mention. The so-called prophecies he 'fullfills' are known to him and are so generalised as to be meaningless. Why could not one of the OT prophets even get his name right? Isaiah is comical - he tries to give all the possible things he might be called - Immanuel, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. In the new Testament Jesus is know by NONE of these names.
The other common reference is to "Christ" or "Christos and we are offered this as final evidence. I was genuinely told by the Monks who educated me that references to Christos and the fact that Jesus Christ was the one was beyond doubt and certain proof. These people are mad. Jesus was not called Jesus Christ - Christ just means 'chosen' or 'annointed'. Whoever they chose would be called Christ, so this is no prophecy at all.
Some of the supposed 'corroboration' is just silly. Check Deut out...
Deuteronomy 18:15 (NIV) The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him.
We are asked to believe that this is a supernaturally accurate description of Jesus. Are you having a laugh? Jesus isn't just a prophet and you think a little thing like being the son of God might have seemed just a little bit important to the prophets. No mention of it - or of his name - or of when and where. This is a joke. It could equally be referring to the chap down the road who gives oracular advice on Mondays and Thursdays by appointment only....
The whole load of supposed 'fullfilling the prophecies' is full of examples like the above - completely wishful thinking and not even as accurate as a good guesser like NostraDamus - at least he sometimes got close to the names of people.
Tell me - where did the OT say Jesus would be born?
Micah said it would be Bethlehem - so Matthew's gospel goes with that. It is wrong, of course, and later a whole mad fantasy is invented to support the lie. The Christians are so eager to believe it that they have a major ceremony depicting it, and kids all over the world get dressed in tea towels, chuck a doll in some straw and re-enact the mythical nativity scene. A joke my friend, a complete joke. Roman Census? Men travelling to the town of their birth? Complete rubbish. There was no Roman census anywhere near the supposed date and the idea that the Romans - those master organisers - required people to return to the city of their birth for a census is just insane. Of course they didn't - it would have been both impossible and barking mad to try anything of the sort.
Besides - Bethlehem in Judea did not exist as a settlement from 4BCE to 7CE so that is out.
So Nazareth then? Like Luke says? But Luke quotes this ridiculous nonsense about the census which is obviously just invented, so we shouldn't be too quick to trust his yarns.
Why is it that believers are quick to latch on to any possible link, however tenuous, but are also prepared to completely ignore the large number of prophecies that are completely wrong?
That is like spending 20 a week on lottery tickets and rejoicing when you win 50 in 6 months, forgetting completely the other 1159 you lost.
quote:
Relative to the OP of this topic, religions which deny evidence like this supportive to the Biblical record, including some ultra-liberal Christian religions can be assumed to be false.
ROFLMAO. I think anyone who actually thinks this IS evidence is not playing with a full deck.
Finally, all of this is quite insulting to the people who's book of scripture you interrpret so freely, so forgivingly (and so wrongly). The Jews don't think that Jesus was the son of God, and they certainly don't think it was predicted in THEIR book of scriptures.
Evidence for just how generalised and 'horoscope-like' these 'prophecies' actually are is easy to see - Muslims think the same prophecies refer to a completely different chap in a completely different land and time - Mohammad.
Edited by Bikerman, : Corrections to grammar and spelling
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2