Fullfilled Bible prophecy

In this post I suggested a list of criteria :
http://EvC Forum: Was Christianity Exposed? -->EvC Forum: Was Christianity Exposed?Despite suggestions to the contrary you have ignored those criteria and instead just copied somebody elses work. If we actually apply the criteria we can see just what rubbish is being passed off as "incredible prophecies"

quote:

---

A) There must be good grounds - by the standards of history, not religious faith, - to believe that the prophecy was actually fulfilled (for instance it is quite possible that Jesus was not of the House of David at all - we've really nothing to settle the matter)

​

B) The prophecy must be hard enough to fulfil that we can take some significance from it.

​

C) It must be clear that the alleged prophecy is a prophecy. You can pretty much forget about anything in Psalms on this criterion alone.

​

D) The alleged prophecy must be taken in context. If you have to ignore relevant text to make your case you are simply twisting the Bible.

---

The first prophect is that the Messiah will be descended from Shem.This fails criterion A. Shem is a mythical figure - there is no way to know if he even existed or to identify his descendants if any.If you rely on the myth to "prove" Shem's existence then it would fail criterion B. Especially as virtually any candidate for the Messiah would be Jewish since the whole idea is part of the Jewish religion.Moreover neither Genesis 9 or 10 contain any such prophecy - so unless the reference is wrong the "prophecy" fails C and D since it is a pure invention.THere are plenty of other problems. We can't verify that Jesus was born of the line of David, where he was born or that a star appeared at that time (since we don't even know WHEN he was born - Luke puts his birth in 6 AD, Matthew not later than 4 BC or earlier).And if you have REAL evidence that Jesus existed before his birth - according to your reading of Micah 5:2 then I'd like to see it. And no, quoting the Bible is not good evidence since the whole purpose of the argument is to establish that the Bible *is* accurate on such pointsIsaiah 7:14 is about events centuries before Jesus - as is obvious to anybody who reads it in context.The Daniel prophecy is also taken out of context. But that's a big subject.Psalm 22 is not a prophecy - nor does it ever refer to the Messiah at all.If the Bible has so many "wonderful prophecies" then why rely on such nonsense ?

TO deal with these specific examplesPlace of birth (Micah 5:2)It is far from clear that Micah refers to a place rather than a clan or family line. Even if he did it is entirely within human control to SAY that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and it is more likely that Jesus was born in NazarethTime of birth (Daniel 9:25,Genesis 49:10)Genesis 49:10 desn't make much sense in context as giving a time of birth. And Daniel is most likely intended to refer to a time more than 100 years before Jesus was born.Manner of birth (Isaiah 7:14)Isaiah 7:14 is not about Jesus. The child referred to had to have been born in the reign of Ahaz.

Well I note that you've run away from the claims to fulfilled prophecy. Are you really not concerned that your "evidence" turned out to be worthless ? Are you really not concerned that you can't FIND this supposed evidence of prophecy fulfilment ? If there is plenty of evidence then why are you not posting it ?And you're still pushing untruths. Tell me how you know that Thallus mentioned Jesus' death. Thallus' work is lost. Julius Africanus does not say how he identified Thallus' eclipse nor does he quote Thallus. Phlegon did indeed mention an eclipse - and the only evidence Origen uses to identify it as the supposed "darkness" at the death of Jesus is that both ocurred in the reign of Tiberius - who ruled from 14-37 AD. You've already admitted to a genuine eclipse at around that time - so tell me how you can know that Phlegon anf Thallus were not referring to that ?What is more despite your claim that there are "vast" accounts of the resurrection NOT ONE of your non-Christian sources mentions it.As to Jesus' tomb we don't know where it was. We don't even know if Jesus HAD a tomb. If Jesus was buried in a common grave as would be expected of an executed criminal and his followers invented a story of a tomb decades after his death how does that make him divine ? Yet there is no way to tell that that did not happen. Indeed the earliest Christian documents - the Pauline epistles - make no reference to a tomb of Jesus, empty or otherwise.

If your claimed prophecy fulfilments are not worthless then why can't you defend them ?There is not one that stands up to critical examination. And from your failure to actually discuss the issue I infer that you know that that is the case. Maybe I am wrong - but it is up to you to show that instead of running away from discussion and just expecting everyone to believe what you say - despite the evidence. But the fact remains that you have not replied to my posts on page one, nor have you adequately dealt with the issues rased by others.And yes you CAN find fulfilled "prophecies" in the Book of Mormon - I know, I've read it. And I doubt that you know the Quran any better. And why you would expect the Buddha to produce prophecies is beyond me - what does prophecy have to do with the Buddha's teachings ?

Presumably you mean Helena's supposed discovery of the tomb rather than the Cross.Consider these events and their dates:The Crucifixion probably happened sometime around 33 ADJerusalem was besiged and stormed in 70 AD during the first Jewish revolt......And again in the Bar Kochbar revolt (132-5 AD). This time the city was levelled and the population deported.In 326 Helena, mother of Constantine arrived looking for relics and sacred sitesIn 570 AD Muhammad was bornUnless you are willing to invoke miracles - which rather defeats the purpose of the argument then I can't see anything that can be trusted as evidence in whatever Helena found.As for the Quran much the same applies. If you believe that the Quran came from God then I suppose you have to take an endorsement of the NT as some sort of validation. But if you think that it was written by Muhammad (and maybe polished by later writers) then it is really hard to see how a general endorsement in itself can be considered as independant verification of anything in the Bible.

There are plenty of "prophecies" in 1 Nephi and 2 Nephi1 Nephi 19:8 for instance predicts that Jesus will come 600 years after Nephi's father left Jerusalem - according to 1 Nephi 1 the first year of the reign of Zedekaiah (who came to the throne in 598 BC).Unlike the Daniel prophecy both the date and the time period and the fulfilment are quite unambiguous. That's better than anything you hae produced.2 Nephi 27 is all about the alleged finding of the original of the Book of Mormon. It even states that three witnesses will see the book and testify to it's truth (27:12). The statement of the three witnesses is included in every copy of the Book of Mormon. There is no room for doubt that the event actually happened - and that the three witnesses did indeed make a signed statement.Of ocurse if you think that the Book of Mormon is a fake concocted by Joseph Smith then you shoulld also believe the "prophecies" of events prior to the actual writing are also fake.Now back to the real subject. Considering the criteria put forward in post 7 are there ANY prophecies supposedly fulfilled by Jesus which you can show are of any real significance ? Not "assert" - you have to be able to back up your assertion with valid arguments and reliable evidence. If so, then bring them forward so they can be discussed.Since this simply offers you a chance to actually make your case - something you have completely failed to do up to now - I will take any answer other than a clear "yes" as a "no".

Here is a Catholic answer:http://cathinsight.com/apologetics/adventism/1260.htmIf I check an "authoritative history book" will I find that the 538 AD date definitively represents the end of the Ostrogoths or will I see a long war and resurgance under Totila, as Hall says ?And why should the 1796 date refer to the "end" of the reign ? If it meant the end of the Papal States then should not the creation of the Papal states be the start of the reign ? And why shoudl such a short-lived loss of power (the Papal States were restored in 1800) mark a clear end ? If the beginning of the reign refers to the theological authority granted by Justinian why does the end not refer to the Reformation and the loss of that authoprity over the Protestant churches ? Why do the start and end of the 1260 year "reign" seem to refer to different things ?Moreover why should a day in prophecy always refer to a year - even when it is not even given as a number of days ? Ezekiel 4:6 does not establish a general rule nor even refer directly to the use of days in prophecy. The days correspond to "years of iniquity" which are mostly past. Numbers 14:34 is not about the interpretation of prophecy either. It is the reverse of Ezekiel - it is 40 years of punishment based on the 40 days of spying. (The difference of course is that the command to Ezekiel is a symbolic punishment, applied to one man, while that of Numbers 14:34 is an actual punishment and applied to a people).And the interpretation of Daniel 7 is definitely questionable. Daniel 7:17 identifies the four Beasts as Kings, not Empires. And as for the Ten Horns and the little horns, they also make an appearance in Daniel 8, and there they definitely grow not in Western Europe but out of one of the Successor States to Alexander's Empire (Daniel 8:8-9, explained in 8:21-23). An identification of the 4th Beast with Alexander is this consistent with Daniel 7 and Daniel 8 - whereas the reading offered instead contradicts Daniel 7:17 and demands that the same imagery in Daniel 8 refers to different people entirely.How can you claim an EXACT fulfilment with so much uncertainty and so many arbitrary choices ?