Fullfilled Bible prophecy

Mike.After Constantine promoted Christianity from just another small, obscure religion into pretty much the only choice if you were on the fast track for promotion, there was an enormous growth in visiting the shrines. It was not quite Disneyworld, far more like the motels and monkey farms that grew up beside the US Highways.As a child of the Interstate, you may not remember those attractions. But before Ike's Highway system was built, as you drove down Highway 29, 301 or US 1 heading south, nearly every town had a Monkey Farm, Snake Farm or Alligator Ranch. You had the World's Biggest Ball of Twine, Rock City, some 9 foot tall cow statue, two headed frogs or some other thing designed to get tourists to slow down, maybe stop and eat lunch, maybe even spend the night.Even today, if you get off the Interstate you can still find the Monkey Farms, fences covered in Kudzu; and the Mom & Pop Motels, turned into cheap housing or telemarketers secret headquaters.Well, the Middle East was like that after Constantine made the political decision that Christianity was to be top dog. Any of the young men or women that wanted a leg up in their career made the trek through the lands of the Bible. And the people living in those Towns of the Bible were as happy to see the big city suckers as they are today. Every town mentioned in the Bible had their shrine up and working, they had relics from the true cross, blood from the cover of the Ark of the Covenant, bones of the saints, and barbeque from the very donkey that Christ rode on. In fact, visit the area today and you too can find any of those things. Little has changed, "Shoe shine Mister? You want to buy a Rolex? You want to meet my Sister?" Nope, little has changed.But there is the possibility, since this was only three or four hundred years after the fact, that there might have been some truth to some of the rumors and allegations. But there was little real attempt to find the truth as we would know it. The problem today, another 1600 years after the Constantine period, is seperating the claims. There are dozens of sites competing for each claim, three or four Tombs of Jesus, a half dozen spots where John Baptized the Masses and enough wood from the true cross to have built the ark.An awful lot of the relics WERE adopted by the Church. When the Emperor's Mother brings you a piece of the true cross, are you going to tell her it's a fake? But for the most part, these things are venerated, but not tested. There is no attempt to prove it is not what it seems and it is accepted for what it symbolizes. And that is not wrong. Afterall, it is the symbol that is really important, not the object itself. It is Jesus that is worshipped and glorified, not wood.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

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".

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.

arachnophobia, I understand it can't be proven, which is why I put the word in inverted commas. Almeyda has displayed a juvenile inability to understand nothing in science is proven, only demonstrated to an ever decreasing level of tentativity. I am still waiting for a reply from him on this very subject. I won't hold my breath, though. Intellectual honesty & logical consistency are not almeydas strong points.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

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.

quote:

---

buddha's been resurrected from the dead 44 times! you can even talk to him today

---

Hmm yea. You dont believe the evidence of Jesus who actually was eyewitnessd,yet you believe that?. What a bias you have, moreover what evidence is their of 44 resurrections?.

quote:

---

If the age of the earth can't be "proven", why did you pretend you had evidence for a 6,000 year old earth? Hypocrite.

---

Actually in another thread i wrote that its the same for creation. Dating methods are fallible. I did not use dating methods as evidence for a young earth. But there is still a difference. Things like carbon dating are completely irrelevant when trying to find things to be millions of yrs old. However in a younger earth it can be different and actually more logical. Whatever it may be dating methods are based on assumptions. Eugenie Scott herself said this also. And no Eugenie is not my only evidence proving dating methods must be invalid.

Hi Alm, But no one actually eyewitnessed the resurrection itself, no one claims that they saw Jesus coming back to life.Also, there are no extant eyewitness accounts to anything Jesus was supposed to have done. You keep insisting in living in a world of circular arguments. The NT authors knew the OT, so they knew what the prophecies were before they wrote their stories about Jesus. They wouldn't be as stupid as to claim that Jesus was the Messiah and then say he was born in Capernaum would they? They had to say he was born in Bethlehem, and how do we know he was born in Bethlehem, well the Bible says so doesn't it? How childish is this line of reasoning?Imagine you were living in the first century and you were going to write a story about someone you thought was the messiah, wouldn't you HAVE to include certain OT prophecies in order for your story to have any credibility? You would, for example, have to make sure that your particular messiah was born of David's line and, just like the gospel authors did, you would need to invent a genealogy for your messiah.The alleged 'prophecies' of Jesus are perhaps one of the most boring and pointless studies of all time.Brian.

Actually, we don't have any eyewitness accounts of Jesus' resurrection.We have some second- and third-hand accounts that claim that there were eyewitnesses, and there are significant contradictions between those accounts.FWIW, it is also well-known that eyewitness testimony is one of the very most inaccurate forms of evidence. Lawyers love 'em because juries tend to believe 'em, but eyewitness testimony is almost guaranteed to be false in several particulars and often is false in all particulars. I love the "gorilla in the midst" experiment. From Technology Intelligence: Latest news & opinion - The Telegraph:

quote:

---

Simons came up with another demonstration that has now become a classic, based on a videotape of a handful of people playing basketball. They played the tape to subjects and asked them to count the passes made by one of the teams.

​

Around half failed to spot a woman dressed in a gorilla suit who walked slowly across the scene for nine seconds, even though this hairy interloper had passed between the players and stopped to face the camera and thump her chest.

​

However, if people were simply asked to view the tape, they noticed the gorilla easily. The effect is so striking that some of them refused to accept they were looking at the same tape and thought that it was a different version of the video, one edited to include the ape.

---

(Read the link, there are several other interesting experiments described).The video referred to can be viewed at the experimenter's web site, http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/djs_lab/.

I would point out that "hairy interloper" is a descriptor that might easily apply to a number of posters at this forum (including, uncharacteristically for amphibians, myself.)

almeyda, You must have yourself confused with someone else, because you also said that you had evidence of a 6,000 year old earth. When did you decide that it's impossible to know the age of anything? When you realised there wasn't a scrap of evidence in support of the bibles timeline? So are all methods of measuring anything. According to your logic we should abandon tape measures & watches because they are fallible. Haven't you ever measured something & got it wrong? I agree, radiocarbon dating gets a bit iffy at about 40-50 kiloyears, it's a function of its relatively low half life & the larger effect of potential impurities relative to the C14 level. The rest of the radiometric are valid to be used to date things millions of years old, however. If you want to say they are "irrelevant" then you'll have to present your evidence. I'm afraid your unsupported assertion isn't enough. You would save us all a lot of time if you abandoned this childish you-must-accept-it-because-I-say-so attitude. SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTIONS FOR CHRISSAKES!!!! Good grief, do you have a cognitive problem? WHY IS IT MORE LOGICAL? SUPPORT YOUR ASSERTIONS FOR CHRISSAKES!!!! All methods of measurement are based upon assumptions, every time you look at your watch you are making a series of them. Every time you check your watch with another timepiece you are making assumptions, every time you check your speed in a car you are making assumptions.That assumptions are made in radiometric dating is in & of itself not a reason to reject them unless you are going to be consistent & reject everything else. Be my guest.The assumptions madfe in radiometric dating are testable. Really, well thus far you have presented NONE of them, Eugenie Scott isn't even evidence against radiometric dating, perhaps you meant something else? That's like saying Bob Hope is evidence against an radiocarbon dating! Did they date Eugenie & get an age of several billion years, or what?So what is it, almeyda, do you reject all methods of measurement because they rely on "assumptions", or not? If you mean something specific, then say so.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 06-09-2004 08:56 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

Well, yes, in the sense that they occasionally can produce an error. But they do not always or even often produce error. Eugenie Scott is not an expert on radioisotope dating. Nonetheless, please produce the source of this claim. And, BTW, "based on assumptions" is not evidence foir "is invalid". Ah, I'll bet my salary for a year that you have no evidence that dating methods must be invalid, other than your preconceptions. I'll propose a thread ...

The Hairy Interlopers would be a good name for a rock band.