The Incredible odds of fulfilled bible prophecy

[MRC_Hans]

...

 

[MRC_Hans]

Ahhh, I'm sure these have already been refuted (haven't yet read past the quoted post), but I just love these (having been there before), so please allow me:

Well here are 3 out of the 13 he listed. He also said about 2000 out of 2500 have been fulfilled so far.

You can't prove the reliability of a claim of 2,000 by listing three.

(1) Some time before 500 B.C. the prophet Daniel proclaimed that Israel's *snip*Jesus' crucifixion occurred only a few years later, and about four decades later, in 70 A.D. came the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

And

(2) In approximately 700 B.C. the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah (Micah 5:2). The fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Christ is one of the most widely known and widely celebrated facts in history.

The problem with both of these is that the only recording we have of this was provably written after the facts. They may, of course, build on earlier scripture, but it is VERY difficult to imagine that a person authoring a religious manifest would NOT adjust or interpret any prophecies in his sources to match the events he knew to be facts. AND here I am even granting you the assumption that the fulfillments ARE facts.

(3) In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave—thirty pieces of silver, according to Jewish law-and also that this money would be used to buy a burial ground for Jerusalem's poor foreigners (Zechariah 11:12-13). Bible writers and secular historians both record thirty pieces of silver as the sum paid to Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus, and they indicate that the money went to purchase a "potter's field," used—just as predicted—for the burial of poor aliens (Matthew 27:3-10).

I especially love this one. Apart from the problems listed above (written after the fact) ask yourself this: How did the writers know how much Judas was payed (assuming that the event happened at all)?

... Judas himself went out and killed himself, talking to nobody, do they don't have it from him.

... Those that paid him hardly made the sum public. They would be extremely happy that he silenced himself, avoiding unpleasant publicity.

... And since nobody recorded how he was payed, how can we know how the money was used?

Finally, the prophecy does not talk about the "potter's field" or the use of same. The prophet says "give it to the potter".

I'll leave it to others to shred the probability ratios, which are by default unsustainable, since it is impossible to know the alternative scenarios.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Actually Luke (the physician), who many say was a first rate historian and was highly detailed about events and places, wrote the reason that Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem was because Caesar Augustus sent out a decree that the world should be taxed. And since Joseph was from the house of David, which was from Bethlehem. Joseph and his family went to Bethlehem.

You are aware that this story (the census) has actually been sought verified by external sources (the Romans were quite meticulous in their documentation) and failed?

And if the stories were made up you'd think that the four gospel writers would correlate their stories exactly. But the fact that their are some minor inconsistencies in their stories shows that they were written independent of each other.

So because the stories have provable faults and inconsitencies, they must be true??? Think again.

Also if someone is dishonest enough to make stuff up could they really come up with the incredible wisdom and ethics of Christ that even Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin basically said was the finest that ever existed and as Franklin said will probably ever exist.

Yes. However, it is not a case of dishonesty. The making up of legends has been acceptabel procedure throughout most of history. It is only in today's scientific world that we consider it dishonest to spice up your message with made-up stuff.

Hans

 

[DOC]

Herod died 10 years before Quirinius became governor of Syria and thus would not have even heard of Jesus' birth never mind tried to have him killed.

Which Herod, there was 4 of them. All 3 of King Herods sons could technically be called Herod and all of them were given a part of the area to rule.

And I already showed you why the fact about Cyrinius of Syria is quite debatable

Also why don't you bring in your sources and post them after the assertions that deal with that specific source. Rather than machine gunning a lot of facts and plopping down all your sources together like you did before.

 

[DOC]

And to Abe the Man, I don't believe you responded to this post that pointed out that several of your statements were not true.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3338029#post3338029

And if you respond please put your sources immediately after the facts they deal with rather than congregating all your sources together at the end which is kind of loosey goosey.

And if you refer to an Augustus Caesar or to a Herod please be specific which one.

 

[Ocelot]

Which Herod, there was 4 of them. All 3 of King Herods sons could technically be called Herod and all of them were given a part of the area to rule.

You're quite right, after the death of Herod the Great, he was suceeded by his three sons who ruled as tetrarchs rather than kings.

Could Mathew have been refering to one of his sons: Herod Archelaus, Herod Antipas or Herod Philip II?

No he couldn't. Firstly because he repeatedly calls him Herod the King

Matthew 2:1-3

1Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
2Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him. 3When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.

Herod's sons we not Kings

More explicitly, after the person Matthew calls Herod the King orders the death of all the newborns, Jesus and his family hide in Egypt until Herod is dead. Matthew relates the death of Herod.

Matthew 2:21-22

21And he arose, and took the young child and his mother, and came into the land of Israel. 22But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee:

So we have Herod Achelaus explicitly mentioned as the Ruler of part of his father Herod's prior kingdom.
In short Matthew is unequivocal about which Herod he is refering to. As such Doc, would you care to answer Abe's question again.

 

[DOC]

Luke 2:2

Note using the Greeek spelling of Cyrenius rather than Quirinius doesn't change the date.

Apology accepted

The spelling of Cyrenius had nothing to do with my statement.

 

[Ocelot]

The spelling of Cyrenius had nothing to do with my statement.

Really?

In response to

So now we see some more problems. Though the bible is correct in naming Quirinius as governor of Syria. He did perform a census it was not covering the entire Roman Empire as the bible claims. It covered only the provinces of Syria and Iudaea. It did NOT include the province of Galilee where Joseph and Mary came from and so not only were they exempt from taking part in the census they would not have been permitted to take part even if they wanted to (that would be like me as a Canadian trying to take part in a New York city Census).

You said:

Nowhere in the King James Version does it claim this.

The King James version of Luke 2:1-2 clearly states

1And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. 2(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

And goes on to relate the story of Mary and Joseph travelling to Nazareth.

I hope my confusion is understandable. You've been clear on what your statment didn't mean. Please elaborate on what it did mean.

 

[DOC]

Quote by Doc

Also if someone is dishonest enough to make stuff up could they really come up with the incredible wisdom and ethics of Christ that even Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin basically said was the finest that ever existed and as Franklin said will probably ever exist.

Yes.

I strongly disagree, As Jesus said (paraphrasing) "Good fruit can't come from a rotten tree"

However, it is not a case of dishonesty. The making up of legends has been acceptabel procedure throughout most of history.

Name a Legend (beside your opinion that Christianity is a legend) that has this effect on U.S. Presidents:

# President Religion
1 George Washington Episcopalian
2 John Adams Congregationalist (raised); Unitarian
3 Thomas Jefferson raised Episcopalian; later no specific denomination
held Christian, Deist, Unitarian beliefs
4 James Madison Episcopalian (deist?)
5 James Monroe Episcopalian (deist?)
6 John Quincy Adams Unitarian
7 Andrew Jackson Presbyterian
8 Martin Van Buren Dutch Reformed
9 William Henry Harrison Episcopalian
10 John Tyler Episcopalian (deist)
11 James Knox Polk Presbyterian; Methodist
12 Zachary Taylor Episcopalian
13 Millard Fillmore Unitarian
14 Franklin Pierce Episcopalian
15 James Buchanan Presbyterian
16 Abraham Lincoln raised Baptist; later no specific denomination (deist)
17 Andrew Johnson Christian (no specific denomination)
18 Ulysses S Grant Presbyterian; Methodist
19 Rutherford B. Hayes Presbyterian; Methodist (?)
20 James A. Garfield Disciples of Christ
21 Chester A. Arthur Episcopalian
22 Grover Cleveland Presbyterian
23 Benjamin Harrison Presbyterian
24 Grover Cleveland Presbyterian
25 William McKinley Methodist
26 Theodore Roosevelt Dutch Reformed; Episcopalian
27 William Howard Taft Unitarian
28 Woodrow Wilson Presbyterian
29 Warren G. Harding Baptist
30 Calvin Coolidge Congregationalist
31 Herbert Hoover Quaker
32 Franklin Delano Roosevelt Episcopalian
33 Harry S. Truman Southern Baptist
34 Dwight D. Eisenhower River Brethren; Jehovah's Witnesses; Presbyterian
35 John F. Kennedy Catholic
36 Lyndon B. Johnson Disciples of Christ
37 Richard M. Nixon Quaker
38 Gerald Ford Episcopalian
39 Jimmy Carter Baptist (former Southern Baptist)
40 Ronald Reagan Disciples of Christ; Presbyterian
41 George H. W. Bush Episcopalian
42 William Jefferson Clinton Baptist
43 George W. Bush Methodist (former Episcopalian)

From the article: Religious Affiliation of U.S. Presidents

www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html

 

[Damien Evans]

Roman bureaucrat: Listen up, everyone, we're going to have a census...does anyone here have a famous ancestor...? You, there, what's your name? Joseph? And your famous ancestor was....David? Never heard of him. Where's he from....? Bethlehem? No, no, I don't need any documentation. We Romans are pretty laid back, we don't care about procedure. Just go to...what was it? Bethlehem? To be counted. And take any pregnant women you might be planning to marry later.

That's almost Pythonesque

 

[Nogbad]

Name a list of Indian rulers, how many were Hindu?

Name a list of Iranian rulers, how many were Muslims?

Name a list of Tibetan rulers, how many were Budhists?

Does that confirm the validity of those religions?

Cultural norms are not verification in their own right but merely a confirmation of the hegemony that such beliefs exert over any particular society at any particular time. As that hegemony wanes adherence is no longer an essential pre-requisite to the reins of power or office. In Europe religion is no longer a major issue. Some leaders are adherents and some have no religious beliefs at all. As a rule, people expect politicians to follow their hearts on such matters privately.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Name a Legend that has this effect on U.S. Presidents.

Gee DOC, In Muslim cultures the leaders all seem to be Muslim. In Hindu cultures the leaders all seem to be Hindu. In Buddhist cultures... Well, you get the point. Or do you?

 

[joobz]

Also if someone is dishonest enough to make stuff up could they really come up with the incredible wisdom and ethics of Christ that even Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin basically said was the finest that ever existed and as Franklin said will probably ever exist.

Yes. Easily.

I strongly disagree

you are wrong.

As Jesus said (paraphrasing) "Good fruit can't come from a rotten tree"

Yes, but leaves and fruit both come from a good tree.

Do you eat the leaves? Why not? Perhaps because it's not fit for consumption, but serves another purpose.
As with people and there ideas.

Not all that comes out of person's mouth is fruit. We must sort through to find the ripe peices and discard the refuse. Otherwise we are simply knee deep in a compost pile.

 

[Upchurch]

Name a Legend (beside your opinion that Christianity is a legend) that has this effect on U.S. Presidents:

Freedom, Liberty, and Justice?

 

[zooterkin]

Judas couldn't possibly have been paid in 'peices of silver' as the Seleucid coinage was in use for 141 years and 'weighed peices' hadn't been used in the region for almost 300.

While in no way agreeing with the OP, I don't think this particular objection can stand. While 'piece' may have a particular meaning to numismatists, it is used as a synonym for coin in everyday modern English. I don't know if that was the case at the time of the KJV translation, but I also don't expect that the translators would have had detailed knowledge of Seleucid currency. It may well be the original text had the correct term, or perhaps it had changed by the time of the KJV; remember we're dealing with several layers of languages.

 

[aggle-rithm]

Do you eat the leaves? Why not? Perhaps because it's not fit for consumption, but serves another purpose.
As with people and there ideas.

Not all that comes out of person's mouth is fruit. We must sort through to find the ripe peices and discard the refuse. Otherwise we are simply knee deep in a compost pile.

All right, let's kill this analogy before it gets even more out of control!

 

[H3LL]

I'm on ignore...aren't I...



Well ... Never mind ...

DOC - You lie - Then lie again - Then link to other liars - Get shown that you are a liar and the people you link to are liars - Then bring the same lies up in different threads and lie again.

You also wrap the lies up in logical fallacies ad-nauseum, shuffle the goalposts as frequently as possible and claim you didn't say things you did and throw in the odd subject change for fun.

Add failure to answer repeated requests to answer direct questions and on the rare occasions that you actually address a question produce more lies, old lies or logical fallacies as an answer.

Are lies and liars appropriate for a Christian?

They certainly aren't appropriate for science.

Congratulations.


Did I miss anything?

.

 

[Abe_the_Man]

You're quite right, after the death of Herod the Great, he was suceeded by his three sons who ruled as tetrarchs rather than kings.

Could Mathew have been refering to one of his sons: Herod Archelaus, Herod Antipas or Herod Philip II?

No he couldn't. Firstly because he repeatedly calls him Herod the King

Matthew 2:1-3




Herod's sons we not Kings

More explicitly, after the person Matthew calls Herod the King orders the death of all the newborns, Jesus and his family hide in Egypt until Herod is dead. Matthew relates the death of Herod.

Matthew 2:21-22



So we have Herod Achelaus explicitly mentioned as the Ruler of part of his father Herod's prior kingdom.
In short Matthew is unequivocal about which Herod he is refering to. As such Doc, would you care to answer Abe's question again.

Herod the Tetrach (Antipas I believe) was the one who had John the baptist killed. He was the son of Herod the great. I will find the scripture and links when I have more time.

Doc I will respond to your posts and properly site the links for you when I am able to.

 

[joobz]

All right, let's kill this analogy before it gets even more out of control!

Are you saying you want to tear it out at the roots?
If you do that, who knows what you'll unearth.

 

[Hokulele]

Are you saying you want to tear it out at the roots?
If you do that, who knows what you'll unearth.

Niflheim.