The Incredible odds of fulfilled bible prophecy

[pakeha]

How do you know? That's like saying Julius Caesar never signed a piece of paper because we have no evidence of any signature of his.

We have no contemporary writings about Alexander the Great, do you believe he existed? In fact we get almost all of our info about him from writers writing over 300 years after his death.

I'm more convinced than ever DOC is a bible uni studentbot.
Any, back to the prophecies?

 

[Craig B]

I'm more convinced than ever DOC is a bible uni studentbot.
Any, back to the prophecies?

Good idea! An early demolition job on these was performed by the pen of Thomas Paine, in his "Examination of the Prophecies", which may be found on the Secular Web at http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=examination+of+the+prophecies&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari . Having looked at the "prophecies" of Jesus, and the gospel accounts of his life, Paine complains in seeming exasperation:

These repeated forgeries and falsifications create a well- founded suspicion that all the cases spoken of concerning the person called Jesus Christ are made cases, on purpose to lug in, and that very clumsily, some broken sentences from the Old Testament, and apply them as prophecies of those cases; and that so far from his being the Son of God, he did not exist even as a man -- that he is merely an imaginary or allegorical character, as Apollo, Hercules, Jupiter, and all the deities of antiquity were. There is no history written at the time Jesus Christ is said to have lived that speaks of the existence of such a person, even as a man.

It's interesting that the absurdity of these prophecies finally drove Paine to adopt a mythicist position on the historicity of Jesus. For he didn't start that way. See volume 1 chapter 3 of his "The Age of Reason"

Nothing that is here said can apply, even with the most distant disrespect, to the real character of Jesus Christ. He was a virtuous and an amiable man. The morality that he preached and practiced was of the most benevolent kind; and though similar systems of morality had been preached by Confucius, and by some of the Greek philosophers, many years before, by the Quakers since, and by many good men in all ages, it has not been exceeded by any.
[ ... ]
That such a person as Jesus Christ existed, and that he was crucified, which was the mode of execution at that day, are historical relations strictly within the limits of probability.

I suggest to DOC that the so-called prophecies are as unimpressive as Tom Paine perceived them to be, particularly Isaiah 7:14, of which Christians make so much, and which is ridiculous at every level.

 

[RobDegraves]

About Isaiah 7:14

There are a couple of things that I have always found a bit contradictory about the whole virgin birth thing.

How did they know she was a virgin and when was that claim made?

Let's say that Joseph and Mary made that claim before the birth of Jesus. In order to know if it was true, they would have checked. It's not like someone could say "My wife was impregnated by God" without encountering a bit of doubt.

Now, if they checked and it was false, Joseph would have been branded a blasphemer. Something that carried severe penalties. However, if they checked and it was true, Jesus would have gotten a fairly big following even before his birth.

After his birth of course, there is no way to tell if Mary was a virgin. Again though, Joseph claiming that Mary was impregnated by God would have had some real consequences, mostly nasty ones.

It's fairly obvious that the claim was not made until Jesus had at least gathered enough momentum to negate any negative consequences of that claim... possibly (or more likely probably) after his death.

 

[Craig B]

About Isaiah 7:14 ... After his birth of course, there is no way to tell if Mary was a virgin. Again though, Joseph claiming that Mary was impregnated by God would have had some real consequences, mostly nasty ones.

Paine makes this point in the Age of Reason (AoR), comparing the stories of the miraculous conception and the miraculous resurrection:

The wretched contrivance with which this [resurrection] part is told, exceeds everything that went before it. The first part, that of the miraculous conception, was not a thing that admitted of publicity; and therefore the tellers of this part of the story had this advantage, that though they might not be credited, they could not be detected. They could not be expected to prove it, because it was not one of those things that admitted of proof, and it was impossible that the person of whom it was told could prove it himself.

But that's just the start of the problem, for Isaiah doesn't mention a "virgin" at all in the original Hebrew, as I'm sure DOC knows.

 

[RobDegraves]

Though I agree with Paine, I think it's more extreme than that. I don't think it could have even been claimed before Jesus had enough followers to avoid being stoned for blasphemy. Certainly, for Joseph or Mary to ever have claimed this prior to that would have been seen as blasphemy and the penalty for that was death.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Whether or not there was a historical Jesus, he appear to be alive and well and working for Verizon...

Who'da thunk it?

 

[Olowkow]

This PHD, astrophysicist, says the odds of all the bible prophecy that has been fulfilled occurring by chance is 1 in 100... 0000000...
I'll stop there but the 1 should be followed by 2000 zeros

Never mind.

 

[Brainache]

...



All of these are FLAWED characters who were described to be within FLAWED worlds and places and with FLAWED actions and experiencing the occasional very MUNDANE occurrences.

If you know about GOOD FICTION WRITING you would know that what it takes to make a story good and believable is to write it based on reality……….but not any PARTICULAR REALITY rather on a CLASS of reality.

My point wasn't about Jesus being a flawed character, it was about the Gospel writers having certain inconvenient facts that they had to work around.

Having said that, you might be right, but we don't know for sure either way.

At this stage, 2000 years later, I don't think it really matters much. The damage has already been done and if a signed confession from St Paul or someone saying: "I made it all up for a bit of fun and profit", was dug up tomorrow, I very much doubt it would change anything.

 

[Wolrab]

Didn't Caesar use a signet ring, or other such device, to literally put his seal on documents?

 

[Craig B]

Didn't Caesar use a signet ring, or other such device, to literally put his seal on documents?

Very probably; signet rings and seals were common then. Caesar's rival Pompey had a large number of them, taken as plunder from King Mithridates of Pontus, who was an avid collector.

 

[DOC]

Did you read this bit?

The primary sources written by people who actually knew Alexander or who gathered information from men who served with Alexander, are all lost, apart from a few inscriptions and fragments....​

Ok, what do the few inscriptions and fragments say about Alexander the Great (if anything at all)?​

 

[Brainache]

Ok, what do the few inscriptions and fragments say about Alexander the Great (if anything at all)?

I'm not sure, but I bet they don't say he rose from the dead to save the world from his dad/self.

 

[dafydd]

Ok, what do the few inscriptions and fragments say about Alexander the Great (if anything at all)?

Do your own research.

 

[DOC]

Do your own research.

I tried for a few minutes but I couldn't find what these alleged fragments say? So the evidence at this point in this thread says there is no contemporary writings about Alexander the Great, the man whom history says conquered much of the world and even the Holy Land. Why no contemporary sources for such a great world conqueror??

 

[zooterkin]

I tried for a few minutes but I couldn't find what these alleged fragments say? So the evidence at this point in this thread says there is no contemporary writings about Alexander the Great, the man whom history says conquered much of the world and even the Holy Land. Why no contemporary sources for such a great world conqueror??

For a few minutes? Don't strain yourself! Your inability to find anything does not mean there is no contemporary evidence, as you would see if you actually read the responses in this thread.

I see also that you've clearly got a surplus of question marks, through lack of earlier use, and are sprinkling them indiscriminately now.

 

[Akhenaten]

Ok, what do the few inscriptions and fragments say about Alexander the Great (if anything at all)?

That he existed. Do you believe that Alexander the Great existed, DOC?

 

[Akhenaten]

I tried for a few minutes but I couldn't find what these alleged fragments say? So the evidence at this point in this thread says there is no contemporary writings about Alexander the Great, the man whom history says conquered much of the world and even the Holy Land. Why no contemporary sources for such a great world conqueror??

Who is pictured on this coin, DOC?

 

[joobz]

I tried for a few minutes but I couldn't find what these alleged fragments say? So the evidence at this point in this thread says there is no contemporary writings about Alexander the Great, the man whom history says conquered much of the world and even the Holy Land. Why no contemporary sources for such a great world conqueror??

I'm not sure your point DOC?
Are you suggesting that Since Alexander the Great has more historical contemporary evidence for his existence, that he is actually the son of god?

Or maybe you are suggesting that since we have no contemporary evidence of Jesus, we shouldn't take too seriously his recorded support for slavery. Afterall, we only have the gospels, which are not contemporary accounts.

 

[dafydd]

I tried for a few minutes but I couldn't find what these alleged fragments say? So the evidence at this point in this thread says there is no contemporary writings about Alexander the Great, the man whom history says conquered much of the world and even the Holy Land. Why no contemporary sources for such a great world conqueror??

There could be many reasons, but you are ignoring the salient point. Nobody has ever claimed that Alexander The Great was the son of a god who could perform miracles and came back to life. Believing in Alexander The Great has not caused 2000 years of religious wars and bloodshed.

 

[Craig B]

I tried for a few minutes but I couldn't find what these alleged fragments say? So the evidence at this point in this thread says there is no contemporary writings about Alexander the Great, the man whom history says conquered much of the world and even the Holy Land. Why no contemporary sources for such a great world conqueror??

Please stop reading apologetic evangelical websites that spout nonsense about how Jesus is better attested that Alexander or Caesar in the historical record. It's not difficult to find out what the "alleged fragments" say. Here are some. What they say makes sense, by the way.

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z1.html In the summer of 330, the Athenian politician Aeschines attacked his rival Demosthenes for the failure of the latter's anti-Macedonian policy. His speech is known as Against Ctesiphon. It has survived in copies.

What strange and unexpected event has not occurred in our time? ... the unfortunate Spartans, who were only involved with these events at the beginning when the temple at Delphi was captured, and who at one time claimed to be the leaders of the Greeks, are now about to be sent to Alexander as hostages to parade their misfortune.

Here are a couple of notices whose originals survive from Alexander's day. Public inscription:

From King Alexander to the people of [the Greek island of] Chios, written in the prytany of Deisitheos: [probably 334/3 BC] All those exiled from Chios are to return, and the constitution on Chios is to be democratic. Drafters of legislation are to be selected to write and emend the laws ... Anything already emended or drafted is to be referred to Alexander.

http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_t40.html From a cuneiform tablet found in a temple in Babylon, containing notes of contemporary astronomical observations, and other current events

On the eleventh, in Sippar an order of Al[exander to the Babylonians was sent as follow]s: 'Into your houses I shall not enter.' [12] On the thirteenth, [the vanguard advanced to the Sikil]la gate, to the outer gate of Esagila and [the Babylonians prostrated themselves]. Alexander, king of the world, came into Babylon [lacuna], horses and equipment of [lacuna] and the Babylonians and the people of [lacuna] a message to ...

We are told by trustworthy historians that earlier writers, whose works are lost, mentioned Alexander, as we might expect. We KNOW that writers contemporary with Jesus, if he existed, or who were active later in the first century, did NOT mention him. (I reject the Josephus references as spurious.) But nothing in Philo, nothing in Justus, nothing in Pliny the Elder. The notices we do have, from Pliny the Younger, Suetonius and Tacitus in the early second century, refer to Christian communities, which we know existed by that time. They never name Jesus.

When references to Jesus do start to appear, they are full of supernatural nonsense about a divine miracle worker. We have stuff like that about Alexander too, but nobody believes a word of it!