one acid test
It seems to me there is one acid test that could prove the Bible is not the word of God.
There is lots of prophecy in the Bible. Christians claim it all comes true or will come true and there is a strong probablistic argument for the Bible being a miracle from this.
However it would seem to me that we would only need to find one prophecy among the hundreds stated which has not come true, and that because of of the way events have since gone no longer can come true (for example the nation concerned no longer exists) to discredit the truth of the prophecy. One unambigious example would be proof against surely? If the Bible has no supernatural aspect it would seem likely we would find one of these.
Has anyone done any research on this subject?
Regards
Thomas
Email:thomasjre at hotmail dot co dot uk
There is lots of prophecy in the Bible. Christians claim it all comes true or will come true and there is a strong probablistic argument for the Bible being a miracle from this.
However it would seem to me that we would only need to find one prophecy among the hundreds stated which has not come true, and that because of of the way events have since gone no longer can come true (for example the nation concerned no longer exists) to discredit the truth of the prophecy. One unambigious example would be proof against surely? If the Bible has no supernatural aspect it would seem likely we would find one of these.
Has anyone done any research on this subject?
Regards
Thomas
Email:thomasjre at hotmail dot co dot uk
Comments
The test is simple: every time you see words like, "that it should be fulfilled" and "as it was written" go back and see if you can find the OT piece referred to and then check the context exhaustively.
By far the worst is the "out of Egypt" allegation. Or try a serch on a bible look-up for Esaias. There are many "as it was written" references to Esaias in the NT. That name will not be found in the OT. Same for Elias.
Ho hum.
Matthew 2:23 “And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.”
Some say Nazareth wasn’t even built in those days, but either way, there is no such prophecy that “He shall be called a Nazarene...”.
Matthew 24:30
"...They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory, etc...
34 I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened."
Nothing like this happened in the time of that generation.
The nations haven’t mourned at the sight of Jesus returning (though if he did I'd probably just roll my eyes) and the elect still haven’t been gathered.
Matthew 16:28
"I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Are they still alive somewhere?
Preachers are nothing more than spin doctors.
hi
Regarding your question about The word "Nazarene" not being found anywhere in the Newtestament?
Please see (MATT 2:23) i will quote it for you.
quote."And........,He shall be called a Nazarene"
see! that didnt take long did it?
This is just one of those so called contradiction's in the bible,that you ex-christians claim the bible is full of?
again!
take a look at (Acts 24:5
Quote."For we have found this man.......a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes"
The one about Isaiah's name not being mentioned in the OT?
You will be pleased to find out,i'm sure,that the word for Isaiah in the OT is obviously writen in HEBREW.
Therefore the hebrew word for isaiah is translated in various names but in reality mean the same!
In strongs exhaustive concordance,number 3449.
The word is called by various names,but they mean the same.
1)Yishshiyahuw,or,Yashiyah.....meaning ...either-Isaiah,or,Isshiab,or Ishijah,or even-Jesiah.
All these names from the hebrew,mean the same thing.but in the greek its translated as Isaiah
And, Messiah per the Jews was a mortal, not a NT god messiah. I suppose Messiah means the same thing also. Lord of the OT was of one image and one substance - Jewish monism. Lord of the NT was considered of different substance, hence trinitarianism.
"The Nicene Creed, which is a classic formulation of this doctrine, uses "homoousia" (Koine Greek: of same essence). The spelling of this word differs by a single Greek letter, "one iota", from the word used by non-trinitarians at the time, "homoiousia" (Greek: of similar essence):"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
Well, obviously after the many murders over heresy, based on the "one iota" or "one letter" difference, entire words and even letters really "do" provide an entirely different meaning.
Its not the prophesies that are as crippling to the bible, as the knowledge of what the Jews of the OT believed and the NT Christians. The word Messiah, doesn't mean the same thing historically to the Jews as to the NT Christians, yet, the authors of the NT attempted to "borrow" words from the previous belief system of the OT followers, and "give" the words new meaning, as if that made everything just match up.
Bob (been there, got the T-shirt), commented in another thread about Orwellian thought and its relevance in today's time. Here is one of the concepts of Orwellian thought, as it relates to the OT Past, and how the NT authors attempted to create a smooth transition.
"Doublethink is a concept integral to George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, and means constantly altering the past while forgetting that one is altering it, to the point where it becomes truth."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink
Constantine I, with the use of the church continuously "altered" the past, by destroying document upon document of religious writing that differed in context than their view. The essenes melded back into the Jewish culture, and left behind their dead sea scrolls in caves to be discovered 2,000 years later, Rome didn't burn everything, but they made the attempt. Still, there are enough documents recovered to show, obvious dissent on Romes' view of Jesus, and the obvious "doublethink" Rome pressured their citizens and conquored lands to accept.
Today, two thousand years later, we have people who accept religious precepts, because they aren't capable or don't have the resources to show the transition from past Jewish OT in Hebrew to the obviously re-created NT as if it were truth, where over time, people just accepted the re-creation as nothing less than fact. The past still speaks truth, if one is willing to do the research.
"This is just one of those so called contradiction's,that you ex-christians claim the bible is full of?"
~ Elvis was spotted driving down route 66 in a thunderbird. Two witnesses reported that the car was mauve; two more witnesses reported that the car was purple. ~
Idiot: "Yeah, but mauve is a derivative of purple, so there's no contradiction.....so Elvis lives!!!... see?"
Smart person: "Dead people can't drive."
Get the point, fruitcake?
God 'less.
There are hundreds of them, and my Middle East history is not good enough to work out how many of them came true, could still come true or can't possibly come true.
Has anyone looked into this - it does seem like a rich place to come to some objective conclusions.
Thomas
But seriously, the verocity of the Christian Bible is contingent upon, what?.......what amounts to a divine "horoscope"?...." Here are your lucky numbers: 1, 33, 56, 98. BTW, there will be war in the Middle East."
No shit?
The Jews don't accept the Roman christian view that their OT prophesies were fulfilled, its why they are still waiting on their mortal Messiah to show up and fulfill them.
Many christians don't even look at the OT because they believe as they had been taught, that the OT was a done deal, everything had come to pass, and the NT was the new focus. The messianic prophesies obviously didn't come to pass, however, christians that are bent on making the bible 'truth', say that the Jews somehow 'fell out of grace', known as the period of silence, between the last book of the OT-possibly Malachi, until the NT. The silence is based on Roman dominance of the era.
Again, research the history of the eras in question and its blatently obvious why the Jews were silent, they were waiting for their mortal Messiah. Paul (if he did live), broke the silence by insinuating that god had a better plan, and it didn't include dietary law, or strict ascetic law, etc., and he claimed that anyone and everyone were chosen people of god, as he attempted to craete a 'universal god' that everyone could worship instead of all of the other gods that were being worshipped at the time.
If you are looking for OT prophesies not mentioned in the NT, look up 'messianic prophesies' for starters. There isn't a single prophesy in the OT that can be isolated as a true fulfilled prophesy. That means, an event that came to pass could have 'no other' explanation for the cause, other than 'prophesy'. The prophesy, would have to be totally unique and so would the event fulfilling the event.
hi
Regarding your question about The word "Nazarene" not being found anywhere in the Newtestament?"
I never said it wasn't in the New Testament. I said there is no such prophecy.
"Please see (MATT 2:23) i will quote it for you."
No need, I already did. WTF?
"This is just one of those so called contradiction's in the bible,that you ex-christians claim the bible is full of?"
Yes, it is. Well spotted.
"In fact matthew is quoting from (Isaiah 11:1)"
Ah,ha,ha,haa.
...Well, after looking up a Bible Dictionary to find out what the hell you're talking about, I see you must mean the 'Branch of Jesse' translation of the word 'Netse' (there's always something to spin isn't there).
Then this is one of Matthew's saddest manipulations of an OT verse I've seen - and you won't even get all christians agreeing with you on it.
It is supposedly the Messiah himself who will be the 'Netse', the 'root of Jesse', not the town he comes from, ie. a physical descendant to claim the rights of the bloodline.
No town is mentioned.
A town can't be a messiah.
Jesus birth town was supposedly Bethlehem not Nazareth, and even if there was such a prophecy then Matthew is here fulfilling it after the fact, like following a play guide.
It's easy to fulfill such a prophecy if you try.
'Oh, the prophesy say's he needs to be a Nazarene, O.K. Let's have him go there...'
Either way it's obviously Matthew searching back though the OT looking for any messianic references he can find, to take out of context in support of his new fantasy religion.
...and if you want to go on with the rest of that Isaiah messiah prophecy (as you should), then hardly any of its claims can be made by Jesus.
It says that 'in that day' this messiah will gather all the scattered remnant of Israel, and rule all their neighbours, and the lion shall lay down with the lamb, etc.
So I guess Isaiah didn't foresee that the Romans would finally destroy the Temple the day after 'that day', and the Jews be scattered again, and that Lions would still be eating Lambs two thousand years later...?
So much for the Messianic 'Branch of Jesse'.
"take a look at (Acts 24:5)"
Um, that is after the (supposed) fact. The 'prophecy' is over already. The bullshit has been spread, and is in use, by then.
Finally, if you read the original post in this topic you will see it claims that just one (1) unfulfilled prophecy would be enough to debunk the bibles claim to be the 'word of god'.
My post had at least two other unfulfilled prophecies besides the Nazarene one, not to mention what others have posted...
...so are you going to refute all of those aswell?
You can't let one slide mate.
Not one.
P.S. the name is SpaceMonk, not stonemonk.
Why all this hostility? it dosnt help your cause.
Dont get me wrong! I can understand your bitterness, and anger!...Habitual-Sin etc,which i'm sure you dont need to be reminded of? has a terrible habit of stiring it up in everyone of us at times.
Just why your getting so hot and bothered about me saying that Christ was from Nazerath,surprises me?
You will know i'm sure? that to be called a NAZARENE was to be looked upon as a person of contempt! he was considered despicable,and someone not worth talking to.
In fact!You say the word nazarite(nazareth)isnt even mentioned in the OT?... but it is!
See (Judges 13:5) SAMPSON was a type.
And in (GEN 49:26)we that even JOSEPH was called a NAZARITE!
And the above scripture had reference to (NUM 6:2).
What habitual sin would that be?
Are you trying to prod somekind of a guilt factor that will break down my resistance, to let the love of Jesus flow in to cleanse me in his holy blood...
(ew...)
- Typical.
(Do you know me? If so,I admit nothing.)
My being 'hot and bothered' isn't about you saying "christ" is from Nazareth.
I don't dispute that part.
I only dispute that it was a fulfillment of a prophecy.
The OT verse you say it is fulfilling doesn't mention the 'messiah's' hometown, only a bloodline.
My hostility would be against you starting out by calling me names (I'm not saying you can't, just don't expect me not to react) and your perpetuation of ignorance in defence of backward superstition from a point of stubborn ignorance.
Also, Nazarite and Nazarene are totally different things - it's ignorance to continue in that delusion.
You claim these things about,nazareth/nazarine being in the OT.
But thats your view!
But,i believe what i said to you.And if you disagree? thats fine!
But your view is not the view of the majority of the greatest jewish/christian commentators,translators,historianson the complete Bible!
But thats your view!"
I claim it's NOT in the OT, and it's not just 'my view', it's the plain fact.
The jewish(?)/christian scholars who say otherwise are unsupported by the text, as I've shown.
If the Isaiah verse really is the prophecy Matthew is talking about(it's still doubtful to me) then this mess is really Matthew's fault (he does it a lot in 'his' gospel).
If Jesus hadn't gone to Nazareth that still wouldn't have changed his supposed status as the 'Branch of Jesse', because that is the supposed bloodline of the messiah - so Matthew throwing this up as a fulfillment would be spurious.
I'm sorry you fell for his spin because now you're stuck in it.
P.S Would that T stood for Tennant? I knew a Paul T in church...
hi
No the T dosnt stand for tennant?
I dont know were you are? But i'm in the UK? (for now anyway)