Biblical Prophecy split from "Craig Winn" threads

[Jack the Bodiless]

From Craig Winn Receives Death Threat From A Muslim Group (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=111802&page=2&pp=25) and Who's your savior? split from: Craig Winn Receives Death Threat From A Muslim Group (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=112401):
And people have been trying to attack the Bible for years. There isn't anything that would surprise me. Pick out your best shot at the scriptures and let's give it a go. Yahweh has proven divine authorship to the scriptures with some 500 fulfilled prophesies. Other than the imperfect nature of language and a few scribal errors, the Hebrew scriptures are without error. It fascinates me how people turn to attack Christianity when confronted with the problem of Islam. Even if you did find a problem, does Islam win by default?

Hardly. The most of the "prophecies" were written after the fact, and many more were shoehorned in. There were also a lot of unfulilled prophecies...such as the Mesiah's name being Immanuel, and the prediction that Judgemnent day would happen within the lifetimes of Jesus's contemporaries. Guess what...we're still here.

The scriptures are about 20% prophesy. That's about the size of the New Covenant(Testament). Yes, some are yet to be fulfilled. Some prophesies represent near and far fulfillment. So scritinize the few left but ignore the hundreds that have been fulfilled.The only ones left will be fulfilled. Bet on it.

.such as the Mesiah's name being Immanuel,

“The virgin will be with Child and will give birth to a Son, and will call Him Immanuel� Isa. 7:1–16. “Immanuel� is a Hebrew construction that means “God with us.� Actually, it is an unusual construction that makes the point: “WITH US is God!�
Isaiah would not have understood the full significance of the name. Yet it, as well as other names given the Messiah in this section of Isaiah, made it clear that the promised Child was to be both human and divine. Thus Matthew referred to this prophecy when he described Jesus’ conception not by any human father but by the Holy Spirit (Matt. 1:23).
The promise was a sign to Ahaz, in that it identified a period of time within which his enemies would no longer threaten him. From conception to birth is nine months; from birth to weaning to solid food was typically two to three years. So Ahaz was told that within three years the kings he feared would no longer be a threat. And the “whole house of Israel� was invited to watch David’s line for a Virgin Birth, and told that the Child would be the promised Deliverer.
Each of the three great messianic visions in these chapters dates some 700 years before the birth of Christ! The Bible says nothing else about the effects of the Immanuel prophecy in the days of Isaiah and Ahaz. It does announce the great fulfillment in (Matt. 1:22-23). His birth showed all humanity that God is faithful to fulfill His promises in ways far beyond human expectations; for Jesus was not just a sign of God with us. Jesus was God in the flesh, God incarnate, God with us in Person.

Imagine, over 500 fulfilled prophesies already and you think this one will just go away, right? Are we not heading right down that path? You have to acknowledge that. What is astonishing to me is that atheist here are making fun of something that they don't know anything about. You probably have never investigated it, and you are making a conclusion based on ignorance. Way to go, professors...

...Yahweh proves to us with prophesies. Since no one hear knows the slighest bit about them, I find it humorous that you feel compelled to open your hole about them. There is no other book that can predict. Yahweh does it over and over, but I guess you need more than a spirit that can maneuver in time as to tell the exact outcome.

agator:

We are VERY familiar with the CLAIM that the Bible contains "fulfilled prophecies".

We are also VERY familiar with the fact that no such claims ever stand up when examined.

I strongly doubt that you can provide anything new. I expect to see "prophecies" too vague to be meaningful, or verses ripped out of context (e.g. "prophecies of the reformation of Israel in 1948" that actually refer to the arrival in the Promised Land after the Exodus, or the return from Babylonian captivity), fictional "fulfillments" with no supporting evidence, "prophecies" written AFTER the event (e.g. Book of Daniel), and so on.

You will also ignore all the failed prophecies in the Bible.

Interestingly, the Bible's record on prophecies is so poor that it appears to be worse than we'd expect from chance alone. It appears to be "supernaturally erroneous".

[Jack the Bodiless]

The promise was a sign to Ahaz, in that it identified a period of time within which his enemies would no longer threaten him. From conception to birth is nine months; from birth to weaning to solid food was typically two to three years. So Ahaz was told that within three years the kings he feared would no longer be a threat. And the “whole house of Israel� was invited to watch David’s line for a Virgin Birth, and told that the Child would be the promised Deliverer.
The first part is correct, the second is not.

This is a very good example of a "Biblical prophecy", because it fails on so many different levels.

1. Isaiah makes no mention of a "virgin birth".

2. The "prophecy" was for the benefit of King Ahaz, and was "fulfilled" in the following chapter by the birth of Maher-Shahal-Hash-Baz. It was never intended to be a "Messianic prophecy".

3. There is no independent confirmation that Jesus WAS actually "born of a virgin". This is an unconfirmed story.

4. The Bethlehem Nativity is quite obviously a late addition (not mentioned by Paul, Mark or John, for instance) and contradictions between the two accounts fatally damage it.

It's one of numerous examples of the author of Matthew ripping Old Testament verses out of context and writing in a "fulfillment" for Jesus: a fulfillment of a nonexistent prophecy, or one supposedly "fulfilled" centuries earlier by someone else.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Posted on the wrong thread:
And the return of the Jews to the Promised Land, to “tsiyon (the mountain of Jerusalem, Zion—the permanent capital);� is linked to Yahshua’s return—the climactic event of the last days. Nice try.
And Daniel was written between 605 BC and about 530 BC. Yahweh revealed the precise day the Messiah would walk into Jerusalem and perform as promised to the prophet Daniel, over 500 years in advance of the event.Wrong again.Anything else?

Daniel was written between 168 and 164 BC.

Edited to add: There is no confirmation that Jesus was crucified in 33 AD. This traditional date appears to have been derived from Daniel.

[Jack the Bodiless]

...I have to sign off now, others can play with this. Back tomorrow.

[agator]

Posted on the wrong thread:


Daniel was written between 168 and 164 BC.

Edited to add: There is no confirmation that Jesus was crucified in 33 AD. This traditional date appears to have been derived from Daniel.

<insult deleted> We even know the exact date of which Babylon fell-October 13, 539 B.C. Furthermore, Nabonidus, who ruled the empire of Babylon from 555-538 B.C., mentions his firstborn son Belshazzar on an inscription found in the city of Ur in 1853.
Even if you were right( which you are certainly not), it would STILL be prophetic.

[agator]

And you say" There is no confirmation that Jesus was crucified in 33 AD."
I want to know if there is an intelligent poster in this forum. <insult deleted>

[agator]

1. Isaiah makes no mention of a "virgin birth".



"almah" is the word Isaiah used(H-5959). It means young woman or virgin. Look it up. Here are some Bible translations of the verse for your edification.

ASV: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

DNT: Therefore will the Lord himself give you a sign: Behold, the virgin£ shall conceive and shall bring forth a son, and call his name Immanuel.£

YLT: Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign,

Lo, the Virgin is conceiving,

And is bringing forth a son,

And hath called his name Immanuel,


KJV: ThereforeH3651H3651 the LordH136H136 himselfH1931H1931 shall giveH5414H5414 you a signH226H226; BeholdH2009H2009, a virginH5959H5959 shall conceiveH2030H2030, and bearH3205H3205 a sonH1121H1121, and shall callH7121H7121 his nameH8034H8034 ImmanuelH6005H6005.


ICB: But the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin£ will be pregnant. She will have a son, and she will name him Immanuel.£

NCV: The Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin£ will be pregnant. She will have a son, and she will name him Immanuel.£

GWT: So the Lord himself will give you this sign: A virgin will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and she will name him Immanuel [God Is With Us].

NASB: “ThereforeH3651H3651 the LordH136H136 HimselfH1931H1931 will giveH5414H5414 you a signH226H226: BeholdH2009H2009, a virginH5959H5959 will be with childH2030H2030 and bearH3205H3205 a sonH1121H1121, and she will callH7121H7121 His nameH8034H8034 ImmanuelH6005H6005.


NRSV: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman£ is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel.£


TLB: All right then, the Lord himself will choose the sign—a child shall be born to a virgin!£ And she shall call him Immanuel (meaning, “God is with us�).

NLT: All right then, the Lord himself will choose the sign. Look! The virgin£ will conceive a child! She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel—‘God is with us.’

NKJV: Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.£

RSV: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman£ shall conceive and bear£ a son, and shall call his name Immanu-el£


KJV: Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

NASB: “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name £Immanuel.

That's about every Bible I could find, so I guess you are wrong once again. Next

[Angrillori]

Ooh ooh! Can I be the first one to announce that his irony meter broke?

Agator.

Agator, Agator, Agator. <personal comment deleted>

There's this really cool thing you have the opportunity to do--it's called holding your tonugue until you know what you're talking about.

Failing that, there's another relaly cool opportunity you have, and that being the opportunity to support your position with evidence. See, if you're claiming that there is confirmation for Jesus' crucifiction, and we're claiming there is not, then the easy way for you to "win" would be to merely offer up this confirmation.

So, do you have some confirmation that Jesus was crucified in 33 A.D.? Any?
(Heck, some would settle for you having confirmation that Jesus even existed, but a lot would settle for confirmation that he was crucified when you say he was.) If you don't have confirmation, and no one else does (we've asked a lot of people, and done a lot of research) then it's not really "ignorance" to point this out.

It is kind of ignorant to be unaware of the fact that neither you, nor anyone else actually has any confirmation that Jesus was crucified in 33 A.D. It's just plain rude to insult the intelligence of those who are aware of this fact. Of course, we may be wrong, and you could easily prove us all so merely by exposing this evidence, this confirmation, that you believe yourself privy to.

As for the dating of Daniel, ohmigoodness. There are these things called "libraries" they have "books" in them. Feel free to "read" these "books" to gain the knowledge that is in them. Even a cursory examination of old testament biblical criticism/study will net you some information showing the dating of the book. (And, so you won't be too surprised, it's not dated in he 500's B.C. no matter how much you attempt to insult people who point out that it is. Your failure to accept brute facts, and reality, is a compbination of sad, pitiful, and funny, to us. It's certainly not convincing or converting. In fact, it's exactly the opposite of converting. So you're in a bit of a dilemma concerning the old "great commission," you won't make disciples of us with your rather pathetic displays--just a word of friendly advice there kiddo.)

Edit to add:

Sweet! You're opening your mouth about almah/beulah! I love when <insult deleted> christians try to sound smart!

<Sits back, gets popcorn. Waits for the show to start.>

[Amaleq13]

To all: Please avoid insults and focus on the evidence/arguments.


And you say" There is no confirmation that Jesus was crucified in 33 AD."
I want to know if there is an intelligent poster in this forum.

I'm pretty familiar with the evidence and, to my knowledge, this is statement of fact. There is even debate within Christian scholarship regarding the precise year of the crucifixion. The most that can be said is that 33CE is the most popular guess.

[agator]

I have already proven a few things to be in err. How many do you need before you realize that my info is not the one flawed? I told you how we know the dating of Daniel and you tell me to go to the library for reference. How about you just tell me how you came to this brilliant deduction of Daniel, because I always thought Daniel is described as living in Babylon for the entire duration of the Babylonian empire, a period of 72 years. He arrived during the last year in the reign of Nabopolassar, stayed through the entire 45 year reign of Nebuchadnezzar, assisted 5 succeeding kings, survived through the occupation by the Medes and into the occupation of the Persians. He was present as Israel was taken into captivity; he died two years after a fragment of the Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem. It seems pretty easy to figure out to me. But perhaps you know something every scholar doesn't. Enlighten me.

And are you telling me that no one could supply prrof of the crucifixion? This is documented by Roman, Jewish, and Greek historians. Is written evidence not good enough? And BTW, the word is Bethulah- not beulah. The adjective you use for Christians might be fitting for yourself.

[agator]

To all: Please avoid insults and focus on the evidence/arguments.




I'm pretty familiar with the evidence and, to my knowledge, this is statement of fact. There is even debate within Christian scholarship regarding the precise year of the crucifixion. The most that can be said is that 33CE is the most popular guess.

So, is the dispute whether Yahshua(Jesus) was ever alive, killed, crucified, or the date or whether he was raised?

[Amaleq13]

And are you telling me that no one could supply prrof of the crucifixion? This is documented by Roman, Jewish, and Greek historians.

Please provide the specific references that you believe date the crucifixion with such specificity.

To my knowledge, there is no reliable extrabiblical proof of the crucifixion. Outside comments appear to be reactions to and repetitions of Christian claims rather than independent evidence.

Josephus would be invaluable except that the TF, as it stands, is clearly the result of Christian interference. Establishing what text, if any, was originally written is purely speculation.

That leaves Tacitus and Pliny as the earliest outside evidence but neither of them provide anything that would allow one to date the crucifixion with such precision.

So, is the dispute whether Yahshua(Jesus) was ever alive, killed, crucified, or the date or whether he was raised?

The debate within Christian scholarship, to which I referred, is regarding the specific year of the crucifixion.

[agator]

I will address the other issues if that needs to happen but as far as the date: We need not look any further than the document in the British Museum in London. The Governor, Pontius Pilate, sent a letter to the Roman Emperor explaining the reason for crucifying Jesus, dating it two days after the event. Was this info ever posted here?
Yahshua, on the day upon which it was prophesized, rides into the city of Jerusalem. Four days later, the 14th of Nisan 33 A.D., that’s Friday, April 3rd on the Julian calendar, he was crucified, cut off, in Daniel’s words.

[Amaleq13]

I will address the other issues if that needs to happen but as far as the date: We need not look any further than the document in the British Museum in London. The Governor, Pontius Pilate, sent a letter to the Roman Emperor explaining the reason for crucifying Jesus, dating it two days after the event. Was this info ever posted here?
Yahshua, on the day upon which it was prophesized, rides into the city of Jerusalem. Four days later, the 14th of Nisan 33 A.D., that’s Friday, April 3rd on the Julian calendar, he was crucified, cut off, in Daniel’s words.

Could you specifically identify this document? There are numerous letters attributed to Pilate that are recognized as late forgeries by both Christian and non-Christian scholars.

[Angrillori]

I have already proven a few things to be in err.


Which please?

I don't actually see any "proving" but a lot of asserting <insult deleted> Keep up the good work!


How many do you need before you realize that my info is not the one flawed?

One would be ok.
But even if you managed to come up right even once or support your position, even once that wouldn't get you off the hook to support the other load of garbage you spew. Of course that point is moot since we're still waiting for #1.



I told you how we know the dating of Daniel and you tell me to go to the library for reference. How about you just tell me how you came to this brilliant deduction of Daniel, because I always thought Daniel is described as living in Babylon for the entire duration of the Babylonian empire, a period of 72 years. He arrived during the last year in the reign of Nabopolassar, stayed through the entire 45 year reign of Nebuchadnezzar, assisted 5 succeeding kings, survived through the occupation by the Medes and into the occupation of the Persians. He was present as Israel was taken into captivity; he died two years after a fragment of the Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem. It seems pretty easy to figure out to me. But perhaps you know something every scholar doesn't. Enlighten me.

Since it seems to be you who is disagreeing with modern scholarship, it behooves you to support how you know the state of biblical scholarship to be wrong. Daniel was written after the fact.

Did you know that the guys that wrote your High School (if you've made it to high school yet) history book, weren't actually alive when the events they wrote about happened? See where I'm going with this?

Did you know the Vampire Lestat never EVEN existed, much less lived in New Orleans in the 1800's? The fact that we have a book he claims to narrate that describes that time period well, doesn't make him real, nor does it make the author of that book a contemporary of the times described.


And are you telling me that no one could supply prrof of the crucifixion?

We're telling you that no one has.

And so far, pointedly, neither have you.


This is documented by Roman, Jewish, and Greek historians. Is written evidence not good enough?

Pray tell, where, when? Offer it up! The entire world is waiting!


And BTW, the word is Bethulah- not beulah. The adjective you use for Christians might be fitting for yourself.

Oh, ;) so you do know that there was a perfectly good word for "virgin" which the writer chose not to use, rather choosing the word which is defined as "young woman." Strange, you were making it sound like you actually believed the writer was referring to an actual virgin giving birth.

Interestingly enough, a list of times people wrongly-translated a word in order to support their own doctrine does not really help your case! Since you put the quotes up though, did you happen to notice how those verses all refer to an event happening at the time they were written, and not hundreds of years later? Did you notice that they were referring to a sign offered, very specifically to a then-extant king, and not to future generations?

I'm glad you took the opportunity to copy all those verses. Maybe you managed to read them.

[agator]

Which please?

Since it seems to be you who is disagreeing with modern scholarship, it behooves you to support how you know the state of biblical scholarship to be wrong. Daniel was written after the fact.


I am in conflict with modern scholars????? Pa lease. How many hundreds of scholars do you want me to provide links to that agree with my timeline. Do a google search for heavens sake.
Now then, I would like to know what you base your timeline by. Do you also subscribe that the book was written in 168 BC? :rolling:

[Amaleq13]

Comparing the number of scholars is probably not terribly helpful.

This site (http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bible/comment/daniel.shtml) provides a pretty good summary of the argument for a later date and includes a link to Miller's argument for an earlier one.

[Angrillori]

I am in conflict with modern scholars?????

Well, yes. And that answer wouldn't change even if you added a hundred more question marks.

Maybe not all scholars, but certainly those without a theological axe to grind. No one finds it surprising that a fellow that already believes that Daniel MUST be old, fails to conclude that it is new.


Pa lease.

Yes, pa lease.


How many hundreds of scholars do you want me to provide links to that agree with my timeline.

Any of them without a theological pre-disposition? Any of them veiwing the evidence from an unbiased standpoint?


Do a google search for heavens sake.

Yes, that is good advice. I recommend you take it.


Now then, I would like to know what you base your timeline by. Do you also subscribe that the book was written in 168 BC? :rolling:

First, you have utterly failed to change the subject.

You've still failed to provide any confirmation of the date of Jesus' crucifiction. We're still waiting.
You've also failed to address the virgin/young woman dilemma, by anything more than pointing to others who chose to continue a mistranslation to support their theological position.

You don't win any points by dodging the issue. You made a claim: that we are ignorant for believing there is no confirmation on the date of Jesus' crucifiction. The opportunity for you to support that claim is obvious: provide that confirmation. Care to try?

I'm done responding until you manage to either put up or shut up. You shouldn't just make claims like that without being prepared to support them.

[agator]

I already addressed them, but I suppose the evidence in a musuem isn't good enough for you. It never is. Good luck

[Amaleq13]

I already addressed them, but I suppose the evidence in a musuem isn't good enough for you. It never is. Good luck

I asked you to identify this alleged evidence and mentioned that there are several letters attributed to Pilate that are widely recognized as forgeries. I strongly suspect your "evidence" is one of these.

[gregor2]

Agator is posting here and on the biblical literalist/anti-evolution forum, relying on Kent Hovind and Duane Gish. Reading his posts, I can tell he's a real Renaissance man - by that I mean his opinions are taken from 1500 CE

[Diogenes the Cynic]

I am in conflict with modern scholars????? Pa lease. How many hundreds of scholars do you want me to provide links to that agree with my timeline. Do a google search for heavens sake.
Now then, I would like to know what you base your timeline by. Do you also subscribe that the book was written in 168 BC? :rolling:
Daniel was absolutely written in 164 BCE (give or take a year). We can tell because the text contains a number of linguistic and historical anachronisms that make it impossible to have been written before the 2nd century BCE. It also shows a poor understanding of Babylonian history (its own fictional setting)and a detailed knowledge of Antiochus and the Seleucid Empire (the historical context in which it was actually written). Lastly, it fails miserably in its only attempts at genuine predictive prophecy..

I assure you this is the consensus of mainstream scholarship.

[WinAce]

"almah" is the word Isaiah used(H-5959). It means young woman or virgin. Look it up.

I think we're putting the cart before the horse a tad, are we not? I mean, shouldn't we demonstrate a virgin birth occured before using this interpretation to argue a prophecy fulfillment?

Then again, if you could do that, you wouldn't even need a prophecy apologetic. :p

Prophecy for Dummies! (http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/proph4dums/)

1e. False Fulfillment: Don't let the facts stop you. This refers, of course, to imagining a fulfilled prophecy where there is, in actuality, only a prediction. Do you need to be born in a specific place to fulfill a prophecy? Certainly, you could reinterpret the original to mean something other than a literal birthplace... but why, when a simpler solution presents itself? Just have your followers claim you were born there![7] (http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/proph4dums/#f_birthplace_jesus)

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/proph4dums/rev_moon.jpg
The Rev. Sun Myung Moon, founder of the Unification Church. Claims he's endorsed by the ghosts of long-dead religious leaders and heads of state. (More info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon))

A variation of this is the unfalsifiable prophecy. While you may still be holding out hope that people are reasonable creatures, reality is not as optimistic. Many will see nothing wrong, or circular, with your predicting a conveniently unverifiable war in Heaven, and later saying it happened just as expected!

You can predict any amount of specific things as long as they can't be falsified. Use this to annoy the skeptics by confidently predicting they'll face unpleasant consequences in the afterlife. When any of them die, pretend their spirits call out to you for forgiveness, but too little, too late, and that there's nothing you can do for them anymore. This will have the added benefit of scaring recalcitrant followers back into submission.

And if you don't believe me about unverifiable fulfillment being a useful apologetic, ask those Christians who think well of the Isaiah 7:14 "virgin birth prophecy." You may note that a source arguing for Jesus' divinity, also claiming, without external corroboration, that he fulfilled an unverifiable prophecy, is a circular argument. But most won't notice. Indeed, some consider this a good enough apologetic to bring up in debates with atheists. Do you seriously think your followers will be any less credulous?

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Alamah does not mean "young woman or virgin," by the way. It just means "young woman." Some almahs are virgins, of course- just like some young women are virgins- but it doesn't mean virgin.

The context of Isaiah 7:14 makes it clear that it had no Messianic intent anyway. "Emmanuel" was not the Messiah in that quote, just a rugrat who served as a marker of time for the story and had no personal significance at all.

Plus Jesus wasn't born of a virgin.

[Mathetes]

I don't know what is more astonishing: the ignorance of some fanatics or their unashamed arrogance.

Is agator talking about the Report of Pilate to Emperor Claudius (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/reportpilate.html)? I don't think anybody argues for its authenticity these days. (Wasn't Tiberius the emperor in 33 AD, anyway?)

I already addressed them, but I suppose the evidence in a musuem isn't good enough for you. It never is. Good luck
If you take a stroll around the British Museum, you will find a room with the metopes of the Doric Frieze of the Parthenon. I guess this is "evidence" that Centaurs exist.

[Jack the Bodiless]

We even know the exact date of which Babylon fell-October 13, 539 B.C. Furthermore, Nabonidus, who ruled the empire of Babylon from 555-538 B.C., mentions his firstborn son Belshazzar on an inscription found in the city of Ur in 1853.
Even if you were right( which you are certainly not), it would STILL be prophetic.
Yes, I'm right: Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC.

Now please explain how "if I am right", a description of events in the 6th century BC, found in a book written 4 centuries later, would STILL be prophetic.

Maybe you'd like to think about that some more?

You've been given links, but here's a brief summary:

We know that Daniel was written in the 2nd century (but SET centuries earlier) for several reasons. He uses anachronistic phrases. He makes historical mistakes when describing the time of "Daniel" himself, but becomes progressively more accurate until the time of Antiochus II (when the book was actually written), and then "loses it" completely when he tries to actually predict the future (he prophesied a long reign for Antiochus). And the Book of Daniel is never mentioned in lists of prophetic books (or, indeed, anywhere else) prior to the 2nd century BC.

"Almah", as already mentioned, means "young woman". It was mistranslated into Greek as "parthenos" (virgin) in the Septuagint, and this word has been used in most Christian Bibles ever since because they find it ideologically convenient. But this doesn't change the obvious fact that the "prophecy" wasn't intended to be Messianic. Matthew is an example of "midrash": giving a myth more credibility by linking it to existing scripture. An approximate modern equivalent would be fantasy writers setting their stories in Arthurian Britain: or claims that recent events fulfil out-of-context "Biblical prophecies".

So, maybe you could try a little harder to get correct data before spouting off?

[River]

And you say" There is no confirmation that Jesus was crucified in 33 AD."
I want to know if there is an intelligent poster in this forum. <insult deleted>


Jesus the Christ (pbuh) was a human being, and was NOT crucified. He did NOT die for the Sins of hu-manity. The Cross is meaningless. There is absolutely NO reason to believe that he is Divine.


For something that is ( the Crucifiction) held as the pinnacle and foundation of Christianity.....its Evidence is rather flimsy and nebulous. Heck , even the Bible screwed up the number of witness which vary from the accounts presented by Mark , Matthew and Luke. And the Gnostics see the crucifiction as more or less a hoax.

[Jack the Bodiless]

The scriptures are about 20% prophesy. That's about the size of the New Covenant(Testament). Yes, some are yet to be fulfilled. Some prophesies represent near and far fulfillment. So scritinize the few left but ignore the hundreds that have been fulfilled.The only ones left will be fulfilled. Bet on it.
Well, there aren't "hundreds that have been fulfilled", but you're also ignoring the FAILED prophecies. This includes prophecies that are NOT "yet to be fulfilled", because their time has passed: they can never be fulfilled anymore.

Some snippets from the SAB's False Prophecies, Broken Promises, and Misquotes in the Bible (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html) page:
"In the fourth generation they [Abraham's descendants] shall come hither again." But, if we count Abraham, then their return occurred after seven generations: Abraham, Issac (Gen.21:1-3), Jacob (Gen.25:19-26), Levi (Gen.35:22-23), Kohath (Ex.6:16), Amramn (Ex.6:18), and Moses (Ex.6:20). 15:16

The tribe of Judah will reign "until Shiloh," but Israel's first king (Saul) was from the tribe of Benjamin (Acts 13:21), and most of the time after this prophecy there was no king at all. 49:10 God promises to bring Jacob safely back from Egypt, but Jacob dies in Egypt (Gen.47:28-29) 46:3

God says that the Israelites will destroy all of the peoples they encounter. But according to Joshua ( 15:63, 16:10, 17:12-13) and Judges (1:21, 27-36, 3:1-5) there were some people they just couldn't kill. 7:24

This verse says that Ai was never again occupied after it was destroyed by Joshua. But Nehemiah (7:32) lists it among the cities of Israel at the time of the Babylonian captivity. 8:28

"I have sworn unto David my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up thy throne to all generations." But the Davidic line of Kings ended with Zedekiah; there were none during the Babylonian captivity, and there are none today. 89:3-4, 34-37

This verse predicts that there shall be five cities in Egypt that speak the Canaanite language. But that language was never spoken in Egypt, and it is extinct now. 19:18

Ezekiel prophesies that Tyrus will be completely destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar and will never be built again. But it wasn't destroyed, as evidenced by the visits to Tyre by Jesus and Paul (Mt.15:21, Mk.7:24, 31, Acts 21:3). 26:14,21

Ezekiel makes another false prophecy: that Egypt would be uninhabited by humans or animals for forty years after being destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar. But there was never a time when Egypt was uninhabited. Humans and animals have lived there continuously since Ezekiel's prophecy. 29:10-13

Jesus predicts the end of the world within the lifetime of his listeners. 23:36

Jesus says the gospel will be preached to all nations "and then shall the end come. Well according to Paul the gospel has been preached to everyone (Rom.10:18) yet the end hasn't come. 24:14

Paul expects Jesus to return within the lifetime of his followers. 3:13

Paul thought he would live to see the rapture. 4:15, 17

John believes "the time is at hand," and that the things that he writes about in Revelation will "shortly come to pass." 1:1, 3
That was just a sample, there are plenty more.