I hope a GOD exists but I am not holding my breath!

Tyre was supposed to be wiped out by several nations as the waves of the sea, meaning over the period of time as each nation attacks it as a wave.
Show me the verses you are referring to ... I'm doing this from memory.
I remember I did that one years back - complicated prophecy yet it adds up with the text fully.

Yes, 2nd coming was expected to happen by the 1st century people. However, the church was aware of a necessary delay in the 2nd Coming as even Apostle Peter wrote in his epistle.
And that delay is that there still are many people who would repent, so the destruction of the 2nd Coming is delayed.

2 Peter 3:1...
3Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” ...

8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. Instead he is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare.​

Some prophecies are not easy to see, that is true.

But most are as easy as calling the town of birth of Christ as Bethlehem.
Even naming the exact amount of silver coins (30) that Judas would betray Christ for.
All this cannot be miunderstood.

Now, people call Nostradamus a prophet, but his predictions are SO ambiguous, no one really understands them.

Many predictions of the Bible cannot be mistaken - names names, names exact amount of coins Judas would betray and so forth.

Thanks,
Ed

 

Since what is in the Old Testament and New Testament as far as what you are talking about was not written in until AFTER JESUS WAS BORN....it cannot be called a PROPHECY!!!

AboveAlpha

 

OK.
According to Bible as well as extra-Biblical writings he claimed to be Son of God (equating himself with God) and he was doing miracles.
Would you accept that?

 

Entire Old Testament was written way, way before Christ was born. Much of it like 1000 yrs BC.
Entire New Testament was written after Christ was born.

 

I cannot.

Evidence does not exist...at all.

4 Apostles in their Gospels said that Jesus taught he was the actual son of GOD.

The other 8 Apostles Gospels said that Jesus taught that all men could become the son's of GOD through his teachings.

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

And there was no such thing as any book or writings known as the Old Testament until after the Roman Imperial Biblical Canon developed it under Constantine!!!

The Old Testament did not even EXIST before this.

The Tanakh did.

AboveAlpha

 

I am referring to extra-Biblical references, such as Talmud.

Talmud were writings that the enemies of Christ (the ruling class of the Judaic Jews) at the time wrote.
Christ himself was a Jew, so they watched him closely, since he was clearly getting people to his side.

It was to their benefit to discredit any so-called messiah as a charlatan and fake.
So it would have been to their advantage to write he was a trickster.

But what they have witnessed were true supernatural miracles, so they wrote the following about Christ.
1. He performed true miracles, but by the power of Satan (Beelzebub) and not God.
2. He was blaspheming by equating himself with God.

This means that even the enemies of Christ testified that Christ claimed to be equal with God and performed supernatural miracles.

Thanks,
Ed

 

The Talmud is NOT the Old Testament.

Your argument has been that in the Old Testament prophecies of the birth of Jesus are detailed.

They are....AFTER THE FACT!!!

AboveAlpha

 

How are you not completely burned out on all this?

Peace out though, have fun reading all the rants.

 

I googled this is what I found. Please provide the link you refer to.
http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-why-varied-geography-30-400AD.htm

Is it possible to look at their calculations and their premises?

Again what about the other religious books?

 

It is taxing...I will give you that!

I find it disturbing that those who are religious do not even know the history of their own religious books.

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

Canonical history[edit]
Main article: Development of the New Testament canon
Revelation was the last book accepted into the Christian biblical canon, and to the present day some "Nestorian" churches such as the Church of the East reject it.[21][22] It was considered[by whom?] tainted because the heretical sect of the Montanists relied on it[23] and doubts were raised over its Jewishness and authorship.[24] It did not become part of the canon until 419.[25]

LINK....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation

AboveAlpha

- - - Updated - - -

Religious Texts and Books are not viable data.

AboveAlpha

 

The text clearly states that Nebuchadnezzar would be the one who prevailed against Tyre, and that Tyre would be left an uninhabitable, barren rock. Neither happened. Ezekiel 26. A similar prophecy was given for Egypt, which utterly failed.

Someone forgot to tell Jesus, because he said it would happen to his audience's generation, prompting later Christians to desperately try to invent new meanings for the word "generation."

. . . yes it can. It has.

And the same goes for the prophecies of the Bible.

And when they fail, we are to ignore the Bible's clear meaning and look for extra symbolism.

I'll give a perfect example. Isaiah 7:14 is the first prophecy that the NT mentions as a prophecy fulfilled by Jesus (Matthew 1:22-23). Isaiah 7, however, says that the child to be born was to be born as a sign for Ahaz that he would prevail against his enemies. Ahaz and his enemies were long-gone by the time that the author of Matthew penned his words. Biblical "prophecy" involves picking any verse from the OT that you like, and changing the audience, the context and the details to suit your purpose.

 

One thing is clear....anything can be construed to mean anything.

AboveAlpha

 

Because no God worth believing in could be defined in a book, or in all the books that could be written in a trillion years of human history.

 

You misunderstood ... or maybe I misunderstood.

Old Testament was written before Christ's birth where all the prophecies concerning him were penned.
Some of the prophecies are extremely detailed.
Town of Bethlehem, Judas betraying Christ for 30 pieces of silver ... do you want the quotes?

New Testament was penned after the birth of Christ.

Talmud is a set of Jewish writings which are the commentaries of rabbis concerning Judaic way of life and the application of the Law.
These writing are very anti-Messianic (as far as Christ goes).
In them they confirm the Christ claimed to be equal with God and made miracles.

 

Very true.
We cannot comprehend God in his true form.

That is why God came down as man, so he could communicate with us on our level.

And his words were confirmed by the miracles of a great quality and magnitude.

Thanks,
Ed

 

Let's take a look at the text ...
I will title each text in its context ...

Prophecy of destruction of Tyre by many nations like the waves of the sea ... meaning attacks come and retreat by these nations over time ...

Eze 26:1 In the eleventh month of the twelfth year, on the first day of the month, the word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, because Tyre has said of Jerusalem, ‘Aha! The gate to the nations is broken, and its doors have swung open to me; now that she lies in ruins I will prosper,’ 3 therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, Tyre, and I will bring many nations against you, like the sea casting up its waves. 4 They will destroy the walls of Tyre and pull down her towers; I will scrape away her rubble and make her a bare rock. 5 Out in the sea she will become a place to spread fishnets, for I have spoken, declares the Sovereign Lord. She will become plunder for the nations, 6and her settlements on the mainland will be ravaged by the sword. Then they will know that I am the Lord.​

Now there is an example of just ONE of these many nations, Nebuchadnezzar from Babylon.
In history he gathered the rubble from the city and threw it into sea to make a type of a bridge (as bolded in v12)

7“For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: From the north I am going to bring against Tyre Nebuchadnezzarb king of Babylon, king of kings, with horses and chariots, with horsemen and a great army. 8He will ravage your settlements on the mainland with the sword; he will set up siege works against you, build a ramp up to your walls and raise his shields against you. 9He will direct the blows of his battering rams against your walls and demolish your towers with his weapons. 10His horses will be so many that they will cover you with dust. Your walls will tremble at the noise of the warhorses, wagons and chariots when he enters your gates as men enter a city whose walls have been broken through. 11The hooves of his horses will trample all your streets; he will kill your people with the sword, and your strong pillars will fall to the ground. 12They will plunder your wealth and loot your merchandise; they will break down your walls and demolish your fine houses and throw your stones, timber and rubble into the sea. ​

And here is the year by year fulfillment of this prophecy (I just googled it)
http://www.100prophecies.org/page8.htm

Fortunately I studied this one some years back. (You are picking the most difficult and complex prophecies)

A word "generation" (specifically "this generation") as defined in Matthew has 2 meanings, time period of 20-30 years or defining a "type" of people.
I don't know if you know anything about the Strong's numbering, but basically if you search by 1074 (geneo) you would see also see that is has a meaning of a "type, kind" of an individual, such as people of light or people of darkness.
Luke 16:8... For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind (1074 geneo) than are the people of the light.

"This generation" in Matthew clearly shows (if one reads in context) that it addresses all the good people killed from Abel to Zechariah by that type (1074 geneo) of evil people.
All these people do not fit in 20-30 years so it needs to carry the other definition of a "type" of people.

You have picked the most complicated prophecies out of the hundreds of easy to understand prophecies from websites aimed to stump Christians.
You do not know the Scriptures, just the places others pointed you to.
Which is OK. I understand.

This however does not prove any of your points especially plain statements that Christ would be born in Bethlehem and be betrayed for 30 pieces if silver.

No.
Every prophecy that was to be fulfilled was fulfilled to the most exact details.
Some are yet to be fulfilled concerning Christ's future 2nd coming.

Oh, no symbolism.
You went to the websites designed to stump Christians which list very complex prophecies and some Christians do not know how to handle these.

It is like asking someone questions on advanced physics while he is not advanced to such a degree in his field.
If a Christian does not know how to respond it does not mean things are wrong.
You also do not know everything about your field.

I happen to know a lot about these things.

Let's look at the text.

God asked Ahaz to ask for a sign.
Ahaz refused.
Then God said he will himself give sign to "House of David".
This means the following will be fulfilled in an individual from the line of David.
Jesus came from line of David.
And the sign was - born of a virgin and called Immanuel (meaning God is with us).
So a boy from the line of David will be born of a virgin and people will accept the boy as God is with us.

Isa 14:10 Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, 11“Ask the Lord your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights.”
12 But Ahaz said, “I will not ask; I will not put the Lord to the test.”
13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.​

Thanks,
Ed

 

Exactly how I feel.

 

Please read your source. It correctly points out that Alexander the Great built the land bridge that you speak of, not Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar never made it past the walls of the city, in contrast to what the prophecy here predicts.

Yes, I'm thoroughly familiar with Strong's, and appreciate your citing it. If you are familiar with the Bible, then you know as well as I do that this defense is a poor one. Jesus not only said that "this generation" would witness the end of times, which might allow for the "generation doesn't mean generation" defense, but he also said specifically that some of those there with him would witness these events, and that the timing would accompany the destruction of the Temple. It's been over a millennium since Jesus's followers died and the Temple was destroyed.

Matthew 16:28 - Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

I was exposed to these sorts of arguments before websites existed, and I've studied Christian scriptures all of my life. You are new here, so allow me to introduce myself. I'm Yardmeat. I was raised in a Southern Baptist fellowship and the Bible was the first book that I read that was not specifically written for children. I had read it several times over by the time I graduated HS, and I went on to lead the Bible study group for my local Campus Crusade for Christ in college (which is also where I began using Strong's Concordance). After college, I spent another two years teaching Sunday school at a Free Will Baptist church. I had originally planned on joining seminary, and throughout my college career I would request syllabi from seminary professors so that I could read up on the texts that they were using.

Both "prophecies" are extremely problematic. First, let's look at Micah 5 and the Bethlehem prophecy. Read the whole chapter, not just verse 2. The man born from Bethlehem was supposed to be a ruler of Israel, and here's what else Micah has to say about him (verses 5 and 6):

"And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men. And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders."

No man born after the end of the Assyrian empire can be considered a fulfillment of the prophecy in Micah 5:2. Sorry, no dice.

Next, let's look at the thirty pieces of silver. Matthew is the one who claims that his is a fulfillment of prophecy, and right away we have a problem. Matthew has fudged this one even worse than he's fudged the "prophecy" in Isaiah 7. Matthew 27:9-10:

"Then was fulfilled what had been spoken through the prophet Jeremiah, “And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one on whom a price had been set, on whom some of the people of Israel had set a price, and they gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.”

No such prophecy appears in Jeremiah. Zachariah says something similar, but he is recounting an event that happened to him, not providing a prophecy about the Messiah, which is why you can't find any pre-Christian figure predicting that this verse would have anything to do with the Messiah.

That obviously isn't true for any of the prophecies we have examined so far.

And time is up for some of those, so they have failed.

These arguments predate the existence of websites, and even if they were from websites, that wouldn't change their validity. Some of your own defenses have come from websites.

I don't doubt that you know a lot about the Bible, but you have missed some of the key details in the verses that we are discussing.

. . . Ahaz was part of the House of David.

No, it means that the audience is the House of David. Nothing in Isaiah says that the child would be born of the House of David. It was a sign for the House of David.

So did Ahaz.

As with the verse from Micah, you are skipping what the chapter actually has to say about the child. You skipped the part where Micah talked about the Assyrians, and now you are skipping everything that Isaiah has to say about what the child would signify.

Why did you stop reading at verse 14 instead of continuing to read what Isaiah has to say about the child? In the next few verses, Isaiah says . . .

"Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. The Lord shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; even the king of Assyria. And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall hiss for the fly that is in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that is in the land of Assyria. And they shall come, and shall rest all of them in the desolate valleys, and in the holes of the rocks, and upon all thorns, and upon all bushes. In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, namely, by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the beard. And it shall come to pass in that day, that a man shall nourish a young cow, and two sheep; And it shall come to pass, for the abundance of milk that they shall give he shall eat butter: for butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the land. And it shall come to pass in that day, that every place shall be, where there were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings, it shall even be for briers and thorns. With arrows and with bows shall men come thither; because all the land shall become briers and thorns."

To recap: God promises a sign that Ahaz, of the House of David, will prevail against two kings, one of whom is Rezin of Assyria. He then addresses the House of David, saying that a child will be born, and before that child knows good from evil, the House of David will prevail against two kings, one of whom from Assyria. As with the Micah "prophecy," Assyria was gone for centuries before Jesus was born. Since both Isaiah 7 and Micah 5 deal with Assyria, they must not have anything to do with Jesus.

 

But no one alive today witnessed any of that, so again we're back to mere words.

 

So what?

He was probably based on someone.

 

Yes, Alexander the Great. I probably misspoke - doing this from memory.
The reference I posted for our sake since the prophecy is easy to understand, but much to write

So you know the Strong's - great. So let's use verses then.
What I showed is not a poor defense at all.
As a matter of fact I used this in debates against Full Preterists (I spoke from the audience) and we both found 1074 used as a "kind" in his own Interlinear he carried with him. He just stared at it and did not respond.

I would need to repeat that "generation" (1074) has 2 meanings in Greek.
One is a period of 20-30 years and another is a definition of a "type" of a "kind" of a person.
In Luke 16:8 (1074 geneo) is used as a "kind" of people such as people of light or people of darkness.
I am not interpreting this to fit what I say. It is in Greek. Dictionary. Context dictates it.

Lk 16:8 ... for the sons of this age are more shrewd in relation to their own kind (1074) than the sons of light.​

So, the Pharisees (children of the darkness) would not pass away until the 2nd coming of Christ.
And they are still around and would last until that future day.

Yes, and if you keep reading into ch 17 you would see that after 6 days they saw Christ in his glory with Moses and Elijah ...

Mt 17:1After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.
4 Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.”
5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”
6 When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. 7But Jesus came and touched them. “Get up,” he said. “Don’t be afraid.” 8When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.​

Good meeting you.
My name is Ed.
I was born in USSR and came to the U.S. in 1975 at 16 (with our family).
I was an atheist till I was 30 and someone gave me the Bible.
I knew so little of the book I thought person named Jesus was some Spanish guy.
Since the Soviets respected Jesus as a historical figure, so did I.
I started reading on my own and believed the whole book.
I started seminary studies and Bible courses but it never clicked. But I learned the basics by being in church and reading. The rest expanded.
To make the story shorter ... I lead advanced Bible studies for about 20 years (at least 2 studies a week). Currently I lead 3.
I am working on my own fresh translation - completed 1 John and going through the Revelation ... should get a web site going .... I am a Lutheran.

But this is not the case.
The text says that the origin of the person born of Bethlehem is of antiquity, of old ... so it is not a common human being.
Then it says that boy who is to be born would be their peace.
Then it says that 7 shepherds would raise up and would win the war. Not that individual, but the 7 shepherds.
And that individual who is to be born is their peace who would lead them to victory.
But the 7 warriors would win.

Besides, when Herod asked his advisers what is the town that the boy would be born when he bumped into the Magis, he was told by his own advisers directly it would be Bethlehem. They looked in Micah for that.

The 7 shepherds would win and that person to be born in Bethlehem would be their peace and lead them to victory.
Micah clearly said that a person of unusual antiquity would be born in Bethlehem and King Herod actually went there and killed a great amount of children trying to eradicate baby Jesus.

But you need to learn how to read the OT prophecies. You look at it only in a way of trying to disprove something.
No wonder.
Sorry for giving you a link instead of communicating, but I am a bit tight with time right now.
http://kentcrockett.com/biblestudies/matthew_27.htm

True. I only objected to websites because some who do not know the Bible just link it.
You do know what you are talking about, so no problem with links.

Ahaz was a part of House of David. God addressed the House of David and not Ahaz. And he said that out of it (not Ahaz, but the house of David) would come an individual born of a virgin and people would relate to his as God is With Us.
Clearly it is not related to Ahaz. It was addressed to the House of David.

I don't get it.
BEFORE the child is born that would happen to Assyria.
And the child was born of a virgin and people referred to him as God is with us in a person of Jesus who is of the House of David and born ion Bethlehem. And all that happened after Assyria.
Even King Herod knew that.

Thanks,
Ed

 

No worries, but as you can see, the prophecy regarding Nebuchadnezzar failed.

The Pharisees are not still around, unless you are speaking in some symbolic sense.

I'll grant that this could be a possible explanation for the coming of the Son of Man not referring to the end times.

Nice to meet you.

"And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land."

The Magis were Jewish? This is the first time I've heard that theory.

This isn't the first time that Christians have to play with time travel to reinterpret the OT.

Micah clearly gave a historical context for that birth -- one which Jesus fails to fulfill.

I tried for years to make them say what I wanted them to say as a Christian. It wore on my conscience for too long.

A common practice throughout the Bible when addressing the patriarch of a house. Also, Isaiah clearly addresses Ahaz as the House of David: "But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?

Where does the Bible use the phrase "out of" in this verse?

No, it doesn't say the child is born. The prophecy is literally incomprehensible if all of this happens before the child is born, before the sign. If a sign comes after what it signifies, then it doesn't signify anything. The verses say a child will be born, and he will eat milk and honey, and before he is old enough to know good from evil, the kings will be defeated.

 

Every atheist I know says the exact thing.

 

So you can honestly say that you can walk outside on a spring day with all the beauty of the earth and nature and animals and humans and still believe all of that happened by accident?

Then we come up with silly memes like, " there are over 5,000 "Gods" worshiped in the world today but only YOURS IS RIGHT! The fact is, there is but one God, with 5,000 names and personages.

I also respect the beliefs of Atheists and every other religion. Anyone who does not is a bigot.

 

Accident means there was intent. There was neither.

Every god that has been defined by men have very different qualities and aspects about them. Why choose one if you feel they are all the same.

Do you respect religion's like the People's Temple Agricultural Temple, you know the religion tied to the Jonestown Massacre? Or The Children Of God, a religion that allows child rape, or how bout the Westboro baptist Church.