Anybody can write a book....

Moomflower - Try www.skepticsannotedbible.com

Gecko and Jatom - By the way, I think that the Bible has a lot of rubbish but a lot of good stuff as well. I love Jesus' teachings, I don't like Moses' teachings (except maybe about 7 or 8 of the ten commandments, after that it just goes downhill into preaching intolerance). Just an example.

I don't like how much the Bible has been edited, but essensially I think Jesus' teachings are still recognisable under the rubbish.

That guy was the Buddha of compassion (yes I know that's meant to be the Dalai Lama but hey, who says they aren't the same person).

Blessings

Sebbi
P.S. I consider myself an atheist so no I don't believe that Jesus was an Avatar.

 

The Bible is a 100% true because it was inspired by God.
-You may ask how do I no it was inspired by God and the answer is the prophecies. The Bible predicts the future before it happens. The Bible is 1/3 prophecy and has a 100% accuracy rate on all its prophecies. Prophecy is not the only thing that proves the Bible was inspired by God, though, there is also archaeolgical and scientical proof. However, these are things churches never seem to talk about. Probably because alot of churches are in it for the money and just want to preach "watered down" sermons instead of telling the people what the Bible really has to say-like the future-
http://r-campbell34.tripod.com/babylon. But thats another topic.

The Bible is either all right or all wrong. There is no in between. Likewise, Jesus was either the ultimate liar or who he said he was-the son of God. And like I said before to not believe in the Bible takes more faith then to believe in it because of the amount of evidence the Bible has behind it. I would never follow a religion that the only way to believe is by blind faith. That is why I am a Christian.


Proof of the Bible...
http://r-campbell34.tripod.com/proof

 

Is this a joke or are you actually serious.

Blessings

Sebbi

 

I guess you just met your first Christian in a Christian forum.

 

campbell... "The Bible predicts the future before it happens. The Bible is 1/3 prophecy and has a 100% accuracy rate on all its prophecies."

Are you freaking serious? Do you just puke up everything you read as fact?

First the bible is NO where near 1/3 prophecy. It is mostly history.

100% accuracy? Like armagedon will occur before this generation ends? (This generation being the one that ended 1900 years ago.)
Here is a site that claims the bible is 100% accurate with prophecy. It goes into some great detail to recount 40 of the 300 supposed prophecies Jesus fulfilled. http://www.raptureready.us/prophecy.htm

What really cracks me up is that the (so-called) prophecies it is quoting aren't even prophecies. It claims that Gen3:15 is a prophecy that Jesus will be 'born of a woman.' Really had to be a brain surgeon to guess that one anyway!

 

Messianic prophecy is the collection of over 300 predictions in the Old Testament about the future Messiah of the Jewish people. These predictions were written by multiple authors, in numerous books, over approximately 1,000 years. Messianic Prophecy is so dramatic today, because with the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the reliability of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament (both of which have been proven to exist prior to the time Jesus walked on the earth) you can be assured that these prophecies were not conspired after-the-fact.

It has been calculated that anyone just fulfilling 8 Messianic prophecies by chance is next to impossible..1 in 10 to the 17th power (1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000), 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10 to the 157th power, (or 1 in 10,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000..consider the number of zeros for all 300+ prophecies!)





http://www.messianic-prophecy.net/

Here are a few of the prophecies

• Born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:21-23)
• A descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 22:18; Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16)
• Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-7)
• Would perform miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6; Matthew 9:35)
• Would preach good news (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:14-21)
• Would first present Himself as King 173,880 days from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25; Matthew 21:4-11)
• Would enter Jerusalem as a king on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 21:4-9)
• Would be rejected by Jews (Psalm 118:22; I Peter 2:7)
• Die a humiliating death (Psalm 22; Isaiah 53) involving:
  - rejection (Isaiah 53:3; John 1:10-11; 7:5,48)
  - betrayal by a friend (Psalm 41:9; Luke 22:3-4; John 13:18)
  - sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:14-15)
  - silence before His accusers (Isaiah 53:7; Matthew 27:12-14)
  - being mocked (Psalm 22: 7-8; Matthew 27:31)
  - beaten (Isaiah 52:14; Matthew 27:26)
  - spit upon (Isaiah 50:6; Matthew 27:30)
  - piercing His hands and feet (Psalm 22:16; Matthew 27:31)
  - being crucified with thieves (Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 27:38)
  - praying for His persecutors (Isaiah 53:12; Luke 23:34)
  - piercing His side (Zechariah 12:10; John 19:34)
  - given gall and vinegar to drink (Psalm 69:21, Matthew 27:34, Luke 23:36)
  - no broken bones (Psalm 34:20; John 19:32-36)
  - buried in a rich man´s tomb (Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:57-60)
  - casting lots for His garments (Psalm 22:18; John 19:23-24)
• Would rise from the dead!! (Psalm 16:10; Mark 16:6; Acts 2:31)
• Ascend into Heaven (Psalm 68:18; Acts 1:9)
• Would sit down at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1; Hebrews 1:3)

If Jesus came in the New Testiment then how is it that his whole life is fortold in the old??

-Was Jesus some lunatic claimed himself the Christ and fulfilled ALL 300+ prophecies?....No way, look at the statistics

-Did the people that wrote the Bible add the prophecies in after Jesus came to the earth in some huge conspiracy? ....Nope, the Dead Sea Scrolls proved that theory wrong.


Today, the only way Bible scoffers can explain away this astronomical probability is to discredit the prophecies in one way or another. Their only alternative is to accept that God is the author of scriptures. The Bible is reliable book of genuine divine prophecy, You can trust it!

The evidence of divine prophecy presented here is just a tiny portion of proofs available to establish the divine origin of the Bible. Yet, they are more than sufficient to prove the inspiration of the Bible. There will always be men who scoff at the Bible. You, however, can be confident when you read your Bible that God is the author, for it is written:

"We constantly thank God that when you received from us the word of God's message, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God"

-1 Thessalonians 2:13

​

 

Yes, yes, yes... I have read whole books dealing with the items you have laid on this page for us.

First of all, many of these 'predictions' are long-shots at best. Other's are no brainers. He was going to be a Jew, so he HAD to be a son of Abraham... get it?

The Psalms are songs and poems, not prophecy. Silly bird. I hate how often I see these quoted as fullfilled prophecy. Have you ever read the context of Psalm 22, 41 etc.? They have NOTHING to do with Jesus, the future, or anything like it. This is my point exactly... why is it that people will stretch the words of these passages SOOOOOO much to make it fit their way? That is supicious.

PS: The old testament is of jewish origin. Obviously THEY are unconvinced of the fulfillment of them. How then can you be so sure? I doubt you have done your homework.

 

Maybe I haven't done all my homework but my dad has. He wrote this passage to a Jewish atheist concerning Isaiah 53. Jews believe that all these prophecies are about the ancient Jews and not Jesus. However, this thinking was not embraced at first.


"The belief that Isaiah 53 is speaking of Israel is a belief which is new to the Jewish faith, and would of been rejected by Jews that lived before 1100 A.D. For you see all Rabbis before that time fully embraced the belief that Isaiah 53 was speaking of the Messiah, and not the nation of Israel. About 900 years ago Rabbi ShlomoYitzchaki (Rashi) decided that all pervious Jewish religious leaders from the beginning were wrong in their understanding of Isaiah 53. So he took it upon himself and his followers to change that belief from Messiah, to Israel. In short, he did away with a 1000 years of Jewish belief and set the standard for a new belief. It was obvious to him that all previous religious theologians and Rabbis did not know what they were talking about. As a result, most Jews now reject what was clearly accepted in their faith and now embrace this new thinking. They had to forget the great medieval Jewish scholars like Moses Ben Nachman, Rabbi Moshe Konen Ibn Crispin, or Rabbi Moshe El-Sheikn. All of them with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet (Isaiah) is speaking of King Messiah. Could it be that all of the Jewish religious Rabbis and theologians were wrong from the beginning, and nobody got it right until Rashi came. The questions is, who was right? Was it the early religious leaders who were closer to the Bible's origin, or was it the maverick theologian Rashi?"

 

What is a jewish atheist?

Anywho... Jews today do NOT beleive that Jesus was the king of prophecy. This chapter in Isaiah is all in past tense so why would one suspect it is talking about the future?

 

Sometimes it is claimed that the messianic prophecies cited by Christians are in the past tense. Therefore, it is said, they cannot refer to a future, coming Messiah.

This is an invalid argument. There is no such thing as "tense" in biblical Hebrew. (Modern Hebrew, on the other hand, does have tenses.) Biblical Hebrew is not a "tense" language. Modern grammarians recognize that it is an "aspectual" language. This means that the same form of a verb can be translated as either past, present, or future depending on the context and various grammatical cues. The most well known grammatical cue is the "vav-consecutive" that makes an imperfective verb to refer to the past.

Therefore it is wrong to say that Isaiah 53 or other prophecies are in the "past tense." Biblical Hebrew has no tenses. There are many examples of what is wrongly called the "past tense" form (properly called "the perfective" or "perfect") being used for future time.

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/answers/qa/HebrewTenses.htm

 

That is simply untrue. There is tense in ancient hebrew. Don't think I failed to notice that your reference is a jews for jesus site. It is true that many times the translators PURPOSEFULLY left out tense to strengthen their arguments.

http://www.messiahtruth.com/isa9.html

Even if Isaiah 53 is a prophecy, there is little evidence that it was fulfilled by jesus. Sure we can say he did, but no one knows. There is no evidence except for a bunch of people saying he did. The passage is VERY broad, and anyone who was persecuted could fit the description it contains.

 

POPthree13,

"What really cracks me up is that the (so-called) prophecies it is quoting aren't even prophecies. It claims that Gen3:15 is a prophecy that Jesus will be 'born of a woman.' Really had to be a brain surgeon to guess that one anyway!"

-The prophecy of the coming messiah had to point out that the messiah would enter the world through the human race and not in a spiritual form.

"100% accuracy? Like armagedon will occur before this generation ends? (This generation being the one that ended 1900 years ago.)"

-Incorrect, Jesus spoke of the generation that saw the fig tree put forth its branches. The fig tree in the Bible always represented the nation of Israel. The rebirth of Israel (1948) today will bring about the fulfillment of this prophecy. The fact that the Jews are in Israel today is no accident.

"PS: The old testament is of jewish origin. Obviously THEY are unconvinced of the fulfillment of them. How then can you be so sure? I doubt you have done your homework."

-We can be sure that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah because it was predicted in the old testiment that the Jews would reject him and kill him.









Following quote courtesy of http://bibledesk.com/

"There were people who would show me what appeared to be contradictions in the Bible, yet these were not contradictions at all, but only a lack of research on the part of those that said these things."

 

You might want to check out http://www.cornerstonemag.com/pages/show_page.asp?580.

 

Genesis
3:15 'And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.' Now what in that suggests to you that this is a prophecy fortelling that Jesus will be born of a woman? Genesis is not a prophetic book, it is a historical account.
And I also don't think the second coming has got jack to do with the fig tree. Jesus is saying that you know when summer is coming because the fig tree bears leaves

Luke 21:
29 And he spake to them a parable; Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; 30 When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand.
31 So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.
32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

But I guess you can try to twist anything to look like a fulfilled prophecy. I think its a shame thatpeople will jump on a band wagon and claim things like 300 fulfilled prophecies without really looking into it. It fits what they want to prove so they just accept it as 'gospel'. I am not trying to instill doubt in your bible or reduce your faith in your savior, but for 'Christ's Sake' (literally) do not spread lies in his name. Careful what you say.... regurgitating crap that God-knows-who dreamed up enlightens no man.

PS: Just becasue the jews rejected him doesn't make him the messiah. At the time there were hundreds of prophets, seers and sooth sayers wandering the streets and desserts proclaiming to be talkign to god or even the son of god. They were all rejected... so does that make them all the messiah? You need a bit more evidence and if you read the prophecies closely, Jesus really doesn't fit them all that well. Unless to want to S-T-R-E-T-C-H them W-A-Y out to fit what you want to see.

 

The Jews would reject their Messiah
The Messiah would teach in parables-Isaiah 6:9
The Messiah would be born of a virgin-Isaiah 7:14
The Messiah would be a Light to the Gentiles-Isaiah 9:1,2
The Messiah would be the son of God-Isaiah 9:6
The Messiah would grow up in Nazereth-Isaiah 11:1
The Messiah would defeat death-Isaiah 25:8
The Messiah would be the new covenant-Isaiah 42:6
The Messiah would be despised-Isaiah 53:3
The Messiah would be rejected-Isaiah 53:3
The Messiah's back would be lashed at his trial-Isaiah 53:5
The Messiah would be God's sacrificial Lamb-Isaiah 53:7
The Messiah would be killed-Isaiah 53:8
The Messiah would die for the sins of the world-Isaiah 53:8
The messiah would be ressurected by God-Isaiah 55:3
The Messiah would be rejected by his own people-Isaiah 65:2


"At the time there were hundreds of prophets, seers and sooth sayers wandering the streets and desserts proclaiming to be talkign to god or even the son of god. They were all rejected... so does that make them all the messiah?"
-POPthree13


No that doesn't, but could you tell me which one of those other prophets fulfilled these prophecies?

 

The Messiah would teach in parables-Isaiah 6:9 -Most prophets did.
The Messiah would be born of a virgin-Isaiah 7:14 -True, but there is no proof of this, and if he was born of a virgin then he is not an heir of David - which is also required of the messiah.
The Messiah would be a Light to the Gentiles-Isaiah 9:1,2 -Doesn't say that.
The Messiah would be the son of God-Isaiah 9:6 - Pure opinion here.
The Messiah would grow up in Nazereth-Isaiah 11:1-Doesn't say that.
The Messiah would defeat death-Isaiah 25:8 -True.
The Messiah would be the new covenant-Isaiah 42:6 - True
Isaiah 53 is past tense.
The Messiah would be despised-Isaiah 53:3-Most prophets were.
The Messiah would be rejected-Isaiah 53:3-Most prophets were.
The Messiah's back would be lashed at his trial-Isaiah 53:5 -Doesn't say that.
The Messiah would be God's sacrificial Lamb-Isaiah 53:7 -Innocent like a lamb - it says nothing of sacrifice.
The Messiah would be killed-Isaiah 53:8 - A lot of people were.
The Messiah would die for the sins of the world-Isaiah 53:8-Doesn't say that.
The messiah would be ressurected by God-Isaiah 55:3 -Doesn't say that.
The Messiah would be rejected by his own people-Isaiah 65:2-Most prophets were.
I am not trying to say Isaiah was not a prophet. I think there are those who can devine the future. I think, perhaps, he was even talking about the great leader to come - Jesus. Its seems plausible. However, I think a LOT of people try very hard to read a lot more into it than is there. I don;t think anyone can argue that Jesus was a powerful historical figure who changed many thing about the way we look at religion. Does this require that we worship him? That he was sinless?
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

 

The idea of a virgin brithed god-man who could overcome death is a reoccurring theme in numerous religions. The oldest records are those of the Egyptians. Certainly Moses learned a thing or two about Osiris while he was in Egypt. There is sugnifigant evidence that the 'myth' of Jesus was borrowed from other traditions. That doesn't mean Jesus didn't live, or that he didn't bring a relavent message. Only that the 'mystical' nature of his contributions may be a little exaggerated. Heres some info on other God-Men who came before Jesus and often were:

Born of virgins
performed miracles
Had birthdays on christmas
were ressurected
were called the king of kings, Alpha and Omega, etc.

http://www.geocities.com/inquisitive79/godmen

 

POPthree13,


The Messiah would teach in parables-Isaiah 6:9 -Most prophets did.

-Most prophets did not teach in parables and that is one thing that was unique about Christ.

The Messiah would be born of a virgin-Isaiah 7:14 -True, but there is no proof of this, and if he was born of a virgin then he is not an heir of David - which is also required of the messiah.

-He would still be from the line of david because both Joseph and Mary together were from the line of david.

The Messiah would be a Light to the Gentiles-Isaiah 9:1,2 -Doesn't say that.

-Sorry about that gave the wrong verse. I looked at a bad website that gave incorrect verses. The correct verse is Isaiah 42:6

The Messiah would be the son of God-Isaiah 9:6 - Pure opinion here.

-Well this is what the Old Testiment declares and this what the New Testiment claims Jesus was.

The Messiah would grow up in Nazereth-Isaiah 11:1-Doesn't say that.

-This was the wrong book. The correct verse Micah 5:2. The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.

The Messiah would defeat death-Isaiah 25:8 -True.

The Messiah would be the new covenant-Isaiah 42:6 - True

Isaiah 53 is past tense.

The Messiah would be despised-Isaiah 53:3-Most prophets were.

The Messiah would be rejected-Isaiah 53:3-Most prophets were.

The Messiah's back would be lashed at his trial-Isaiah 53:5 -Doesn't say that.

-The word stripe refers to being whipped

The Messiah would be God's sacrificial Lamb-Isaiah 53:7 -Innocent like a lamb - it says nothing of sacrifice.

-"He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter" ....Nothing of sacrifice??

The Messiah would be killed-Isaiah 53:8 - A lot of people were.

The Messiah would die for the sins of the world-Isaiah 53:8-Doesn't say that.

-This was the wrong verse. The correct verse is Isaiah 53:12. "and he bear the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors."

The messiah would be ressurected by God-Isaiah 55:3 -Doesn't say that.

-Wrong book again. Psalms 16:10 is the correct verse.


The Messiah would be rejected by his own people-Isaiah 65:2-Most
prophets were.



Other.....
Messiah would be sold for 30 pieces of silver-Zech. 11:12



The Bible states that the Messiah would be the light to the gentiles. Who claimed to be the messiah and is now embraced by the gentiles but is rejected by the Jews?

 

POPthree13:

In regards to the other God-Men that you mention, I would direct you here:

http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_04_02_04.html

That has a TON of information which refutes the claims in the website you posted (plus many more that were not mentioned in that site).

You mentioned that "there is sugnifigant evidence that the 'myth' of Jesus was borrowed from other traditions." Please remember that similarity doesn't mean that anything was borrowed. The data that I have found (and I have searched for information on both sides) generally doesn't support the borrowing theories.

You also mentioned the teachings of Jesus. My question is "What did he teach?" After reading the Gospels (specifically John), it appears that he spent a lot of time saying "I am God." Is that the teaching you refer to? How do you distinguish between the authentic quotes and the quotes about his divinity?

 

This site doesn't provide much for proof, and then uses the argument that if the author is wrong we should show him proof. He says if I don't see proof of Osiris' facts in a year then he is right. Is that logical? He is also refuting a lot of claims that I too have never heard.

http://www.tektonics.org/osy.html

He really doesn't do much to dispell the Osiris - Jesus connection. He just says he hasn't found proof for about 50% of the statements made about Osiris. Of course he doesn't claim to be an Egyptologist and the source he uses is a Encyclopedia of Religions - the kind of book you see on coffee tables.

Regardless there are countless sources all over the web and a few books in the library that come from egyptologists who confirm dozens of parallels between these two characters.

A religious studies class would also tell you that thi practice of borrowing from previous faiths is quite common, so it would seem foolish to think this is one case where it did not happen.