I have an even gooder professy that BrandH cant touch:jlay wrote:gooder point FL
And Bryan might say oh no, that doesn't count, that's a self-fulfilling prophecy.Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:I have an even gooder professy that BrandH cant touch:jlay wrote:gooder point FL
The professy in Ezekiel 12:12-14 had its fullfullment in Jeremiah 39:4-7. So, the professy was write down 200+ years before the fullfullment.
OK BrandH, less see you shoot that one down, HA!
FL
The roles have changed? I don't think so Bryan. The Bible exists. It is widely accepted as a historical document (at a minimum, and even among non-believers). It is a self-authenticating book supported by historical accounts. There is no evidence whatsoever to contradict it (regarding its claims of prophecies) so the burden of proof is on you to support the assertion that the prophecies were written after the fact. Absence of such evidence, your assertion is baseless. Like I said, a nice piece of evidence would be a contemporaneous document stating that at least 2 of the Gospel writers conspired with one another. Only 2, I won't event ask for all 4 (not to mention Paul who was so far removed from them as to make collusion a virtual impossibility) but that's pretty much what you would need for your assertion to be true, for all 4 Gospel writers to have gotten together at some point and got their stories straight so-to-speak down to the most minutest detail. Any evidence of that at all? No? And if such evidence ever materialized, it would spell the largest, most sophisticated conspiracy theory ever devised in the history of humankind. Does anyone believe simple Jewish fishermen from 2 millennia ago were capable of carrying out such a conspiracy? Perhaps some would but one would literally have to abandon all rationality to believe that.BryanH wrote:I like it when the roles change. Now who is the one who doesn't use logic and reason?Not a single shred of evidence to back this up, only mere assertions. On the other hand, we have historical, archaeological, anecdotal, traditional, evidence to support the claims of the Bible.
What possible historical, archaeological, anecdotal, traditional evidence you have that the prophecy was made before it happened? Do you have other reliable sources where the prophecy was written (before it happened of course)?
It's not an actual conspiracy, but since the Bible is full of metaphors, that makes you wonder: why weren't things written in a clear manner for everybody to understand? Why is the Bible cryptic? Because it wasn't meant/designed for the normal average guy. It was written so only a few people of the time could offer explanation/guidance/advice on it. Why?The roles have changed? I don't think so Bryan. The Bible exists. It is widely accepted as a historical document (at a minimum, and even among non-believers). It is a self-authenticating book supported by historical accounts. There is no evidence whatsoever to contradict it (regarding its claims of prophecies) so the burden of proof is on you to support the assertion that the prophecies were written after the fact. Absence of such evidence, your assertion is baseless. Like I said, a nice piece of evidence would be a contemporaneous document stating that at least 2 of the Gospel writers conspired with one another. Only 2, I won't event ask for all 4 (not to mention Paul who was so far removed from them as to make collusion a virtual impossibility) but that's pretty much what you would need for your assertion to be true, for all 4 Gospel writers to have gotten together at some point and got their stories straight so-to-speak down to the most minutest detail. Any evidence of that at all? No? And if such evidence ever materialized, it would spell the largest, most sophisticated conspiracy theory ever devised in the history of humankind. Does anyone believe simple Jewish fishermen from 2 millennia ago were capable of carrying out such a conspiracy? Perhaps some would but one would literally have to abandon all rationality to believe that.
The proof that they were written after it happened exists as I said because of the dating of books that compile the Bible.assertion that the prophecies were written after the fact
The Gospels weren't written all at the same time...4 Gospel writers to have gotten together at some point and got their stories straight so-to-speak down to the most minutest detail.
What modern standard? Time? Chronology? Common sense? Logic? Reason? All of them are quite old. I said this to many people here but you seem to not want to read that: people in those times didn't have access to schools and education. There were actually just a few people who participated in actually writing the books that compile the Bible. The rest were followers who knew very little about it.you are attempting to bring a modern standard into an ancient text. That's a fallacy to start with. I think if there had been camcorders in the biblical times, you know, we might have captured a few prophets prophesying, just to satisfy your intellectual needs (but again you can always claim they were manipulated). But the truth is, evidence for that age, comes in that age. I am actually amused as to what type of evidence do you need? For instance, if a book written by ancient Jews, looks like faked to you, why would you ever trust a second book corroborating it from that same age. I mean if you are agreed to believe the second one, to be true, what makes you question the first one in the first place?
You see, you are asking for historical proof, well the bible is historical. You are basing an argument on "absence of additional proof". Which naturally entails that absence of proof is not proof of absence. The proposition, that since the prophecies were written after the prophecy happened, that they were interpreted in such a way that they seem to fulfill the prophecy, carries the answer in there. You are indirectly supporting the idea that there was a way to record prophecy preserve it for hundreds of years, and then interpret it much later. Well that's a problem you need to first, address as it shoots your argument right in the middle of the head.
So I shouldn't bring up any new ideas just because the text is ancient... It's not a fallacy, it's actually a smart thing to do. We just have more knowledge now.you are attempting to bring a modern standard into an ancient text. That's a fallacy to start with.
I have to say it again: the prophecies are DEBATABLE. Anyways, at the time that the prophecy was made, they had the possibility and "technology/means" to write it down. They didn't. Not to mention the fact that some of the prophecies were actually written before they happened. So why weren't all the prophecies respecting the same rule: write them before they happen?You see, you are asking for historical proof, well the bible is historical. You are basing an argument on "absence of additional proof". Which naturally entails that absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Absence of any evidence they conspired or at a minimum based their testimony off of one another you have nothing, that's the bottom line. You already admit there was no conspiracy, and there is no literary evidence that the Gospels were based on a single source nor any historical or contemporaneous evidence contradicting the Gospel accounts.BryanH wrote:How could they have had stories straight to the most minute detail? You figure it out.
I think that you should stop with using the word conspiracy.Absence of any evidence they conspired or at a minimum based their testimony off of one another you have nothing, that's the bottom line. You already admit there was no conspiracy, and there is no literary evidence that the Gospels were based on a single source nor any historical or contemporaneous evidence contradicting the Gospel accounts.
Imagine that, 4 people witnessed the exact same events and have similarities in their recounted stories.BryanH wrote:I think that you should stop with using the word conspiracy.Absence of any evidence they conspired or at a minimum based their testimony off of one another you have nothing, that's the bottom line. You already admit there was no conspiracy, and there is no literary evidence that the Gospels were based on a single source nor any historical or contemporaneous evidence contradicting the Gospel accounts.
This is a quote from another source:
Three of the Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke are similar in content, with common presentation of the work and teachings of Jesus. They follow a similar pattern, but supplement additional materials to accomplish their specific goals. These are called the Synoptic Gospels because they have this common view. All but thirty-one verses in Mark are found in Matthew and Luke. Of the 661 verses in the Gospel of Mark, 350 are found in the Gospel of Luke.
Your fact proves nothing. THAT'S THE POINT. Its just a loaded statement, that's all. It carries the presumption that since they were written after, they are faked, which you can't prove. As you so aptly put, its a matter of personal choice when you lack the proof to demonstrate it, it cuts both ways, for you as well.If you don't want to accept the fact that prophecies are debatable because they were written after they actually happened, well, that is a matter of personal choice when you lack the proof to demonstrate it.
As I have read, the Gospels are a story of Jesus' life and teachings plus what the apostles taught after Jesus parted this world. So they didn't witness anything. The Gospels are just mirrors of history that reflect what happened. I'm not including John because as I have read, his Gospel is quite different from the others.Imagine that, 4 people witnessed the exact same events and have similarities in their recounted stories.
I can't prove they were faked, you can't prove they are actually true. Can't argue with that, can I?Your fact proves nothing. THAT'S THE POINT. Its just a loaded statement, that's all. It carries the presumption that since they were written after, they are faked, which you can't prove. As you so aptly put, its a matter of personal choice when you lack the proof to demonstrate it, it cuts both ways, for you as well.
I understand your point of view, but when the apostles actually decided to "dictate" and write about it, many years had passed... As time passes by, the details of certain memories we have fade away. It's how the human body works. Accuracy is not that strong taking in consideration the context in which some of the text were written.Re: Bible Prophecies Discussion
Postby PaulSacramento » Tue Apr 24, 2012 5:17 am
The synoptics have much in common and the most common view is that they same the same source and then added their own POV/info.
That source has been viewed as the hypthetical document called "Q" and there is no evidence that it ever existed.
So why are there so many simliarities?
Probably because the writers ( or those that dictated to he writers) saw the SAME things.
Of course not all the apostles where with Jesus ALL the time ( it would be silly to assume that over a 3year period ALL 12 were with Him 24/7).
That the gospels were written later is quite standard for historical writings, you wan't find many people writing a book certain events at the SAME TIME events are happening.
An oral tradition was passed on and with it a written tradition of sayings, parables and creeds.
That the apostles eventually decided to write something ( or dictate to be written) AFTER they got older and their duites of evangelizing had passed on to tohers with more "youth and strength" just makes sense.
And when gauging any historical docuemtn we must evaluate based on historical criteria and historocity and not some "modern" view of what we THINK they should be.
It is true that many facts CAN be distorted in 17 years, but CAN does not equal DID.As I mentioned in one of my comments, the earliest Gospel is dated approximately 50 AD. That is about 17 years later after Jesus parted this world. After 17 years, a lot of information can get distorted. That is why we don't know exactly what happened in ancient times, but we make assumptions based on historical and archeological sources. You want the Bible to be an exception from making assumptions. At the moment, without proof, assumptions is all we have and of course FAIT
Oh I don't doubt that some minor details may have been altered with the passing of time and with age and even with better understanding, but there is no reason to believe that the CORE was unchanged.I understand your point of view, but when the apostles actually decided to "dictate" and write about it, many years had passed... As time passes by, the details of certain memories we have fade away. It's how the human body works. Accuracy is not that strong taking in consideration the context in which some of the text were written.
