The Incredible odds of fulfilled bible prophecy

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by joobz

I see:
Bible makes prediction
Bible says prediction was fullfilled
No outside source exists verifying the fullfillment of prediction.

This happens a bunch of times in the bible.

So Jesus is the son of god?

There's a lot of predictions made in the Lord of the Rings that came true in the Lord of the Rings, Does that make the Lord of the Rings real?

Yes. Gandalf predicted in "Shadow of the Past" (Chapter 2 I think) that Gollum would still have a part to play. Near the end of the book, Gollum destroyed the Ring when Frodo failed to do so.

Probability of happening by chance: 1 in 487.

[godless dave]

I wonder what the probability was that Lou Gehrig would get Lou Gehrig's disease?

[godless dave]

Originally Posted by DOC

The speculation or opinion that you have to be stupid to believe that the rulers of the day would send you to the city of your lineage for a census or taxation.

The complete lack of such a practice in any Roman records.

[H3LL]

Coo!

More Lies For Jesus with the cunning use of logical fallacies.

How does DOC do it?

DOC - Why do you keep using logical fallacies in almost every post?

Why have you never answered?

[DOC]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Oops; since DOC's link says the following, you've just destroyed the credibility of the whole bible:

Not really. All the Caesars after Caesar Augustus were referred to as Caesar and Augustus.

From Wiki's article on Augustus:

His names Augustus and Caesar were adopted by every subsequent emperor, and the month of Sextilis was officially renamed August in his honour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Ceasar

So the fact that he died in 14AD is not relevant. One could easily see how someone in Palestine was confused by all the Caesar Augustuses in an era where the only communication comes by ship or horseback.

And just for the record Luke in the King James does not use the word census as the international version does. it uses the word taxation.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by Abe_the_Man

Oh my. The last thing you should have brought up was the census.

*All biblical citations are from the New International Version at www.biblegateway.com
**Sources will be linked to at the end of this post



Let’s break this down into its main claims:

1. Ceasar Augustus declared that ALL of the roman world should be counted
2. This is the first Census while Quirinius was governor of Syria
3. Everyone was required to go to "his town" to register. Joseph is of the House of David "and therefore required to go to Bethlehem as it is the home of David. This indicates the census was conducted based on Jewish tribal affiliation.
4. Joseph is from Galilee

Now let’s look at the actual facts:

------------------------

1. At no time did Ceasar Augustus declare that the entire Roman empire should be counted. Augustus came into power on January 16, 27 BC and reigned for forty years dying on August 19, AD 14. Three Census' were performed at his command during his reign and counted Roman citizens only.

* In 28 BC the citizen population was 4,063,000 (including both men and women)
* In 8 BC - 4,233,000
* In AD 14 - 4,937,000

The population at around 4,000,000 seems very small but estimates put the world population that time at somewhere over 200,000,000 putting Romans at about 2-3% of the world population.

-----------------------------

2. Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governer of Syria in 6 AD and performed a census of the new Roman provinces of Syria and Iudaea for the purpose of taxation in 6/7 AD. Iudaea province was formed in 6 AD by combining Judea with Samaria and Idumea. It did not include the surrounding separate provinces of Galilee, Gaulanitis (the Golan), Peraea or the Decapolis. The capital was at Caesarea.

So now we see some more problems. Though the bible is correct in naming Quirinius as governor of Syria. He did perform a census it was not covering the entire Roman Empire as the bible claims. It covered only the provinces of Syria and Iudaea. It did NOT include the province of Galilee where Joseph and Mary came from and so not only were they exempt from taking part in the census they would not have been permitted to take part even if they wanted to (that would be like me as a Canadian trying to take part in a New York city Census).

2a. This claim comes with a bonus debunking as well! We know that Quirinius became governor in 6 AD. Well remember Herod the Great? He is the one who killed all the babies after Jesus was born (which was during the census)



Well… He died in 4 BC. A full 10 years BEFORE the census during which Jesus was supposed to be born. Isn’t history great?

--------------------------------

3. It states that “And everyone went to his own town to register”. And that Joseph had to go to Bethlehem as he was from the House of David (notice it does NOT say it was his home town or his father’s home town). As stated above this indicates the census was conducted based on Jewish tribal affiliation. Roman Census’ were not conducted based on local custom but the entire local taxable population. The census was actually conducted for the purpose of properly levying and enforcing taxes.

Also there are 12 tribes of Israel. That means if everyone had to return to the town his tribe originated from then the ENTIRE population of Israel would abandon most of the towns and return en masse to a total of 12 locations. This would not only be ruinous to the abandoned towns but also to the ones where everyone went. No census could possibly be conducted in such a fashion.

--------------------------------

4. Was Joseph from Galilee? There is no extrabiblical evidence for it but ALL of the gospels agree that is where he was from. As already stated above Galilee was not included in the census. Joseph would not have taken part.

---------------------------------

So not only is no prophecy fulfilled, your book is shown to be very inaccurate historically and impossible from a social/economic stand point. I look forward to your rebuttal and hope that you provide some compelling information rather than made up numbers and a made up book. Everyone please feel free to comment, let me know if I have missed anything or left anything else out.

Source Links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iudaea_Province
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Ceasar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
http://www.unrv.com/empire/roman-population.php
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...4;&version=31;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...6;&version=31;

As I stated in another post the subsequent emperors were also referred to as Augustus and Caesar. So it is very possible that Luke was referring to the Augustus Caesar "of the month" so to say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Ceasar

Also for some reason your international version of the Bible uses the word "census" instead of "taxation" which would make one or more of your assertions false

Also why did you put all the sources together at the end instead of immediately following the assertion. This makes verifying much more difficult. It would have been much more clearer and polite for everyone, not just me, to examine.

[SezMe]

Originally Posted by godless dave

Probability of happening by chance: 1 in 487.

You're so utterly wrong, Dave. It's 1 in 488. You putz.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by DOC

As I stated in another post the subsequent emperors were also referred to as Augustus and Caesar. So it is very possible that Luke was referring to the Augustus Caesar "of the month" so to say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Ceasar

Why would the bible be referring to any Caesar apart from the one in power at the time Jesus supposedly was born?

Not to mention the fact that you've completely missed the point that there wasn't any such census or taxation anywhen which required everyone to return to his ancestral home.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by Abe_the_Man

At no time did Ceasar Augustus declare that the entire Roman empire should be counted.

That's why the King James Version (Luke) says "taxed" and not "counted".


-----------------------------

Quote:

So now we see some more problems. Though the bible is correct in naming Quirinius as governor of Syria. He did perform a census it was not covering the entire Roman Empire as the bible claims.

Nowhere in the King James Version does it claim this.

Quote:

It covered only the provinces of Syria and Iudaea. It did NOT include the province of Galilee where Joseph and Mary came from and so not only were they exempt from taking part in the census they would not have been permitted to take part even if they wanted to (that would be like me as a Canadian trying to take part in a New York city Census).

Nowhere does it say it [the taxing] covered only the provinces of Syria and Judaea. It says in Luke 2:2 :

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Luk 2:2 ([And] this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

It just says the taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. There is a difference between saying something first happened somewhere and that it only happened somewhere.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by DOC

Nowhere does it say it [the taxing] covered only the provinces of Syria and Judaea. It says in Luke 2:2 :

That's the whole point; the bible says:

Quote:

Luke 2:1
And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

yet the evidence is that no such thing occurred.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by DOC

Luk 2:2 ([And] this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

It just says the taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. There is a difference between saying something first happened somewhere and that it only happened somewhere.

And it's been established, above, that

Quote:

Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governer of Syria in 6 AD

So, are you putting Jesus' birth in 6AD or later?

[DOC]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Not to mention the fact that you've completely missed the point that there wasn't any such census or taxation anywhen which required everyone to return to his ancestral home.

There is no evidence for that. But there is plenty of evidence that the Roman Empire taxed the people of the area. And why would Luke make this all up (about taxation) in a letter to his friend, which subsequently became the Gospel of Luke.

[Nogbad]

Originally Posted by DOC

Actually Dr. Ross does state that God is not the only one who uses prophecy:

from the "Fulfilled Prophecy" article mentioned earlier:

"God is not the only one, however, who uses forecasts of future events to get people's attention. Satan does, too. Through clairvoyants (such as Jeanne Dixon and Edgar Cayce), mediums, spiritists, and others, come remarkable predictions, though rarely with more than about 60 percent accuracy, never with total accuracy. Messages from Satan, furthermore, fail to match the detail of Bible prophecies, nor do they include a call to repentance."

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apo...prophecy.shtml

For the love of heck! Nostradamus and ilk are moveable feasts and people read into them what they will. People pour over past events and make stuff fit - a bit like Homer with a jigsaw puzzle and sissors. I would seriously dispute the 60% figure - more like 0.6%

Useful prophecy is pretty thin on the ground - for example the Indonesian tsunami. A heads up on that would have been nice.

With regard Biblical prophecy, it is clear from the wording that the person writing Revelation was talking about current or imminent events - not thousands of years into the future. Given that the Gospels were written 40 to 70 years after Jesus's death there was also ample time to shoehorn in phrophetic fits - again these are often pointed out in the text when a seemingly random bit of information is included and followed with "this was to fulfill prophecy". It stands to reason that there will be a correlation between sets of texts if the latter, mindful of the former, is attempting to show that the former has been proved.

[DOC]

Originally Posted by DOC

Luk 2:2 ([And] this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

It just says the taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. There is a difference between saying something first happened somewhere and that it only happened somewhere.

-----------

And it's been established, above, that
Quote:
Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governer of Syria in 6 AD

Originally Posted by zooterkin

So, are you putting Jesus' birth in 6AD or later?

Not really, it just says the taxing was "first made" during sometime in the reign of Cyrenius.

[H3LL]

Originally Posted by DOC

And why would Luke make this all up (about taxation) in a letter to his friend, which subsequently became the Gospel of Luke.

Because he's a liar?

Early Lies For Jesus... You gotta start somewhere.

.

[Hawk one]

DOC, is it really that impossible for you to fathom that anyone calling themselves Christian are still capable of lying?

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by DOC

Not really, it just says the taxing was "first made" during sometime in the reign of Cyrenius.

What do you mean, 'not really'? If the taxation was first made in the reign of Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, and he was appointed in 6AD, how could the birth of Jesus be any earlier than that, assuming you believe the taxation story?

[H3LL]

Originally Posted by Hawk one

DOC, is it really that impossible for you to fathom that anyone calling themselves Christian are still capable of lying?

Surely anyone calling themselves Christian and describing the bible as an accurate historical record has no choice other than to be a liar.

Heck, it's not even internally consistent. With multiple versions of the same story one, more or all of the versions must be a lie.

Where did the eleven disciples first meet dead Jesus again? On a mountain top in Galilee or in a room in Jerusalem?

I have 300+ other ones if DOC has the time?
.

[Nogbad]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

What do you mean, 'not really'? If the taxation was first made in the reign of Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, and he was appointed in 6AD, how could the birth of Jesus be any earlier than that, assuming you believe the taxation story?

Whereas Herod the Great died in 4BC.

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by DOC

There is no evidence for that.

Then why do you keep mentioning it?

Quote:

But there is plenty of evidence that the Roman Empire taxed the people of the area.

But not the area where Joseph was living (Galillee).

Quote:

And why would Luke make this all up (about taxation) in a letter to his friend, which subsequently became the Gospel of Luke.

Because he somehow had to place the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem in order to 'fulfil' the prophecy?

[DOC]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

What do you mean, 'not really'? If the taxation was first made in the reign of Publius Sulpicius Quirinius, and he was appointed in 6AD, how could the birth of Jesus be any earlier than that, assuming you believe the taxation story?

I think this site answers the above question very well, and it also gives a referral of Luke being a very good historian that joobz asked about earlier. The mere fact that Luke even mentions all of these people and events shows just how "detailed" his gospel account was, and why he is considered a first rate historian.

from the article "When did Luke 2 census occur":

"To date, the only census documented outside the Bible near this time under Quirinius is the one referred to by the historian Josephus (Antiquities XVIII, 26 [ii.1], which he says took place in 6 A.D.

But notice that Luke 2:2 says that the census taken around the time Joseph and Mary went down to Bethlehem was the "first" census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. This implies that there was a later census--most likely the one referred to by Josephus--which Dr. Luke would have also certainly known about.

There is good reason to believe that Quirinius was actually twice in a position of command (the Greek expression hegemoneuo in Luke 2:2 which is often translated "governor" really just means "to be leading" or "in charge of") over the province of Syria, which included Judea as a political subdivision. The first time would have been when he was leading military action against the Homonadensians during the period between 12 and 2 B.C. His title may even have been "military governor."

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-ai...sus-luke2.html

[JoeEllison]

It is a book of myths. There's no "fulfilled prophesy" involved. What a bunch of silly, childish, superstitious stupidity.


Did I mention silly?

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by DOC

There is good reason to believe that Quirinius was actually twice in a position of command (the Greek expression hegemoneuo in Luke 2:2 which is often translated "governor" really just means "to be leading" or "in charge of") over the province of Syria, which included Judea as a political subdivision. The first time would have been when he was leading military action against the Homonadensians during the period between 12 and 2 B.C. His title may even have been "military governor."

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-ai...sus-luke2.html

It's a shame that site doesn't feel the need to share the evidence which gives 'good reason' to believe that, isn't it? Do you have a pointer to it?

[DOC]

Quote:
But there is plenty of evidence that the Roman Empire taxed the people of the area.

Originally Posted by zooterkin

But not the area where Joseph was living (Galillee).

So your saying the Romans made Galilee a tax free zone for some reason. Do you have any evidence of that.

_____________


Quote:
And why would Luke make this all up (about taxation) in a letter to his friend, which subsequently became the Gospel of Luke.

Quote:

Because he somehow had to place the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem in order to 'fulfil' the prophecy?

So the physician Luke, who was either Greek or Syrian, wanted to screw his own Greek speaking friend, Theophilus, in order to prove that the Jewish Messiah had come -- the messiah who taught truth and ethics. And this physician, who was a companion of Paul, was thus willing to risk his life almost everyday for something that he knew was a bold faced lie.

I guess your entitled to your opinion.

[JoeEllison]

Originally Posted by DOC

So the physician Luke, who was either Greek or Syrian, wanted to screw his own Greek friend, Theophilus, in order to prove that the Jewish Messiah had come -- the messiah who taught truth and ethics. I guess your entitled to your opinion.

Clearly, you haven't learned anything from your imaginary friend, nor have any of the sources you site. Lying for Jesus seems to be the exact opposite of "truth and ethics".

[zooterkin]

Originally Posted by DOC

So your saying the Romans made Galilee a tax free zone for some reason. Do you have any evidence of that.

I'm saying no such thing, I'm referring to the earlier post:

Originally Posted by Abe_the_Man

Let’s break this down into its main claims:

1. Ceasar Augustus declared that ALL of the roman world should be counted
2. This is the first Census while Quirinius was governor of Syria
3. Everyone was required to go to "his town" to register. Joseph is of the House of David and therefore required to go to Bethlehem as it is the home of David. This indicates the census was conducted based on Jewish tribal affiliation.
4. Joseph is from Galilee
...
-----------------------------

2. Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was appointed governer of Syria in 6 AD and performed a census of the new Roman provinces of Syria and Iudaea for the purpose of taxation in 6/7 AD. Iudaea province was formed in 6 AD by combining Judea with Samaria and Idumea. It did not include the surrounding separate provinces of Galilee, Gaulanitis (the Golan), Peraea or the Decapolis. The capital was at Caesarea.

So now we see some more problems. Though the bible is correct in naming Quirinius as governor of Syria. He did perform a census it was not covering the entire Roman Empire as the bible claims. It covered only the provinces of Syria and Iudaea. It did NOT include the province of Galilee where Joseph and Mary came from and so not only were they exempt from taking part in the census they would not have been permitted to take part even if they wanted to (that would be like me as a Canadian trying to take part in a New York city Census).

Quote:

:
And why would Luke make this all up (about taxation) in a letter to his friend, which subsequently became the Gospel of Luke.

I don't know, but there's no independent evidence to support it, and some, already quoted, against it.

Quote:

So the physician Luke, who was either Greek or Syrian, wanted to screw his own Greek friend, Theophilus, in order to prove that the Jewish Messiah had come -- the messiah who taught truth and ethics. I guess your entitled to your opinion.

Remind me, do we have the original manuscript which Luke wrote, or the result of several generations of copying by many hands, each of which might have their own motives for making changes?

[Nogbad]

Originally Posted by DOC

I think this site answers the above question very well, and it also gives a referral of Luke being a very good historian that joobz asked about earlier. The mere fact that Luke even mentions all of these people and events shows just how "detailed" his gospel account was, and why he is considered a first rate historian.

from the article "When did Luke 2 census occur"

To date, the only census documented outside the Bible near this time under Quirinius is the one referred to by the historian Josephus (Antiquities XVIII, 26 [ii.1], which he says took place in 6 A.D.

But notice that Luke 2:2 says that the census taken around the time Joseph and Mary went down to Bethlehem was the "first" census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. This implies that there was a later census--most likely the one referred to by Josephus--which Dr. Luke would have also certainly known about.

There is good reason to believe that Quirinius was actually twice in a position of command (the Greek expression hegemoneuo in Luke 2:2 which is often translated "governor" really just means "to be leading" or "in charge of") over the province of Syria, which included Judea as a political subdivision. The first time would have been when he was leading military action against the Homonadensians during the period between 12 and 2 B.C. His title may even have been "military governor."

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-ai...sus-luke2.html

Those are arguments that have been put forward to reconcile the dates of Luke and Matthew but they are not without difficulties. The general view is that the Gospels, written 70 to 100 years after the events, simply muddled some facts. There was a census in 6AD, this is known from outside sources. Herod did die in 4BC this is also verifiable from records that cover the breakup of his kingdom. The Romans did conduct censuses on a number of occasions in various parts of the Empire and Augustus did three times call for a Roman Citizen wide census but that would be 28BC, 8BC or 14AD and is unlikely to be what Luke is referring to as Joseph was not a Roman citizen. It should also be recalled that Luke is written after the Jewish revolt and the destruction of Judea.

It is also unusual (although not impossible) to make people travel to ancestral towns to be counted. It would also be unusual to make the wife attend and given she was 9 months pregnant not exactly a nice couple of days break either.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by DOC

(1) Some time before 500 B.C. the prophet Daniel proclaimed that Israel's long-awaited Messiah would begin his public ministry 483 years after the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25-26). He further predicted that the Messiah would be "cut off," killed, and that this event would take place prior to a second destruction of Jerusalem. Abundant documentation shows that these prophecies were perfectly fulfilled in the life (and crucifixion) of Jesus Christ. The decree regarding the restoration of Jerusalem was issued by Persia's King Artaxerxes to the Hebrew priest Ezra in 458 B.C., 483 years later the ministry of Jesus Christ began in Galilee. (Remember that due to calendar changes, the date for the start of Christ's ministry is set by most historians at about 26 A.D. Also note that from 1 B.C. to 1 A.D. is just one year.) Jesus' crucifixion occurred only a few years later, and about four decades later, in 70 A.D. came the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 105.)*

Teensy problem -- there was no prophet Daniel. The book of Daniel was written many years later, during the time of Judah Macabee (sp?), when the Greeks controlled Palestine. The story was intended as a moral tale about keeping the faith while living under foreign rule.

[aggle-rithm]

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Not to mention the fact that you've completely missed the point that there wasn't any such census or taxation anywhen which required everyone to return to his ancestral home.

Roman bureaucrat: Listen up, everyone, we're going to have a census...does anyone here have a famous ancestor...? You, there, what's your name? Joseph? And your famous ancestor was....David? Never heard of him. Where's he from....? Bethlehem? No, no, I don't need any documentation. We Romans are pretty laid back, we don't care about procedure. Just go to...what was it? Bethlehem? To be counted. And take any pregnant women you might be planning to marry later.

[joobz]

DOC, I don't mean to present proof of your deceitful dishonest methods, but I feel obligated to present the truth.
Why would you requote this:

Originally Posted by DOC

I'm not sure if the famous Oxford historian, Thomas Arnold, who wrote the 3 volume "History of Rome" said that about Luke, but in case anyone didn't read this in the forum he did say this:

Quote by Thomas Arnold:

"Thousands and tens of thousands of persons have gone through [the evidence for the resurrection] piece by piece, as carefully as every judge summing up on a most important cause. I have myself done it many times over, not to persuade others but to satisfy myself. I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

Source: Thomas Arnold, as cited in Wilbur Smith's "Therefore Stand" (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1945), 425-26

Last time you posted this quote, Wollery called you out saying:

Originally Posted by wollery

We refute a claim, you try to back it up with a webpage that's either completely irrelevant, or produced by a totally biased source. We refute that, you bring in a point of argument that was refuted last month in another thread. We point that out, and rerefute it, you post another link to a webpage that doesn't actually say what you claim. We point this out, you post yet another link. This is refuted, you post yet another claim that has already been refuted 3 times in 2 different threads. This claim is rererererefuted. You make an appeal to authority from someone whose field of expertise is so far outside the field they're commenting on that it's in another continent. We point this out, you sound incredulous that someone so accomplished in one field could possibly be dismissed as unknowlegeable in any other field. We refer you, yet again, to the argument from authority, and point out the stupidity of that person in other fields. You post even more links to webpages that have been refuted at least 5 times in 3 threads. We rerererererererererererefute them. And so on ad nauseum.

You challenged him, appropriately:

Originally Posted by DOC

Your post has a lot of generalized statements with no post numbers to back them up. Please say what exactly was refuted and either how it was refuted or in what post number it was refuted. Anybody can say we did this and we did that.

To this honest challenge, I responded

Originally Posted by joobz

Well you asked.
You gave an appeal to authority which provided no evidence simply some other guys assertion. This man is a christian looking for confirmation of his belief and is unlikely to be truly honest about such matters. Especially considering that his language is such hyperbole.

The posts that refuted this claim for pretty much these reasons are
Thread: Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins post:373
Thread: Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins post:379
Thread: Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins post:380
Thread: Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins post:392
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:142
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:143
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:144
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:145
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:148
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:151
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:152
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:154
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:169
Thread: It is quite certain Peter spent his last years in Rome post:232
Thread: Who was Jesus? Post:21
Thread: Who was Jesus? Post:22
Thread: Who was Jesus? Post:26
Thread: Who was Jesus? Post:27

Not once, in any of these posts have you actually presented ANY OF THE EVIDENCE that Thomas Arnold claims is so convincing. Knowing you, you would have presented it if it existed. The fact that you fail to do so is clear enough admission to me that you do not have such evidence and neither did Thomas Arnold.

Then you posted twice in that thread, havinig avoided addressing my response. So I said:

Originally Posted by joobz

Interesting. I can't help but notice that you completely avoided my rebuttal of your challenge. I would expect that if someone was truly serious about making a claim, they would directly address any argument made against them. Especially one that clearly demonstrates the weakness of your claims.

You then posted two more times in that thread alone, and failed to respond to my post.

Now, in this new thread, you use the exact same discounted quote. There exists an outstanding challenge that you have failed to addresss. Yet, you used this quote. As such, you have FULLY AND WHOLEHEARTEDLY PROVING WOLLERY'S POINT.

So, you can either
1.) Tell me why I'm wrong using evidence
2.) Apologize to Wollery for dishonestly rebuking him knowing full well he was correct.
3.) Do neither of those things and simply be a dishonest, unscrupulous person.

I would hope you do not choose to do option 3.

[Ocelot]

Originally Posted by DOC

Nowhere in the King James Version does it claim this.

Luke 2:2

Note using the Greeek spelling of Cyrenius rather than Quirinius doesn't change the date.

Apology accepted

[Garrette]

Originally Posted by DOC

I think this site answers the above question very well, and it also gives a referral of Luke being a very good historian that joobz asked about earlier. The mere fact that Luke even mentions all of these people and events shows just how "detailed" his gospel account was, and why he is considered a first rate historian.

from the article "When did Luke 2 census occur":

"To date, the only census documented outside the Bible near this time under Quirinius is the one referred to by the historian Josephus (Antiquities XVIII, 26 [ii.1], which he says took place in 6 A.D.

But notice that Luke 2:2 says that the census taken around the time Joseph and Mary went down to Bethlehem was the "first" census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. This implies that there was a later census--most likely the one referred to by Josephus--which Dr. Luke would have also certainly known about.

There is good reason to believe that Quirinius was actually twice in a position of command (the Greek expression hegemoneuo in Luke 2:2 which is often translated "governor" really just means "to be leading" or "in charge of") over the province of Syria, which included Judea as a political subdivision. The first time would have been when he was leading military action against the Homonadensians during the period between 12 and 2 B.C. His title may even have been "military governor."

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-ai...sus-luke2.html

Emphasis mine.

Just in case any lurkers need final convincing of DOC's illogic and inconsistency. He has been criticizing opponents for using "census" instead of "taxation" yet he quotes a source which calles it a "census" and not "taxation."

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by skeptical

2) The prophecy was unequivocally made BEFORE the supposed events occurred

Where the Bible does this (Jesus will return, all this "number of the beast" stuff), it has failed miserably for 2000 years and counting. Indeed, "within the lives of some here now" seems to have clenched it as a failure, once and for all.

And "re-interpreting" it to be metaphorical, or hypothesising it includes the unending lives of some lifted up or Jesus or something, is not intellectually honest. A prediction was made. This is scientific, in a sense. It failed. Therefore the prediction was wrong. End of story.

And any God who punishes you for not continuing to re-interpret and believe, is not deserving of worship.

End of story.

[This Guy]

Originally Posted by DOC

Well here are 3 out of the 13 he listed. He also said about 2000 out of 2500 have been fulfilled so far.

(1) Some time before 500 B.C. the prophet Daniel proclaimed that Israel's long-awaited Messiah would begin his public ministry 483 years after the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25-26). He further predicted that the Messiah would be "cut off," killed, and that this event would take place prior to a second destruction of Jerusalem. Abundant documentation shows that these prophecies were perfectly fulfilled in the life (and crucifixion) of Jesus Christ. The decree regarding the restoration of Jerusalem was issued by Persia's King Artaxerxes to the Hebrew priest Ezra in 458 B.C., 483 years later the ministry of Jesus Christ began in Galilee. (Remember that due to calendar changes, the date for the start of Christ's ministry is set by most historians at about 26 A.D. Also note that from 1 B.C. to 1 A.D. is just one year.) Jesus' crucifixion occurred only a few years later, and about four decades later, in 70 A.D. came the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 105.)*

OK, I have to admit this one confuses me. So I had to look at what someone else had to say about it. That confused me even more. But I think I understand enough of it to say with some certainty that the alleged prophecy either didn't pertain to Jesus, or was wrong. Here's what I found -

DAN. 9:24-25 ("Seventy weeks (70 X 7 = 490 years) are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins....and to anoint the most Holy....from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks and threescore and two weeks (7 + 62 =69) and (69 X 7 = 483 years): the street shall be built again, and the wall even in troublous times"). This begins, of course, the famous prophecy of Daniel which apologists have seized with maximum celerity. Unfortunately, problems abound. (a) The words "week" and "weeks" come from the Hebrew word which means 7 days, not 7 years. (b) Unlike the RSV which says, "Seventy weeks of years," the KJV says "Seventy weeks." These weeks are real weeks of seven days each, not years. Dan. 10:2-4 shows as much: (b1) "I Daniel was mourning 3 full weeks." Would he mourn 21 years? (b2) "I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth, neither did I anoint myself at all, till 3 whole weeks are fulfilled." Would he have gone without eating these things for 21 years? (b3) "And in the four and twentieth day (24th) of the first month...." Would he talk about the 24th day in verse 4 after just talking about 21 days (3 weeks) in verse 2 if these 3 weeks meant anything other than 21 days, such as 21 years? If 21 days means 21 years then the 24th day should be the 24th year. The KJV does not mention "years." (c) 483 years were supposed to elapse from the command to rebuild Jerusalem to the coming of Jesus. The decree of Cyrus to rebuild the temple and Jerusalem was made in 536 B.C. (Isa. 44:28) which is 532 years before the birth of Jesus in 4 B.C., not 483 years. The prophecy was 49 years short. (d) The KJV says "the most Holy," which implies a person, not a place; while the RSV says "a most holy place" and shows a place, not a person, is being referred to. (e) The word "Messiah" is never applied to the expected deliverer of the Israelites in the whole Bible. It is indifferently applied to kings, priests, prophets, and those who are inducted into their office. (f) In order to make "Messiah the Prince" apply to Jesus one must distort the text because he was no prince or "Nagid". The Hebrew word "Nagid" always denotes a prince or ruler with temporal authority which Jesus lacked. (68) DAN. 9:26 ("And after threescore and two weeks (62) or (7 X 62) = 434 years shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood...."). (a) After what? If after Cyrus' decree in 536 B.C., there is a problem. Jesus died in 33 A.D according to most accounts. From 536 B.C. to 33 A.D. is 569 years. Five hundred and sixty-nine years exceeds 434 years by 135 years. The prophecy is 135 years short. (b) If after Jesus' birth, it would mean Jesus lived to be 434 years old. (c) How could Jesus be cut off, i.e. die, after 62 weeks when verse 25 said he would not be born or appear until after 69 weeks? (d) The word "and" implies that Jerusalem was destroyed when the Messiah came. Yet, this did not occur until 70 A.D. which was more than 40 years after the Messiah was cut off. (e) When was Jerusalem ever destroyed by a literal flood? Apologists will, no doubt, abandon their literal approach and claim this is referring to a flood of people.

Found it here

Quote:

(2) In approximately 700 B.C. the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah (Micah 5:2). The fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Christ is one of the most widely known and widely celebrated facts in history.

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 105.)

This one was just discussed in another thread somewhere around here, not long ago. The referenced scripture talks about a person, not a place.

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

See 1 Chronicles 4:4.

And Penuel the father of Gedor, and Ezer the father of Hushah. These are the sons of Hur, the firstborn of Ephratah, the father of Bethlehem. Nothing to do with a town called Bethlehem, or a guy named Jesus or Christ.

Quote:

(3) In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave—thirty pieces of silver, according to Jewish law-and also that this money would be used to buy a burial ground for Jerusalem's poor foreigners (Zechariah 11:12-13). Bible writers and secular historians both record thirty pieces of silver as the sum paid to Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus, and they indicate that the money went to purchase a "potter's field," used—just as predicted—for the burial of poor aliens (Matthew 27:3-10).

(Probability of chance fulfillment = 1 in 1011.)

The only thing Zechariah 11:12-13 and Matthew 27:3-10 have in common is "30 pieces of silver" and "potter". However, if Zechariah was meant to be a prophecy about the betrayal of Jesus, it did a poor job.

Let's look -

Zechariah

12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.

13 And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.


Versus -

Matthew 27

3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.

5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

10 And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.

First, Matthew says this was spoken by Jeremy (Jeremiah?), not Zechariah. But of course there is nothing about this in Jeremiah. The best Christians could come up with is the bit in Zechariah. Problem is Judas' 30 pieces of silver could not be used in the treasury, because it was blood money, while Zechariah's 30 pieces of silver was "a goodly price that I was prised at of them" and would have been acceptable by the "House of the Lord", which is who he gave it too. I believe the word potter in Zechariah should have been translated as treasury. But I can't swear to that.

Point is, like most, if not all, Christian attempts to find prophecy of their Christ in the Old Testament, these fall short of actually being what they are claimed to be.

What does that do to the good Doctor's math?

Here's my version of Prophecy Math. The odds of a Christian finding a true prophecy concerning Jesus Christ in the Old Testament is 1 in 10 to the 5th (I don't know how to do the little subscript thingy).

Show me a true Old Testament prophecy about Jesus Christ, and I'll revise my math.

Just a hint before you try. Be sure to read the passage in context! That's where most alleged prophecies come from, the misreading, or taking out of context what is read.

[joobz]

Originally Posted by DOC

I think this site answers the above question very well, and it also gives a referral of Luke being a very good historian that joobz asked about earlier.

I know you don't like long posts, so I'll keep this short:
Using Thomas Arnold as a reliable source is a dishonest act.

I've proven him unreliable, see above post for more details. The facts are available to you in this thread.

Please stop posting false/missleading information. It makes you look bad.

[Abe_the_Man]

Originally Posted by DOC

That's why the King James Version (Luke) says "taxed" and not "counted".


-----------------------------



Nowhere in the King James Version does it claim this.




Nowhere does it say it [the taxing] covered only the provinces of Syria and Judaea. It says in Luke 2:2 :

And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.

Luk 2:2 ([And] this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

It just says the taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. There is a difference between saying something first happened somewhere and that it only happened somewhere.

Okay so they decided to 'tax' everyone and not conduct a census. So lets see. I'm emperor and I want everyone to be taxed.... Perhaps we should go to the different provinces and record how many people live there... Yeah that would help with taxing, while we're at it we can find out where they live so we know how much tax should be obtained from each area... Yeah. Too bad there isn't a word for documenting the populations of places.... Oh wait there is! It's called a census!

Quote:

Quirinius [Cyrenius] served as governor of Syria with nominal authority over Iudaea until 12[AD]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius

So the supposed taxing of the whole roman world took place while Cyrenius was Governor. That means sometime between 6 and 12 AD. We have a 6 year period. The only Census declared by Ceasar Augustus (the only person called Ceasar Augustus during Quirinius' Governorship) was in 8 BC (population 4,233,000). ****This was an error on my part. 8 BC is not during Quirinius' reign from 6-12 AD. No Census' were called by Augustus during the 6 years of Quirinius' reign.*****

Only one census was performed under Quirinius and it was ONLY for the provinces of Syria and Iudaea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

[Ocelot]

The article speaks of 2,500 prophesies, 2,000 of which have been fulfilled.

The mathematics used to arrive at a total probability is flawed. getting 2,000 right out of 2,500 is not the same as the probability of getting 2,000 right out of 2,000.

We are assured that the others are due to come true but that remains to be seen.

We are also told that no prophesy has been proven wrong. We'll see about that too.

Instead we're offered 13 cherry picked prophesies and in an astonishing disregard to selection bias told that the probabilities of these coming true is 1 in 10^138

So already rather than the promised evidence of 1 in 10^2000 we're cut down to a fallacious one in 10^138 before we've even examined these prophesises in any detail.

Lets do so.

1) Daniel 9:25-26

I can see the mention of the proclamation of a decree to rebuild Jerusalem but no mention of 483 years. It's all threescore and two weeks.

Quote:

23At the beginning of thy supplications the commandment came forth, and I am come to shew thee; for thou art greatly beloved: therefore understand the matter, and consider the vision.

24Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy.

25Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

26And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

27And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

To convert this to 483 years we must assume that by "Weeks" Daniel meant a period of 7 years.

Which raises the question of how the prophesy of the messiah being cut off after 434 years?

This is in no way a clear prophesy, but one capable of being retrofitted to a large number of circumstances. For example it refers to Jesus beginning his ministry, had the prophesy been out by a few years it could have been interpreted as referring to his birth, death. A choice of which birth date to choose for Christ adds further wiggle room. The probability given is one in 100,000

A justification for this is given

Quote:

*The estimates of probability included herein come from a group of secular research scientists. As an example of their method of estimation, consider their calculations for this first prophecy cited:
· Since the Messiah's ministry could conceivably begin in any one of about 5000 years, there is, then, one chance in about 5000 that his ministry could begin in 26 A.D.
· Since the Messiah is God in human form, the possibility of his being killed is considerably low, say less than one chance in 10.
· Relative to the second destruction of Jerusalem, this execution has roughly an even chance of occurring before or after that event, that is, one chance in 2.
Hence, the probability of chance fulfilment for this prophecy is 1 in 5000 x 10 x 2, which is 1 in 100,000, or 1 in 105.

I'm more than a little curious about the "secular research scientists" mentioned. I wonder from where they could get the figure of 5,000 years. Where would they get the probability of a messiah being killed. Note Daniel did not predict a God in human form, he predicted a messiah. "The anointed savoir of the Jews from the Davidic Line" The chance of such a being dying is of course one chance in one, the same as for the rest of us. Only later was the Messiah claimed to be divine. Again the mention of the second destruction of Jerusalem is a matter of interpretation. An alternative interpretation is that the Messiah's people will destroy a city causing a flood. This did not happen.

2) Micah 5:2 here we have a prediction that out of Bethlehem will come a ruler of Israel. This of course cannot have been fulfilled by Jesus who confounded Messianic expectations by refusing the title of ruler. The rulers of Israel at the time were Herod's sons the tetrarchs

Given time a ruler of Israel will hail from Bethlehem. As far as I can find the Presidents of the modern Israel have been largely immigrant.

For this to fulfil the prophesy he will have to "waste the land of Assyria with the sword"

Obviously this prophesy hasn't been fulfilled.

However let us imagine that the person it refers to is Jesus Christ. What independent evidence do we have that he was born in Bethlehem?

None?

If only there were some sort of census data we could refer to. Unfortunately not. Another inaccuracy in the bible. It fails to record contemporary event accurately let alone make successful predictions.

However lets ignore that once more and assume that the prophesy does indeed explicitly say that Jesus Christ would be born in Bethlehem. Lets us ignore the possibility that the nativity story was alter contrived to artificially fulfil this prophesy. What is the probability that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem.

The article say 1 in 100,000. Given a world wide population of around 170 million and a population of Bethlehem of a few thousand perhaps that is reasonable. But really are we to consider that ancient Hebrew prophesises might equally have been fulfilled by a chinaman, native american or aborigine. Surely to have any chance of leading the people of Israel the messiah must be local lad. Preferably a Jew of the Davidic Line.

The chance of a Jew of the Davidic Line being born in Bethlehem is far far better odds than 1 in 100,000

So not only is the claim that the prophesy was fulfilled highly dubious but so is the calculation as to the chance probability of it's fulfilment.

3) Zechariah 11:12-13 obtuse though it is refers to 30 pieces of silver. The price paid in the Jesus story to Judas to betray Jesus. Again we have no corroborating evidence of this story and must suspect that it might have been retrofitted to the preceding prophesy.

Quote:

12And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.

13And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.

Again this oracle's vision is open to much interpretation. Should Jesus have been paid 30 pieces of silver rather than Judas it might have been considered fulfilled. If no relation to a potter could be found then such could be assumed to have occurred in heaven "The House of the Lord"

Certainly no prediction of burying poor aliens seems apparent in the cited prophesy.

So we have the prediction that the Lord will be deemed due 30 pieces of silver at some point and the money will be given to a potter in a house of the lord.

The suggested fulfilment is to be found in Matthew 27:3-10 here we find not only that Matthew was explicitly aware of a prediction in need of fulfilment but that the Chief Priest were implicitly guided by it.

What probability does the article assign to priests being guided by prophesy? Who knows what part this plays in the phenomenal 1 in 100,000,000,000 chance it assigns to the prophesy coming true. That's longer odds of me winning the national lottery and a six horse accumulator in the same day.

In fact there's no independent corroboration of this supposed fulfilment. if it ever happened there's no demonstration that 30 pieces of sliver was not an approximation nor how spurious the link to a potter there might be.

4) Psalm 22:16 says "they pierced my hands and feet." Tradition dictates it was written by King David long before the story of Christ's crucifixion. however Earlier Hebrew manuscripts suggest that this verse may have originally been "Like a Lion these are my Hands and Feet" Either way the psalm doesn't specifically claim to be a prediction of Christ on the Cross rather a description of one who feels he is forsaken by his God.

Psalm 34:20 says "He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken." yet this again make no reference to the messiah but is a prophesy regarding the righteous. I guess this can be considered true of everybody how has ever broken a bone is considered not to be righteous, somewhat of a "No True Scotsman"

Zechariah 12:10 says "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced" this at least is accepted as a Messianic Prophesy.

Rather than words that "perfectly depict that mode of execution" we have a mention of pierced. This could equally have been fulfilled by a death in battle or even a metaphorical piercing. Add the dubious linkage to hands and feet. and maybe you have something but a probability of one in 10 million million. This sort of probability would almost suggest that Jesus was the only person ever to have their hands and feet pierced. If only one person alive today had their hands and feet pierced then that’d be a one in 6 thousand million odds of chance fulfilment. For it to be odds of 10, million milllion, million it’d have to have happened to only one person in a population 1,500 time larger than the current world total. More people than have ever lived.

5) Isaiah 44:28 mentions Cyrus and says he'll build Jerusalem, Isaiah 45:1 says God will open gates for him. Isaiah 45:13 says he will release the slaves and reaffirms that he will rebuild Jerusalem and the temple.

The article suggest that this was fulfilled by Cyrus the Great's conquest of Babylon and his subsequent freeing of the Jews. Rather than rebuilding Jerusalem and the temple he actually stopped the Jews from Rebuilding the temple on the lies of the Cuthites.

Nonetheless a full reading in context is fair description of Hebrew captivity by the Babylonians and subsequent release by a conqueror named Cyrus.

Much of this is all recorded in contemporary historical texts. Now there's a first!

As simple explanation for the remarkable success of this prophesy is that Only the first chapters of Isaiah were truly his work. From Chapter 40 there is a sudden anonymity to the work with Isaiah’s name no longer mentioned and the Mood of the book changes. Many therefore believe that the chapters mentioned were added later. Such post-diction is hardly supernatural.

Even so the probability mentioned is quite extraordinary. One in thousand million million. That's the odds that I'll win the jackpot on my both next two goes at the national lottery and then some.

It may seem a tall order to predict that a seemingly impregnable city will one day fall but since no timescale is mentioned it will eventually happen. 1 in 1 - a certainty.

To then suggest that the slaves will be freed is a rarity but has been known and I feel had been known back then. Conservative estimate perhaps 1 in ten.

That leaves one in 100,000,000,000,000 to account for but all that is left is the name Cyrus...

To place odds on it at this scale is to suggest that there's only a one in sixteen chance that anybody at all in the world alive today answers to the name Cyrus. In fact it's the 515th most popular name in the US Who know how popular the name was in Persia in the 6th Century BC?

So this is indeed a remarkable prediction but the probability assigned is of ridiculous origin. The most likely explanation for the nonetheless sinificalt improbability of chance fulfilment is that it was in fact a post-diction made after Isaiah’s death.

6) Isaiah 13:17-22 predicts the fall of Babylon as does Jeremiah 51:26, 43 furthermore they suggest that the city will perish completely and not be rebuilt.

Well We're told that the article believes that all these predictions are independent. Instead we seem to be counting the fall of Babylon twice.

This is as if on assessing the probability that I correct guess the Queen of Spades from a pack of cards (1 in 52) you also factor in that I correctly guess an Queen (1 in 13) a Face Card (3 in 13) a spade (1 in 4) and a black card (1 in 2) to give a probability of less than one in 23 thousand.

However as mentioned in (5) the eventual fall of a city is inevitable. Given that no time frame is mentioned it has a probability of 1 in 1 of coming true eventually. The additional information we have here is that it will never be rebuilt.

I guess the inclusion of the fall of Babylon twice is a tacit acknowledgement of its eventual inevitability and what we have here is the odds that once it falls it will fall for good.

This odds of this are apparently one in 1,000,000,000

This would suggest that ina study of thousands of millions of cities that have fallen only a few have never been rebuilt. In truth there are not that many examples to study and more than a few have remained ghost towns.

Complete nonsense.

However it does seem to be an accurate prediction even if the estimate of chance fulfilment is out by many orders of magnitude.

Again we look at the verse in Isaiah, it is one that according to the contemporary catholic understanding was added later. It is thus not a prediction but a recording of events past. However one successful prediction of this event is enough and that would seem to fall to Jeremiah.

Well done Jeremiah! You correctly predicted that when Babylon fell it would fall for good.

It would be interesting to perform historical analysis of times when cities have fallen and what proportion of the time they're rebuilt.

7) Jeremiah 31:38-40 supposedly depicts exactly the construction of the nine suburbs of Jerusalem.

See what you think.

Quote:

38Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that the city shall be built to the LORD from the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner.
39And the measuring line shall yet go forth over against it upon the hill Gareb, and shall compass about to Goath.
40And the whole valley of the dead bodies, and of the ashes, and all the fields unto the brook of Kidron, unto the corner of the horse gate toward the east, shall be holy unto the LORD; it shall not be plucked up, nor thrown down any more for ever.

I think that if I were an Israeli town planner and were given these as detailed instructions I'd feel I had a pretty free reign to do whatever I liked. For a start nobody actually knows where the tower of Hananeel actually was in ancient Jerusalem. We know gareb was a hill probably the hill of lepers. where Goath might be is anybody's guess.

how then do we arrive at a figure of one in a million million million as the chance fulfilment of a prophesy so vague as to beggar belief.


So I've got halfway through this list of predictions. I've find Bible verses which require a very generous interpretation to be considered predictions. I’ve found predictions that are not confirmed only in the bible and even obviously in the manner of a self fulfilling prophesy. I've found post-diction being mistaken as prediction. I’ve found hilarious estimates of the probability of chance fulfilment and statistical howlers so basic that if committed by an educated person must surely be deliberate.

As such I don’t think I’m likely to put much effort into continuing. Being the victim of cynical lies is rather tiring

As such I must ask a question that certain Evangelists must get tired of being asked.

"How serious a sin is bearing false witness under your belief system?"

There is however one correct prophesy. Jeremiah on the Permanency of the fall of Babylon. I’d be interested in scholarly information on the probability of a city once sacked remaining desolate.

[Abe_the_Man]

Originally Posted by This Guy

The only thing Zechariah 11:12-13 and Matthew 27:3-10 have in common is "30 pieces of silver" and "potter". However, if Zechariah was meant to be a prophecy about the betrayal of Jesus, it did a poor job.

Let's look -

Zechariah

12 And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.

13 And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD.


Versus -

Matthew 27

3 Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,

4 Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.

5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

6 And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.

7 And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

8 Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

9 Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

10 And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.

First, Matthew says this was spoken by Jeremy (Jeremiah?), not Zechariah. But of course there is nothing about this in Jeremiah. The best Christians could come up with is the bit in Zechariah. Problem is Judas' 30 pieces of silver could not be used in the treasury, because it was blood money, while Zechariah's 30 pieces of silver was "a goodly price that I was prised at of them" and would have been acceptable by the "House of the Lord", which is who he gave it too. I believe the word potter in Zechariah should have been translated as treasury. But I can't swear to that.

I'm glad you brought up the 30 pieces of silver thing! I have been researching New Testament errors recently so I'm absolutely loving this thread.


King James version

Quote:

Mathew 26:15And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.

New International version

Quote:

Mathew 26:15and asked, "What are you willing to give me if I hand him over to you?" So they counted out for him thirty silver coins.

- I would like to point out that this has been CHANGED in newer versions of the bible to say "30 coins of silver". They did NOT use 'pieces' for currency during the time of Jesus! That would be like me starting a new job and my boss telling me I will be payed in Roman talents rather than Dollars!

And Don't think they get away with it by 'correcting' the 'mistranslation' by changing the word "pieces" to "coins". Starting in 135 BCE the Seleucid coinage became the standard coinage used Judaea with the first coin minted in Judea was the Tetradrachm in 150 BC (http://members.verizon.net/vze3xycv/...HasmonAnt4.htm), however before that Greek coins stamped with Hebrew were the norm. Seleucidian coinage had 10 denominations of coins, 5 of which contained silver.

Quote:

* With the denomination based on the (greek) Obol
* 1 Obol = = = Anchor and Bow and Quiver.
* 2 Diobol = = = Bow and Quiver
* 3 Hemidrachm = 13 mm = 1.87 gm
* 6 Drachm = = 4.10 gm = Anchor
* 24 Tetradrachm = = = Elephant walking

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seleucid_coinage

By changing the word pieces to coins they change the interperetation from a set value to a value which could be anywhere from the value of 30 Obol all the way up to 720 Obol. That would be the same if I promised to pay you with 30 silver coins. Will you get 30 nickels, dimes, quarters or toonies(if in Canada). There is a massive difference here from 30 "pieces of silver" which has a set value as 1 "piece" has a precise weight. Thus when dealing in "pieces" of anything they always need to be weighed. Using weighed pieces had been out of use in Judaea and the rest of the mediteranean world for almost 300 years. The fact that they did not deal in "pieces" is evident by the money changers in the temple which Jesus so disliked

Quote:

Mark 11:15On reaching Jerusalem, Jesus entered the temple area and began driving out those who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves,

-Money changers are only required in a currency based economy.

-------------------------

And something else about Judas!

-There are 2 accounts of how Judas killed himself.

Quote:

Acts 1:16Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
17For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

-In Acts Judas buys a field with the 30 peices of silver and he falls and "bursts asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out". He dies in a fall. The field is then called the field of blood>

Quote:

Mathew 27:3Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,
4Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that.
5And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.
6And the chief priests took the silver pieces, and said, It is not lawful for to put them into the treasury, because it is the price of blood.
7And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.
8Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.
9Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;
10And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.

-In Mathew Judas feels guilty, gives the 30 peices of silver back to the priests and hangs himself. The priests buy the field to bury strangers and that's why it is called "The field of blood"

-So disregarding the non-existant prophecy linking Zechariah with Jesus we are now open to many more problems with Judas.

History is on my side. Try again.

[Upchurch]

Originally Posted by DOC

Actually Luke (the physician), who many say was a first rate historian and was highly detailed about events and places, wrote the reason that Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem was because Caesar Augustus sent out a decree that the world should be taxed. And since Joseph was from the house of David, which was from Bethlehem. Joseph and his family went to Bethlehem.

I recommend checking out this episode of St. Louis On The Air. It features an interview with Stephen J. Patterson, Professor of New Testament from Eden Theological Seminary. I found it to be a fascinating comparison of Biblical scripture, historical evidence, and modern understanding of the various Christmas stories.

[Abe_the_Man]

Originally Posted by Abe_the_Man

Okay so they decided to 'tax' everyone and not conduct a census. So lets see. I'm emperor and I want everyone to be taxed.... Perhaps we should go to the different provinces and record how many people live there... Yeah that would help with taxing, while we're at it we can find out where they live so we know how much tax should be obtained from each area... Yeah. Too bad there isn't a word for documenting the populations of places.... Oh wait there is! It's called a census!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirinius

So the supposed taxing of the whole roman world took place while Cyrenius was Governor. That means sometime between 6 and 12 AD. We have a 6 year period. The only Census declared by Ceasar Augustus (the only person called Ceasar Augustus during Quirinius' Governorship) was in 8 BC (population 4,233,000).

Only one census was performed under Quirinius and it was ONLY for the provinces of Syria and Iudaea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius

I made a mistake!! The only census declared by Ceasar Augustus (the only one around at the time) which I listed as happening during Quirinius' governorship was 8BC, not AD. My Error sorry! But in this cas NO Census' were called by Augustus during Quirinius' riegn.