For Stephen - Prophecy is Reasonable and Logical to Believe

Author: PGA2.0 ,

Posts

Total: 353
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,089
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7
--> @disgusted
The topic is "Prophecy is Reasonable and Logical to Believe." 

I have chosen to take prophecy as the vehicle to demonstrate the reliability of the Bible on this thread.

I don't want to get too tied up with another focus, except to quickly counter a charge.

With creation, neither you nor I were there, so the evidence for beginnings/origins is a matter of INTERPRETATION. A worldview with a natural origin will look at the data through a different lens than one that recognizes a Creator. A world governed, by-in-large, by a secular outlook will look for a natural "scientific" explanation to origins. Ideas have consequence and with the "Age of Reason" and the Enlightenment the focus shifted from a Creator based explanation to a human-based explanation. That is what I believe, and I have a good reason for my belief. I have examined the consequence of ideas that shifted the paradigm in this area and in the rise of macro-evolution via Darwinism. These are different topics and deserve a thread of their own. I am not going to spend a lot of energy defending my beliefs in those areas here. I don't have the time to address a multiple of tangents and also expand on the theme of this thread at the same time.

Please focus more on the topic at hand. 

SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 875
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @PGA2.0
That is its [the Bible] teaching. There are thousands of statements that are attributed to God. Whether you believe it or not depends on what you base your ultimate authority,
This is circular logic, Peter. Essentially, you accept the Bible as true because the Bible says it is. 


Mere assertions!  (^8 
They can't. 

The answers have been provided to you many times. I get that you don't find them meaningful, but that doesn't change the fact that non believers can answer the questions without the need to appeal to a god. That's another subject, so I'll leave it there. 

For your information: Certainty 



PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,089
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7
--> @disgusted

You are claiming that there is evidence proving the contents of the book to be truth.
In order that you support this claim show me the evidence that supports the genesis creation story.
If you can't then your bible doesn't contain truth and can be summarily dismissed by me and no longer used by you to support your claims.


This is faulty logic, IMO. Rather, if I can give reasonable and logical evidence that prophecy is a vehicle God uses to display His sovereignty and power (that confirms His word as true) then you reasoning that Genesis must be wrong and invalid is in question. Rather, if I can show reasonable proof and reasonable evidence that prophecy is logical to believe, then it is another reason to show the foundation the secular house of cards rests upon is faulty. It brings into question whether secular naturalism is the answer to finding the truth, especially since there are many competing views of origins within the scientific community and so many relative, subjective opinions as to origins that compete with each other.

A worldview that recognizes God as objective and true gives what is necessary to know the truth. Limited subjective, relative human beings with shifting values and shifting views of origins brings into question whether certainty in origins is possible.

Now, hopefully back to the topic of this thread.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @PGA2.0
"
"This is faulty logic, IMO"
And yet you never provide the evidence I request.
Wanna try again?


PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,089
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7
--> @SkepticalOne
What I said was nowhere in the NT are we told of the (that) ALREADY DESTRUCTION.

If the destruction had already happened and the Olivet discourse was being presented as prophecy, then it stands to reason the author would not record the destruction of the temple as part tense. - SKEP 1

Your statement is pure ASSERTION. How is that REASONABLE with the evidence that we have available? Show me EARLY data/evidence/proof that says these gospels and epistles were altered to give the appearance of prophetic fulfillment. Go ahead!


Why would the authors lie about Jerusalem's destruction to give the appearance it had NOT already happened?
Why would they and others (i.e., the writers of the epistles that build on the theme of the gospels, specifically the Olivet Discourse), go to their deaths proclaiming something they knew to be a lie when all they had to do was admit they had cooked the whole thing up?

You see, YOU have to answer the question of these epistles too since I can give good reason to show that the epistles contain the same themes of the Olivet Discourse. Paul borrows on Jesus' Olivet Discourse theme. That gives good evidence to surmise the Olivet Discourse contained in the gospels are already written, for Paul to reference His teachings. Don K. Preston, among others, has given a good, reasoned response to demonstrate this claim that these epistles contain themes from the Olivet Discourse. I can lay down my case regarding this theme if you want to pursue it further.

Prove that these epistles were written after the fact too. You can't, you can only ASSERT these bits and pieces were added later to the epistles. 

You see, you have to prove that these epistles were not written by Paul, or Peter, or James, who were dead by AD 70. You have to ignore the TIMELINES, the warnings to the audience of address, that speak of a coming judgment and treat them as already come. Does that sound reasonable? If so, present your argument. 

Is it reasonable to believe these authors would craft into each epistle a sacrificial system and priesthood as existing that is no longer existent if in fact the real time is after AD 70 and there is no more sacrificial system?

Do you realize how much of the NT you would have to reconstruct to ignore all these bits and pieces in regards to the sacrificial system, the priesthood, the audience of address (i.e., the churches of address or individual people of address), the warnings, the time frame, the still existing city and temple that they frequently visit, as per the Book of Acts? 

Show me proof from the biblical time period that collaborates such a claim that you are trying to make here. You can't to my knowledge. All you can do is use "scholarship" from 17-20 centuries later that reads into history a liberal, biased point of view and ignores the early manuscripts and evidence from biblical times. 

I ask, how reasonable is it to do that?
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,089
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7
--> @SkepticalOne


The fact that it happened does not lend credence to an early or late date for the [...] Olivet Discourse - SKEP1

Yes, it does lend credence to an early date. - ME



How so? - SKEP1

We don't have any early records/data to show your claims are true. Show me them.

The internal evidence of the Bible gives credence to an early date. I laid a brief outline out in the last post. 



I'm offering you to put forth evidence if you think my claims are unreasonable - ME

I'm offering challenge to your claims. I do not need to provide evidence to do this. - SKEP1


It is always the same theme with you guys. You make wild, unsubstantiated assertions and charges, then leave the entire burden of proof on the Christian. I already made the topic of discussion the reasonableness and logic of prophecy. That is a two-way street since you are making claims too. I set the ball in motion by providing the content I was speaking about, Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, and Revelation, in regard to the Olivet Discourse. I put forth the notion that they focused on the destruction of Jerusalem, which happened in AD 70. Then you charged/asserted, without any evidence, that these prophecies were written into the gospels after the fact. So, you need to support your allegations IF YOU WANT TO refute my claim of prophecy as reasonable and logical.

Give me early evidence that what you say is reasonable (and don't
linkwarz
me - i.e., provide a whole array of links without the context that you want me to glean from them. I don't want to get bombasted by the information I have to sift through for hours on end to get your point. Outline the specific point first from any link) 

I will have to give you a number of OT passages that tell the reader otherwise - ME


Daniel was written written in the 2nd century BC, and the "prophecy" it records is actually history. It is also thought Daniel was not speaking of some distant future but of his own. As to the passage from Deuteronomy, it speaks of "towns" (plural). I fail to see how this can be the temple (singular). It seems to me, this passage tells believers they can not get away from the wrath of god (not in the city not in the country) and has nothing to do with 70AD. 
Again, no support for your claims.

Who said that?

What evidence do you have?

If Daniel had written in the 2nd century BC, why would Daniel insert the decree to rebuild a city that had already been rebuilt centuries earlier? It is not reasonable. It makes no sense. Why would he put in specific occurrences that would have to be fulfilled and that find fulfillment in AD 70, and these centuries before the destruction?

How could a Messiah come to a covenantal people (i.e., Daniel's people), as prophesied, when after AD 70 these people no longer have a covenant relationship as specified in the Law of Moses? All these things, and many others, you fail to take into account. So, let's see who your "scholars" are, how early from the biblical times they assert their viewpoint on history or DO YOU HAVE ACTUAL STATED, WRITTEN, EVIDENCE that Daniel was written in the second century. 

You see, you work on the assumption that prophecy in these OT books was written in after the fact once again, without any evidence.

How is that reasonable? HOW?

***

Regarding Deuteronomy, towns would include Jerusalem. If you read the Olivet discourse it has many of the themes from Deuteronomy. I can demonstrate this both by comparing the curses of Deuteronomy to the Olivet Discourse, as well as via the writings of Josephus. I can also discuss it in relation to the sevenfold curses in Revelation. 

16 “Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country...until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, on account of the evil of your deeds, because you have forsaken Me.


PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,089
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7
--> @SkepticalOne
That is its [the Bible] teaching. There are thousands of statements that are attributed to God. Whether you believe it or not depends on what you base your ultimate authority, - ME


This is circular logic, Peter. Essentially, you accept the Bible as true because the Bible says it is. 


1) I'm just supporting that it is not just me that says this. It is documented in the early manuscripts available to us. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that this is not my own opinion exclusively.  

2) Skeptical, your authority is circular logic too. Why do you believe what you believe regarding the Bible? Because you view your authority (yourself, others) as greater than the authority which is outlined in the Bible. You trust secular reason as authoritative because you think that secular reason is the greater authority. How is that not circular logic? 

Mere assertions!  (^8 
They can't. 


The answers have been provided to you many times. I get that you don't find them meaningful, but that doesn't change the fact that non believers can answer the questions without the need to appeal to a god. That's another subject, so I'll leave it there. 

Just like you don't find my view meaningful.
Answer what questions.

What questions have you answered, and with certainty at that? How do you know your views are reasonably certain, as you put it? Because you believe them? Because the DATA/EVIDENCE has been built using a particular paradigm in discerning it? Because people who share like-minds support them? Because a worldview that you support has shifted the paradigm so that your views are supported by a majority of those who wield power to influence others?  



PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,089
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7
--> @disgusted
"
"This is faulty logic, IMO"
And yet you never provide the evidence I request.
Wanna try again?



Evidence of what? There is no context for your post. Is this in regards to prophecy or creation? This thread is not dealing with creation. 

PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,089
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7
--> @SkepticalOne


I'm offering you to put forth evidence if you think my claims are unreasonable - ME


I'm offering challenge to your claims. I do not need to provide evidence to do this. SKEP1 


Here is what I said in the OP:

"I start with the case of Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, and Revelation. These prophecies all concern the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 and judgment of the Mosaic Covenant people for their apostasy, per Deuteronomy 28 and the curses thereof. 

You have a few goals (as I see it, but you can add more). 
1) Establish that it is REASONABLE and LOGICAL to believe these prophecies were written AFTER the EVENT of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple. 
OR
2) Show that the events do not apply to the 1st-century audience of address and the timeline. 
AND
3) Show that the OT does not predict the same event, the destruction (once again) of the city and temple and the coming Messiah.
OR
4) That the OT documents were also written after the fact. [That fact being the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70]

Let us see who has the more reasonable case." 

SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 875
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @PGA2.0
1) I'm just supporting that it is not just me that says this. It is documented in the early manuscripts available to us. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that this is not my own opinion exclusively.  
It is reasonable to believe that it is not your opinion alone, but that doesn't change the fact that it is circular logical and unreasonable.

2) Skeptical, your authority is circular logic too. Why do you believe what you believe regarding the Bible?
Evidence and reason.  I don't assume the Bible is nonsensical in important ways - it is demonstrable. "God is love" AND allows slavery?  God is merciful AND commands genocide? Etc. etc. etc. In each case, only one of these things can be true - not both.  The Bible is broken.

Just like you don't find my view meaningful. 
You mean your view that non believers are in some way less human than you?  Yes.  I find that extremely distasteful. However, I realize that you (most likely) have a basic desire to preserve human life. I feel (reasonably) certain you would not walk by a drowning child - and this has absolutely nothing to do with your belief in god and everything to do with the inherent value of humanity built into most every human by our evolutionary heritage. You once told me I borrow from the Christian worldview, but the opposite is true. Protecting human life is intrinsic - yet you assign this to the god of the Bible ignoring every passage which shows "God" (if he existed) is not interested in humanity but merely a portion of it. 

In other words, a moral code with the god of the Bible as a basis could not (and would not) be concerned with all of humanity. It would be more concerned with protecting the 'righteous' rather than the wronged, the believer rather than the innocent, or the in-group rather than the ostracized. 
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 875
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6
--> @PGA2.0
'm offering challenge to your claims. I do not need to provide evidence to do this. SKEP1 


Here is what I said in the OP:
I am well aware of what you said in te OP (seeing as I responded to it).  You are attempting to have Stephen prove you wrong rather than prove yourself right.  It is a lazy and dishonest strategy to make your view seem valid. I'm pretty sure I've already called this what it is: an attempt to shift the burden.

Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,099
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
I am well aware of what you said in te OP (seeing as I responded to it).  You are attempting to have Stephen prove you wrong rather than prove yourself right.  It is a lazy and dishonest strategy to make your view seem valid. I'm pretty sure I've already called this what it is: an attempt to shift the burden.

It is indeed. This is a simple but devious ploy to distract from the questions I have posed to this - Religion - forum. My questions it seems , are making some of the resident christians here a little edgy in my opinion. They are finding them uncomfortable and are struggling to explain them away without  blaming these anomalous, vague, enigmatic, and ambiguous verses  on translation or misunderstanding and of course the introduction of an omnipotent all hearing, all seeing and all knowing miracle working,  so called God.
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 875
3
3
6
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
6

Yes, it does lend credence to an early date. - ME

How so? - SKEP1

We don't have any early records/data to show your claims are true.

A question (How so?) is not a claim. Do try to answer the question

Then you charged/asserted, without any evidence, that these prophecies were written into the gospels after the fact. 
Again, a question is not an assertion, claim, or charge.  This is the question I asked:

(1) Were these verses written before the destruction of the temple? If so, how do you know? What do scholars who consider these verses critically make of them and why?  [Skep]


Daniel was written written in the 2nd century BC, and the "prophecy" it records is actually history. It is also thought Daniel was not speaking of some distant future but of his own. As to the passage from Deuteronomy, it speaks of "towns" (plural). I fail to see how this can be the temple (singular). It seems to me, this passage tells believers they can not get away from the wrath of god (not in the city not in the country) and has nothing to do with 70AD. 
Again, no support for your claims. 

Who said that? 

What evidence do you have? 




...and for the record - this is not my claim, but the view of modern scholarship. If you want to reject that, then your debate is not with me.

As to your Deuteronomy defense, I don't find it compelling. "It shall besiege you in all your towns", but only Jerusalem was affected? That is not a match.
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,089
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7
--> @SkepticalOne
1) I'm just supporting that it is not just me that says this. It is documented in the early manuscripts available to us. Thus, it is reasonable to believe that this is not my own opinion exclusively. - ME 

It is reasonable to believe that it is not your opinion alone, but that doesn't change the fact that it is circular logical and unreasonable. - Skep1
The Bible is one aspect we use to examine the evidence. That is why prophecy is so convincing. It deals with history too. It is not unreasonable when you include the history of the times, nor when you consider that God is the ultimate authority, not you. You place your authority in the opinions of men. Why is what they believe any better than what you or I believe? It brings into the question axiology. 

With any argument, if peeled back far enough, I am convinced all arguments come back to the main point. A circular argument starts on one point and does not stray from that point. The Bible confirms itself on many levels. If your starting presupposition is the biblical God is real, then He created all things, understands all things, and sustains all things. If your starting presupposition is chance happenstance then it does not have reason to it. You build logic and reason into the system that is devoid of it. Thus, your worldview is contradictory and inconsistent. Such a worldview goes in the face of what we witness. We continually find meaning and purpose in the universe. We continually find mathematical equations that EXPLAIN nature with natural laws. With such a God it is reasonable to believe that truth comes from Him because He is truth and true to what He says. We have a necessary foundation that does not change. With science, the paradigm continually shifts as we learn more and more. What was held as a major theory one hundred years ago is dismissed by a new paradigm. In finding meaning it is reasonable to believe that you need an ultimate best as a starting point, otherwise the goalpost is always shifting (relative and subjective). Thus, your secular argument for morality lacks what is necessary. I'm still waiting to see/hear/read someone who makes sense of morality from an atheistic worldview. They just beg the question.

There are multiple varieties of different arguments that are reasonable and logical that support the biblical God, but as always, it comes down to your ultimate authority. So, your point is mute. The Bible just happens to be the Christians ultimate authority, like secular science is sometimes the ultimate authority of the atheist. It is usually that or him/herself. They place themselves in that position. Why should I trust your opinion? It lacks what is necessary.

So my contention is that with what we know about history, the biblical view and the prophecy contained within is reasonable and logical. THAt is what this thread is about.  

2) Skeptical, your authority is circular logic too. Why do you believe what you believe regarding the Bible?  - ME

Evidence and reason.  I don't assume the Bible is nonsensical in important ways - it is demonstrable. "God is love" AND allows slavery?  God is merciful AND commands genocide? Etc. etc. etc. In each case, only one of these things can be true - not both.  The Bible is broken.
SKEP1
Here you go with your duplicity. You continue to use rhetoric, misinformation and fallacious reasoning in accessing and presenting God's character with just two alternatives, when in fact there is a third. It is a typical atheistic trick. By stating evidence and reason you are implying that there is none with the Christian worldview. Instead, you substitute it with what you see as a demonstrated contradiction, but you don't look at the reasons why God told these people to eliminate these different tribes/cultures from the land.

You present an either-or situation when you state either God is love and merciful or He is mean and commands genocide. What about His justice? You never mention that. It goes against your propaganda smear. If God is loving (and He is) then He is good and just also. He will not let sin and wrongful actions go unpunished. These people that dwelt in the "Promised Land" were evil. Some, like the Canaanites, practiced child sacrifice. If God did not address the sins of these peoples living in the land then when Israel entered the land of promise these people would have swayed the people towards evil also, which we read as happening because of the disobedience of the Israelites. If left unchecked these evil inhabitants would have stymied God's plan by eliminating or absorbing the Israelites into their culture. God had a purpose in choosing the Israelites. That was the people the Messianic line would be traced from. 

You present the issue of slavery. Have you studied ANE cultures? That culture was the situation/reality God was dealing with in the OT. Biblical "slavery/servanthood is different from the slavery surrounding them. This has been demonstrated by experts on ANE culture in comparison with the biblical teaching.

All this is a deflection against the argument of prophecy. You have fuelled and incited emotions in others by atheistic propaganda (spread over the web for years) on the OT God and His supposed misogynies, xenophobia, and racism, rather than addressing the subject at hand. You intentionally continue to ignore the argument from prophecy in this post. Let me see if you address it in other posts.

PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,089
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7
--> @SkepticalOne

Just like you don't find my view meaningful. 

You mean your view that non believers are in some way less human than you?  Yes.  I find that extremely distasteful. However, I realize that you (most likely) have a basic desire to preserve human life. I feel (reasonably) certain you would not walk by a drowning child - and this has absolutely nothing to do with your belief in god and everything to do with the inherent value of humanity built into most every human by our evolutionary heritage. You once told me I borrow from the Christian worldview, but the opposite is true. Protecting human life is intrinsic - yet you assign this to the god of the Bible ignoring every passage which shows "God" (if he existed) is not interested in humanity but merely a portion of it. - SKEP1

You INTENTIONALLY mischaracterize my beliefs. I believe that we, as humans, are all created in the image and likeness of God. Thus, there is no distinction to be made by me regarding our humanness, regardless of skin color or culture, unlike what some people believe, including some social evolutionists (even evolution as a whole). They believe some cultures and peoples are less evolved than others, thus are inferior (savages). Hilter, who was greatly influenced by Darwin, thought his "race" was superior to others. If we are evolving, then this would naturally be the case, so it is your worldview that promotes this kind of reasoning, not mine. It would be those who were inconsistent with the Christian worldview as the ones who thought themselves "BETTER" than others. I do not consider myself better than you. The Christian mandate is to think of yourself as a servant to others. It is to present the truth of the Christian worldview regardless of persecution and hardships. I consider my worldview better because it has what is necessary to make sense of life, the universe, meaning, purpose. 

The secular worldview does not appreciate human life. Learn a lesson from secular socialism. Your country, in the form of the Democratic Party, is heading in that direction. What idiots! 

A drowning child? Take a look at abortion, also. We, as Christians, defend the most helpless. We are pro-life! 1.5 billion abortions worldwide since Roe v. Wade. This nonsense of pro-choice is nothing but legislated murder. Where do you stand on the position? If my debate on abortion is not accepted I will challenge you next if you hold a pro-choice position.


What a joke - protecting human life is intrinsic - hah. Pro-choice is a crime against humanity. 

In other words, a moral code with the god of the Bible as a basis could not (and would not) be concerned with all of humanity. It would be more concerned with protecting the 'righteous' rather than the wronged, the believer rather than the innocent, or the in-group rather than the ostracized. 
- SKEP1
God is concerned with the whole of humanity. Evil, whether in those who profess Christ or those who deny Christ will be judged, whether in this world or the spiritual realm/world to come. For an atheist, there is no ultimate justice. All the wrongs that were done and unanswered in this life go unpunished. Is that just? Some can get away with murder in this lifetime. Where is the justice there? 

PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,089
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7
'm offering challenge to your claims. I do not need to provide evidence to do this. SKEP1 


Here is what I said in the OP: - ME


I am well aware of what you said in t[h]e OP (seeing as I responded to it).  You are attempting to have Stephen prove you wrong rather than prove yourself right.  It is a lazy and dishonest strategy to make your view seem valid. I'm pretty sure I've already called this what it is: an attempt to shift the burden.
- SKEP1
What I am attempting, and he nor you will cooperate, is to provide the evidence, piece by piece, and let him/you present the counter-evidence/argument and see whose position is more reasonable regarding the facts, what we know, the data and evidence available. My claim is that it would be my position, not his or yours that is reasonable and logical and corresponds to the data available. 

How am I being dishonest in complying with what I stated? The evidence cannot be presented in one post, and I have presented some of it that
has not been disputed.

For those who have contended, there is no evidence I am willing to dispute this, and I have. If you question my factual statements then present contrary evidence. 

What evidence do we have available? We have over 24,000 NT manuscripts - FACT. 
We have over 5,000 gospel accounts - FACT.

Contained in many of these manuscripts are prophecies concerning Jerusalem and its destruction - FACT. 
We have documents/scrolls/documents other than the OT itself (Dead Sea Scrolls), some of which contain OT writings, such as Daniel and Isaiah - FACT.
Some of these OT documents have references to the destruction of Jerusalem also - FACT.
We have the destruction of the city and temple in AD 70 - FACT.

We have all kinds of NT references to a coming judgment and to an OT relevant audience of address and time frame - FACT.
We have numerous references to a still existence city, temple, and ritual system of worship, which revolves around a temple, a priesthood, and animal sacrifices to atone for sin - FACT. 
We have early church fathers who record verses and passages from the Bible - FACT. 

After AD 70, none of this Mosaic system of worship is functional - FACT.
After AD 70 the Mosaic Law can no longer be followed as prescribed - FACT.
That covenant relationship is no longer operational as prescribed - FACT.
The predictions of the Messiah was to an OT people - FACT.

There are no EARLY writings that describe the NT gospels and epistles, or their prophecies, as written in AFTER the fact - FACT, to my knowledge and that of others. Please, present counter-arguments to dispute this factual claim. 

The whole of the NT is concerned about a SOON, coming judgment - FACT. 
There is NEVER a reference to an already destroyed city nor temple - FACT.
It is reasonable to believe, based on these off-hand points, plus many more, that the NT writings are finished before AD 70. 

Then, based on the Olivet Discourse, I am willing to demonstrate that it applies primarily to these 1st-century people as the audience of address and to the time frame of the prophecies. Dispute it if you can? 

I asked you a specific question concerning what you believe the dating game of the NT is largely based upon (what it hinges on). So far, no answer. 

I asked you to present counter evidence that what I claim about the prophecies being written before the AD 70 event is NOT most reasonable to believe. So far all I got was on the book of Daniel, and I have asked you to present more of your "evidence." So far, no answer. 

I asked you what these NT writers had to gain by promoting something that you claim they knew was untrue? So far, no answer. 

I asked you how reasonable it is that the writers would manufacture a "Story" that so much would have to be manufactured after the event and taking these soon judgments and prophecies out of the text would make no sense of the text. It would leave very little of the NT, IMO, although I have not subtracted the prophecy and warnings from the text to find out how much. So far, no answer.

So, I invite you to present your evidence and your argument as being the more reasonable. 


PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,089
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7
--> @Stephen

I am well aware of what you said in te OP (seeing as I responded to it).  You are attempting to have Stephen prove you wrong rather than prove yourself right.  It is a lazy and dishonest strategy to make your view seem valid. I'm pretty sure I've already called this what it is: an attempt to shift the burden.
- SKEP1
You failed to do what you accused me of doing in the other thread. You failed to put a quote in place when quoting someone else since this is SkepticalOne's statement, not yours.

It is indeed. This is a simple but devious ploy to distract from the questions I have posed to this - Religion - forum. My questions it seems , are making some of the resident christians here a little edgy in my opinion. They are finding them uncomfortable and are struggling to explain them away without  blaming these anomalous, vague, enigmatic, and ambiguous verses  on translation or misunderstanding and of course the introduction of an omnipotent all hearing, all seeing and all knowing miracle working,  so called God. - STEPHEN

A bunch of baloney. What you are doing is called deflection. Avoid at all costs addressing the subject at hand. You are demonstrating an inadequacy to address the NT prophetic passages in regard to their truthfulness to see if what YOU claim of the Bible and biblical God has a warrant. 

I have stated a number of facts. Can you CHALLENGE any of them? If not then your argument (or lack of) has no teeth. 

ASSERT, ASSERT, ASSERT; DEFLECT, DEFLECT, DEFLECT - standard operating procedure. I've come to expect nothing less because your arguments are weak. 

PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,089
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7

Yes, it does lend credence to an early date. - ME

How so? - SKEP1

We don't have any early records/data to show your claims are true. - ME


A question (How so?) is not a claim. Do try to answer the question - SKEP1

A question that was answered - "We don't have any early records/data to show your claims are true."
If you believe otherwise, then present the evidence. (I'm waiting)

Then you charged/asserted, without any evidence, that these prophecies were written into the gospels after the fact. - ME

Again, a question is not an assertion, claim, or charge.  This is the question I asked:

(1) Were these verses written before the destruction of the temple? If so, how do you know? What do scholars who consider these verses critically make of them and why?  [Skep]

I asked you what the late date evidence hinged on to a large degree before I would address the evidence, even though I did address the evidence. I stated that the audience of address, the time frame, and the warnings which were given in the NT Olivet Discourse mean nothing after AD 70.

I mentioned that in the NT there is NO evidence/mention of an already destroyed temple and city.

I mentioned that this omission is highly significant since the OT Mosaic people and their whole economy rested on temple worship, a priesthood, and animal sacrifice in their relationship with God.

I mentioned that God continually warned these OT people of a once again coming judgment if they did not repent and turn from false idols to Him. All these and many other arguments you failed to address. Those alone are good reasons to believe the original manuscripts were written before the destruction of the city and temple. There is more evidence that will be peeled back when we examine the documents in question, the NT writings, specifically the Olivet Discourse.

What does the late date dating game hinge on? Answer that question instead of bombasting me with links and no explanation of what you want me to glean from those links. I'm not playing that game any longer.
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,099
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
--> @PGA2.0
You are demonstrating an inadequacy to address the NT prophetic passages

I don't believe in prophecy, so I have nothing really to address on that score. I  will add though that historian Flavius Josephus "prophesied" that Vespasian would become Emperor, Vespasian did become Emperor and in Josephus' lifetime. Was this a miracle of prophecy? Had god revealed this prophecy to Josephus?

I will tell you this: Josephus wasn't a prophet, he was a hardened warrior Jewish priest. He was defeated by the Romans at the battle of Jotapata. He went over to the Romans and became Vespasian's right hand man. Josephus was also very vain, and I know from all his works that  he would have mentioned if his "prophecy" was revealed to him by his god.  This point no doubt will fly completely over your head. 
DEFLECT
I Have nothing to "deflect from, my friend .

You on the other hand have had to start a complete new thread in my name and  honour to deflect away from those embarrassing questions I have posed and that you have struggled and completely failed to address and or answer. 
 
IMO You are not faring very well in this thread  you have started especially for me, either.  I  don't think you need embarrassing any more than you have been thus far. Good luck anyway. 

PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,089
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7

It this what you want me to dispute?

Because its religious ideas do not belong to the 6th century BC, numerous scholars date Daniel in the first half of the 2nd century BC and relate the visions to the persecution of the Jews under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164/163 BC).  - Encyc. Britannica
For your 'Evidence' and 'More' please make the points you want me to address. I don't want to get into a linkwarz where all we do is exchange links and the other person has to filter through reams and reams of information and doesn't know exactly what the point is or what the other side wants to be addressed.  

Peter
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,089
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7
--> @SkepticalOne
The other point I want to make regarding Daniel is that your claims still do not address Daniel being written AFTER the fact. They still predict the destruction of Jerusalem and the six-fold list of things that would be accomplished, the coming of the Anointed One, Him being killed, and a whole lot more, such as the wars and rumors of wars and the abomination of desolation. Since your articles address Daniel as a whole, then I would add other prophecies such as Daniel 2, Daniel 7, and Daniel 12 that also apply to an OT people and before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. 

Not only this, there are other OT prophecies from other OT prophets that address the last days and the destruction of Jerusalem that I have not included yet. Once we finish with Daniel I will bring them into the slew, other than to include timelines with Daniel. 
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,154
2
3
4
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
2
3
4
--> @PGA2.0
So let's say this "prophecy" is true... how does that equal the Bible being right? The Bible as a whole is flawed... that doesn't mean people couldn't guess certain events correctly. However, that in no way makes the Bible correct in its metaphysical claims. I believe in intelligent design... however creationism is baloney. It's an attempt at describing intelligent design and that is the key word "attempt" which presupposes fallible humans. Humans wrote the Bible, humans wrote religion... it is all flawed, yet sometimes right. That portion it's right is blinding you to the bigger picture of its flaws. 
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,089
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7
--> @Stephen
You are demonstrating an inadequacy to address the NT prophetic passages - ME

I don't believe in prophecy, so I have nothing really to address on that score. I  will add though that historian Flavius Josephus "prophesied" that Vespasian would become Emperor, Vespasian did become Emperor and in Josephus' lifetime. Was this a miracle of prophecy? Had god revealed this prophecy to Josephus? - STEPHEN

Not believing is your bias, not mine. You make charges against God, and I challenged you on them. I wanted to show you that your claims are unfounded and the evidence for your bias is unwarranted. That is why I started the thread. I take it, that at one time, you professed to be a Christian? If you went to university you probably got talked out of that stance, as is the case for many young people who walk away from the faith. We live in a secular culture (both in the USA and in Canada) that uses its "values" to promote a secularism in every avenue of society.

A one-time prediction by Josephus does not make a prophet.  The biblical prophecies are vast in their scope. Regarding the Messiah, there are over three hundred prophecies concerning the Messiah alone. Then there is a multitude that speaks of the last days of Israel, a number that speaks of warnings and judgments to come that relates to the Mosaic Law and the curses thereof. So, prophecy is not an isolated prediction. 

What do you know of eschatology? How well have you studied it? I ask because I want to either establish a particular bias or a poor knowledge of Scripture. 
I will tell you this: Josephus wasn't a prophet, he was a hardened warrior Jewish priest. He was defeated by the Romans at the battle of Jotapata. He went over to the Romans and became Vespasian'sright hand man. Josephus was also very vain, and I know from all his works that  he would have mentioned if his "prophecy" was revealed to him by his god.  This point no doubt will fly completely over your head. - STEPHEN
DEFLECT - ME

I agree he wasn't a prophet, nor did he claim to be (Deuteronomy 18:15-18). For one thing, he never claimed to be a prophet. If he did then his prophecy would have been judged according to biblical lines of evidence, or the lack thereof. (Deuteronomy 18:20)

'Fly completely over my head' is another deflection. It attacks the man, rather than the argument.
I Have nothing to "deflect from, my friend .

You on the other hand have had to start a complete new thread in my name and  honour to deflect away from those embarrassing questions I have posed and that you have struggled and completely failed to address and or answer. 
 
IMO You are not faring very well in this thread  you have started especially for me, either.  I  don't think you need embarrassing any more than you have been thus far. Good luck anyway.

You maligned the Christian worldview with your views. I invited you to test your knowledge and understanding to its reasonableness and logic by focusing on a specific topic - prophecy. I did this because I believe it demonstrates the truthfulness of God's word when rightly interpreted. That is what our argument is all about, interpretation. Prophecy is something that can be measured with reason and logic since it speaks of events in the future that have already happened but had not at that time. 
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,089
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7
--> @Outplayz

So let's say this "prophecy" is true... how does that equal the Bible being right? The Bible as a whole is flawed... that doesn't mean people couldn't guess certain events correctly. However, that in no way makes the Bible correct in its metaphysical claims. I believe in intelligent design... however creationism is baloney. It's an attempt at describing intelligent design and that is the key word "attempt" which presupposes fallible humans. Humans wrote the Bible, humans wrote religion... it is all flawed, yet sometimes right. That portion it's right is blinding you to the bigger picture of its flaws. 
It is a confirmation that what is said is true. It is one more reason, and a good one, to believe the testimony on its pages since it claims divine authorship and divine inspiration. When you speak of guessing at events, there are too many to make accurate predictions and they all come true and are confirmable. When you add up all the other confirmations regarding the biblical God I believe the evidence is without doubt as to His existence. To doubt Him after considering all the evidence would be to live a delusion. 

You say the Bible is flawed. That is a worldview bias. The truth of the matter is that either your beliefs regarding the Bible or my beliefs regarding the Bible is wrong. Logically, they both can't be right/true. I invite you, too, to test to see which are more reasonable and logical, based on the evidence of prophecy. That is the vehicle I chose to debate the subject. I could have chosen a number of different topics to debate the issue of the Bible's reliability and the evidence for God, but I chose prophecy because I like that topic. It is something related to history that has some verification properties built into it. 

The whole premise of my argument is which is more reasonable and logical since everyone comes to the table with worldview confirmational bias. They seek to justify their worldview and sift evidence according to that bias. There is no neutrality in this discussion. There is an agenda by unbelievers to malign the Bible and a desire by Christians to show its merits and why it matters.

Since you believe in intelligent design then you must believe in a Creator of some kind, an intelligent one at that. That is the biblical revelation, an intelligent, supernatural Being has created the material universe and sustains it by His power. Biblical prophecy is one confirmation of this intelligent Being, if true. After all, who could predict hundreds, perhaps thousands of events, as the Bible does, and have every one of them come true (of the ones we can confirm with reasonableness, like the historical Jesus and the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70)?

There are a lot of facts we can verify from the biblical accounts that meet with historical accounts. That is why I left open in the discussion those who want to make claims of the prophetic events being written after the fact, to check the reasonableness of that particular claim. 

They can either attack the prophecies themselves, or they can attack when the prophecies were written. Let's see which side in these two arguments is more reasonable, and logical to what can be known.  

PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 3,089
3
4
7
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
4
7
--> @SkepticalOne
My opponent declined my challenge to debate abortion, so the offer still stands if you are willing and you still hold a pro-choice position, which you did on the DDO forum. 

The BIG Issues

• Abortion Pro