PGA2.0

The question is why do you doubt? 

Shifting the burden of proof fallacy.

The question is, why do you believe?  Doubt is always the default position.  It does not require "a reason".

Why do you doubt Ahura Mazda?  Don't you see how ridiculous that question sounds?

Here are two scenarios for your consideration from a biblical perspective:

False dichotomy fallacy.

Do you think that you do not want to believe despite the evidence 

Begging the question.  Ancient writing is not necessarily "evidence".

because you do not want to be accountable to God but want to do your own thing?

Dime-store psychoanalysis.  Do you disbelieve in karma because you don't want to be accountable to karma?

Do you think that your own mind holds the keys to life and you will discover them unaided by God?

(IFF) god made human minds (AND) god is all knowing (THEN) god knew what our minds would conclude before we were ever born.

It tells me that God can be trusted and that He has provided the means of atonement for our sins, that He is willing to forgive us and restore us to a living relationship with Him, that He (in Jesus the Savior) has met what we could not meet upon our own merit. Every world religion provides a system to restore us to God by what we do. Christianity is different. Someone else restores us so it is not based on our merit or works but by those of another.

I'm willing to accept you at your word on this (once again, for the sake of this particular argument).

Let's say the scriptures as you understand them are 100% irrefutable pure uncut truth.

What practical and actionable advice does this give you?

Grace and then what?

The answer could be based on the factuality and logical consistency and coherency of the evidence of A, B, or C, or the number of contradictions and inconsistencies in making sense of A, B, or C. 

You seem to be suffering from the "objectivity" delusion.

The evidence is never 100% coherent.  That's why you need apologetics to explain how 70 weeks turns into 490 years or whatever.

The ancient text is not "self-evident".  It is not sola scriptura. [LINK]

(IFF) you presume that your personally preferred sola scriptura is true (THEN) everyone who disagrees with you is either insincere, stupid, intellectually blind and deaf, or purely evil.

(IFF) you presume that sola scriptura of another religion is true (THEN) everyone who disagrees with you is either insincere, stupid, intellectually blind and deaf, or purely evil.

There is a unity from the OT Scriptures that is explained and makes sense from the NT perspective. Prophecy and its fulfillment make sense from the NT perspective. 

I'm willing to accept you at your word on this (for the sake of this particular argument).

Let's say the scriptures as you understand them are 100% irrefutable pure uncut truth.

What practical and actionable advice does this give you?

Perhaps for clarity you could give some specific dates and events?   for exaple 490 from 70AD is c. 420BC - why start counting from then?  

I've tried to break down your 'wall of text'.

Moses, God used him as a mediator and deliverer for His people Israel.

Jesus was the Mediator or a new covenant, the Deliverer of His people to the New Promised Land.

Moses was told to smear the blood of a lamb on the doorposts and lental,

Jesus blood was smeared on the upright and crossbeam of the cross.

Moses took the people of Israel into the wilderness where they sojourned for 40 years and because of unbelief most of that generation never entered the Promised Land. Those with unbelief perished in the wilderness during those forty years.

The same is true of those who did not trust in Jesus Christ. They met judgment at the end of the forty-year period when the change took place and the transition between the two covenants was complete.

Moses and the people crossed from bondage in Egypt (sin) to freedom when they crossed the Red Sea.

Jesus takes the believer on a spiritual journey from spiritual bondage and sin to freedom and the journey towards the promised land, the heavenly country.

God fed the people manna from heaven and Moses struck the "rock" which the NT attributes to Christ Jesus.

Jesus called Himself the true manna from heaven, the greater reality. 

I think you have to be sympathetic to the type concept before hand!  If not the parallels seem forced and artificial.   Of course the gospel writers were familiar with the OT and its traditions.   Of course they wanted to present jesus as following on in the line of the heroes of the past.  You are seeing something close to miraculous - I am seeing deliberate propaganda.  I very much doubt that will ever change!

My conclusion is people see what they want to see.

The same can be said of Daniel 9:24-27. It is a very specific prophecy concerning very specific people (Daniel's people who are in a covenant relationship with God) plus a very specific time frame in which specific events will happen.

And that time frame is 70 weeks. Show me a different time frame in that prophesy.

Yet Jesus fits the type to a tee. He fits the Second Adam, the Second Moses, the type of the sacrificial system, the type of the feasts, the type of Deliverer, Priest, Prophet, King, Mediator. What is said of God in the OT is applied to Jesus in the NT. The Mosaic Covenant people make a covenant with God; the NT people covenant is made through Jesus and is a covenant in Him. 

I scarce need to say that if I asked brutal he'd say Jesus is nothing like Adam or Moses!

Don't you think it's a little strange that parts of the gospels and the story of the messiah were written down before the Jesus was born?

Such as (other than prophecy)? 

From the moment of their discovery, some scholars suggested that at least some of the scrolls may be the work of early Christians.

After all, a certain “Teacher of Righteousness” is mentioned as a persecuted figure and there is also a “Wicked Priest” and other characters that seem to mirror early Christianity. Most scholars, however, have dismissed any connection between the community that hid their scroll library some 2,000 years ago in caves at Qumran and the earliest followers of Jesus. Now, I’ve made a discovery that may change all this. Put simply, I believe that one of the fragments called by scholars by the very unappealing name of “4Q541” explicitly refers to Jesus. [LINK]

I would argue it does, that every OT writing is a type and shadow of what was to come and I can demonstrate this over and over again. There is a unity from the OT Scriptures that is explained and makes sense from the NT perspective. Prophecy and its fulfillment make sense from the NT perspective. 

I'm familiar with type theory - I don't accept it. 

But this thread is crowded so I'll wait for another occasion to revisit this stuff .

Why would I not use the Bible and instead go with your particular bias and worldview slant???

As a thought experiment.

Step one, (IFF) I start with the assumption that A is true (THEN) do the apologetics for belief A seem adequate and reasonable?

Step two, (IFF) I start with the assumption that B is true (THEN) do the apologetics for belief B seem adequate and reasonable?

Step three, (IFF) I start with the assumption that C is true (THEN) do the apologetics for belief C seem adequate and reasonable?

The answer is yes.

No, I don't even understand the point. 

Imagine an ocean liner.  A child is playing on some deck chairs and falls overboard.

Ten people see this happen and a rescue team is deployed immediately.

When the child is returned safely, one of the witnesses shouts out, "I prayed to Ahura Mazda to safely rescue the child, and since the child is unharmed, that is proof that Ahura Mazda heard my prayer!!!"

Each of the remaining nine witnesses all prayed to a different god and they all believed that the rescued child was proof of their gods existence.

So which god is the real god?

Is that a reasonable hypothesis? 

How intensely have you looked into biblical prophecy? 

I would say 'Sufficiently'.  But we could examine one or two.  I know here are dozens but dealing with long lists in forum post forum format doesn't work because answers are alway harder and longer than questions.  I'm not getting involved if its a gish gallop.

We know that Daniel and other OT Scripture was written before the 1st-century. 

Yes, we do.  Which mean it could be read in the first century and bits copied out to make it look like prophecy.

Isaiah 7 has nothing to with the birth of jesus 600 years afterward but Matthew used it to make it appear that jesus was not only born of a virgin but it was foretold- ooh! 

Maybe god appeared to the Jews as yhwh and to the Indians as vishnu.

With two conflicting accounts of Himself?

 

Is that wrong?  I'm not really sure about the rules. 

If conflicting reports discredit each other, then please explain,

Matthew 2:1-23 tells us that Mary and Joseph lived in a house in Bethlehem where Mary gave birth to Jesus and the couple received the magi. Later, the family fled to Egypt and after Herod’s death returned to Judea and settled in Nazareth. But according to Luke 2:1-7, Joseph and Mary already lived in Nazareth. They went to Bethlehem to enroll in a census, and Jesus was born there in a manger. The family later returned to Nazareth without making any trip to Egypt. [LINK]

And why would Matthew mention Herod’s slaughter of the innocents and Luke skip it altogether?

And why would Matthew say Magi visited the baby Jesus and Luke says it was shepherds? [LINK]

And why would Luke mention a census, but Matthew leave that out?

And, how do you "follow a star"?

The Dead Sea Scrolls have been dated in a variety of ways, including radiocarbon and by linguistics experts. Most tests agree that they were written at different times between 150 BCE and 70 BCE. [LINK]

Don't you think it's a little strange that parts of the gospels and the story of the messiah were written down before the Jesus was born?

Nevertheless, there are some similarities between the two groups and their writings, which make for interesting comparisons. For example, a list of miracles appears in both Luke 7:21–22 of the New Testament and the Dead Sea Scroll known as the Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521). In Luke 7, Jesus gives these miracles to the disciples of John the Baptist as proof that he is the messiah. In the Messianic Apocalypse, which was written approximately 150 years before Luke’s Gospel, the Lord is the one who will perform these miracles. The source for both of these lists is Isaiah chapters 35 and 61. While not all of the same miracles appear in Luke 7 and the Messianic Apocalypse, the miracles that do appear in both are listed in the same order.  [LINK]

So you have nothing regarding prophecy that can be verified as yet? It all applies to that age? The supposed mythical city of Sambhala/Shangrila will be build sometime in the future, correct?

You're right, I'm laughing.

Give me a call when the messiah returns.  What's the exact date you're expecting them again?

With two conflicting accounts of Himself?

Do you mean like this? [LINK]

No, I don't even understand the point.

Well, how about 3 conflicting accounts?  ie God the father, God the son and the other one?

That's not much different from God the yhwh, God the vishnu and God the Buddha is it?

Luke 21:20-2420 “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is near. 

Generally, when you are surrounded by unspecified armies, you are in a heap of trouble.  This is more "common sense" than "prophecy".

21 Then those who are in Judea must flee to the mountains, and those who are in the midst of the city must leave, and those who are in the country must not enter the city; 

Mountains are almost always a safe bet in wartime.  Flee the city and stay away from the city.  This is more "common sense" than "prophecy".

22 because these are days of vengeance, so that all things which are written will be fulfilled. 

Did you just pretend to predict "war"?  War will happen and it's not going to be fun!!!!

23 Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days; for there will be great distress upon the land and wrath to this people; 24 and they will fall by the edge of the sword, and will be led captive into all the nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled under foot by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

People will be distressed and people will die.  This is more "common sense" than "prophecy".

This prophecy is very specific. 

No it isn't.

It names a historical city and specific people (the pronouns "you" and "your" plus "they" and "those" applies to the disciples and the Jewish people under the Mosaic Covenant during the 1st-century), a specific region(Judea)  and a specific time frame (when Jerusalem is surrounded by armies once again) and things that do not apply to us today (they will fall by the edge of the sword). 

What time frame are you talking about?  This is more "common sense" than "prophecy".

The sword is not used in modern warfare today. Not only this, everything written would incorporate the OT scriptures and quite possibly some NT scriptures (what was written at the time of this author writing - i.e., the OT).

I'm pretty sure people still get beheaded and sliced into quarters with machetes even today.  This is more "common sense" than "prophecy".

The same can be said of Daniel 9:24-27. It is a very specific prophecy concerning very specific people (Daniel's people who are in a covenant relationship with God) plus a very specific time frame in which specific events will happen.

Even if this stuff is 100% accurate, it does not prove the "YHWH" had anything to do with it.

Don't you believe other nations were able to reasonably predict which cities and towns were most likely to be attacked by enemies?

These predictions are not rocket science.  This is basic military strategy.

The Kalacakra tantra prophesies that when the world declines into war and greed, and all is lost, the 25th Kalki king will emerge from Shambhala with a huge army to vanquish "Dark Forces" and usher in a worldwide Golden Age. Using calculations from the Kalachakra Tantra, Alex Berzin puts this date at 2424. [LINK]

Guess who's going to be laughing in approximately 404 years!!!!!!!

Now, take a look at a biblical prophecy and the specifics of it:

Like where it says '70 weeks' you mean?

I get what gus is saying here: if you're going to use the biblical prophesy argument, you have to use ONLY the bible, or some biblically spelled out conversion chart for time periods that's IN the bible. Otherwise you are polluting the prophesy by using extrabiblical sources that potentially have a reason to want to have the prophesy work out just right.

[1] I don't see why an all powerful god wouldn't either correct the math or typo in the bible on its own. IF you're arguing for prophesy accurately in the bible, it seems like you give too much ground by saying "In this case, I'll allow some scholar 600 years from when this was supposed to be written originally inform why it was not in fact 70 weeks, but instead it MEANT to say 490 years." It's either in the book or it isn't. [2]You know, the book with talking animals and a worldwide flood that left no evidence after having covered the earth for 40 days (which maybe

 meant 280 weeks?) and pairs of every single species of creature on earth were stored together on a single boat for that long.

What historical facts in relation to prophecy are you speaking of?

Any historical facts that confirm the fulfillment of any prophesy.

I find you guys never engage in the proofs Christianity offers. 

In the same way that you don't accept "proofs" from other religions.

Convince me they are reasonable. 

Loathe as I am to give any oxygen to this distraction...

I feel like the most reasonable supernatural explanation would have to be a pantheistic version. For example, Roman gods are reasonable because they seem to have "departments," areas of expertise (eventually this would be co-opted by CHristianity in the form of saints). They don't really care too much about humans and what they do (which makes sense, I mean how much time do you spend worrying if ants or frogs are treating each other fairly?). Humans are really afterthoughts that are often collaterally affected by the disputes these gods have with each other. Under the pantheon model, if your husband's boat is sunk at sea in a terrible storm, it's not because part of some plan put your otherwise innocent husband on a boat with a guy a monotheistic god was really mad at and had to kill all on board to get him. It's simply that Jupiter, the god of thunder and lightning and storms or whatever, and Neptune, the god of the sea, were having it out and you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Oh, a fine lady caught your eye that isn't your wife and you two want to fuck for fun? Sounds like the influence of Eros or Aphrodite is in the air, and you're just caught in the crossfire! Better decide if it's them or one of the trickster gods like Pan the half goat, who often lured folks into bad situations like that only to reveal it to the wife or husband later. Trickster gods, mischief gods, gods for all manner of natural phenomena, none of them omnipotent or ominscient but with their own agendas, never really concerned with humanity in general, that helps explain things like "problem of evil," or why morality is so different from one person to another, with much more reason than "Well, your son's leukemia is something you should be thankful to Jesus for because he planned it." 

The Bible, throughout, claims to be His word, His revelation, His interaction with humanity so what is said should conform to what we discover from history and it should be philosophical reasonable and logical

Right, my point exactly! The claim cannot be evidence. It has to be the claim. Being accused of something is not evidence for whatever you're accused of.

The question is can you prove that the creator of the universe is in fact your god. 

Again, it revolves around what would you consider proof? The evidence is most reasonable but even facts can be disputed. 

So no, you cannot prove it this way. 

My evidence would be in the logic of if the biblical God is real then Zeus is unreasonable, as simple as that. The Laws of 

Logic state that two contrary things cannot both be valid at the same time and in the same manner. If God is the biblical God then He is not Zeus. So all I have to do is show the biblical God is reasonable to believe and Zeus is not. 

No, you'd have to show that the bible god is real, and Zeus isn't, or the bible god is reasonable and Zeus isn't.

Don't conflate reasonable with real. You're starting from a position of "it's reasonable to assume there's something that created the universe" which I grant. You do not and have not, now in ten pages, made any advance towards 'and here's why it's the same character this one book claims it is.'

I continue to wait, but you continue to point to the claim (The bible says he's real, it's his word, it claims to be his revelation) as the evidence. I've even offered you a way out of using your god or the bible: demonstrate any other deity conclusively false, without referencing your faith to do so. Their falsity should not be dependent on your faith at all, it's either true or it isn't, right? In other words, if Roman pantheism is false, it doesn't make Christianity true, they are independent of each other. 

It is the most reasonable outcome.

Great! Now please show the following work: from creator of the universe, to the god of the bible being the most reasonably responsible party. Don't use the bible because that's the claim not the evidence. 

I get where you are coming from, but I don't mind cutting pga a bit of slack on interpreting week as '7 years' if only to give him a fighting chance!  

I think the evidence is good that Daniel is 'fake-prophecy' and it's more interesting to winkle out what the writer was really trying to do with the text.

Regarding prophecy, did the OT predict another building and destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish system of worship before it happened (i.e., Daniel 9:24-27 as one such passage)? Is that reasonable to believe? If you think not then provide evidence as to why. 

This is your quote. 

Below are those passages.

24 Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, [j]to finish [k]transgression, and [l]to make an end of sins, and to [m]make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and [n]prophecy, and to anoint [o]the most holy. 25 Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto [p]the anointed one, the prince, shall be [q]seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times. 26 And after the threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and [r]shall have nothing: 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 even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined. 27 And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the [s]oblation to cease; and [t]upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate.

Show me where in the prophesy you quote, Daniel 9:24-27, 490yrs is mentioned.

Accurate predictions are one confirmation the belief is reasonable. The more accurate and detailed predictions there are the better. 

I agree - accurate foretellings of the future would undermine a major objection to theism.  They wouldn't prove all the minutiae of a religion were correct but they would show that the supernatural has to be taken seriously.

But I don't accept there are supernaturally accurate foretellings in the Bible!  

With two conflicting accounts of Himself?

Do you mean like this? [LINK]

What are the earliest extant writings regarding Vishnu and how do they guard against corruption? 

I.e., when is the earliest source available? How many copies of that source, or do you claim it is the original revelation from Vishnu? 

The Vedas – these texts date back to about 800 BCE. 

They originate from ancient India. The Vedas are the oldest Hindu texts and even the oldest texts in Sanskrit Literature. These sacred texts are very important for followers of Hinduism. The Hindus consider The Vedas “apaurusheya”. Which means “not of a man” or not of human origin. These texts also have no authors. Hindus believing that these texts are eternal. And they were created nor by human neither by gods. Although, The Mahabharata describes The Vedas to be created by Brahma.

There are 4 Vedas, each containing specific types of texts: Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda and Atharvaveda.

The Upanishads – they are an important collection of ancient Hindu texts. Also, they contain fundamental philosophical concepts of Hinduism. This collection is often called Vedanta. Which can be translated in many ways. But basically describing the fact that the Upanishads are part of the Vedas. And it explains the Vedas.

The Upanishads are mostly philosophical texts describing and defining Hindu religious concepts. Therefore, concepts such as Brahman and Atman represent the central ideas of these texts. Some parts of the collection are believed to date back to about 600 BCE. [LINK]

The earliest extant reference to Brahmanism appears to be the Major Rock Edicts from about 260 BCE. [LINK]

Logically, if X (biblical God) is true, then X does not equal Vishnu.

Obviously a hitherto unknown and obscure version of logic and notation...

I think the idea is that if something is the biblical god then it isn't vishnu.

Maybe god appeared to the Jews as yhwh and to the Indians as vishnu.

Establish the reasonableness for Vishnu as creator and sustainer of the universe from your scriptural sources that I may discuss the reasonableness of your claims. 

Vishnu is merely an aspect of Brahman.

Brahman, in the Upanishads (Indian sacred writings), the supreme existence or absolute reality. The etymology of the word, which is derived from Sanskrit, is uncertain. Though a variety of views are expressed in the Upanishads, they concur in the definition of brahman as eternal, conscious, irreducible, infinite, omnipresent, and the spiritual core of the universe of finiteness and change. Marked differences in interpretation of brahman characterize the various schools of Vedanta, the system of Hindu philosophy based on the writings of the Upanishads.

According to the Advaita (Nondualist) school of Vedanta, brahman is categorically different from anything phenomenal, and human perceptions of differentiation are illusively projected on this reality. The Bhedabheda (Dualist-Nondualist) school maintains that brahman is nondifferent from the world, which is its product, but different in that phenomenality imposes certain adventitious conditions (upadhis) on brahman. The Vishishtadvaita (Qualified Nondualist) school maintains that a relation exists between brahman and the world of soul and matter that is comparable to the relation between soul and body; the school identifies brahman with a personal god, Brahma, who is both transcendent and immanent. The Dvaita (Dualist) school refuses to accept the identity of brahman and world, maintaining the ontological separateness of the supreme, which it also identifies with a personal god. [LINK]

I think that description could apply to every age!

Logically, if X (biblical God) is true, then X does not equal Vishnu.

Logically, if X (Vishnu) is true, then X does not equal the "YHWH".

For me, I choose prophecy as the vehicle to use in establishing the biblical claims are most reasonable and logical because I can demonstrate to such a degree that they actually happened in history.

"In the Kali Yuga, wealth alone will be the deciding factor of nobility [in place of birth, righteous behavior or merit]. And brute force will be the only standard or deciding what is righteous or just."

"Mutual liking [and not family pedigree, social status, etc.] will be the deciding factor in choosing a partner in marriage; cheating will be the order of the day in business relations; satisfaction of sexual pleasure will be the only consideration of male or female excellence and worthiness; and the wearing of the sacred thread (Yajnopavita) [and not pious behavior or Vedic or Shastric learning] will be the outward index of being a Brahmin.

In the Kali Yuga, only one quarter of each of the four feet of Dharma [panance, truthfulness, compassion and charity] remains. And that too goes on decreasing day by day while the feet of Adharma [unrighteousness] increase greatly. So that in the end Dharma becomes extinct."

"In that [Kali] age, people will be greedy. They will take to wicked behavior. They will be merciless, indulge in hostilities without any cause, unfortunate, extremely covetous for wealth and women. High social status will be attained by Sudras, fisherman and such other classes..."

"When deceit, falsehood, lethargy, sleepiness, violence, despondency. grief, delusion, fear, and poverty prevail, that is the Kali Yuga..."

"...mortal beings will become dull-wittwd, unlucky, voracious, destitute of wealth yet voloptuous, and women, wanton and unchaste.

Countries will be laid waste by robbers and vagabonds; the Vedas will be condemned heretics; kings will exploit their subjects, and twice-borns like Brahmanas will only think of the gratification of their sexual desires and other appetites.

There are also prophecies that we are seeing today of the breakdown of the caste system and the abandonment of religion: "The observance of caste, order and institutes will not prevail in the Kali Yuga; nor will that of the ceremonials and rituals enjoined by the Sama, Rig, and Yajur Vedas. Marriages, in this age, will not conform to the ritual; nor will the rules that connect the guru and his disciple be in force. The laws that regulate the conduct of husband and wife will be disregarded; and oblations to the gods with fire will no longer be offered..."

"When the practices taught by the Vedas and the institutes of law shall nearly have ceased, and the close of the Kali age shall be nigh, a portion of that divine being who exists of his own spiritual nature in the character of Brahma, and who is the beginning and the end, and who comprehends all things, shall descend upon the earth. He will be born as Kalki in the family of an eminent brahmin of Sambhala village, endowed with the eight superhuman faculties. By his irresistible might he will destroy all the barbarians and thieves, and all whose minds are devoted to iniquity. He will then re-establish righteousness upon earth; and the minds of those who live at the end of the Kali age shall be awakened, and shall be as pellucid as crystal. The men who are thus changed by virtue of that peculiar time shall be as the seeds of human beings, and shall give birth to a race who shall follow the laws of the Krita age, the Age of Purity." --- Hinduism- Vishnu Purana 4.24 

I find you guys never engage in the proofs Christianity offers. 

In the same way that you don't accept "proofs" from other religions.

Historical facts from the Vedas do not convince you that the Hindu beliefs are true.

Therefore, historical facts are moot.

Accurate predictions in the Epic of Gilgamesh do not convince you that the ancient Sumerian gods are real.

Therefore, accurate predictions are moot.

Let's refocus for a second.

Try to disprove the existence of Vishnu without mentioning the "YHWH" or the holy scriptures.

Can you prove yours is? 

What evidence would you accept? You want me to conform to your standards. 

Can I prove my what is?

I don't have any gods.

As you've presented no evidence that does not treat the claim as evidence, I've yet to see any independent evidence at all.

The question is can you prove that the creator of the universe is in fact your god.

Are you saying you believe it even though there is no evidence?

Present your evidence (not your claim, which is THE BIBLE, as doing so is you saying "The bible god is real because the bible says he is"), and we'll examine it.

Present your argument that your god is real, or even better, why Zeus isn't, without referring to the bible.

Not can you make sense of your own worldview (obviously you can retrofit the bible onto any worldview if you work at it enough), not is morality objective or subjective, these are all DIFFERENT TOPICS. I invite you again to start your own topics on those and I'll participate as warranted. 

 Why would I not use the claims to show the strength of the evidence?

Because this is backwards. You use EVIDENCE to support your CLAIM.

Not your CLAIM to support your EVIDENCE.

Or, alternatively, you can simply say no, I can't, I believe it anyway, and there's literally no way I can ever change my mind, but I'm going to stop saying I used logic and reason to objectively arrive at my outcome. It's simply the outcome I like best. 

To that, I have no argument. Just stop talking about logic and reason like they apply in any way to your claim and we'll get along just fine! :)

Again, I start my proof of God with prophecy. Are you willing to engage?

Prophecy presupposes he's there already. Start your proof of god with proving he's there, to the exclusion of all others.

I presume you've already done this and DECIDED to be a Christian, so this should be rather easy for you. Unless, of course, you're mistaking the claim for the evidence.

Yes, or no? Can your version of god be proven to exist, without referring to the bible, which is what claims he exists in the first place? The rest of your questions are different topics.

I grant {1} because if I don't there isn't a topic.

{2} is immaterial because again, it is granted. Your leap to {3} is what's completely unearned. You've made no case for any monotheistic entity at all, you've not eliminated any pantheistic gods, or any deistic traditions at all, you've just jumped to "must be one deity" for some reason.

Everything else is off topic. 

So the answer to the yes or no question, which again is:

can you prove that your religion is true and every other one is false, that your god is real and all others fiction, without referring to the bible as it is the claim not evidence? It's a yes or no question. 

...is no, right?

Because again you didn't attempt it, even after saying "been there done that". I'm not asking you to disprove every religion. I'm asking you to prove you're right, without using the claim as the evidence.

Or debunk any other religion, your choice, without referring to your own.

This is the topic at hand. The rest of your distractions, I'd suggest starting other threads about if you like, and I'll participate as warranted. 

I don't start with my version, I start with the biblical revelation that states God is the only God and I use my logic that confirms this is so. 

That's your version. A Muslim starts with his version, a Hindu his version, a Cherokee his version...and all would argue it exactly as you do. To whit...

Why would I believe in God if I didn't believe He existed? You first have to start with that presupposition. 

I can think of no other proposition that requires you to believe in it to figure out you believe in it. That's not how reasoning or logic works.

You have admitted several times you can't do that, 

How have I done that?

You mean besides not even attempting it in eight pages? Each of your posts seems to come down to "bible quote" (without demonstrating that bible is true, again it's the claim not the evidence) + "Special pleading / argument from incredulity" X "confirmation bias."

If you could do it, you'd have done it, I've asked directly several times. I'll ask again: can you prove that your religion is true and every other one is false, that your god is real and all others fiction, without referring to the bible as it is the claim not evidence? It's a yes or no question. 

And why would I discard the biblical God as my reference? I find reason in Him, not in you or in some other god. I don't find any other gods as sufficient reason for the universe, nor do I have to. The counterfeit is based on the real, not the other way around. 

Looks like I left one out: "personal preference." If you've 'been there, done that' proving other gods false without referring to your own god or religion, it ought to be easy, but here we are. You have not answered this one either, and my guess is because you're smart enough to see that your own arguments against most other religions are exactly the same level of problematic for your religion.

• « Back
  
• 1
  
• …
  
• 5
  
• 6
  

Regarding prophecy, did the OT predict another building and destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the Jewish system of worship before it happened (i.e., Daniel 9:24-27 as one such passage)? Is that reasonable to believe? If you think not then provide evidence as to why. 

Umm no, this prophecy is false. The destruction did not occur 70 weeks after the prophecy

24 Seventy weeks are decreed upon thy people and upon thy holy city, [j]to finish [k]transgression, and [l]to make an end of sins, and to [m]make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up vision and [n]prophecy, and to anoint [o]the most holy. 25 Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto [p]the anointed one, the prince, shall be [q]seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: it shall be built again, with street and moat, even in troublous times. 26 And after the threescore and two weeks shall the anointed one be cut off, and [r]shall have nothing: 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 even unto the end shall be war; desolations are determined. 27 And he shall make a firm covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the [s]oblation to cease; and [t]upon the wing of abominations shall come one that maketh desolate; and even unto the full end, and that determined, shall wrath be poured out upon the desolate.

The Bible is confirmed by what we know of history (and I claim it is logic to believe also). The Bible gives a consistent and coherent explanation of the universe, life, morality, truth, etc. Your worldview does not. It acts inconsistently with its core foundational beliefs.

History rejects the notion that the Jews were slaves in Egypt for 400yrs. History rejects the notion of 4 million people wandering a small wilderness for 40yrs. Science has proved that there was never a worldwide flood and history records that. Your bible is not confirmed by history, it is proven wrong at every turn by history.

It seems to me that a) if the biblical prophecies are genuine then God (probably) exists and b)if the prophecies are fake then God (probably) does not exist.

It strikes me a lot rides on the prophecies.

No, you either start with a Creator or a chance happenstance universe as your starting point, from which everything else originates from. You explain things through one of two such worldviews.

Except this is not exactly what you do, is it? You don't start with a creator.

You start with YOUR version of the Creator, which just happens to be god. If there's a way to go from little c creator to capital g God of the Bible, you would have to find that way.

You have admitted several times you can't do that,

and that your view doesn't work unless you start with the view that it's already correct.

Try the inverse, let's forget your god for a second: please demonstrate that [ANY OTHER GOD YOU WANT TO CHOOSE] is not real WITHOUT REFERRING TO YOUR GOD OR THE BIBLE. Can it be done?

Jesus only had 23 from the female and 23 from God. 

Staggering! Where did you get information that god had chromosomes???

And how you'd somehow figure out that no one in any of Mary's bloodlines were ever related to the first two people on earth, who would NECESSARILY have to be everyone ever's parent...again you're not really looking for honest debate with this sort of stuff. You are literally the first person I've ever heard claim god has literal genetic material.