ONCE AGAIN! Facts in the Bible is supported by archaeology.

[ecco]

Who is the figure David is speaking of in Psalm 22?
Who is the figure Isaiah 53 is speaking of?

Here is what these two writers say of the Messiah in
these two chapters.

born of a woman
despised and rejected
not a good looking man
disbelieved by his siblings
people didn't want to know him
believed upon by those to whom it is revealed
an unblemished life
a life offered for His people
he bore our sufferings
taken from prison and from judgment
divided his garments
like a lamb he opened not his mouth
crucified (pierced hands and feet)
his bones are out of joint
offered vinegar and gall
His bones protrude, his tongue sticks to his mouth
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
"He trusts in the Lord, let him save him"
enemies surround him
buried in a rich man's grave
numbered with the sinners
He will see the fruits of his suffering in the life of his people
those who seek God will love him
he will rule over the nations

I asked, repeatedly, for you to show what the Bible actually says. You didn't. Instead, you wrote about what the Bible allegedly says.

I took it upon my self to Google Bible Hub Psalm 22

King James Bible

To the chief Musician upon Aijeleth Shahar, A Psalm of David. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?​

I took it upon my self to Google Bible Hub Isaiah 53

King James Bible
Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed?​

Neither of those makes any prediction.

and lastly Psalm 22:30,31
"Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
They will proclaim his righteousness,
declaring to a people not yet born.
He has done it!"

The only thing that "predicts" is that people will continue to tell stories to believing crowds.

This really shouldn't be hard for you. You stated the Bible made precise predictions. Why can't you show the exact chapter and verse where, in your opinion, such predictions are made?

 

[ecco]

Guess we can take most ancient history with a grain of salt.

Yes. We should. I'd venture that most prudent people do just that.

 

[PruePhillip]

I took it upon my self to Google Bible Hub Psalm 22
I took it upon my self to Google Bible Hub Isaiah 53

Neither of those makes any prediction.

So then, who is King David and the prophet Isaiah speaking of?
Same for Zechariah speaking of the suffering and reigning King
And Malachi, Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah, Elisha - all speaking of
The Anointed One, the Messiah. Who do you think they are
speaking of?
For any Jew who wants to read of the Redeemer Christ I say
read the latter half of Isaiah 52 and all of 53.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑
I took it upon my self to Google Bible Hub Psalm 22
I took it upon my self to Google Bible Hub Isaiah 53

Neither of those makes any prediction.

So then, who is King David and the prophet Isaiah speaking of?
Same for Zechariah speaking of the suffering and reigning King
And Malachi, Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah, Elisha - all speaking of
The Anointed One, the Messiah. Who do you think they are
speaking of?


For any Jew who wants to read of the Redeemer Christ I say
read the latter half of Isaiah 52 and all of 53.​

Uh, no. ecco did not say all of that.

.

 

[PruePhillip]

ecco said: ↑
I took it upon my self to Google Bible Hub Psalm 22
I took it upon my self to Google Bible Hub Isaiah 53

Neither of those makes any prediction.

So then, who is King David and the prophet Isaiah speaking of?
Same for Zechariah speaking of the suffering and reigning King
And Malachi, Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah, Elisha - all speaking of
The Anointed One, the Messiah. Who do you think they are
speaking of?


For any Jew who wants to read of the Redeemer Christ I say
read the latter half of Isaiah 52 and all of 53.​

Uh, no. ecco did not say all of that.

Yeah, you're right. I added my comment to your quote.
Sorry about that.
It makes you sound thoughtful (!)
But the regardless, the fact is that Isaiah (in particular)
is a Gospel set in the midst of the Hebrew bible. I
marvel at that.

Here is another prediction, backed by history. The bible
states that the Jews will not accept their Messiah (hence
the suffering of Christ) and will lose their nation. That
happened after three punishing wars, and led to Jewish
exile, slavery and persecution for 1900 years. So when
Jews speak of the Messiah as if they know what they are
talking about because they wrote the bible - they are wrong.

 

[joelr]

Cribbed from others? You have any trouble believing an African general
took an army over the Alps, complete with elephants, and invaded Rome?
Two authors. I find that story too fantastic, and it appears the authors
did a bit of cribbing themselves.
I am reading the Greek historian Thucydides as I speak, and I wonder how
much of it was cribbed. He himself admitted he made up speeches for
instance. Guess we can take most ancient history with a grain of salt.

Depends on how many sources we have. Yes some of history isn't true.
Jesus history consists only of Paul who knows of no Earthly Jesus, and what he did know about Jesus was scripture and psychic messages. All gospels are re-wrirtes of Mark each adding more myth. Any outside mention was forgery or simply talking about Christains who read the gospels.
The OT passages were inspired by older pagan religions and their savior deities and used to create a Jewish savior god.

So historically the NT is terrible and adding to that the gospels read exactly as mythology and not as historical accounts we know it's intended to be mythology.

The African general may have multiple sources writing about him, coins and inscriptions made and so on. Or not? Could be a myth?

In 3AD before Constantine made Christianity the state religion it was 4% of Rome. So it clearly had had no impact at all for hundreds of years and was just another dying/rising sin forgiver cult that was made state religion and eventually it became law and forced on people.
Just like the African general, if history looks sketchy then we drop it.
This is why the historicity field considers Jesus to have been a man who was mythicized into a god.
The PhD works demonstrating this include - Thomas Thompson, Richard Purvoe (Acts as Historical Fiction), R. Price, Elaine Pagels, Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier

Theology studies and historicity studies are completely different fields.

"The historicity of Jesus is distinct from the related study of the historical Jesus, which refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus, based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts.[18][19][20] Historicity, by contrast, as a subject of study different from history proper, is concerned with two different fundamental issues. Firstly, it is concerned with the systemic processes of social change, and, secondly, the social context and intentions of the authors of the sources by which we can establish the truth of historical events, separating mythic accounts from factual circumstances.[21]"

The historical reliability of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_Gospels']four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable[/URL]

 

[PruePhillip]

Depends on how many sources we have. Yes some of history isn't true.
Jesus history consists only of Paul who knows of no Earthly Jesus, and what he did know about Jesus was scripture and psychic messages. All gospels are re-wrirtes of Mark each adding more myth. Any outside mention was forgery or simply talking about Christains who read the gospels.
The OT passages were inspired by older pagan religions and their savior deities and used to create a Jewish savior god.

So historically the NT is terrible and adding to that the gospels read exactly as mythology and not as historical accounts we know it's intended to be mythology.

The African general may have multiple sources writing about him, coins and inscriptions made and so on. Or not? Could be a myth?

In 3AD before Constantine made Christianity the state religion it was 4% of Rome. So it clearly had had no impact at all for hundreds of years and was just another dying/rising sin forgiver cult that was made state religion and eventually it became law and forced on people.
Just like the African general, if history looks sketchy then we drop it.
This is why the historicity field considers Jesus to have been a man who was mythicized into a god.
The PhD works demonstrating this include - Thomas Thompson, Richard Purvoe (Acts as Historical Fiction), R. Price, Elaine Pagels, Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier

Theology studies and historicity studies are completely different fields.

"The historicity of Jesus is distinct from the related study of the historical Jesus, which refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus, based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts.[18][19][20] Historicity, by contrast, as a subject of study different from history proper, is concerned with two different fundamental issues. Firstly, it is concerned with the systemic processes of social change, and, secondly, the social context and intentions of the authors of the sources by which we can establish the truth of historical events, separating mythic accounts from factual circumstances.[21]"

The historical reliability of the gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. Little in the four canonical gospels is considered to be historically reliable

Wasn't long ago when King David was not considered "historically reliable"
And Israel as a cultural and political entity was not considered "historically reliable"
And Jews were just people of a set religion until DNA testing arrived.

The argument has shifted over the past 100 years. Instead of the bible being a
complete myth the argument now is that real events, figures and places have
been mythologized.

My favorite Gospel is John. He was a gentle figure, the "one whom Jesus loved."
His letters are simple, gentle and loving. So too is his Gospel which comprises
only about seven (if I recall) stories. These have no bearing on Mark's account.
Secondly I like Luke. He was the physician who accompanied Paul to Rome on
his last trip. Luke collated material from other Gospel writers, but he also drew
material from some who had first or second hand accounts of Jesus.

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑
I took it upon my self to Google Bible Hub Psalm 22
I took it upon my self to Google Bible Hub Isaiah 53

Neither of those makes any prediction.​

It makes you sound thoughtful (!)

Here is another prediction, backed by history.

Another prediction?!? You haven't provided a shred of evidence for the original "predictions" you referenced.

That doesn't make you sound thoughtful (!) That makes you sound like you're grasping at straws.

 

[PruePhillip]

ecco said: ↑
I took it upon my self to Google Bible Hub Psalm 22
I took it upon my self to Google Bible Hub Isaiah 53

Neither of those makes any prediction.​

Another prediction?!? You haven't provided a shred of evidence for the original "predictions" you referenced.

That doesn't make you sound thoughtful (!) That makes you sound like you're grasping at straws.

I have lost track of the argument. You need to be a bit more specific.
The late Isaiah 52 and all 53 is almost a mirror of the New Testament
Gospels - the Messiah who would be born of a woman, not believed
by the world, who bore our griefs and sorrows, who paid the price
for our sin, who was imprisoned and judged, who died in our stead,
was buried in a rich man's grave, who looked back afterwards upon
his mission and saw that it was good.

 

[ecco]

I have lost track of the argument.

Yeah, that's a good tack.

You post BS.
When questioned about it, and asked to support it with evidence, you tap dance.
When pressed, you duck and dodge.
Then, finally, you post "I have lost track of the argument."

The point is people think the bible is fiction, like the pantheon
of Greek gods. The bible makes a claim to history, and bit by
bit this history is emerging.

What is deeply impressive about the bible is the number of people who
wrote of the Messiah before he even arrived.

Let's recap - you wrote...
What is deeply impressive about the bible is the number of people who wrote of the Messiah before he even arrived.
In subsequent posts, you stated that the people who wrote the predictions and their descendants believe the "Messiah, is yet to come".

By your own admission, you are deeply impressed by predictions of events that have not come to pass.

Do you remember now? You stated you were deeply impressed by the number of people who wrote of the Messiah before he even arrived.

Yet you could not point to anything to support that allegation.

 

[PruePhillip]

Yeah, that's a good tack.

You post BS.
When questioned about it, and asked to support it with evidence, you tap dance.
When pressed, you duck and dodge.
Then, finally, you post "I have lost track of the argument."








Do you remember now? You stated you were deeply impressed by the number of people who wrote of the Messiah before he even arrived.

Yet you could not point to anything to support that allegation.

Oh okay. I get into a lot of conversations on-line.

I gave you just two of the hundreds of Messianic references (my
favorite ones.) There were people who saw in Jesus the figure
in these Old Testament verses. States in the Gospels that
things Jesus did reminded them of those scriptures.
So yes, I did support my statement with references.

 

[ecco]

The point is people think the bible is fiction, like the pantheon
of Greek gods. The bible makes a claim to history, and bit by
bit this history is emerging.

What is deeply impressive about the bible is the number of people who
wrote of the Messiah before he even arrived.

Let's recap - you wrote...
What is deeply impressive about the bible is the number of people who wrote of the Messiah before he even arrived.
In subsequent posts, you stated that the people who wrote the predictions and their descendants believe the "Messiah, is yet to come".

By your own admission, you are deeply impressed by predictions of events that have not come to pass.

Do you remember now? You stated you were deeply impressed by the number of people who wrote of the Messiah before he even arrived.

Yet you could not point to anything to support that allegation.

 

[Looncall]

Oh okay. I get into a lot of conversations on-line.

I gave you just two of the hundreds of Messianic references (my
favorite ones.) There were people who saw in Jesus the figure
in these Old Testament verses. States in the Gospels that
things Jesus did reminded them of those scriptures.
So yes, I did support my statement with references.

However, it seems that the gospels were concocted so as to match those references. Just a scam.

 

[PruePhillip]

However, it seems that the gospels were concocted so as to match those references. Just a scam.

One of the most compelling prophecies concerned Jacob's blessing to Judah
(ca 2000 BC) while he was the leader of a small family tribe in Egypt.
Judah was the one who offered himself for his condemned brother. A type of
Christ.
Jacob said that from his son would spring a nation and a monarchy, bound by
The Law. But when the Messiah comes this nation would end, and the Messiah
would be believed upon by the Gentiles.

Could you tell me how the Jews (who hated Jesus) shoehorned the Gospel and
its aftermath into this account by Jacob?

 

[PruePhillip]

Do you remember now? You stated you were deeply impressed by the number of people who wrote of the Messiah before he even arrived.

Yet you could not point to anything to support that allegation.

Hello, I did "support that allegation"!!!!! And read my post above this one too!
What do YOU expect of prophecy if not these?

 

[ecco]

ecco said: ↑
Do you remember now? You stated you were deeply impressed by the number of people who wrote of the Messiah before he even arrived.​

Yet you could not point to anything to support that allegation.​

Hello, I did "support that allegation"!!!!!

No. All you did was talk about what may or may not have been written. You did not, could not, produce the actual text from scripture that made the prophecies.

You did the same thing in your post #694.

 

[Bear Wild]

One of the most compelling prophecies concerned Jacob's blessing to Judah
(ca 2000 BC) while he was the leader of a small family tribe in Egypt.
Judah was the one who offered himself for his condemned brother. A type of
Christ.
Jacob said that from his son would spring a nation and a monarchy, bound by
The Law. But when the Messiah comes this nation would end, and the Messiah
would be believed upon by the Gentiles.

Could you tell me how the Jews (who hated Jesus) shoehorned the Gospel and
its aftermath into this account by Jacob?

When does Jacobs blessing to Judah actually appear in print?

 

[PruePhillip]

When does Jacobs blessing to Judah actually appear in print?

Well before the prophecy was fulfilled in the First Century AD.

 

[Bear Wild]

Well before the prophecy was fulfilled in the First Century AD.

No what is the earliest preserved writing that we can reference for this prophecy. If it is before Jesus and his birth particularly if it we have some reference from 2000 BCE then it is an interesting prophecy. If not. then we do not know how much the writing was influence by the events that unfolded. Also this was a messiah of the Jewish faith. How many members of the Jewish faith believe Jesus was the Messiah?

 

[PruePhillip]

No what is the earliest preserved writing that we can reference for this prophecy. If it is before Jesus and his birth particularly if it we have some reference from 2000 BCE then it is an interesting prophecy. If not. then we do not know how much the writing was influence by the events that unfolded. Also this was a messiah of the Jewish faith. How many members of the Jewish faith believe Jesus was the Messiah?

This prophecy was in Genesis. It is part of the Jewish Torah and goes back a long way.
How long is debatable, but that's not the point. I suggest it was written ca 2000 BC, some
critics claim ca 600 BC. Still, centuries before Jesus.
Few believed Jesus was the Messiah. The problem was that there are two sets of prophecies,
Messiah as King and Messiah as Redeemer. The Jews didn't want redemption, they wanted a
worldly king. Zachariah speaks of both prophecies as being the same man.