Why should one believe that something the TaNaKh predicts would actually literally occur?

[paarsurrey]

Because many things the OT prophets predicted literally occured.
Compare 2 Chron 36:22-23 & Ezra 1:1.
There are many more but you won't believe them either

Is there any prophecy in the first five books of Torah, namely:

• Genesis

• Exodus

• Leviticus

• Numbers

• Deuteronomy

to start with. Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I am a Hindu. You are not. I believe everything is God. Who are you to say that it is a misconception?

One could not support one's view from Veda. That is my point. Please
Regards

 

[savagewind]

I think that no one "should" have to "believe" anything. I think the Bible warns against that. Proverbs 3:5

 

[Kirran]

One could not support one's view from Veda. That is my point. Please
Regards

I can, actually. Not that it matters. Here are four quotations. These are called the Mahavakyas, or great sayings.

Prajnanam brahman - Brahman is Consciousness.
Tat tvam asi - Thou art that (Brahman).
Aham brahmasmi - I (any speaker) am Brahman.
Ayamatma brahma - this/the soul is Brahman.

 

[paarsurrey]

I can, actually. Not that it matters. Here are four quotations. These are called the Mahavakyas, or great sayings.

Prajnanam brahman - Brahman is Consciousness.
Tat tvam asi - Thou art that (Brahman).
Aham brahmasmi - I (any speaker) am Brahman.
Ayamatma brahma - this/the soul is Brahman.

Please quote them from Veda/Yajurveda, directly.
Regards

 

[savagewind]

I have something to say about the topic. I think people write what they see. There are some people who can predict what will happen by what they see. I suppose there might be people who can effectively see into the real future, but I have some doubts about that. Might something which is not human communicate what IT sees? I do not want to believe that. I think it would be cheating.

I suspect there is great danger and wasted time in waiting for something that was predicted to happen.

In fact, I can see that people who are waiting for something bad to happen because they believe God foretold it so that it should and must come true will be convicted of the result because they made themselves a part of it.

 

[Kirran]

Please quote them from Veda/Yajurveda, directly.
Regards

I did. Those are quotes from the Vedas. One from each of the four Vedas.

Aham Brahmasmi is from the Yajurveda.

 

[Jedster]

Please quote from Veda that one has to pray to Krishna. Krishna is not even mentioned in Veda.
Nobody prayed to Krishna in the Veda Period. Krishna is a Post-Veda prophet of the Dharmic people.
Right? Please
Regards

What about the other 2 options I offered you?
You say you read the Bagavad Gita, what did the book tell you?
Explain chapter 4, what is Krishna saying?

For what reason do you call Krishna a prophet?

 

[savagewind]

@paarsurrey I want to clarify what I said about believing.

I think that a person may believe what he will, but leave "should" out of it!

 

[paarsurrey]

@paarsurrey I want to clarify what I said about believing.

I think that a person may believe what he will, but leave "should" out of it!

Why? Please
Regards

 

[savagewind]

Why? Please
Regards

Should is a word which "is used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions."

I am sure there are people who believe they are right and that they think others SHOULD trust that they are right, but I do not believe that way.

 

[Kirran]

Brahman is everywhere with his attributes, not physically and materially.

Also, the pronoun 'his' does not apply to Brahman. Brahman is the Absolute.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

That is why I cannot tolerate pagans who are still stuck on Woden, Zeus and Jupiter. Seriously! You mean to tell me there are no grander concepts of god than something that belonged in an ancient culture that has poor manuscripts mean't to retain that said culture. It doesn't even belong to you for crying out loud!

Maybe some of us feel that bigger isn't always better when it comes to what gods we worship. And the lack of manuscripts isn't so much for a lack of literacy as a propensity for later religious traditions to destroy that which was different from them.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why should one believe that something the TaNaKh predicts would actually literally occur?

There is an interesting thread started in the Judaism DIR forum by a respected member. Since everybody cannot participate there, and the topic is also of interest not only to the Judaism but as well as to Christians, Muslims and others (may be for Atheism and Hinduism also), I have given it as a topic here.
Anybody and everybody with their thoughtful inputs, please

Regards

You have good reason to believe. A Google search of Tanakh prophecies fulfilled in our lifetime and that of our families, since 1948 AD, will astound.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You have good reason to believe. A Google search of Tanakh prophecies fulfilled in our lifetime and that of our families, since 1948 AD, will astound.

I did that. I found a mix of unsubstantiated claims and self-fulfilling prophecies. Do you have any in mind that are actually compelling?

Keep in mind that I'm not going to find a prophecy compelling unless it meets a few criteria:

For a statement to be Biblical foreknowledge, it must fit all of the five following criteria:

1. It must be accurate. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not accurate, because knowledge (and thus foreknowledge) excludes inaccurate statements.
2. It must be in the Bible. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it is not in the Bible, because Biblical foreknowledge definitionally can only come from the Bible itself.
3. It must be unambiguous. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if multiple outcomes could fulfill the foreknowledge, because ambiguity prevents one from knowing whether the foreknowledge was intentional or not.
4. It must be improbable. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of a pure guess, because foreknowledge requires a person to actually know something true, while a correct guess doesn't mean that the guesser knows anything. This also excludes contemporary beliefs that happened be true but were believed to be true without solid evidence.
5. It must have been unknown. A statement cannot be Biblical foreknowledge if it reasonably could be the result of an educated guess based off contemporary knowledge, because foreknowledge requires a person to know a statement when it would have been impossible, outside of supernatural power, for that person to know it.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_prophecies

And I'd add one more:

6. It can't be self-fulfilling. If the prophecy was "fulfilled" by a wilful act by people who knew about the prophecy, then it doesn't count as foreknowledge. Examples would be the foundation of modern Israel or the story about the donkey and the colt in the Gospels ("go get me a donkey and a colt so that I can fulfil the prophecy that says the Messiah will come into the city on a donkey and a colt.").

So... do you have any that pass the test?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Knowing does not imply controlling.

I know some will call me ignorant of science when I say I reject evolution, but I can't control what they say.

However, controlling WHILE knowing is also something entirely different. To the point that, if you could control what those others were to say to you, you probably would, to a degree. Would you not?

The original point was that God, knowing all that would happen here to fore, apparently took stock of all the good and the bad that was and is to be - and then estimated that what has been created is "good" in His eyes. And that stance is, by default, indifferent to his individual creations in existence - some of whom would most assuredly never call their existence "good", or if they do, are doing so despite terrible "bad" having been poured out on them - and a great many of whom never even got the chance to experience one way or the other.

A baby is born prematurely, suffers a great deal, and then dies. This exact thing has happened countless times throughout human existence. How can anyone claim that God is anything but indifferent to that child? How can it be claimed that he cares? His knowledge of all of man's future laid out before him would have included all of these suffering and dying babies - and yet the creation is "good". It seems to me more that His vast indifference is among God's chief attributes.

 

[omega2xx]

Is there any in the first five books of Torah, namely:

• Genesis

• Gen 3:15

• Exodus

  Ex 3:8
  
  

  Leviticus

  26:9
  
  

  Numbers

  14:22-23
  
  

  Deuteronomy

  18:15

to start with. Please
Regards[/QUOTE]

 

[omega2xx]

However, controlling WHILE knowing is also something entirely different. To the point that, if you could control what those others were to say to you, you probably would, to a degree. Would you not?

The original point was that God, knowing all that would happen here to fore, apparently took stock of all the good and the bad that was and is to be - and then estimated that what has been created is "good" in His eyes. And that stance is, by default, indifferent to his individual creations in existence - some of whom would most assuredly never call their existence "good", or if they do, are doing so despite terrible "bad" having been poured out on them - and a great many of whom never even got the chance to experience one way or the other.

As soon as you use "apparently" you have lost your case. What I would do can't compare with what God wold do. God is not indifferent. He lets the conditions of he world Adam's sin created, take its natural course.

A baby is born prematurely, suffers a great deal, and then dies. This exact thing has happened countless times throughout human existence. How can anyone claim that God is anything but indifferent to that child? How can it be claimed that he cares? His knowledge of all of man's future laid out before him would have included all of these suffering and dying babies - and yet the creation is "good". It seems to me more that His vast indifference is among God's chief attributes.

That is sill letting Adam cause operate. If a baby dies, it goest to heaven. How is that indifference? You are judging God by your standard of caring. I will stick with the Bible's description of God

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

As soon as you use "apparently" you have lost your case. What I would do can't compare with what God wold do. God is not indifferent. He lets the conditions of he world Adam's sin created, take its natural course.

I chose to use the word "apparently" mostly because I don't believe God exists. For one who believes He does, indeed, exist, the word "apparently" could easily be removed. As in "[He] took stock of all the good and the bad that was and is to be - and then estimated that what has been created is 'good' in His eyes." A believer can't even deny that statement if they believe in the creation and an all-knowing God. That statement would be "the truth". I'm not exactly sure where your issue with the word "apparently" lies.

That is sill letting Adam cause operate. If a baby dies, it goest to heaven. How is that indifference? You are judging God by your standard of caring. I will stick with the Bible's description of God

I notice you mentioned "If a baby dies", but nothing about the suffering part. The issue doesn't sit with the individual dying - death by natural means is not an "evil" or injustice committed against a being. Creating a being for the sole purpose of it suffering for a time before that natural death however? Not sure how nice or "caring" that is.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is sill letting Adam cause operate. If a baby dies, it goest to heaven. How is that indifference? You are judging God by your standard of caring. I will stick with the Bible's description of God

So you think that killing babies is good? Do I understand you correctly?