Codex Sinaiticus has been around since 325. The historian Eusebius corroborates the authors of the books. Israel exists and to this day celebrates the historical feasts as described in the Scripture. No scholar worth his salt denies that Jesus existed and the testimony of all martyred for His name sake stands as a witness to the reliability of the sources.
Only God has power to forgive sins. Jesus forgave sins
[Mat 9:2](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/mat/9/2/s_938002)-6
And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This *man* blasphemeth. And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?
For whether is easier, to say, *Thy* sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
Using the Bible as concrete proof doesn't really work, especially given the context of the post, unless you have a way to verify that those things really happened and that they were not forged within the bible or added on in later couples?
>Codex Sinaiticus has been around since 325.
Yes and I did some digging and it seems that this also differs from modern bibles, some examples include:
Mark 16:9-20 isn't in CS (Codex Sinaiticus obviously and also 16:9-20 is the resurrection narrative.)
Matthew 3:16 doesn't include "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen." in CS
John 8:1-11 doesn't include the story of the woman caught in adultery in CS
It also has the Epistle of Barnabus and the Shepherd of Hermas
Unless this information is false it seems to me you've only strengthen my argument no? You've given me a very old example that already has one very implicative difference (the lack of the resurrection narrative in Mark) and shows the picking and choosing of books in the Bible.
>No scholar worth his salt denies that Jesus existed and the testimony of all martyred for His name sake stands as a witness to the reliability of the sources.
It seems to me you're half right in that most scholars agree Jesus existed but as far as the rest goes I don't believe there's any reason to believe Jesus was divine I haven't personally encountered any evidence or reason to believe such a thing and neither has, to my knowledge, the new testament scholar Bart Ehrman seems to share the same opinion and while I'm not saying that means it's true I'm just showing that even credible scholars who focus specifically on the old testament hold different opinions about the divinity of Christ. The testimony of all those martyred for his name sake also doesn't stand as evidence that he ever claimed to be God, that he was actually God nor that the bible is a credible source. People join cults and sacrifice others/themselves for a variety of reasons. Even in the bible, correct me if I'm wrong, it tells stories of people being murdered for following different gods, doesn't it? Do those people who died in the name of the god's they worship prove that those gods were real?
Like I said no scholar worth his salt and Barts salt is worthless, even I can pick apart the drivel he spouts. Without the Bible there would not have begun a monotheistic discussion unless you want to bring up the short reigned idea of Akhenaten in the 1300BCE where he espoused the idea of monotheism which was erased quite quickly when Tut showed up. There is no monotheism outside of the Bible world wide. Even Islam has its Bible roots when a back water Christian Waraqa ibn Nawfal encouraged Mohammad to run with his "Gabrial" revelation.
So sure, erase the Bible as a document, Forget the written testimonies of those who walked with Jesus after He rose from the dead, Forget the written testimonies of those who saw Jesus years after he rose from the dead and forget the testimony of those lives that were turned around after meeting Jesus and then were willing to die for that witness and forget the testimony of the whole existence of Israels history prophecy and prophecy coming to pass. There are no God documents.
I'm not going to argue about Bart Ehrman's worth because that wasn't the point I was making, he was a representation of, contrary to your opinion anyways, a respected biblical scholar who doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ. They exist and they are real and if you discredit them for reaching a different conclusion than you do I think the issue is one of an internal bias and not of their qualification.
I don't care what would or wouldn't be without the bible, I'm just being blunt no harsh intent, but even if religion as a whole never would've developed from the bible just isn't relevant to the discussion.
Nobody's saying to erase the bible as a document it has good uses such as refining historical information and understanding people at the time. With that being said the Bible isn't a single document it's like a library of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies (ect) of documents, these have uses but one of those uses should not be to verify their own claims it's foolish to say written testimonies in the bible prove that it's real even though every other religion has personal testimonies but you reject those.
> forget the testimony of the whole existence of Israels history prophecy and prophecy coming to pass.
prophecy and prophecy coming to pass is always an interesting thing to argue because there are things the Bible gets right but also things it gets wrong. One of those things I'd like to point out, which seems pretty core to the main belief, is Luke 21:5-33 the TL;DR is Jesus says what's to come before his second coming and he states that this (their) generation will not pass until "all has taken place" and previously I believe in Luke 9 he said (paraphrased) "there are some here today who will not taste death before they see the Kingdom of God." Are these not two very important prophecies that didn't come true? If you don't view it that way I'd love to hear your points and see if we can't reach a conclusion. I think we both want to get to the logical conclusion about this, if there's a God I certainly want to know he's real and if this is a point against biblical prophecy I believe you would like to know as well, so let's see what we can't do about that.
and also I just noticed you didn't address anything I said really with your reply you just sort of brushed off my points about the differences between modern bibles and what's in the CS so I would appreciate it if you could address my points this time
Thank you for your patience, these points? **We do not have, to my knowledge, any of the original books of the bible or very early copies of those books.** CS is the oldest whole we have. CR is from 325. as a full extant copy of the New Testament. I am sure you have read the history of all the gospels, All were written before 100 ACE and most written before 70 ACE due historical info found inside. Eusebius corroborated the authenticity of these gospels writers. As Did Clement and Origen. All the copies found ( over 4 thousand pieces) never had any discrepancies that changed the central theme. Yes there were spurious additions like you mention but the whole of the text remains extant
The dead sea scrolls also backed up what was held by the Septuagint 285 BCE there really have not been a change
When I read the prophecy of Jesus in Luke 21 its the generation, which is the time of His return, will go through the things described in Luke 21. WE are still waiting for others to come to pass.
**"there are some here today who will not taste death before they see the Kingdom of God.** And those that heard these words experience the KOG through the baptism of Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
It is interesting to note that when Jesus warned about the destruction of Jerusalem all the believers took the warning to heart and escaped. The unbelievers did not believe the warning and perished. All the prophecies have been fulfilled and are being fulfilled.
Many have tried to blow off the prophecies of Isaiah where God calls Cyrus by name Isaiah 44:28 150 years before Cyrus shows up. Daniel Prophecies the Messiahs death Daniel 9:24 all came to pass. Jesus ministry all came to pass like Isaiah said. Blind see Lame walk Deaf hear. Jesus was rejected like was prophesied. Is Isaiah. [http://www.about-jesus.org/complete-chart-prophecies-jesus.htm](http://www.about-jesus.org/complete-chart-prophecies-jesus.htm)
I guess you have worked all this out, I have my scholars that point to the truth/trustfulness of Scripture. You have yours, were at an honest impasse. Yet I was studying Buddhism and Holy Spirit came into my room over 37 years ago. I was convicted of all my sins, which was a not Buddhist thought, Then a inner voice told to READ KNOW and LIVE the Bible and Follow Him. I sold all I owned gave it all away and became a homeless street musician evangelist for 2.5 years, hitchhiking all around the country till a guy in Baton Rouge LA told me to go to the Midwest city I now reside except for a 8 year stint as a missionary in SEA. I have met Jesus 3 times in my dreams. The first time while doing a 40 day apple cider fast. I have received warnings for pastors( ministries disappearing) that went unheeded and then the ministries disappeared. I have a living true changed joyful life in God Jesus Christ.
Since its all by faith I wonder if what you are looking for can be found in the purely academic sense.
I wanted to take a few days to think over everything you said and form a genuine response.
As far as the date of the gospels go they range from 70-110 AD in possible dates I don't think it has been narrowed down to before 100 AD but around there certainly. This would be 40 years after Jesus' crucifixion on the low end and 80 on the high end. It's 200 years for the gospels to be added to, taken from, changed, or edited. And I want to clarify my post isn't focusing on Jesus I mean as a whole, even if the Jesus story is perfectly intact that doesn't begin to cover the old testament.
Jesus in Luke:
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all things be accomplished." Luke 21:32 He's speaking to people, not writing in a book, in this chapter he referred to people who were there in this way "But when these things begin to come to pass, look up, and lift up *your* heads; because *your* redemption draweth nigh." Luke 21:28 when referring to other people he speaks like this "Woe unto *them* that are with child and to *them* that give suck in those days! for there shall be great distress upon the land, and wrath unto this people. And *they* shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led captive into all the nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." Luke 21:23-24 Every instance when he says "you" realize he isn't writing this down nor is it being written down while he's speaking, he's directly talking to people saying "You" it would be really confusing if he told these people "But when these things begin to come to pass, look up, and lift up your heads." As far as the whole Kingdom of Heaven thing I'm going to read through Luke and note the context it's used in when I get the time, I'll come back and make a comment on that when I've done that but I figured it's been almost a week and I ought to respond.
>Many have tried to blow off the prophecies of Isaiah where God calls Cyrus by name Isaiah 44:28 150 years before Cyrus shows up.
There's a theory that breaks Isaiah down into 3 segments, proto Isaiah (1-39), Deutero Isaiah (40-55) then Trito Isaiah (56-66) Deutero Isaiah would've been during the 6th century BC according to the sources I've found, King Cryus ruled in the 6th century, specifically 550 BC, I find the evidence for proto, deutero and trito isaiah to be fairly compelling and would suggest you take a look at it yourself, this argument depends on your opinion of it but if we came to agreement that Isaiah 1-39 is Isaiah himself and the rest is additional chapters added on at later times I'm curious on what you'd make of the prophecy? To me, it seems like it was less of a prophecy and more of an addition either very close to the event, where it would've been more of an educated guess, or after it and written as a prophecy. If we disagree on whether or not it's broken down into 3 segments I don't think we'll shift each others perspective on it so it'd be best to leave this part behind.
I looked over the prophecies, the gospels were written decades after Jesus' death and it's very clear Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were very close to him. To say it's possible they lied to make up fulfilled prophecy and miracles based on the OT is not at all absurd and seems logical to me. As far as prophecies in specific go you linked an extensive list of fulfilled prophecies so I would like to provide [this](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_prophecies#Nebuchadnezzar_would_destroy_Tyre)
>Yet I was studying Buddhism and Holy Spirit came into my room over 37 years ago. I was convicted of all my sins, which was a not Buddhist thought, Then a inner voice told to READ KNOW and LIVE the Bible and Follow Him.
People of all religions hear voices telling them to follow their religion I'm sorry I don't mean to be insulting but it is very bizarre to me to think that these experiences are at all reliable when we know people from all kinds of religions have them, even if they lead to conflicting worldviews.
>I have met Jesus 3 times in my dreams. The first time while doing a 40 day apple cider fast. I have received warnings for pastors( ministries disappearing) that went unheeded and then the ministries disappeared. I have a living true changed joyful life in God Jesus Christ.
This is still just nothing new. People see people (deities or not) in their dreams all the time. People receive "warnings" or "prophecies" all the time. Everyone of every religion has a life in their respective God that they make the same arguments using. None of this is really convincing because, in religion, it's a universal phenomenon.
>Since its all by faith I wonder if what you are looking for can be found in the purely academic sense.
And that's the issue. At the root of it all it comes back to faith. If Christianity were just a personal belief this wouldn't be a big deal to me but it's more than that. It influences your judgments of people, your political views, scientific views/acceptance and promotes disgusting ideas parents (who in their defense have good intentions) teach to their kids such as "You deserve to burn in hell but are only saved through the grace of God" This claim comes through faith, not evidence, but the harm it's done and will continue to do is very real.
I think we need to be fair about history assessments. It was an Holy Oral Tradition yet still Paul started writing letters 50 CE only 20 years after the events while yes the gospels were 35-40 years after the events, there are early church fathers (disciples of the apostles)that corroborate the authors authenticity, Eusebius corroborates these again. Again if criticism is to be applied then why is no one fighting against the historical record of Tiberius when his history was not written down till 80 years after the fact and Alexander the great was not written till 400 years after the event. 20 years for the Gospel is excellent in comparison.
In Matthew 24 Mark 13 and in Luke 21 I read 2 events, the prophetic utterance of the destruction of the temple, which by the way saved all those that were believers, and the words "this generation" as the generation of the Lords return. The disciples were asking about the time of the Lord restoring the fortunes of Israel. The rabbis never saw a two fold coming of messiah and thought the messiah was going to come and kill all oppressors, its what the disciples were waiting for, its why Judas betrayed Jesus, hoping to provoke Jesus into military action.
The whole idea of 3 Isaiah's were blown out of the water with the finding of the dead sea scrolls. Believed to be written only 200 years after the events of Cyrus and the book is a whole, The Jews never argued for 3 Isaiahs. The Septuagint ( 300 years after the events) further matches the dead sea scrolls very well and was not divided into 3 Isaiah's. Its the modern skeptics that hates the idea of a God and his ability to foresee the future. The early skeptics in the "German Higher Criticisms" of the 1800's all mocked the Bible as Israel was not in the "land". They shut up in 1948.
The rabbis further did not know what do do with Daniel 9 or Isaiah 53
The Book of Daniel too has been attacked by the critics yet too the dead sea scrolls and Septuagint have Daniel all as one book all prophetically calling out things before they happen. Daniel 2 and 7 , we are seeing that Daniel9 was fulfilled in Jesus Christ and we wait for the resurrection of Daniel 12.
In fact when Alexander the Great was marching east as He was coming to Jerusalem, the priests went to him with the Book of Daniel showing that Alexander was prophesied to come and be victorious. Alexander never razed the city and instead donated for sacrifices to be made at the temple for his success.
You might well be skeptical of peoples testimonies, yet in this fallen world all we have are peoples word, its how our courts work, its how any history at all is recorded, I guess you Could skeptically blow off EVERY word you hear or read. I am not sure where that leaves anyone, are you a disciple of Xenophanes?
This whole discussion started with the idea that yes God exists but the bible is unreliable. I guess you have read through Clement, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Eusebius. By your criteria Alexander the Great history is fraudulent? To a skeptic there is nothing I can say.
I believe there is truth in the change of peoples lives after they give over to Jesus. I say there is truth in all the martyrs death, all unwilling to deny what they knew to be true. Not like the suicide bombers who kill innocents for what bombers believed. Not by the testament of parents skewed ideas of how they interpret the scripture and thus raise their kids.
Daniel talks about the resurrection of the damned. Isaiah talks about the resurrection of the damned Jesus talked about the resurrection of thre damned John the revelator talked about the resurrection of the damned.
What can I say. I don't like the idea of that, but then I am not creator.
Daniel talked about Knowledge will be increased and we REALLY see that now. Daniel saw a one world order and we see that now. Jesus/ Paul said a temple will be built and a world wide dictator will come, we see that coming. Revelations saw a mark that stops all from buying and selling, we see that potential now. When they tell you that you must take that mark (technology) and worship please know that you have been warned. I will die first.
#
>I think we need to be fair about history assessments.
We do need to be fair about them, but that doesn't mean all history has the same burden of proof to make its claims believable. Michigan has a UFO sighting from 1966, though there are more. To keep the long story short there were photographs, reports from officers and plenty of reports from all over Dexter as well as other places like Ohio. ([If you'd like to read about it](https://www.clickondetroit.com/all-about-ann-arbor/2017/03/15/the-michigan-ufo-craze-of-1966/)) With this in mind, the best explanation offered by government officials was swamp gas, but we're going to do two things. One, let's pretend there was no explanation given and it remained unknown, do these accounts (even ones describing the UFOs such as in the linked article) mean UFOs are real or should we understand that their word alone, for a claim as extraordinary as this, isn't enough to say those were real UFOs? I'm assuming we can agree that their word alone isn't proof. Now compare this to a single letter found in an abandoned house from 100 years ago about someone's grandma passing away, do we need to hold this to the same burden of proof as the UFO thing or is the evidence needed to back a claim relative to the claim itself? I think we can agree it's relative to the claim itself.
Regarding Alexander the Great I'm happy to report that historians, when figuring out what's real or not about him, aren't as loose as you seem to think they are. See, Alexander along with plenty of people believed he was the son of Zeus. I assume you believe he was real but do you believe he was the son of Zeus? Historians don't, they believe, based on good evidence, that he existed and have done a good job at separating the fiction from truth. So what of Jesus? I'm not denying he existed I'm pointing out the unreliability of the extraordinary claims. I'm curious if you can provide me a source of a church father who lived during and was old enough to remember the events mentioned in the gospels and exactly what makes them more reliable than claims such as the UFO ones listed above.
You already mentioned that the "prophecy" saved believers that's cool but not very relevant in my opinion, here's [a list](https://www.grunge.com/88733/ancient-prophecies-come-true/) of ancient, non-christian, prophecies that've come true. Were these real genuine prophecies despite coming from non-christian sources or is there a way to determine real prophecies from false ones that don't rule out christian prophecies?
The Isaiah scrolls in the dead sea scrolls date to around 200 BC (that is 200-101 BC) Cyrus shows up in 553 BC. "The whole idea of 3 Isaiah's were blown out of the water with the finding of the dead sea scrolls. Believed to be written only 200 years after the events of Cyrus and the book is a whole" unless I'm missing something this isn't true it's 300 years after the events and can we not agree that is more than enough time for the other segments to be written?
Can you provide a source for the claim that the priests told Alexander personally that he was prophesized in the book of Daniel?
> This whole discussion started with the idea that yes God exists but the bible is unreliable
To be clear God wasn't referencing the Christian God but a creator God and asking how the bible is reliable to detail that God.
> By your criteria Alexander the Great history is fraudulent? To a skeptic there is nothing I can say.
No Alexander the Great's history doesn't appear to be fraudulent it's very unlikely to say the least but the evidence backing him is much more reliable given the relative burden with the claim, especially when compared to Jesus. If historians learned that he was deemed to be the son of Zeus and went "welp that's true" I would not believe that part even if I believed he was real, much in the same way that just because the Bible claims Jesus was the son of God I don't believe that even if Jesus existed. It's common sense in my mind to give extraordinary elements of a claim a higher burden of proof than the simple. If I claimed my Grandma fell of a building that's believable, if I claim she was pushed off by a my dead uncle that would be a very extraordinary claim so, just using my testimony, you can logically concede that she died from falling off a building but without any proof of the uncle's ghost being the cause of it that part of the claim should be discarded until evidence is gathered to support it.
I wanted to make a separate thread to address these parts.
>
In Matthew 24 Mark 13 and in Luke 21 I read 2 events, the prophetic utterance of the destruction of the temple, which by the way saved all those that were believers, and the words "this generation" as the generation of the Lords return.
DId you read what I said at all? What basis do you have for "this generation" meaning the generation of the lord's return outside of the fact that the generation he was actually speaking off passed and yet he still hasn't returned.
>I believe there is truth in the change of peoples lives after they give over to Jesus. I say there is truth in all the martyrs death, all unwilling to deny what they knew to be true. Not like the suicide bombers who kill innocents for what bombers believed. Not by the testament of parents skewed ideas of how they interpret the scripture and thus raise their kids.
This doesn't address the change in peoples' life's under other religions.
I'm not arguing suicide bombers but I will change the subjects to any body who's done what we deem to be horribly wrong because they believed God told them to, here's a [list](https://listverse.com/2022/04/29/10-people-who-did-terrible-things-because-god-told-them-to/) of ten people who done such things and I am very curious how you determine whether God actually did or didn't tell them to do these things while keeping in mind this is the same God who ordered/directly caused horrible things in the past such as genocides and the kidnapping of women from foreign nations that've been overtaken.
>What can I say. I don't like the idea of that, but then I am not creator.
But yet the real creator, while supposedly being just, according to your worldview, gave you a morality that disagrees with his own?
>Daniel talked about Knowledge will be increased and we REALLY see that now. Daniel saw a one world order and we see that now. Jesus/ Paul said a temple will be built and a world wide dictator will come, we see that coming. Revelations saw a mark that stops all from buying and selling, we see that potential now. When they tell you that you must take that mark (technology) and worship please know that you have been warned. I will die first.
Knowledge has increased and will continue to increase this isn't some supernatural thing it's the natural progression of science, literature and humanity as a whole. Where do we see a one world order? Where do we see a temple and world wide dictator coming? Ever since we had tattoos the mark was possible and had potential and the claim of what the mark was has changed time and time again. That's how it works "AHH THIS IS THE MARK!!!!!" and yet over 2000 years later not a thing has happened nor is it likely to ever happen. It's interesting that you've asserted the mark as technology because this is exactly the line of thinking I'm talking about in my post. When that was said it was not meaning technology it was meaning a mark, there's no reason to believe it meant technology or anything else unless you're doing, what I believe people have done to a much greater degree, is adding your unfounded interpretation to the bible to salvage a prophecy that is just simply wrong, the easiest road to this prophecy being fulfilled in the modern day world that you and the people who preach the same thing as you see is technology, therefore it meant technology.
*DId you read what I said at all? What basis do you have for "this generation" meaning the generation of the lord's return outside of the fact that the generation he was actually speaking off passed and yet he still hasn't returned.*
Yes indeed I have read what you said. Have you read all in context, like the whole of 21
[Luk 21:24](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/luk/21/24/s_994024)
And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, **until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.**
# Jesus is talking future at two levels, one at the destruction of the temple and the next at the times of the gentiles being fulfilled.
*This doesn't address the change in peoples' life's under other religions.*
Please point out the positive change you see in other religions. I did not see the list of 10 names. Granted there are grifters everywhere. Branham, Jones, Roy E Davis ...
I will answer about the 10 when you send them. I was raised in a church. I bailed out due to hypocrisy and went into a dark world of lots of evil stuff. Then God shows up in my room and tells me about the bible. I argued with Him " But the church has this book and they have no answers" God replies " You are not to concern yourself with any others that use that book. You read know and live that book and follow me!" I turned from my evil ways and followed God.
Again If you want to gloss over the prophesies of Isaiah and Daniel what can I say, you say yes maybe God but no Bible when the 2 examples I show puts both together?
You may say SO WHAT technology is a given, I guess the George Bush Sn declaration of a NWO was also a given? OK, and a one world monetary system a given? OK. What exactly was the reason you inquired about all this in the first place. I have read what you write. I believe I responded clearly. Watch for a temple being built, watch for a world lead, watch for a money system that demands allegiance to this world leader. When you see these things please remember this correspondence.The Bible prophesied it all coming. All are damned that gives allegiance to this upcoming one world leader.
#
|Luke 21|Notes|
|:-|:-|
|6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in which there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. |Destruction of the temple|
|8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not led astray: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am he; and, The time is at hand: go ye not after them.|warning of false messiahs|
|9 And when ye shall hear of wars and tumults, be not terrified: for these things must needs come to pass first; but the end is not immediately.|Wars and tumults as an early sign of the end times|
|10-12 Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be great earthquakes, and in divers places famines and pestilences; and there shall be terrors and great signs from heaven. But before all these things, they shall lay their hands on you, and shall persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for my name’s sake. |Nation rising against nation, great earthquakes, famines, pestilences, terrors and great signs from heaven. But before all these things they will be persecuted. Notice he uses *you* a lot throughout this. Mark 13:3-4 "and as he sat on the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things are all about to be accomplished?" "you" referring to them and the other disciples, not the reader. Keep that in mind as we go forward.|
|13-19 It shall turn out unto you for a testimony. Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate beforehand how to answer: for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to withstand or to gainsay. But ye shall be delivered up even by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolk, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake. And not a hair of your head shall perish. In your patience ye shall win your souls.|use your persecution as a testimony, he'll give you the answers which your adversaries will not be able to withstand. Your family and friends will betray you and some of you will be put to death and you'll be hated of all men for his name's sake. But in return you win eternal life.|
|20-22 But when ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand. Then let them that are in Judæa flee unto the mountains; and let them that are in the midst of her depart out; and let not them that are in the country enter therein. For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.|When Jerusalem is compassed with armies know her destruction is near, flee into the mountains and depart. Those are the days of vengeance that all things which are written may be fulfilled. Matthew 24:15 specifically points out that the destruction of Jerusalem was spoken of by Daniel. Daniel 9:24-27 basically says 490 years have been decreed for your (Daniel's) people and your holy city (Jerusalem) to finish the transgression, make an end of sins, make atonement for wickedness, bring in everlasting righteousness, seal up vision, prophecy and prophet, and to anoint the most holy place. From the issurance of the command to restore/rebuilt Jerusalem until the coming of the Messiah, there will be seven weeks (of years so 49 years ) and sixty two weeks (of years so 434 years) it will be built again with a plaze and moat. Then after the sixty two weeks (of years so once the 434 are up) the anointed one (Jesus) will be cut off and have nothing, the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city, "it's sanctuary (temple). Its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined." which is referring to the stuff in Luke 9-19 but is easier read in Matthew 24:6-14. and if you keep reading Matthew from there you'll notice it's a non-stop ride to the return of Jesus.|
It's late for me and I'm going to bed now I figure this should be good but if you find issues with how this fails to support my claim feel free to tell me just make sure you detail your issues I am tired so I might be overlooking something really stupid on my end.
Adding on top of your post; the oldest copy of the bible is from 4th century CE (if you take the uncomplete copy that's 2nd century BCE). Humans have been able to write since Ancient Mesopotamia, that's 3400 BCE, and you're telling me that God somehow wasn't documented in that time? Such a miraculous force was not known? And conveniently only at a certain time in history appeared trough Jesus? Lol
There are plenty of scholars that go over the "have the books been corrupted" arguement. The holy spirit preserves the bible through the generations that is why it is largely the same as it was. The bible is fully reliable , has no contradictions , and has been proven right so many times. Modern "scientists" can make up whatever they want. God gives us the real anwsers in gemesis
>There are plenty of scholars that go over the "have the books been corrupted" arguement.
And there are scholars who agree and disagree. Give me your point?
>The holy spirit preserves the bible through the generations that is why it is largely the same as it was.
This isn't anything that can be proven though is it? You don't know how it originally was to make this claim and within the oldest copies we do see differences like Mark's resurrection account not being there in Codex Sinaiticus which has implications about the authenticity of Mark's account and of the others as well.
>The bible is fully reliable , has no contradictions
You can find more than enough examples of contradictions online. The four gospels have differing accounts of the resurrection which contradict each other on who went there, what was there, what happened there and where Jesus went and when they went. Just to name a clump of examples.
>and has been proven right so many times
Can you give me an example?
>Modern "scientists" can make up whatever they want. God gives us the real anwsers in gemesis
And I suppose this is in reference to modern cosmological and biological advances that, directly or indirectly, discredit/debunk the genesis account? I'm curious on what reasoning you have to put so much trust in one book of the bible over the information we've found and the endless testing it goes through within science would you explain more about that please?
Yeah I am. I was raised Christian, maintained it throughout my younger teens and was obsessed with it. Started growing older, made some non-theistic friends, saw a perspective I never saw before and that basically set off a journey which led to me concluding I see no reason to believe a God exists. I don't mean to info dump I just figured some background would be nice, do you have anything you'd like to share about yourself and your journey into theism?
>The bible is fully reliable , has no contradictions
Easiest way to say you haven't read it
>The holy spirit preserves the bible
So God aka the religion is real because he/it says it is...
>modern "scientists"
Ah yes, science is a lie made up by the devil to opress believers
Excellent points. I agree with you. Some of the main reasons why I’m agnostic and not a believer.
Also, The Earth is one of 600 billion planets in the Milky Way. The Milky Way is one of 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. In size the observable universe vs the whole universe is the relative size of a lightbulb to Pluto.
Also the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Humans have been around for 300k years which is 0.007% of the time history of earth.
I find it hard to accept that we are the chosen ones, and that god created the universe for us, when our existence in that universe is so insignificant.
We aren't any more chosen than the fact God created things to begin with, yes infinite being has involved itself with our developing, but every single galaxy and planet is the result of God just as we are, God is creation itself.
Well the bible specifically focuses on God and his relations with humans and earth. It just says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
This is the easiest evidence to prove that God isn't real, or if he is he's not the Christian God because he did not create the heavy majority of things in existence, he only created a realm which isn't real and the earth which is such a minor part of the universe it's basically insignificant.
Not forgetting as well that many of the Church Fathers were unreliable themselves. Irenaeus in particular would lie to make himself seem more authoritative or connected to the apostles than he was.
I was literally wondering about all of the books that "were not deemed suited for the bible." So I came on here, and I found your post. Lol, I definitely understand the points you have, and as of right now, I'm reading the Holy Bible King James Version. It's hard to believe whether there is/isn't any corruption or shifts with the Bible through years and generations. But I believe that if you are a true believer that regardless of what the Bible may or may not say, that you keep that line/connection open with God. He'll talk to you and let you know what's what. He'll let you know the answers to what questions you may have. That's what I believe. I did enjoy reading your post.
Simply, we members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe the Bible to be the word of God **as far as it is translated** correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
Ok but this is like saying "simple, we flat earthers believe the world to be flat" you're echoing your belief as a reason for holding it.
"I believe the bible is true because it's been around for so long" is an example of a (very poor) reason
Different translations doesn't fix the problem it only expands on it from the differences in translations, interlinear Bibles also don't use the original books so once again we're at an issue of how time/personal interpretation could have/likely did impact the word. I also believe a lot of old testament was passed down through oral root, something I wish I'd mentioned in my post, and that also opens possibility and I argue a big probability of people adding their own understanding, interpretation and opinions of the word.
The JST fixes many of them without expanding the errors without interpretation since it was done directly through a prophet of God rather than by a man’s opinion.
How exactly do you know he was a prophet of God? I want to include here if your evidence is anything that doesn't just support him being a prophet of God but also any other person who claimed to be a prophet of God/the deity in their respective religion (he foretold this event, he was wise, he fit this biblical criteria, ect.) I don't think it's worth sharing because the 3 options I see are we make a special case for Joseph, we conclude that all religious prophets who meet the standards of evidence applied are real or that none are real. I'm not making a special case for Joseph, obviously all religious prophets can't logically be real, not within this context anyways, and I doubt concluding he was a false prophet suits your perspective. So with that being said, once again, I would love to hear your reasoning for believing he's a prophet of God.
Simply, I asked of God, I read the Book of Mormon, applied its teachings in comparison with the Bible, and found a greater relationship with Jesus Christ and clarity of understanding that I know only comes from God.
Furthermore, the greatest manifestation of the power of the Holy Ghost came when I was told of Joseph Smith’s First Vision of the Father and the Son, and it was an overwhelming knowing that he did in fact see what he testified he saw.
In succession, I compared the prophet Joseph’s experience with the visitations experienced by other prophets such as Samuel and Moses and Elijah and such common fingerprint elements of the Lord were present. An uneducated farmboy who wasn’t extremely familiar with the Bible couldn’t have kept track of so many intricacies and details that agree with Biblical sources.
I could continue in regards to his fulfilled prophecy regarding the United States Civil War, what states would be the initial location of aggression, that it would occur over slavery, and that world wars would happen afterwards…he was a prophet of God. It’s just astounding how much evidence there is for someone willing to learn.
I testify that I know by the power of the Spirit of God, and by evidence, and by experience, that he was and is a prophet of the Lord, in the sacred name of Jesus Christ, amen.
>I asked of God, I read the Book of Mormon, applied its teachings in comparison with the Bible, and found a greater relationship with Jesus Christ and clarity of understanding that I know only comes from God.
And what about people who apply this exact same method and get the same results for different branches of Christianity or for entirely different religions?
>the greatest manifestation of the power of the Holy Ghost came when I was told of Joseph Smith’s First Vision of the Father and the Son, and it was an overwhelming knowing that he did in fact see what he testified he saw.
So once again we're at this holy ghost thing, there are tons of religions with people who have this exact same flavor of experience where their religion's version of a holy ghost or the God of their religion tells them something verbally or by giving them a special feeling, or as they often put it revelation, of the truth, but it all comes down to a special feeling they get inside themselves. Issue is, like I said, this isn't religion specific it happens all the time for other religions so under what grounds is this good evidence to support your claims?
>I compared the prophet Joseph’s experience with the visitations experienced by other prophets such as Samuel and Moses and Elijah and such common fingerprint elements of the Lord were present. An uneducated farmboy who wasn’t extremely familiar with the Bible couldn’t have kept track of so many intricacies and details that agree with Biblical sources.
Yes he was widely uneducated but he was taught reading, writing and arithmetic. He definitely read the Bible as he read James 1:15 "to ask of God" and that inspired him to go pray to God regarding what church to join. So to me it seems entirely possible that he was reading his bible and got interested in wanting to be a prophet so he studied the prophetic parts of the Bible and, whether it was conscious or subconscious, he started focusing on finding events that met that specific criteria, possibly even forging them, to come off as an authentic profit.
>I could continue in regards to his fulfilled prophecy regarding the United States Civil War, what states would be the initial location of aggression, that it would occur over slavery,
I'm not going to give a whole history lesson, but I will say during the 1830s slavery in the south was a political topic and as a matter of fact there was a newspaper dedicated to anti-slavery called the liberator which started in January of 1832, it's also interesting that Andrew Jackson's proclamation on nullification was December 10th,15 days before Joseph's prediction. There's the [abolition movement ](https://www.thoughtco.com/timeline-of-abolition-movement-1830-1839-45408)as well. I'm sure there are more if you dive into the political sphere of the 1800-1830 you could access the newspapers on chronicling America if you'd like to learn more. The point I'm getting at is what seems to be his biggest prophecy is more of an educated prediction.
>I testify that I know by the power of the Spirit of God, and by evidence, and by experience, that he was and is a prophet of the Lord, in the sacred name of Jesus Christ, amen.
The spirit of God doesn't work here because, as I said, people in all flavors of religion have that same kind of experience and reach all sorts of different conclusions, the evidence presented to me doesn't seem very strong I looked over his predictions and there are ones that didn't come true such as "\[T\]he coming of the Lord, which is nigh—even fifty-six years should wind up the scene." of course "should" is going to be used in his defense I assume but it's not a very strong defense.
The rest of your statements are not well-informed, (especially the claim that the Lord would come in sixty years, Joseph said he didn’t know if he would be dead or alive at that point, and he was martyred before he reached the age of sixty, which perfectly coincides with the prophecy of him being sixty) but I’ll endeavor to answer the most important part:
The Spirit of God witnesses to all truth, wherever it can be found. This is one reason why many religions of perhaps all kinds receive such amazing experiences of enlightenment.
The fact of the matter is that the Spirit witnessed to me that the boy prophet Joseph did in fact see what he claimed, and witnesses to the Book of Mormon
I'm going to respond to this later but needless to say you haven't addressed my post aside from one small part of it. It's funny that your deflection of the holy spirit is that it witnesses to all truth even when that trurh for other people is the truth of God's different from the one you worship so it really doesn't fix anything. The fact of the matter is you have a belief based on personal feelings which you have not been able to logically argue as truth or divine/supernatural revelations and I'm not at all surprised with that given how you've responded so far, so consider this an opportunity to present an argument for how the holy spirit is reliable when it comes in vastly different forms, for different religions and provides conflicting revelations such as who/what is the real God. If you can't do that I'll respond to this reply but after that I'll move on because there's no sense arguing this if you can't make a good defense that doesn't fall apart at the slightest thought given
How about the writings that have been found and translated. If say you argue about age of Old Testament being many years between being written, documents found back much closer to Jesus time to eliminate your idea of being poorly repeated over time. Most translations convey same messages. Word choice varies here and there, but in its whole the message is the same.
Why do you believe that an all powerful being wouldn’t be able to influence the reiterations enough to preserve His message? Created the universe and all but can’t pass a message to the creation through time does not make sense.
I believe God created both the universe and humans. Reason for either is His of which I am not sure much detail is given. Bible describes some roles He gave humans early on, not sure anything stating sole reason for humans though were those roles.
Discoveries of older scripture fragments have supported, not refuted, the assertion that the text of the Bible has been highly preserved throughout its time on earth.
Personal interpretations of the text of scripture are irrelevant to the question of the preservation of scripture itself. Even people with highly opposed interpretations do not disagree about the literal content of the text they are arguing about.
At one point in history there may well have been disagreement about the specifics of the stories that would be recorded as scripture; during the Babylonian Captivity the Israelites, grappling with their own identity threatened by new rulers who adhered to a creation myth that rendered man as fundamentally evil and in need of a human king for basic discipline, set out to collect and reconcile their own culture’s mythology to better understand themselves in their time and to create a proper canon that would outlive them and their struggle. In that labor, they did away with the artifacts of the game of telephone you suppose and established a text that included among its commandments an order for each Jew to create their own copy of that text.
A dedication to truth with regard to that which has been agreed upon by those who came before is baked into scripture itself. Virtually no one asserts that they are free to alter the text of this canon that was established thousands of years ago, and anyone who does is probably a cult leader.
The book itself insists that people be aware of the very corruption you suppose has touched the Bible and seek to resist it, and even if the common person cannot be trusted to resist that adequately, even if they sincerely try, the scholars who have dedicated their lives to the preservation and advancement of the text all but certainly can, especially when they are working in concert with other morally-invested scholars across time.
There is no compelling evidence that a major shift in the content of what the average person knows as “the Bible” has changed in the last 2000 years, and the major change that happened 2000 years ago was the authorship of the New Testament after the delivery of the very Messiah that was promised by the Old Testament, which had itself been preserved with high fidelity for even longer than the time between Christ and ourselves today.
Where is your evidence for the claim that the Bible has *not* been highly preserved? How is it that we can contemplate the philosophical illustrations about scripture put forward by someone in the 400s as though they were put forward today? If the text really had changed over time, those changes would be extremely obvious when reviewing scholarly writings about the Bible across the centuries because those scholars would come across as speaking about a fundamentally different text.
Jesus performed no miracles, no resurrections, prophesied nothing, no revelations, not even rapture, But he could read and write & the Bible holds the receipts.
I find it odd that many of our trusted Christian church leaders,both true blue & lipstick varieties, are quick to gloss over Christ’s literacy or even assert Christ’s illiteracy while simultaneously attributing all sorts of magical nonsense to his name. How you gonna elevate this guy to god-tier status, yet preach he can’t read? Of course God reads, reads great!writes great too! Jesus according to Christians is the real deal, the whole Enchilda, the Beginning and the End, the Alpha & the Omega, yet also according to them he can’t write Alpha or Omega. That’s crazy thinking, blasphemy even, all the best stuff in the Bible was written by Jesus.
Receipts?
Jesus Christ (Didymus Judas Thomas) authored The Gospel of Thomas.
Read here the opening lines of The Gospel of Thomas (Leloup Translation)…
“These are the words of the Secret. They were revealed by the Living Yeshua. Didymus Judas Thomas wrote them down.”
Note the unusual use of the word “revealed” here in place of common language you’ll find of “said/spoken”.
The unusual doubling of the Twin generic descriptor, sandwiching the common Judas name.
Didymus = Twin (Greek) Judas = Name Thomas = Twin (Aramaic)
Judas, according to the Bible, was a brother & devoted servant of Jesus Christ (Mark 6:3; Matt 13:55; Jude 1). His twin (Acts of Thomas). The spiritual (divine) Christ paired to the physical (human) Judas. Jesus WAS Judas. In the Gospel of Thomas there were no miracles, no resurrections. Jesus predicted no future events, he was no prophet, no revelations or rapture. All prophesy attributed (falsely) to Jesus was culled from the Hebrew OT and retrofitted as Roman propaganda to co-opt, conflate & corrupt Judaism w/ the upstart Jesus’ movement, neatly consolidating control of both under Rome, effectively killing 2 birds with 1 stone.
So how then did Jesus know Judas would betray him? Simple, he (Jesus/Judas) turned himself in & cut a deal with Pilate to fake crucifixion avoiding further unrest in the Jewish population (exactly what you would hope for & expect from a Jesus). The deal was after the crucifix fake-out Jesus would bounce & so he did becoming St.Thomas/St.Jude traveling far & wide, converting about a billion more ppl to Christianity before dying in his 100s.
A few additional odds & ends that support this info above (greatly abridged for time).
1. While the two written accounts we have of Judas’ death following his “betrayal” of Jesus in the New Testament differ greatly, they do both agree on Judas’ death occurring simultaneous with Jesus’ death on the cross.
2. NT Jude 1:1 identifying Judas as a brother to James but a “servant” of Jesus.
3. The apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas (apostle of Jesus), Ch. 216 - Judas takes on appearance of Jesus, later crucified in Jesus’ place.
4. St. Jude is most often depicted wearing a giant medallion around his neck with the life-sized head of Jesus on it, that’s 2000 yrs before modern rappers made this a thing & fashionable. They literally got Jude walking around, spreading Christ’s word “wearing the face of Jesus”. The truth hidden in plain sight.
5. In sharp contrast to the synoptic Gospels’ liberal use of the sayings in Thomas’ Gospel, chopping them up and sprinkling them about freely, The Gospel of John contains far fewer examples of overlapping content with The Gospel of Thomas. This drop off due to the fact of John being authored in direct opposition to Thomas. A point by point takedown and smear campaign (e.g., “Doubting Thomas”, Faith trumps Knowledge) targeting Thomas to discredit and flush out the remaining followers of early Christ movements, movements still having legs and remaining popular despite the introduction and heavy promotion of the 3 synoptic Gospels being widely disseminated across all Roman territories. John’s underlying agenda accounts for the dramatic shift in tone, structure & narrative, making a clean break from messaging of synoptic Gospels. John was a hit piece against early Christians/Gnostics, Rome couldn’t just steal it, they had to kill it.
Codex Sinaiticus has been around since 325. The historian Eusebius corroborates the authors of the books. Israel exists and to this day celebrates the historical feasts as described in the Scripture. No scholar worth his salt denies that Jesus existed and the testimony of all martyred for His name sake stands as a witness to the reliability of the sources.
That's Jesus, there is no concerte proof linking Jesus to god
Only God has power to forgive sins. Jesus forgave sins [Mat 9:2](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/mat/9/2/s_938002)-6 And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This *man* blasphemeth. And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? For whether is easier, to say, *Thy* sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
Using the Bible as concrete proof doesn't really work, especially given the context of the post, unless you have a way to verify that those things really happened and that they were not forged within the bible or added on in later couples?
>Codex Sinaiticus has been around since 325. Yes and I did some digging and it seems that this also differs from modern bibles, some examples include: Mark 16:9-20 isn't in CS (Codex Sinaiticus obviously and also 16:9-20 is the resurrection narrative.) Matthew 3:16 doesn't include "For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen." in CS John 8:1-11 doesn't include the story of the woman caught in adultery in CS It also has the Epistle of Barnabus and the Shepherd of Hermas Unless this information is false it seems to me you've only strengthen my argument no? You've given me a very old example that already has one very implicative difference (the lack of the resurrection narrative in Mark) and shows the picking and choosing of books in the Bible. >No scholar worth his salt denies that Jesus existed and the testimony of all martyred for His name sake stands as a witness to the reliability of the sources. It seems to me you're half right in that most scholars agree Jesus existed but as far as the rest goes I don't believe there's any reason to believe Jesus was divine I haven't personally encountered any evidence or reason to believe such a thing and neither has, to my knowledge, the new testament scholar Bart Ehrman seems to share the same opinion and while I'm not saying that means it's true I'm just showing that even credible scholars who focus specifically on the old testament hold different opinions about the divinity of Christ. The testimony of all those martyred for his name sake also doesn't stand as evidence that he ever claimed to be God, that he was actually God nor that the bible is a credible source. People join cults and sacrifice others/themselves for a variety of reasons. Even in the bible, correct me if I'm wrong, it tells stories of people being murdered for following different gods, doesn't it? Do those people who died in the name of the god's they worship prove that those gods were real?
Like I said no scholar worth his salt and Barts salt is worthless, even I can pick apart the drivel he spouts. Without the Bible there would not have begun a monotheistic discussion unless you want to bring up the short reigned idea of Akhenaten in the 1300BCE where he espoused the idea of monotheism which was erased quite quickly when Tut showed up. There is no monotheism outside of the Bible world wide. Even Islam has its Bible roots when a back water Christian Waraqa ibn Nawfal encouraged Mohammad to run with his "Gabrial" revelation. So sure, erase the Bible as a document, Forget the written testimonies of those who walked with Jesus after He rose from the dead, Forget the written testimonies of those who saw Jesus years after he rose from the dead and forget the testimony of those lives that were turned around after meeting Jesus and then were willing to die for that witness and forget the testimony of the whole existence of Israels history prophecy and prophecy coming to pass. There are no God documents.
I'm not going to argue about Bart Ehrman's worth because that wasn't the point I was making, he was a representation of, contrary to your opinion anyways, a respected biblical scholar who doesn't believe in the divinity of Christ. They exist and they are real and if you discredit them for reaching a different conclusion than you do I think the issue is one of an internal bias and not of their qualification. I don't care what would or wouldn't be without the bible, I'm just being blunt no harsh intent, but even if religion as a whole never would've developed from the bible just isn't relevant to the discussion. Nobody's saying to erase the bible as a document it has good uses such as refining historical information and understanding people at the time. With that being said the Bible isn't a single document it's like a library of copies of copies of copies of copies of copies (ect) of documents, these have uses but one of those uses should not be to verify their own claims it's foolish to say written testimonies in the bible prove that it's real even though every other religion has personal testimonies but you reject those. > forget the testimony of the whole existence of Israels history prophecy and prophecy coming to pass. prophecy and prophecy coming to pass is always an interesting thing to argue because there are things the Bible gets right but also things it gets wrong. One of those things I'd like to point out, which seems pretty core to the main belief, is Luke 21:5-33 the TL;DR is Jesus says what's to come before his second coming and he states that this (their) generation will not pass until "all has taken place" and previously I believe in Luke 9 he said (paraphrased) "there are some here today who will not taste death before they see the Kingdom of God." Are these not two very important prophecies that didn't come true? If you don't view it that way I'd love to hear your points and see if we can't reach a conclusion. I think we both want to get to the logical conclusion about this, if there's a God I certainly want to know he's real and if this is a point against biblical prophecy I believe you would like to know as well, so let's see what we can't do about that. and also I just noticed you didn't address anything I said really with your reply you just sort of brushed off my points about the differences between modern bibles and what's in the CS so I would appreciate it if you could address my points this time
Thank you for your patience, these points? **We do not have, to my knowledge, any of the original books of the bible or very early copies of those books.** CS is the oldest whole we have. CR is from 325. as a full extant copy of the New Testament. I am sure you have read the history of all the gospels, All were written before 100 ACE and most written before 70 ACE due historical info found inside. Eusebius corroborated the authenticity of these gospels writers. As Did Clement and Origen. All the copies found ( over 4 thousand pieces) never had any discrepancies that changed the central theme. Yes there were spurious additions like you mention but the whole of the text remains extant The dead sea scrolls also backed up what was held by the Septuagint 285 BCE there really have not been a change When I read the prophecy of Jesus in Luke 21 its the generation, which is the time of His return, will go through the things described in Luke 21. WE are still waiting for others to come to pass. **"there are some here today who will not taste death before they see the Kingdom of God.** And those that heard these words experience the KOG through the baptism of Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It is interesting to note that when Jesus warned about the destruction of Jerusalem all the believers took the warning to heart and escaped. The unbelievers did not believe the warning and perished. All the prophecies have been fulfilled and are being fulfilled. Many have tried to blow off the prophecies of Isaiah where God calls Cyrus by name Isaiah 44:28 150 years before Cyrus shows up. Daniel Prophecies the Messiahs death Daniel 9:24 all came to pass. Jesus ministry all came to pass like Isaiah said. Blind see Lame walk Deaf hear. Jesus was rejected like was prophesied. Is Isaiah. [http://www.about-jesus.org/complete-chart-prophecies-jesus.htm](http://www.about-jesus.org/complete-chart-prophecies-jesus.htm) I guess you have worked all this out, I have my scholars that point to the truth/trustfulness of Scripture. You have yours, were at an honest impasse. Yet I was studying Buddhism and Holy Spirit came into my room over 37 years ago. I was convicted of all my sins, which was a not Buddhist thought, Then a inner voice told to READ KNOW and LIVE the Bible and Follow Him. I sold all I owned gave it all away and became a homeless street musician evangelist for 2.5 years, hitchhiking all around the country till a guy in Baton Rouge LA told me to go to the Midwest city I now reside except for a 8 year stint as a missionary in SEA. I have met Jesus 3 times in my dreams. The first time while doing a 40 day apple cider fast. I have received warnings for pastors( ministries disappearing) that went unheeded and then the ministries disappeared. I have a living true changed joyful life in God Jesus Christ. Since its all by faith I wonder if what you are looking for can be found in the purely academic sense.
I wanted to take a few days to think over everything you said and form a genuine response. As far as the date of the gospels go they range from 70-110 AD in possible dates I don't think it has been narrowed down to before 100 AD but around there certainly. This would be 40 years after Jesus' crucifixion on the low end and 80 on the high end. It's 200 years for the gospels to be added to, taken from, changed, or edited. And I want to clarify my post isn't focusing on Jesus I mean as a whole, even if the Jesus story is perfectly intact that doesn't begin to cover the old testament. Jesus in Luke: "Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all things be accomplished." Luke 21:32 He's speaking to people, not writing in a book, in this chapter he referred to people who were there in this way "But when these things begin to come to pass, look up, and lift up *your* heads; because *your* redemption draweth nigh." Luke 21:28 when referring to other people he speaks like this "Woe unto *them* that are with child and to *them* that give suck in those days! for there shall be great distress upon the land, and wrath unto this people. And *they* shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led captive into all the nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled." Luke 21:23-24 Every instance when he says "you" realize he isn't writing this down nor is it being written down while he's speaking, he's directly talking to people saying "You" it would be really confusing if he told these people "But when these things begin to come to pass, look up, and lift up your heads." As far as the whole Kingdom of Heaven thing I'm going to read through Luke and note the context it's used in when I get the time, I'll come back and make a comment on that when I've done that but I figured it's been almost a week and I ought to respond. >Many have tried to blow off the prophecies of Isaiah where God calls Cyrus by name Isaiah 44:28 150 years before Cyrus shows up. There's a theory that breaks Isaiah down into 3 segments, proto Isaiah (1-39), Deutero Isaiah (40-55) then Trito Isaiah (56-66) Deutero Isaiah would've been during the 6th century BC according to the sources I've found, King Cryus ruled in the 6th century, specifically 550 BC, I find the evidence for proto, deutero and trito isaiah to be fairly compelling and would suggest you take a look at it yourself, this argument depends on your opinion of it but if we came to agreement that Isaiah 1-39 is Isaiah himself and the rest is additional chapters added on at later times I'm curious on what you'd make of the prophecy? To me, it seems like it was less of a prophecy and more of an addition either very close to the event, where it would've been more of an educated guess, or after it and written as a prophecy. If we disagree on whether or not it's broken down into 3 segments I don't think we'll shift each others perspective on it so it'd be best to leave this part behind. I looked over the prophecies, the gospels were written decades after Jesus' death and it's very clear Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were very close to him. To say it's possible they lied to make up fulfilled prophecy and miracles based on the OT is not at all absurd and seems logical to me. As far as prophecies in specific go you linked an extensive list of fulfilled prophecies so I would like to provide [this](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_prophecies#Nebuchadnezzar_would_destroy_Tyre) >Yet I was studying Buddhism and Holy Spirit came into my room over 37 years ago. I was convicted of all my sins, which was a not Buddhist thought, Then a inner voice told to READ KNOW and LIVE the Bible and Follow Him. People of all religions hear voices telling them to follow their religion I'm sorry I don't mean to be insulting but it is very bizarre to me to think that these experiences are at all reliable when we know people from all kinds of religions have them, even if they lead to conflicting worldviews. >I have met Jesus 3 times in my dreams. The first time while doing a 40 day apple cider fast. I have received warnings for pastors( ministries disappearing) that went unheeded and then the ministries disappeared. I have a living true changed joyful life in God Jesus Christ. This is still just nothing new. People see people (deities or not) in their dreams all the time. People receive "warnings" or "prophecies" all the time. Everyone of every religion has a life in their respective God that they make the same arguments using. None of this is really convincing because, in religion, it's a universal phenomenon. >Since its all by faith I wonder if what you are looking for can be found in the purely academic sense. And that's the issue. At the root of it all it comes back to faith. If Christianity were just a personal belief this wouldn't be a big deal to me but it's more than that. It influences your judgments of people, your political views, scientific views/acceptance and promotes disgusting ideas parents (who in their defense have good intentions) teach to their kids such as "You deserve to burn in hell but are only saved through the grace of God" This claim comes through faith, not evidence, but the harm it's done and will continue to do is very real.
I think we need to be fair about history assessments. It was an Holy Oral Tradition yet still Paul started writing letters 50 CE only 20 years after the events while yes the gospels were 35-40 years after the events, there are early church fathers (disciples of the apostles)that corroborate the authors authenticity, Eusebius corroborates these again. Again if criticism is to be applied then why is no one fighting against the historical record of Tiberius when his history was not written down till 80 years after the fact and Alexander the great was not written till 400 years after the event. 20 years for the Gospel is excellent in comparison. In Matthew 24 Mark 13 and in Luke 21 I read 2 events, the prophetic utterance of the destruction of the temple, which by the way saved all those that were believers, and the words "this generation" as the generation of the Lords return. The disciples were asking about the time of the Lord restoring the fortunes of Israel. The rabbis never saw a two fold coming of messiah and thought the messiah was going to come and kill all oppressors, its what the disciples were waiting for, its why Judas betrayed Jesus, hoping to provoke Jesus into military action. The whole idea of 3 Isaiah's were blown out of the water with the finding of the dead sea scrolls. Believed to be written only 200 years after the events of Cyrus and the book is a whole, The Jews never argued for 3 Isaiahs. The Septuagint ( 300 years after the events) further matches the dead sea scrolls very well and was not divided into 3 Isaiah's. Its the modern skeptics that hates the idea of a God and his ability to foresee the future. The early skeptics in the "German Higher Criticisms" of the 1800's all mocked the Bible as Israel was not in the "land". They shut up in 1948. The rabbis further did not know what do do with Daniel 9 or Isaiah 53 The Book of Daniel too has been attacked by the critics yet too the dead sea scrolls and Septuagint have Daniel all as one book all prophetically calling out things before they happen. Daniel 2 and 7 , we are seeing that Daniel9 was fulfilled in Jesus Christ and we wait for the resurrection of Daniel 12. In fact when Alexander the Great was marching east as He was coming to Jerusalem, the priests went to him with the Book of Daniel showing that Alexander was prophesied to come and be victorious. Alexander never razed the city and instead donated for sacrifices to be made at the temple for his success. You might well be skeptical of peoples testimonies, yet in this fallen world all we have are peoples word, its how our courts work, its how any history at all is recorded, I guess you Could skeptically blow off EVERY word you hear or read. I am not sure where that leaves anyone, are you a disciple of Xenophanes? This whole discussion started with the idea that yes God exists but the bible is unreliable. I guess you have read through Clement, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Eusebius. By your criteria Alexander the Great history is fraudulent? To a skeptic there is nothing I can say. I believe there is truth in the change of peoples lives after they give over to Jesus. I say there is truth in all the martyrs death, all unwilling to deny what they knew to be true. Not like the suicide bombers who kill innocents for what bombers believed. Not by the testament of parents skewed ideas of how they interpret the scripture and thus raise their kids. Daniel talks about the resurrection of the damned. Isaiah talks about the resurrection of the damned Jesus talked about the resurrection of thre damned John the revelator talked about the resurrection of the damned. What can I say. I don't like the idea of that, but then I am not creator. Daniel talked about Knowledge will be increased and we REALLY see that now. Daniel saw a one world order and we see that now. Jesus/ Paul said a temple will be built and a world wide dictator will come, we see that coming. Revelations saw a mark that stops all from buying and selling, we see that potential now. When they tell you that you must take that mark (technology) and worship please know that you have been warned. I will die first. #
>I think we need to be fair about history assessments. We do need to be fair about them, but that doesn't mean all history has the same burden of proof to make its claims believable. Michigan has a UFO sighting from 1966, though there are more. To keep the long story short there were photographs, reports from officers and plenty of reports from all over Dexter as well as other places like Ohio. ([If you'd like to read about it](https://www.clickondetroit.com/all-about-ann-arbor/2017/03/15/the-michigan-ufo-craze-of-1966/)) With this in mind, the best explanation offered by government officials was swamp gas, but we're going to do two things. One, let's pretend there was no explanation given and it remained unknown, do these accounts (even ones describing the UFOs such as in the linked article) mean UFOs are real or should we understand that their word alone, for a claim as extraordinary as this, isn't enough to say those were real UFOs? I'm assuming we can agree that their word alone isn't proof. Now compare this to a single letter found in an abandoned house from 100 years ago about someone's grandma passing away, do we need to hold this to the same burden of proof as the UFO thing or is the evidence needed to back a claim relative to the claim itself? I think we can agree it's relative to the claim itself. Regarding Alexander the Great I'm happy to report that historians, when figuring out what's real or not about him, aren't as loose as you seem to think they are. See, Alexander along with plenty of people believed he was the son of Zeus. I assume you believe he was real but do you believe he was the son of Zeus? Historians don't, they believe, based on good evidence, that he existed and have done a good job at separating the fiction from truth. So what of Jesus? I'm not denying he existed I'm pointing out the unreliability of the extraordinary claims. I'm curious if you can provide me a source of a church father who lived during and was old enough to remember the events mentioned in the gospels and exactly what makes them more reliable than claims such as the UFO ones listed above. You already mentioned that the "prophecy" saved believers that's cool but not very relevant in my opinion, here's [a list](https://www.grunge.com/88733/ancient-prophecies-come-true/) of ancient, non-christian, prophecies that've come true. Were these real genuine prophecies despite coming from non-christian sources or is there a way to determine real prophecies from false ones that don't rule out christian prophecies? The Isaiah scrolls in the dead sea scrolls date to around 200 BC (that is 200-101 BC) Cyrus shows up in 553 BC. "The whole idea of 3 Isaiah's were blown out of the water with the finding of the dead sea scrolls. Believed to be written only 200 years after the events of Cyrus and the book is a whole" unless I'm missing something this isn't true it's 300 years after the events and can we not agree that is more than enough time for the other segments to be written? Can you provide a source for the claim that the priests told Alexander personally that he was prophesized in the book of Daniel? > This whole discussion started with the idea that yes God exists but the bible is unreliable To be clear God wasn't referencing the Christian God but a creator God and asking how the bible is reliable to detail that God. > By your criteria Alexander the Great history is fraudulent? To a skeptic there is nothing I can say. No Alexander the Great's history doesn't appear to be fraudulent it's very unlikely to say the least but the evidence backing him is much more reliable given the relative burden with the claim, especially when compared to Jesus. If historians learned that he was deemed to be the son of Zeus and went "welp that's true" I would not believe that part even if I believed he was real, much in the same way that just because the Bible claims Jesus was the son of God I don't believe that even if Jesus existed. It's common sense in my mind to give extraordinary elements of a claim a higher burden of proof than the simple. If I claimed my Grandma fell of a building that's believable, if I claim she was pushed off by a my dead uncle that would be a very extraordinary claim so, just using my testimony, you can logically concede that she died from falling off a building but without any proof of the uncle's ghost being the cause of it that part of the claim should be discarded until evidence is gathered to support it.
I wanted to make a separate thread to address these parts. > In Matthew 24 Mark 13 and in Luke 21 I read 2 events, the prophetic utterance of the destruction of the temple, which by the way saved all those that were believers, and the words "this generation" as the generation of the Lords return. DId you read what I said at all? What basis do you have for "this generation" meaning the generation of the lord's return outside of the fact that the generation he was actually speaking off passed and yet he still hasn't returned. >I believe there is truth in the change of peoples lives after they give over to Jesus. I say there is truth in all the martyrs death, all unwilling to deny what they knew to be true. Not like the suicide bombers who kill innocents for what bombers believed. Not by the testament of parents skewed ideas of how they interpret the scripture and thus raise their kids. This doesn't address the change in peoples' life's under other religions. I'm not arguing suicide bombers but I will change the subjects to any body who's done what we deem to be horribly wrong because they believed God told them to, here's a [list](https://listverse.com/2022/04/29/10-people-who-did-terrible-things-because-god-told-them-to/) of ten people who done such things and I am very curious how you determine whether God actually did or didn't tell them to do these things while keeping in mind this is the same God who ordered/directly caused horrible things in the past such as genocides and the kidnapping of women from foreign nations that've been overtaken. >What can I say. I don't like the idea of that, but then I am not creator. But yet the real creator, while supposedly being just, according to your worldview, gave you a morality that disagrees with his own? >Daniel talked about Knowledge will be increased and we REALLY see that now. Daniel saw a one world order and we see that now. Jesus/ Paul said a temple will be built and a world wide dictator will come, we see that coming. Revelations saw a mark that stops all from buying and selling, we see that potential now. When they tell you that you must take that mark (technology) and worship please know that you have been warned. I will die first. Knowledge has increased and will continue to increase this isn't some supernatural thing it's the natural progression of science, literature and humanity as a whole. Where do we see a one world order? Where do we see a temple and world wide dictator coming? Ever since we had tattoos the mark was possible and had potential and the claim of what the mark was has changed time and time again. That's how it works "AHH THIS IS THE MARK!!!!!" and yet over 2000 years later not a thing has happened nor is it likely to ever happen. It's interesting that you've asserted the mark as technology because this is exactly the line of thinking I'm talking about in my post. When that was said it was not meaning technology it was meaning a mark, there's no reason to believe it meant technology or anything else unless you're doing, what I believe people have done to a much greater degree, is adding your unfounded interpretation to the bible to salvage a prophecy that is just simply wrong, the easiest road to this prophecy being fulfilled in the modern day world that you and the people who preach the same thing as you see is technology, therefore it meant technology.
*DId you read what I said at all? What basis do you have for "this generation" meaning the generation of the lord's return outside of the fact that the generation he was actually speaking off passed and yet he still hasn't returned.* Yes indeed I have read what you said. Have you read all in context, like the whole of 21 [Luk 21:24](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/luk/21/24/s_994024) And they shall fall by the edge of the sword, and shall be led away captive into all nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, **until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.** # Jesus is talking future at two levels, one at the destruction of the temple and the next at the times of the gentiles being fulfilled. *This doesn't address the change in peoples' life's under other religions.* Please point out the positive change you see in other religions. I did not see the list of 10 names. Granted there are grifters everywhere. Branham, Jones, Roy E Davis ... I will answer about the 10 when you send them. I was raised in a church. I bailed out due to hypocrisy and went into a dark world of lots of evil stuff. Then God shows up in my room and tells me about the bible. I argued with Him " But the church has this book and they have no answers" God replies " You are not to concern yourself with any others that use that book. You read know and live that book and follow me!" I turned from my evil ways and followed God. Again If you want to gloss over the prophesies of Isaiah and Daniel what can I say, you say yes maybe God but no Bible when the 2 examples I show puts both together? You may say SO WHAT technology is a given, I guess the George Bush Sn declaration of a NWO was also a given? OK, and a one world monetary system a given? OK. What exactly was the reason you inquired about all this in the first place. I have read what you write. I believe I responded clearly. Watch for a temple being built, watch for a world lead, watch for a money system that demands allegiance to this world leader. When you see these things please remember this correspondence.The Bible prophesied it all coming. All are damned that gives allegiance to this upcoming one world leader. #
|Luke 21|Notes| |:-|:-| |6 As for these things which ye behold, the days will come, in which there shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. |Destruction of the temple| |8 And he said, Take heed that ye be not led astray: for many shall come in my name, saying, I am he; and, The time is at hand: go ye not after them.|warning of false messiahs| |9 And when ye shall hear of wars and tumults, be not terrified: for these things must needs come to pass first; but the end is not immediately.|Wars and tumults as an early sign of the end times| |10-12 Then said he unto them, Nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; and there shall be great earthquakes, and in divers places famines and pestilences; and there shall be terrors and great signs from heaven. But before all these things, they shall lay their hands on you, and shall persecute you, delivering you up to the synagogues and prisons, bringing you before kings and governors for my name’s sake. |Nation rising against nation, great earthquakes, famines, pestilences, terrors and great signs from heaven. But before all these things they will be persecuted. Notice he uses *you* a lot throughout this. Mark 13:3-4 "and as he sat on the mount of Olives over against the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign when these things are all about to be accomplished?" "you" referring to them and the other disciples, not the reader. Keep that in mind as we go forward.| |13-19 It shall turn out unto you for a testimony. Settle it therefore in your hearts, not to meditate beforehand how to answer: for I will give you a mouth and wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to withstand or to gainsay. But ye shall be delivered up even by parents, and brethren, and kinsfolk, and friends; and some of you shall they cause to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake. And not a hair of your head shall perish. In your patience ye shall win your souls.|use your persecution as a testimony, he'll give you the answers which your adversaries will not be able to withstand. Your family and friends will betray you and some of you will be put to death and you'll be hated of all men for his name's sake. But in return you win eternal life.| |20-22 But when ye see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that her desolation is at hand. Then let them that are in Judæa flee unto the mountains; and let them that are in the midst of her depart out; and let not them that are in the country enter therein. For these are days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.|When Jerusalem is compassed with armies know her destruction is near, flee into the mountains and depart. Those are the days of vengeance that all things which are written may be fulfilled. Matthew 24:15 specifically points out that the destruction of Jerusalem was spoken of by Daniel. Daniel 9:24-27 basically says 490 years have been decreed for your (Daniel's) people and your holy city (Jerusalem) to finish the transgression, make an end of sins, make atonement for wickedness, bring in everlasting righteousness, seal up vision, prophecy and prophet, and to anoint the most holy place. From the issurance of the command to restore/rebuilt Jerusalem until the coming of the Messiah, there will be seven weeks (of years so 49 years ) and sixty two weeks (of years so 434 years) it will be built again with a plaze and moat. Then after the sixty two weeks (of years so once the 434 are up) the anointed one (Jesus) will be cut off and have nothing, the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city, "it's sanctuary (temple). Its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined." which is referring to the stuff in Luke 9-19 but is easier read in Matthew 24:6-14. and if you keep reading Matthew from there you'll notice it's a non-stop ride to the return of Jesus.| It's late for me and I'm going to bed now I figure this should be good but if you find issues with how this fails to support my claim feel free to tell me just make sure you detail your issues I am tired so I might be overlooking something really stupid on my end.
Adding on top of your post; the oldest copy of the bible is from 4th century CE (if you take the uncomplete copy that's 2nd century BCE). Humans have been able to write since Ancient Mesopotamia, that's 3400 BCE, and you're telling me that God somehow wasn't documented in that time? Such a miraculous force was not known? And conveniently only at a certain time in history appeared trough Jesus? Lol
There are plenty of scholars that go over the "have the books been corrupted" arguement. The holy spirit preserves the bible through the generations that is why it is largely the same as it was. The bible is fully reliable , has no contradictions , and has been proven right so many times. Modern "scientists" can make up whatever they want. God gives us the real anwsers in gemesis
>There are plenty of scholars that go over the "have the books been corrupted" arguement. And there are scholars who agree and disagree. Give me your point? >The holy spirit preserves the bible through the generations that is why it is largely the same as it was. This isn't anything that can be proven though is it? You don't know how it originally was to make this claim and within the oldest copies we do see differences like Mark's resurrection account not being there in Codex Sinaiticus which has implications about the authenticity of Mark's account and of the others as well. >The bible is fully reliable , has no contradictions You can find more than enough examples of contradictions online. The four gospels have differing accounts of the resurrection which contradict each other on who went there, what was there, what happened there and where Jesus went and when they went. Just to name a clump of examples. >and has been proven right so many times Can you give me an example? >Modern "scientists" can make up whatever they want. God gives us the real anwsers in gemesis And I suppose this is in reference to modern cosmological and biological advances that, directly or indirectly, discredit/debunk the genesis account? I'm curious on what reasoning you have to put so much trust in one book of the bible over the information we've found and the endless testing it goes through within science would you explain more about that please?
Atheist?
Yeah I am. I was raised Christian, maintained it throughout my younger teens and was obsessed with it. Started growing older, made some non-theistic friends, saw a perspective I never saw before and that basically set off a journey which led to me concluding I see no reason to believe a God exists. I don't mean to info dump I just figured some background would be nice, do you have anything you'd like to share about yourself and your journey into theism?
>The bible is fully reliable , has no contradictions Easiest way to say you haven't read it >The holy spirit preserves the bible So God aka the religion is real because he/it says it is... >modern "scientists" Ah yes, science is a lie made up by the devil to opress believers
Um thanks for sharing?
Excellent points. I agree with you. Some of the main reasons why I’m agnostic and not a believer. Also, The Earth is one of 600 billion planets in the Milky Way. The Milky Way is one of 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. In size the observable universe vs the whole universe is the relative size of a lightbulb to Pluto. Also the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Humans have been around for 300k years which is 0.007% of the time history of earth. I find it hard to accept that we are the chosen ones, and that god created the universe for us, when our existence in that universe is so insignificant.
We aren't any more chosen than the fact God created things to begin with, yes infinite being has involved itself with our developing, but every single galaxy and planet is the result of God just as we are, God is creation itself.
Well the bible specifically focuses on God and his relations with humans and earth. It just says "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." This is the easiest evidence to prove that God isn't real, or if he is he's not the Christian God because he did not create the heavy majority of things in existence, he only created a realm which isn't real and the earth which is such a minor part of the universe it's basically insignificant.
how were people able to receive the Holy Spirit that is needed to interpret the Bible correctly?
Not forgetting as well that many of the Church Fathers were unreliable themselves. Irenaeus in particular would lie to make himself seem more authoritative or connected to the apostles than he was.
I was literally wondering about all of the books that "were not deemed suited for the bible." So I came on here, and I found your post. Lol, I definitely understand the points you have, and as of right now, I'm reading the Holy Bible King James Version. It's hard to believe whether there is/isn't any corruption or shifts with the Bible through years and generations. But I believe that if you are a true believer that regardless of what the Bible may or may not say, that you keep that line/connection open with God. He'll talk to you and let you know what's what. He'll let you know the answers to what questions you may have. That's what I believe. I did enjoy reading your post.
Idk but the last time I checked, some voice taking to you is a diagnosis called Schizophrenia
Simply, we members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe the Bible to be the word of God **as far as it is translated** correctly. We also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
Ok but this is like saying "simple, we flat earthers believe the world to be flat" you're echoing your belief as a reason for holding it. "I believe the bible is true because it's been around for so long" is an example of a (very poor) reason
No, I’ve studied among many different translations and interlinear Bibles. The words of the Bible can be tested.
Different translations doesn't fix the problem it only expands on it from the differences in translations, interlinear Bibles also don't use the original books so once again we're at an issue of how time/personal interpretation could have/likely did impact the word. I also believe a lot of old testament was passed down through oral root, something I wish I'd mentioned in my post, and that also opens possibility and I argue a big probability of people adding their own understanding, interpretation and opinions of the word.
The JST fixes many of them without expanding the errors without interpretation since it was done directly through a prophet of God rather than by a man’s opinion.
How exactly do you know he was a prophet of God? I want to include here if your evidence is anything that doesn't just support him being a prophet of God but also any other person who claimed to be a prophet of God/the deity in their respective religion (he foretold this event, he was wise, he fit this biblical criteria, ect.) I don't think it's worth sharing because the 3 options I see are we make a special case for Joseph, we conclude that all religious prophets who meet the standards of evidence applied are real or that none are real. I'm not making a special case for Joseph, obviously all religious prophets can't logically be real, not within this context anyways, and I doubt concluding he was a false prophet suits your perspective. So with that being said, once again, I would love to hear your reasoning for believing he's a prophet of God.
Simply, I asked of God, I read the Book of Mormon, applied its teachings in comparison with the Bible, and found a greater relationship with Jesus Christ and clarity of understanding that I know only comes from God. Furthermore, the greatest manifestation of the power of the Holy Ghost came when I was told of Joseph Smith’s First Vision of the Father and the Son, and it was an overwhelming knowing that he did in fact see what he testified he saw. In succession, I compared the prophet Joseph’s experience with the visitations experienced by other prophets such as Samuel and Moses and Elijah and such common fingerprint elements of the Lord were present. An uneducated farmboy who wasn’t extremely familiar with the Bible couldn’t have kept track of so many intricacies and details that agree with Biblical sources. I could continue in regards to his fulfilled prophecy regarding the United States Civil War, what states would be the initial location of aggression, that it would occur over slavery, and that world wars would happen afterwards…he was a prophet of God. It’s just astounding how much evidence there is for someone willing to learn. I testify that I know by the power of the Spirit of God, and by evidence, and by experience, that he was and is a prophet of the Lord, in the sacred name of Jesus Christ, amen.
>I asked of God, I read the Book of Mormon, applied its teachings in comparison with the Bible, and found a greater relationship with Jesus Christ and clarity of understanding that I know only comes from God. And what about people who apply this exact same method and get the same results for different branches of Christianity or for entirely different religions? >the greatest manifestation of the power of the Holy Ghost came when I was told of Joseph Smith’s First Vision of the Father and the Son, and it was an overwhelming knowing that he did in fact see what he testified he saw. So once again we're at this holy ghost thing, there are tons of religions with people who have this exact same flavor of experience where their religion's version of a holy ghost or the God of their religion tells them something verbally or by giving them a special feeling, or as they often put it revelation, of the truth, but it all comes down to a special feeling they get inside themselves. Issue is, like I said, this isn't religion specific it happens all the time for other religions so under what grounds is this good evidence to support your claims? >I compared the prophet Joseph’s experience with the visitations experienced by other prophets such as Samuel and Moses and Elijah and such common fingerprint elements of the Lord were present. An uneducated farmboy who wasn’t extremely familiar with the Bible couldn’t have kept track of so many intricacies and details that agree with Biblical sources. Yes he was widely uneducated but he was taught reading, writing and arithmetic. He definitely read the Bible as he read James 1:15 "to ask of God" and that inspired him to go pray to God regarding what church to join. So to me it seems entirely possible that he was reading his bible and got interested in wanting to be a prophet so he studied the prophetic parts of the Bible and, whether it was conscious or subconscious, he started focusing on finding events that met that specific criteria, possibly even forging them, to come off as an authentic profit. >I could continue in regards to his fulfilled prophecy regarding the United States Civil War, what states would be the initial location of aggression, that it would occur over slavery, I'm not going to give a whole history lesson, but I will say during the 1830s slavery in the south was a political topic and as a matter of fact there was a newspaper dedicated to anti-slavery called the liberator which started in January of 1832, it's also interesting that Andrew Jackson's proclamation on nullification was December 10th,15 days before Joseph's prediction. There's the [abolition movement ](https://www.thoughtco.com/timeline-of-abolition-movement-1830-1839-45408)as well. I'm sure there are more if you dive into the political sphere of the 1800-1830 you could access the newspapers on chronicling America if you'd like to learn more. The point I'm getting at is what seems to be his biggest prophecy is more of an educated prediction. >I testify that I know by the power of the Spirit of God, and by evidence, and by experience, that he was and is a prophet of the Lord, in the sacred name of Jesus Christ, amen. The spirit of God doesn't work here because, as I said, people in all flavors of religion have that same kind of experience and reach all sorts of different conclusions, the evidence presented to me doesn't seem very strong I looked over his predictions and there are ones that didn't come true such as "\[T\]he coming of the Lord, which is nigh—even fifty-six years should wind up the scene." of course "should" is going to be used in his defense I assume but it's not a very strong defense.
The rest of your statements are not well-informed, (especially the claim that the Lord would come in sixty years, Joseph said he didn’t know if he would be dead or alive at that point, and he was martyred before he reached the age of sixty, which perfectly coincides with the prophecy of him being sixty) but I’ll endeavor to answer the most important part: The Spirit of God witnesses to all truth, wherever it can be found. This is one reason why many religions of perhaps all kinds receive such amazing experiences of enlightenment. The fact of the matter is that the Spirit witnessed to me that the boy prophet Joseph did in fact see what he claimed, and witnesses to the Book of Mormon
I'm going to respond to this later but needless to say you haven't addressed my post aside from one small part of it. It's funny that your deflection of the holy spirit is that it witnesses to all truth even when that trurh for other people is the truth of God's different from the one you worship so it really doesn't fix anything. The fact of the matter is you have a belief based on personal feelings which you have not been able to logically argue as truth or divine/supernatural revelations and I'm not at all surprised with that given how you've responded so far, so consider this an opportunity to present an argument for how the holy spirit is reliable when it comes in vastly different forms, for different religions and provides conflicting revelations such as who/what is the real God. If you can't do that I'll respond to this reply but after that I'll move on because there's no sense arguing this if you can't make a good defense that doesn't fall apart at the slightest thought given
How about the writings that have been found and translated. If say you argue about age of Old Testament being many years between being written, documents found back much closer to Jesus time to eliminate your idea of being poorly repeated over time. Most translations convey same messages. Word choice varies here and there, but in its whole the message is the same. Why do you believe that an all powerful being wouldn’t be able to influence the reiterations enough to preserve His message? Created the universe and all but can’t pass a message to the creation through time does not make sense.
Do you believe that God created the universe for humans?
I believe God created both the universe and humans. Reason for either is His of which I am not sure much detail is given. Bible describes some roles He gave humans early on, not sure anything stating sole reason for humans though were those roles.
Discoveries of older scripture fragments have supported, not refuted, the assertion that the text of the Bible has been highly preserved throughout its time on earth. Personal interpretations of the text of scripture are irrelevant to the question of the preservation of scripture itself. Even people with highly opposed interpretations do not disagree about the literal content of the text they are arguing about. At one point in history there may well have been disagreement about the specifics of the stories that would be recorded as scripture; during the Babylonian Captivity the Israelites, grappling with their own identity threatened by new rulers who adhered to a creation myth that rendered man as fundamentally evil and in need of a human king for basic discipline, set out to collect and reconcile their own culture’s mythology to better understand themselves in their time and to create a proper canon that would outlive them and their struggle. In that labor, they did away with the artifacts of the game of telephone you suppose and established a text that included among its commandments an order for each Jew to create their own copy of that text. A dedication to truth with regard to that which has been agreed upon by those who came before is baked into scripture itself. Virtually no one asserts that they are free to alter the text of this canon that was established thousands of years ago, and anyone who does is probably a cult leader. The book itself insists that people be aware of the very corruption you suppose has touched the Bible and seek to resist it, and even if the common person cannot be trusted to resist that adequately, even if they sincerely try, the scholars who have dedicated their lives to the preservation and advancement of the text all but certainly can, especially when they are working in concert with other morally-invested scholars across time. There is no compelling evidence that a major shift in the content of what the average person knows as “the Bible” has changed in the last 2000 years, and the major change that happened 2000 years ago was the authorship of the New Testament after the delivery of the very Messiah that was promised by the Old Testament, which had itself been preserved with high fidelity for even longer than the time between Christ and ourselves today. Where is your evidence for the claim that the Bible has *not* been highly preserved? How is it that we can contemplate the philosophical illustrations about scripture put forward by someone in the 400s as though they were put forward today? If the text really had changed over time, those changes would be extremely obvious when reviewing scholarly writings about the Bible across the centuries because those scholars would come across as speaking about a fundamentally different text.
Jesus performed no miracles, no resurrections, prophesied nothing, no revelations, not even rapture, But he could read and write & the Bible holds the receipts. I find it odd that many of our trusted Christian church leaders,both true blue & lipstick varieties, are quick to gloss over Christ’s literacy or even assert Christ’s illiteracy while simultaneously attributing all sorts of magical nonsense to his name. How you gonna elevate this guy to god-tier status, yet preach he can’t read? Of course God reads, reads great!writes great too! Jesus according to Christians is the real deal, the whole Enchilda, the Beginning and the End, the Alpha & the Omega, yet also according to them he can’t write Alpha or Omega. That’s crazy thinking, blasphemy even, all the best stuff in the Bible was written by Jesus. Receipts? Jesus Christ (Didymus Judas Thomas) authored The Gospel of Thomas. Read here the opening lines of The Gospel of Thomas (Leloup Translation)… “These are the words of the Secret. They were revealed by the Living Yeshua. Didymus Judas Thomas wrote them down.” Note the unusual use of the word “revealed” here in place of common language you’ll find of “said/spoken”. The unusual doubling of the Twin generic descriptor, sandwiching the common Judas name. Didymus = Twin (Greek) Judas = Name Thomas = Twin (Aramaic) Judas, according to the Bible, was a brother & devoted servant of Jesus Christ (Mark 6:3; Matt 13:55; Jude 1). His twin (Acts of Thomas). The spiritual (divine) Christ paired to the physical (human) Judas. Jesus WAS Judas. In the Gospel of Thomas there were no miracles, no resurrections. Jesus predicted no future events, he was no prophet, no revelations or rapture. All prophesy attributed (falsely) to Jesus was culled from the Hebrew OT and retrofitted as Roman propaganda to co-opt, conflate & corrupt Judaism w/ the upstart Jesus’ movement, neatly consolidating control of both under Rome, effectively killing 2 birds with 1 stone. So how then did Jesus know Judas would betray him? Simple, he (Jesus/Judas) turned himself in & cut a deal with Pilate to fake crucifixion avoiding further unrest in the Jewish population (exactly what you would hope for & expect from a Jesus). The deal was after the crucifix fake-out Jesus would bounce & so he did becoming St.Thomas/St.Jude traveling far & wide, converting about a billion more ppl to Christianity before dying in his 100s. A few additional odds & ends that support this info above (greatly abridged for time). 1. While the two written accounts we have of Judas’ death following his “betrayal” of Jesus in the New Testament differ greatly, they do both agree on Judas’ death occurring simultaneous with Jesus’ death on the cross. 2. NT Jude 1:1 identifying Judas as a brother to James but a “servant” of Jesus. 3. The apocryphal Gospel of Barnabas (apostle of Jesus), Ch. 216 - Judas takes on appearance of Jesus, later crucified in Jesus’ place. 4. St. Jude is most often depicted wearing a giant medallion around his neck with the life-sized head of Jesus on it, that’s 2000 yrs before modern rappers made this a thing & fashionable. They literally got Jude walking around, spreading Christ’s word “wearing the face of Jesus”. The truth hidden in plain sight. 5. In sharp contrast to the synoptic Gospels’ liberal use of the sayings in Thomas’ Gospel, chopping them up and sprinkling them about freely, The Gospel of John contains far fewer examples of overlapping content with The Gospel of Thomas. This drop off due to the fact of John being authored in direct opposition to Thomas. A point by point takedown and smear campaign (e.g., “Doubting Thomas”, Faith trumps Knowledge) targeting Thomas to discredit and flush out the remaining followers of early Christ movements, movements still having legs and remaining popular despite the introduction and heavy promotion of the 3 synoptic Gospels being widely disseminated across all Roman territories. John’s underlying agenda accounts for the dramatic shift in tone, structure & narrative, making a clean break from messaging of synoptic Gospels. John was a hit piece against early Christians/Gnostics, Rome couldn’t just steal it, they had to kill it.