messianic prophecies

Originally posted by stellspalfie
thanks for the clarification rj.

ive read that the old testament doesnt have any references to the 2nd coming, does anybody know if this is correct? it would seem slightly dubious if non of the prophets predicted it.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
you seem to have the wrong idea about what an opinion is. i will educate you, even though i will be throwing my pearls before a swine.

you can quote the entire bible. without being able to substantiate the claims, you have nothing. you quoted scripture that claims jesus was descended from the davidic line. without official papers to back up those c ...[text shortened]...
your baseless opinions have no value, i have actual scripture to back up my claims.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
your plethora of references is worthless when you can't even substantiate the first few which i exposed as failures. i'm not going to waste my time debunking every single one. i only need to debunk one and i went beyond that and debunked several. once it gets through your skull that they are failures, i can go ahead and explain why all the others are also worthless.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
When I said the writers would not have had information available to them I was
referring to the details of Jesus' life

your words nerd-boy, would you liker some condiments while you eat them?

Originally posted by twhitehead
No, they are not my words. Go back and read my posts again and you will see that I made no such claim.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
more mere opinion, is there no one that can provide any substantiating evidence for
their opinions among the antichrists or are we simply meant to believe their opinions
because they say its true?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am not going to even pretend I read that drivel of pure unadulterated unsubstantiated opinion, neeeeexxxxttt!

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
it is not mere opinion. no hereditary king is crowned without documentation proving heredity. i asked for documentation proving jesus's heredity, you can't even prove jesus existed.

next, i revealed to you that jeremiah is talking about the lost children of israel in the context of the quoted passages. this is not opinion. it is fact.

the one he ...[text shortened]... is clearly talking about children being returned to israel.

you have failed on all counts.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
its not a case of believing or not believing for me. more of a curiosity in the text and its relation to other translations. it also interests me why people believe 100% that their chosen religion has the correct meaning despite there being multiple other translations offering other meanings that seem equally valid. i guess this brings us back around to things being true and false at the same time 😉

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the Bible itself is documentary evidence, an ancient document authored within decades of its main character containing numerous eye witness accounts, read it and weep spanklberger, you are roast toasty.

Indeed I challenge you to name any other ancient document which fulfils this criteria?

shall we talk of Alexander, do you dispute the claims of the authors of his account, written three hundred years after the event and not a single eye witnesses, no, why not, because you are prejudiced, that is why.

The lost children of Israel, bwhahahahaha!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I copied and pasted them from your post you spangle.

It is also obvious that the writers would almost certainly not have had this information readily available to them.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
the only thing the bible is evidence for is itself. without corroborative evidence, you have only fables. some things in the bible have corroborative evidence, others do not. the existence of jesus does not.

the biblical evidence of jesus in the bible is that of a growing legend. the fable got more and more fantastic with each retelling of the tale ...[text shortened]... foreign lands, there is no hope for you to understand any discussion pertaining to alexander.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
the christians were very liberal in finding messianic prophecies where none exist, they had to do this to cover up the fact that their messiah didn't fulfill the important things the messiah was supposed to have done.

seeing that the antichrists were unable to substantiate a single claim or produce a
shred of evidence with which to back up their ludicrous assertions,

1. FMF, its true because I say it is,
2. Voidreason, its a fable because I say it is,
3, Proper Knob, it cannot be true because its in the Bible,
4. Stellspalfie, it cannot be true because there is nothing special about riding a
donkey
5.Twithead - I didn't say that even though i did.


Here are the facts,

1.While the Gospel credited to Matthew does not name him as the writer, the
overwhelming testimony of early church historians stamps him as such. Perhaps no
ancient book has its writer more clearly and unanimously established than the book
of Matthew. From as far back as Papias of Hierapolis (early second century C.E.)
onward, we have a line of early witnesses to the fact that Matthew wrote this Gospel
and that it is an authentic part of the Word of God. McClintock and Strong’s
Cyclopedia states: “Passages from Matthew are quoted by Justin Martyr, by the
author of the letter to Diognetus (see in Otto’s Justin Martyr, vol. ii), by Hegesippus,
Irenæus, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Clement, Tertullian, and Origen. It is not
merely from the matter, but the manner of the quotations, from the calm appeal as
to a settled authority, from the absence of all hints of doubt, that we regard it as
proved that the book we possess had not been the subject of any sudden change.”

2. Matthew wrote his account in Palestine. The exact year is not known, but
subscriptions at the end of some manuscripts (all later than the tenth century C.E.)
say that it was 41 C.E.

3.There is evidence to indicate that Matthew originally wrote his Gospel in the
popular Hebrew of the time and later translated it into Greek. In his work De viris
inlustribus (Concerning Illustrious Men), chapter III, Jerome says: “Matthew, who is
also Levi, and who from a publican came to be an apostle, first of all composed a
Gospel of Christ in Judaea in the Hebrew language and characters for the benefit of
those of the circumcision who had believed.” Jerome adds that the Hebrew text of
this Gospel was preserved in his day (fourth and fifth centuries C.E.) in the library
that Pamphilus had collected in Caesarea.

4. Early in the third century, Origen, in discussing the Gospels, is quoted by Eusebius
as saying that the “first was written . . . according to Matthew, . . . who published it
for those who from Judaism came to believe, composed as it was in the Hebrew
language.” That it was written primarily with the Jews in mind is indicated by its
genealogy, which shows Jesus’ legal descent starting from Abraham, and by its
many references to the Hebrew Scriptures, showing that they pointed forward to the
coming Messiah.

source: Jehovahs Witnesses

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
seeing that the antichrists were unable to substantiate a single claim or produce a
shred of evidence with which to back up their ludicrous assertions,

1. FMF, its true because I say it is,
2. Voidreason, its a fable because I say it is,
3, Proper Knob, it cannot be true because its in the Bible,
4. Stellspalfie, it cannot be true because ptures, showing that they pointed forward to the
coming Messiah.

source: Jehovahs Witnesses