The Agers Challenge

our dear friend Agers, in the course of debate, in an attempt to stave off imminent
recognition of the inspiration of scripture resorted to the dastardly practice of
claiming a conspiracy amongst the Bible writers, that they somehow managed to
engineer the events about which they prophesied, despite the fact, that in many
cases, it was with regard to whole nations and in one instance against a person that
had nails through his hands and feet and was therefore unable to engineer anything
which transpired after such. He asked for a basis that the Christ was the messiah,
well, ok that is fine, for there are almost 400 messianic prophesies which point
towards the Christ as the Messiah, his objection of course that this would be
applicable to anyone, another vain and scurrilous attempt to stave off the
realisation, that yes indeed, the scriptures are inspired of God. So we provide one
or two notable examples of messianic prophecy for his continuing education. The
first reference being the initial prophecy, the latter its fulfilment, with the event in
between.

1. Isaiah 7:14 - Christ born of a virgin - Matthew 1:18-23
2. Jeremiah 31:15 - Babes killed after Christ's birth - Matthew 2:16-18
3. Micah 5:2 - Born in Bethlehem - Luke 2:1-7
4. Psalm 132:11 - David's descendent - Matthew 1:1-16
5. Psalm 41:9; 109:8 - One unfaithful apostle - Acts 1:15-20
6. Zechariah 11:12 - Betrayed for thirty pieces of silver - Matthew 26:14, 15
7. Psalm 27:12- false witness given against - Matthew 26:59-61
8. Psalm 22:18 - Lots cast for his garments - John 19:23, 24
9. Isaiah 53:12 - Numbered with sinners - Matthew 27:38
10. Psalm 22:7, 8 - Reviled while dying - Mark 15:29-32
11. Psalm 69:21 - Given vinegar - Mark 15:23, 36
12. Zechariah 12:10 - pierced - John 19:34, 37
13. Isaiah 53:9 - Buried with the rich - Matthew 27:57-60

thirteen notable events over which Christ could have had no part in either
engineering nor of conspiring with others.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
thirteen notable events over which Christ could have had no part in either
engineering nor of conspiring with others.

However, the new Testament writers almost certainly knew the prophesies in question and could have had a part in engineering all of the prophesies you mention. In fact, for anyone who it not required by their religion to believe otherwise, it seems pretty obvious that a number of the prophesies mentioned (and quite possibly all of them) were engineered by either the gospel writers or their sources.
There are even a significant number of Christians who admit this.

Originally posted by twhitehead
However, the new Testament writers almost certainly knew the prophesies in question and could have had a part in engineering all of the prophesies you mention. In fact, for anyone who it not required by their religion to believe otherwise, it seems pretty obvious that a number of the prophesies mentioned (and quite possibly all of them) were engineered by ...[text shortened]... pel writers or their sources.
There are even a significant number of Christians who admit this.

this just proves the unreasonable nature of the claims, for how could Christ engineer
where he was born? how could he engineer that the Roman soldiers cast lots for his
garments, that is correct, he could not and what other Christians think and state is as
per usual, completely and utterly irrelevant, you should have learned that by now.
Your assertion that they knew of the prophesies and then engineered the fulfilment is
based on what evidence for you seem by the force of your words to be quite certain,
by the use of the terms obvious, therefore on what basis or what evidence is it
obvious. do tell.

Originally posted by twhitehead
However, the new Testament writers almost certainly knew the prophesies in question and could have had a part in engineering all of the prophesies you mention. In fact, for anyone who it not required by their religion to believe otherwise, it seems pretty obvious that a number of the prophesies mentioned (and quite possibly all of them) were engineered by ...[text shortened]... pel writers or their sources.
There are even a significant number of Christians who admit this.

Okay let us start with the first prophecy.
How could anyone, other than God, engineer someone being born
of a virgin?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Okay let us start with the first prophecy.
How could anyone, other than God, engineer someone being born
of a virgin?

Well three possible scenarios for you -

1. She wasn't a virgin and Joseph is the most gullible man in history.
2. It's just a story much like the Greek myths, you don't believe in flying horses do you?
3. It's as the Bible says, Mary a virgin impregnated by the Holy Spirit.

Personally i put 1 and 2 over 3 any day of the week.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Well three possible scenarios for you -

1. She wasn't a virgin and Joseph is the most gullible man in history.
2. It's just a story much like the Greek myths, you don't believe in flying horses do you?
3. It's as the Bible says, Mary a virgin impregnated by the Holy Spirit.

Personally i put 1 and 2 over 3 any day of the week.

evidence for

1. nil
2. nil
3. inspired and fulfilled Biblical prophesy.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
evidence for

1. nil
2. nil
3. inspired and fulfilled Biblical prophesy.

Evidence for

1. Common sense.
2. Common sense.
3. An old book.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Evidence for

1. Common sense.
2. Common sense.
3. An old book.

1. unsubstantiated belief
2. uncorroborated belief
3. an ancient prophecy fulfilled hundreds of years after the event and manifest in the
man, Jesus Christ.

It is becoming more and more apparent each day me illustrious friend, just how
religious atheists really are, despite their protestations, they believe all sorts of things
without the slightest evidence, i think its awesome my self personally.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
our dear friend Agers, in the course of debate, in an attempt to stave off imminent
recognition of the inspiration of scripture resorted to the dastardly practice of
claiming a conspiracy amongst the Bible writers, that they somehow managed to
engineer the events about which they prophesied, despite the fact, that in many
cases, it was with r ...[text shortened]... ver which Christ could have had no part in either
engineering nor of conspiring with others.

1. Isaiah 7:14 - Christ born of a virgin - Matthew 1:18-23

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel
...
Matthew 1:18-23 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 “The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel” (which means “God with us&rdquo😉.

Is there any objective evidence that Mary was a virgin? Only writings by authors with a vested interest in the prophesy being fulfilled. Was Mary's child called Immanuel? No, all reports are that he was called Jesus.

[b]2. Jeremiah 31:15 - Babes killed after Christ's birth - Matthew 2:16-18[/b]

Jeremiah 31:15 This is what the LORD says:
“A voice is heard in Ramah, mourning and great weeping, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.”
...
Matthew 2:16-18 When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. 17 Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: 18 “A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more.”

Jeremiah 31:15 does not make explicit that this is weeping for children lost after the birth of the messiah so I had a look at the rest of the chapter. There is no reference to the birth of a messiah or son of God in the entire chapter. Any large-scale killing of descendants of Rachel could be taken as fulfilling it. Matthew 2:17 is simply not justified.

3. Micah 5:2 - Born in Bethlehem - Luke 2:1-7
Micah 5:2 "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”
...
Luke 2:1-7 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.

At first glance, this looks pretty good. however, Bethlehem Ephrathah apparently refers to a tribe rather than a town and if you look at Micah 5:3 onwards, it becomes clear that the prophesy is for a military leader who will defend the people against a Syrian invasion. Doesn't sound like Jesus to me.

So, looking at the 1st 3 of those 13, the first is factually wrong in the name and the virginity aspect has no corroborating evidence and could easily have been invented to match with the prophesy. The second is so general that any large-scale killing could be said to be the fulfilment and the third does not seem to describe Jesus at all.

I am not going to bother looking at the others for now as I have work to do! If you badger me in a day or two, I may have time to investigate a few more but it does seem to me that so far, these could only be viewed as compelling evidence by someone who already uncritically believes them. Nobody of a non-Christian persuasion is going to be swayed by prophesies like these.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
1. unsubstantiated belief
2. uncorroborated belief
3. an ancient prophecy fulfilled hundreds of years after the event and manifest in the
man, Jesus Christ.

It is becoming more and more apparent each day me illustrious friend, just how
religious atheists really are, despite their protestations, they believe all sorts of things
without the slightest evidence, i think its awesome my self personally.

Yes, I agree Atheism is more of a religion than Christianity,
but without a guide book.

Originally posted by Penguin
[b]1. Isaiah 7:14 - Christ born of a virgin - Matthew 1:18-23

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel
...
[i]Matthew 1:18-23 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, ...[text shortened]... f a non-Christian persuasion is going to be swayed by prophesies like these.

--- Penguin.[/b]

Immanuel is a name meaning "God with us" and Jesus is the same
as Joshua (meaning God saves). Jesus is "God with us".
All Christian believe he is God and call Him that.

Originally posted by Penguin
1. Isaiah 7:14 - Christ born of a virgin - Matthew 1:18-23[/b]

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel
...
Matthew 1:18-23 This is how the birth of Jesus the Messiah came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, f a non-Christian persuasion is going to be swayed by prophesies like these.

--- Penguin.[/b]

what a pile of bilge, why would i badger you for nothingness,

Ephrathah is evidently the earlier name of Bethlehem or a name applied to the area
around it. The names of Bethlehem and Ephrathah are used jointly in several texts.
The account of Rachel’s death relates that she was buried “on the way to Ephrath
[Ephrathah], that is to say, Bethlehem.” (Ge 35:16, 19; 48:7) Members of
Elimelech’s family are called “Ephrathites from Bethlehem,” and it was to Bethlehem
that his widow Naomi returned out of Moab. (Ru 1:2, 19) The blessing pronounced
on Boaz at the time of his marriage to Ruth was that he might prove his “worth in
Ephrathah and make a notable name in Bethlehem.” (Ru 4:11) And finally, in the
prophecy concerning the Messiah’s birth, the names are combined as “Bethlehem
Ephrathah.” (Mic 5:2)

. . . . . you were havering.

as for the rest, its a common misconception of those who are opposed to the
gospels, that the killing of the innocents would have been large scale, for how many
persons under the age of two would have been born in a little town like Bethlehem,
straw straw and more straw!

contact us when you have something of substance to state.

so here we have it folks, the first objection that Bethlehem is not really Bethlehem
even though it states bethelehem, but a tribe, compelling, muhahaha, it is to laugh.
Perhaps Aggy himself will do better, who can tell!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what a pile of bilge, why would i badger you for nothingness,

Ephrathah is evidently the earlier name of Bethlehem or a name applied to the area
around it. The names of Bethlehem and Ephrathah are used jointly in several texts.
The account of Rachel’s death relates that she was buried “on the way to Ephrath
[Ephrathah], that is to say, Beth ...[text shortened]... ribe, compelling, muhahaha, it is to laugh.
Perhaps Aggy himself will do better, who can tell!

Sorry, I will not butt in anymore. You seem to know the
subject well enough that you don't need my help.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
our dear friend Agers, in the course of debate, in an attempt to stave off imminent
recognition of the inspiration of scripture resorted to the dastardly practice of
claiming a conspiracy amongst the Bible writers, that they somehow managed to
engineer the events about which they prophesied, despite the fact, that in many
cases, it was with r ver which Christ could have had no part in either
engineering nor of conspiring with others.

As others have shown, this game goes along the lines of looking at these references, pointing out that they could have been `written true' afterwards, and/or fail to specifically mention Jesus such that they could have been matched to any number of different people - and then you come along and call these objections unsubstantiated bumf.


Show us some excerpts which specifically mention "Jesus" in no ambiguous terms prior to his birth - once you have established that any placeholder names like messiah etc... had to specifically refer to Jesus (and none other than Jesus) then we can look at the rest of this tripe and see if they weren't 'written true' afterwards.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what a pile of bilge, why would i badger you for nothingness,

Ephrathah is evidently the earlier name of Bethlehem or a name applied to the area
around it. The names of Bethlehem and Ephrathah are used jointly in several texts.
The account of Rachel’s death relates that she was buried “on the way to Ephrath
[Ephrathah], that is to say, Beth ...[text shortened]... ribe, compelling, muhahaha, it is to laugh.
Perhaps Aggy himself will do better, who can tell!

Fair enough, the Bethlehem city/tribe argument is a bit weak, I will accept that.

The Joshua / Jesus complaint was also nit-picking but if both names have similar meanings. They are still different though so I don't think it is entirely invalid. The important bit of that prophesy is the virgin birth and we have no reliable evidence that such an event happened.

The killing of the innocents bit I stand by. None of Jeremiah 31 makes any mention of a messiah, a leader or anything that could be tied to Jesus. It's all about the Jews regaining their land at some indeterminate time in the future. It is not about the birth of Christ.

I would like to know more about the Born in Bethlehem bit though at that seems to be the strongest of the 1st 3 prophesies, although I also maintain that it does not identify Christ at all. It is describing a military leader. I think it could be a lucky coincidence that a leader (albeit spiritual rather than political/military) was born in that town.

--- Penguin.