Y2.1K - the end of the world?

Hobbes · 07-12-2000 2:45pm #1

heh heh, Castor what's with the locking of the thread?

Kind of funny though how people attach to numbers though. I mean I have heard absolutly NO end of the world predictions for 2001.

In your face Castor Troy.

Bard · 07-12-2000 2:57pm

Yeah... WTF Castor? That was a bit over-kill, dude...

TwoShedsJackson · 07-12-2000 3:10pm

i have a pain in my ar$e with ****in milleniums and whatever else - I promise I (probably) won't lock this one.

Amp's waiting for cable!!

This anonymous clan of slack-jawed troglodytes has cost me the election, and yet if I were to have them killed, I would be the one to go to jail. That's democracy for you.

Panda · 08-12-2000 7:26pm

I know what u mean Castor.
This whole millenium mallarkey is utter BS. Why cant ye all understand that time is only a human conception and of little importance to "God" in any of its forms.
Just think about it, if "God" wants to end the world, then do ye actually think that we'll have a chance to figure out whats going on?

Methinks, NOT BLOODY LIKELY.

[This message has been edited by Kento-Shiro (edited 08-12-2000).]

Cake Fiend · 10-12-2000 9:47pm

Well at least there'll be no more about the millennium ending this year in the new year

Now where are those extra 'Happy New Millennium' cards I had left over last year...

Also: "I have heard absolutly NO end of the world predictions for 2001" - I'd take that as a bad sign

Manach · 10-12-2000 10:29pm

Try reading Stephen Jay Gould's - "Questioning the Millennium" for a chirpy look at the the Apocalyspe really soon prophecies

.

Blitzkrieger · 11-12-2000 4:28pm

Originally posted by Kento-Shiro:
Just think about it, if "God" wants to end the world, then do ye actually think that we'll have a chance to figure out whats going on?

That's the Xmas spirit!

nutter

Canaboid · 11-12-2000 5:21pm

Hang on, who's this God bloke and who said he's in charge ?
Help, I'm being repressed.

Panda · 12-12-2000 1:51pm

Originally posted by Canaboid:
Hang on, who's this God bloke and who said he's in charge ?
Help, I'm being repressed.

Err, everybody really.....
Except the Atheists maybe.

Chubby · 12-12-2000 2:42pm

Originally posted by Kento-Shiro:
Err, everybody really.....
Except the Atheists maybe.

I know what u mean kento.
This whole god mallarkey is utter BS. Why cant ye all understand that god is only a human conception and of little importance to humans in any of its forms.

Canaboid · 12-12-2000 2:47pm

Pfff, organised superstition.

Bard · 12-12-2000 6:59pm

Originally posted by Kento-Shiro:
Err, everybody really.....
Except the Atheists maybe.

... and countless other religions, including the Pagans... oh, - and the Chinese, who constitute about a fifth of the worlds population.

Nobody, really...

Cake Fiend · 13-12-2000 3:09am

Well, the train of thought looks like it's getting derailed, so I might as well intercept it before the next station...

I'm agnostic, but I can understand why people might believe in a supreme being watching over them etc. Having a belief that in the end, everything will work out and be OK helps people through life. A lot of people prefer thinking that life has meaning and purpose, rather than think that the reason we are here is that we just are, and when we die we just plain cease to conciously exist.

Maybe the atheists and agnostics know the answer to the big universal question:
Why?
Because.

Panda · 14-12-2000 3:07pm

Originally posted by Sico:
Maybe the atheists and agnostics know the answer to the big universal question:
Why?
Because.

Gotcha.........
(Don a North London accent for the following)
If Sico posted a witty response to my educated guess on how thigs really are, then i'd say, OI SICO NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, IF I WANT TO MAKE PRESUMPTIOUS GUESSES ON RELIGION THEN I BLOODY WELL WILL!!!
Ahem.

PS:Pagans, shmagans.

Panda · 16-12-2000 12:17am

Originally posted by Chubby:
This whole god mallarkey is utter BS. Why cant ye all understand that god is only a human conception and of little importance to humans in any of its forms.

I agree with u actually.

Blitzkrieger · 16-12-2000 12:30am

Personally I think apathy is the next big thing.

[Kramer impression]You don't believe in God![/Kramer impression]
[Seinfeld impression]ehh *shrug*[/Seinfeld impression]

You get the idea - or maybe you don't care enough to work it out.

Sorry mom, sorry god.

Baz_ · 24-12-2000 10:16pm

Originally posted by Sico:
Maybe the atheists and agnostics know the answer to the big universal question:
Why?
Because.

I believe the answer is 42. and should the post not be Y2.001K or Y2.0.0.1K??

Manach · 25-12-2000 1:56am

Hey no fair, bashing religion on the sly.
Still, Happy Christmas for we all believe in Santa.

[IAR]Nevermind · 31-12-2000 8:20pm

lol

Paladin · 01-01-2001 1:56pm

No mushroom clouds or nuffin. Im a bit dissappointed.
All this 'razz-ma-tazz' for nothing.

amp · 03-01-2001 11:10pm

Well seeing as most predictions pointed to the nice round 2000 number, there didn't seem to be a world left to end.

Seen in a sports shop in the Rathmines Swan Centre today:
"Y2K+1 SALE!"

Accurate but very surreal

Lunacy Abounds! Play GLminesweeper!

Paladin · 04-01-2001 12:30am

Yea. They sell those things now?

neuro-praxis · 06-01-2001 6:52pm

it drives me crazy when people claim that having faith is simply a crutch to help you out in your pathetic little life that you just can't seem to manage all by yourself. grrr. people who talk this nonsense and dare to call God nonsense are being purely controversial for the sake of it. apathy is so passe. it is the sign of a person who is too drugged by society to form their own opinions. just because the traditional irish mass is boring, just because the irish clergy have let us down - does not mean that yo were not created by God. anyone who wants facts - actual historical facts - about Jesus Christ (God) can talk to me. did you all know that there is less evidence that Caesar existed than there is that Jesus did? and yet nobody questions the fact that Caesar was around. ask provocative questions. yes, question everything. but don't decide before you ask. just cos Gods people on earth let us down doesn't mean God does. and just cos lots of people all believe one thing does not make it the right thing to believe. do a bloody bit of research and then talk to me about it all being bull****. i'll bet you all know less about christianity that you do about all this pseudo-spirituality crap that is going around which delivers nothing.

Do your limbs ever get tingly, eh? eh?

TwoShedsJackson · 06-01-2001 7:00pm

Here we go again. Neuro-Praxis, I take precisely the attitude you mention, I think religion is a method for helping people cope with life.

However, if people want to do that, that's their choice and I will respect that. How strange then that you, as a Christian, cannot accept other people's points of view.

As for having what one might call a rational or scientific approach to the question being a sign of 'apathy' or 'a mind so drugged by society that they can't form their own opinions' I would contend that slavishly beleieving in God would point to precisely the same problem.

just cos lots of people all believe one thing does not make it the right thing to believe

Quite so. Try to apply this statement to your side of the argument as well as that of the other.

Oh wait I forgot the Church sees itself as infallible doesn't it? With absolutely no basis of course.

neuro-praxis · 06-01-2001 8:11pm

ahem, castor.

why do you fight me? i don't care what you believe. and you misunderstood me too. i do NOT believe that people use it for a crutch when they have genuine faith. try rereading my last post. sorry, em, what church is it that you talked of as thinking itself infallible? would it be the catholic church by any chance? and what exactly makes you think i am a catholic? i am actually against organised religion and attend an open doors church for all denominations. i spend my life being told by people like you that i "slavishly" believe, but tell me this - which is easier in this society - to be an 18 year old who believes nothing or admit to loving Jesus Christ?? think about it. have you ever made a stand on an issue you felt passionately about in your life? have you ever strived towards anything? have you ever tried to better yourself? have you ever experienced joy? or love? because you sound to me as though i make you mad because i believe. what makes me mad is that people write you off if you have faith. can you even define faith? do you know me? do you believe i was brought up this way? has anything ever changed you? open YOUR flippin mind, man. i don't care what you'd like to believe. i would just prefer if people questioned things instead of writing them off. it reeks of ignorance. i am open to everything. i could tell you about most religions because i have researched them. i know that the most important things to me are to serve God and take care of the people around me. i don't think there is anything closed minded about it. is having faith closed minded? because that seems to be what you are implying. read some literature by CS Lewis.

Do your limbs ever get tingly, eh? eh?

TwoShedsJackson · 06-01-2001 8:19pm

At what point did I imply having faith was closed minded? Please tell me. I said that if others have faith that is their business and I respect that - I do not beleive in God.

Is it too much to ask for a Christian to accept that without telling me I'm wrong? One thing I certainly have noticed about Christians is if you try to debate with them they just get incoherent and indignant that anyone could think differently.

I have taken stands on issues, tried to better myself, and felt joy and love - what makes you think I haven't? You don't know me so I find remarks like that presumptous in the extreme.

Also try using capitalisation and paragraphs in your posts - makes you look a little less incoherent.

neuro-praxis · 06-01-2001 9:38pm

no need for the *****y comments castor. don't you see that i was simply responding to what i am told day after day about being wrong?? day after day, man. i am sorry if a lack of capitalisation irritates you. you sunk below the belt, so i am not going to continue this discussion. you didn't refer to any issues i brought up, except to feign emotional injury at my questions. don't you even realise what i was saying? surely if you have felt these things then you can at least understand faith. i wasn't accusing you of being a robot. just defending christianity (not christians) as is my right, as is yours to believe in nothing.

Do your limbs ever get tingly, eh? eh?

neuro-praxis · 06-01-2001 9:40pm

the blanked out word was b1tchy by the way

TwoShedsJackson · 06-01-2001 9:55pm

Originally posted by neuro-praxis:
you didn't refer to any issues i brought up, except to feign emotional injury at my questions. don't you even realise what i was saying? surely if you have felt these things then you can at least understand faith.

I understand faith in God, I don't share that faith, I thought I made that reasonably clear in my previous posts. As for emotional injury, what the hell are you talking about?

Cake Fiend · 06-01-2001 10:03pm

Insert .02 euros here...

Originally posted by neuro-praxis:
...are being purely controversial for the sake of it

No, I genuinely don't believe in God. I'm not into that drama queen sh1t.

...a person who is too drugged by society to form their own opinions

This could be applied a whole lot more easily to your kind.

did you all know that there is less evidence that Caesar existed than there is that Jesus did?

I don't care for what other people say/think/hear, I won't go with a concept on blind faith - I prefer to witness this 'evidence' first hand. And until I see what I consider undeniable proof that a supreme deity exists, I won't believe it.

neuro-praxis · 06-01-2001 11:11pm

you guys just can't help yourselves when it comes to fighting with me. fight on. argue on. if you don't share faith then you can't judge somebody who has faith. i used to be somebody without faith, so yes, i think i can understand where you come from. so unless you would like to discuss and not dismiss, i am uninterested any longer. it's like hitting a brick wall. this kind of beating aimlessly back and forth with no actual argument except dissimilar experience is pointless and achieves nothing. i would like to know, though, who exactly has drugged me, since i abhorr organised religion?? maybe you all can explain to me how i became a Christian? i am sure it would be fascinating, since you all seem so knowledgeable on the subject of faith, whether it be Christian or otherwise.

C B · 09-01-2001 1:41pm

First of all neuro it does not take faith to believe that a preacher named Jesus lived in Palestine roughly 2000 years ago and that this man was essentially the founder of what we know today as the Christian churches. This is historical fact, just as the existance of Buddha is a historical fact.

What does take faith is to believe that he was the son of God, God and a third spiritual being.

The reality is we all take leaps of faith to fill the holes in our knowledge. We are an intrinsically curious species and spend most of our time contemplating questions which we may never know the answers to. It is essential for us to theorise regarding possible answers and every now and again we will put faith in some of these theories even though they are beyond proof.

This is true of both religion and more "scientific" world views.

Excelsior · 09-01-2001 4:10pm

Originally posted by Baz_:
you sound like you are in a cult or something, do I remember you saying you were a veggie earlier too. Thats a trick cults use to lower your protein levels and make you more open to suggestion (apparently, that last fact was gleaned from the TV (my god by the way, whose right hand object is a computer)).
Thank you.

that is a superbly ignorant point.

i wish people could recognise what neuro had to say. she made some incredible points.
but it is like a brick wall. and i think the 3 or 4 christians on these boards have learnt better by now.
continue on... without us i expect- which makes the argument kind of one sidedly pointless.

cult because she is a vegetarian... supremely funny.

http://www.challenge-ie.com/columns/excelsior

neuro-praxis · 09-01-2001 6:47pm

Baz - you're a bit of a sucker. My comments about being vegetarian were for comic effect. Read over them again. You might find them in the Prince Willy Wonka thread and possibly the Food of the Gods thread. I am actually not a vegetarian. I eat meat every day. Thanks for the support Excelsior...I was rather surprised also of being accused of being a cult member because of not eating animal flesh. I'll have to inform my vegetarian buddies that they too actually ARE in cults...
In response to CB...of course, being somebody with a definable and strong faith, I understand the difference between accepting the existense of Christ and having Christian faith...like duh, man. Explaining how true and definite the existence of Christ was (and to me, still is) is just my opener. I like to get it out of the way so that people cannot claim that He was not around. His miracles are also recorded and cannot be explained. The earliest copy of the gospel we have is over 200 years older than our earliest copies of Platos works (which we also accept in society as genuine, by the way). So my point is, young man, that unless people have researched, or at least asked a couple of questions, they cannot dismiss the "whole God thing" as bullsh1t. They don't have to commit their lives to God just for me or anything...just not be so ignorant.
Oh and by the way, Jesus never founded a church.

Do your limbs ever get tingly, eh? eh?

neuro-praxis · 09-01-2001 7:33pm

PS There is no need to put scientific in inverted commas as though it might be an offensive word to a Christian - after all, it is only the study of life...and eh, liking to learn things, I DO endorse that.

Manach · 09-01-2001 11:40pm

As the resident Catholic just to quote A E Houseman
"And malt does more than Milton can
To justify God's ways to man."
Therefore take one cathacism and several Paddys, soon it will all make perfect sense.
One should probably read more Chesterton than Lewis.

PS On the original topic (Y2K+1), A. C. Clarke said "To any intelligent person Jan 1 2001 was the start of the millennium."

PPS Matthew 16:17-19 is the Church that Jesus built.

Baz_ · 10-01-2001 12:06am

you sound like you are in a cult or something, do I remember you saying you were a veggie earlier too. Thats a trick cults use to lower your protein levels and make you more open to suggestion (apparently, that last fact was gleaned from the TV (my god by the way, whose right hand object is a computer)).

Thank you.

TwoShedsJackson · 10-01-2001 12:24am

Originally posted by neuro-praxis:
His miracles are also recorded and cannot be explained.

Recorded. Recorded how exactly? Someone wrote down some 2000 years ago that they happened, so you simply accept that?

The Sunday Sport says that a 5000 year old Egyptian mummy was found in a Manchester United football kit, just as valid a claim to me as both 'sources' are a mere written account.

neuro-praxis · 10-01-2001 1:04am

Okay, Manach, just to clear up a badly worded statement - when I said that Jesus didn't found a church, I meant that He didn't found a religion - as in Catholic, Protestant, Baptist etc. Obviously I know that He founded a church as in "unity of Christians" (Matthew 16:18, Ephesians 1:22, 5:23, Colossians 1:18..and obviously more in Acts, 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy and Hebrews). I just wrote that statement down quickly and without thinking. I didn't mean it the way that it came out. Have never read Chesterton, but would without any qualms, continue to reccommend Lewis for intense insight and entertainment.

anyway, yes Castor, I do believe the gospels, because again and again the bible has been proven accurate. (and i am not prepared to get into an evolution debate here - there are Christians who believe in evolution too, you know). the fulfilments of the prophesies for example...and so on. are you trying to say that you believe nothing unless you were there/born when the events occurred? you must have hated history at school.

so, whatever. believe what you want, and as long as people attack me and my faith, I will fight back. note here that i am continually defending myself. because nobody, although they talk on and on about being open-minded, nobody can leave me to believe what I want to. these beliefs are not unfounded. I never call other people's beliefs a pile of crap, the way people refer to mine whenever they want.

I will post here no more.

TwoShedsJackson · 10-01-2001 8:15am

The Bible has been proved right again and again? Um, ok. But the bible also says that menstruating women are disgusting (Lev 15:19-30), promotes slavery (Co1 3:22 amongst many others), and despises illegimate children (Dt 23:2). Would you agree?

And what 'prophecies' have been fulfilled?

C B · 10-01-2001 8:22am

neuro.

just a couple of points;

1. You equate writen accounts of Christs miracles to the writings of Plato. I think it is perfectly reasonable to look at Grecian writings and records and deduce that Plato existed, that he was a scholar and philosopher and that we have many of his writings. I think it is perfectly reasonable to look at Jewish writings and records and deduce that Jesus existed, and that he was a philosopher and preacher. It is entirely unreasonable however to take written accounts of his miracles as definitive proof of their authenticity.

2.What I said was that Jesus was essentially the founder which is true. That point was made in order to move away from the silly arguement of whether a man named Jesus existed, as we both accept that he did.

3. The reason I put scientific in quotation marks was that I was using the term loosely to include a wide range of belief systems which fall outside the ambit of religion but would hardly be wholey scientific.

4.Nobody is attacking your faith. What I take issue with is your attempts to hide blind faith behind psuedo scientific logic. You mask your faith by saying there is proof for the notion that Jesus was son the creator of the Universe when there plainly isn't. You believe that he is because you choose to do so and that is fine by me. I believe many things because I choose to.

5. You also reveal your remarkable ability to deduce without proof when you analyse my posts. If you have read any of my previous posts you would know that I have continually defended the concept of faith. You do not know me you have no knowledge of my beliefs or experiences so please do not attempt to belittle them simply because others don't share your blind faith.

Excelsior · 10-01-2001 2:29pm

poor old neuro, you made the same mistake i made when i first came to the boards. i argued the same points.

people may claim that they have no problem with your belief and in some cases (cb for example) they clearly dont. but respect and understanding for this concept of faith is lacking here like nowhere else i have been.
the web however and particuarly the bulletin boards format, do not give us the tools we need to fight this battle.
so we have to just go on regardless with other business here or choose not to come at all.
so people can go on calling us catholics, people can go on saying things like this:
"old testament described God as the wrong supreme being to **** off"

read it again neuro.
savour it.
Let me caps lock this sentence so there is no misunderestanding, (

CT). What in Jebus' name is this meant to refer to? This is an ignorant quote produced by the general consensus, mind downtrodding, that Christians are so often accused of suffering from. It is almost as bad as the Vegetarian = Cult summation made earlier.

doesnt it make sense to this soul that if a God existed then He probably could do damage if he was ****ed off.

but that opens up a whole can of worms about the real meaning of love, the meaning of divine love, the meaning of Christian divine love and the meaning of the modern concept of love.

lots of people cb, fail to acknowledge that Jesus even existed. this is the angle that neuro used to try and argue her corner. i would be quite sure that that isn't the make up of her faith, the reason she began believeing or the reason she continues to believe. it is just an argument that can be fought in the domain of facts (even if they are historical) and thus can be understood easier than the messy gooey world of faith.

one last point on this topic, bear with me if you please. society and culture's evolution is NOT a straight line graph upwards. there is no reason to believe that you people of the Celtic Tiger are in any way superior either in terms of the raw materials of intelligence or in truth divining abilities than humans at any other time. you just have generations of learning built up and incredible levels of comfort. that means that the words of people 2000 or 5000 or 50 years ago are no less likely to be filled with knowledge. you are not on the edge of history, you are not God's or god's or whatever the heck's final plan. you are not the finished article and you are not the peak of excellence. the people who understand at least where i am coming from with that understand much of the world.

i think that i should finish this now. i won't be responding. i hope neuro takes my advice and leaves it be. it is true that the greatest cause of atheism in the world are christians who acknowledge Jesus with their lips (or keyboards) but leave the room without demonstrating His love to those who don't know it. but you don't have a responsibility to keep banging your head against walls or to talk to EVERYONE about it. arguments about belief without believers
are pointless, but trust me, they will continue here anyway. that says alot.

the only interesting thing for me here is manach, you mythic corkonian.

why do you advise this chesterton gentleman ahead of lewis, who i must admit is a shining light of real truth and real knoweldge in my life. can i get chesterton books anyplace or will i have to buy online?

[This message has been edited by Excelsior (edited 10-01-2001).]

TwoShedsJackson · 10-01-2001 2:52pm

Originally posted by Excelsior:

i think that i should finish this now. i won't be responding. i hope neuro takes my advice and leaves it be.

It just won't do for a Christian to engage in debate with someone, eh? Seems to be common.

Canaboid · 10-01-2001 3:43pm

Oh Jebus, more God botherers.
Go and seek real answers to the questions of existence and stop touting the rather pathetic blind faith philosophy.
If you accept blindly what others tell you you WILL be decieved.

P.s. Give me all your money and I personally guarantee eternal happiness for you and yours. No seriously, just have faith.

Excelsior · 10-01-2001 3:45pm

what do i have to debate.
i have faith.
i can discuss but debate is for facts, no?

you want to meet me someplace to talk about it castor, fine. anyone else can come too.
point is that the boards do not suit this conversation.
back and forth irrelevancies do not a debate make.

case in point- canaboid's post.
makes me want to swear.
better not or my leaders in the church i am not a member of might think bad of me

[This message has been edited by Excelsior (edited 10-01-2001).]

Canaboid · 10-01-2001 4:20pm

Originally posted by Excelsior:
.

...do not give us the tools we need to fight this battle.

It constantly amazes me that religous language borrows so much from the military vocabulary. Why is this a fight for you ?
A tenent of all organised religons seems to be "spread the word to the unsaved". Why is that ?

And unfortunately my last post was meant to make you swear.
One thing that annoyed me terribly as a young kid was when I tried to seek an explanation for something from an adult only to be told "thats the why". Even at age 10 I knew this to be an ignorant and evasive answer which basically meant "I have no good reason other than my authority over you".
Sorry not good enough. "Blind faith" = "thats the why" in my book. I want answers and in their absence I will not accept "thats the why" as a substitute.
I am not trying to undermine anyones faith. Just don't expect everyone to accept the cop out explanations that you did.

Storm Troopers of Christ unite.
God was an alien.

neuro-praxis · 10-01-2001 6:59pm

There are a hundred points that I would like to reply to - but I am feeling swamped so it is better that I officially limit my posting here.

So many of you communicate in an extremely patronising manner, insisting that faith is blind. if you have faith in a person - a friend, for example - that is not considered blind. and mine, by the way, was the result of research and experience. not some sort of a thing you have not shared my experiences so you cannot pretend to know. you imagine that your decisions are incredibly free-thinking - is this because you have miraculously escaped (because of your own terrfic personal powers) the secularity and apathy of society?

castor - you really like to stir things. you care nothing for my views, and yet you went out of your way to track down a little "incriminating" (or so you thought) scripture to use as a weapon - Leviticus in particular. well, let me tell you, that 3500 years ago society was a little different. what you read of in that book (if in fact you have read more than an isolated quote) was relevant to the time. i have attended lectures in the old testament (note also that it is OLD - ie. Jesus came with the new covenant ie. New Testament) and weekly bible studies and if you would like to challenge me on bible knowledge, bible background, bible authors and bible interpretation, I am sincerely up for that. if you are truly interested, I second excelsior's idea to meet and discuss...since you also seem to think that i cannot hack an argument.

look, i talk about faith because because i experience in my daily life the joy of God. i just want other people to be able to share it too as they are entitled to it.

so...whatever.

[This message has been edited by neuro-praxis (edited 10-01-2001).]

TwoShedsJackson · 10-01-2001 7:21pm

neuro, I'm not actually trying to wind you up. I have at no point stated that I care not for your views nor did I 'go out of my way to track down incriminating scripture' - I have a Bible and I can read.

At what point did I imply having faith was closed minded? Please tell me. I said that if others have faith that is their business and I respect that - I do not beleive in God.

That's what I last said on faith, if you have faith in God I respect that and I have already said this, what I am trying to point out is that I do not share that faith. You are the one making accusatory remarks on faith or the lack thereof. As with Excelsior any Christian I have ever talked to about faith gets on the defensive instantaneously when they realise they are talking to a 'non-believer'. Why?

and if you would like to challenge me on bible knowledge, bible background, bible authors and bible interpretation, I am sincerely up for that.

Again with the unnessecarily defensive attitude.

since you also seem to think that i cannot hack an argument.

At what point did I say or infer that? Also, please tell me what 'prophecies' in the Bible have been fulfilled, as asked earlier. I sincerely want to know, I am not trying to be patronising.

neuro-praxis · 10-01-2001 7:38pm

right Castor. i'm gonna ignore the comments, and answer your genuine question. gosh darn it, here is your reply...and there is no more after this unless you would like to meet up.

There were 4 major prophets in the old testament - Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel. I'll choose Isaiah cos he's my fave.
He lived around 800 years before Christ was born. a long time. you will find all of this in your bible in the book of Isaiah in the Old Testament.

he prophesied that:

A messiah would be born of a virgin 7:14 and

Would be of David's line of family 11:1

Would be rejected by his people in Israel 49:7 and 53:1,3

Take on Himself the sins of the world 53:4-6 and 10-12

Triumph over death and rise again 53:10

Be exalted 52:13 and 53:12

Manifest God's glory 49:3

Restore Israel as a nation spiritually to God 49:5

Restore the land of Israel 49:8

Reign on David's throne 9:7

Make a new covenant with Israel 42:6 and 49:8-9

There is a lot more, and a lot more prophets and prophesies...all which were fulfilled over the next thousand or so years. Remember too, that the men who wrote the gospels were labourers and fisherman - uneducated, ordinary guys who Christ chose to hang out with. And everything they wrote (which were written in four different parts of the world with gaps as much as 40 years between them) fulfils these prophesies - as do books written by other new testament authors.

So, honestly, once and for all, I will argue no more. I am just too tired. If anybody would like to discuss any of this with me, just post and I'll get my email address to you.

Adios from here, amigos.

TwoShedsJackson · 10-01-2001 8:01pm

Originally posted by neuro-praxis:
right Castor. i'm gonna ignore the comments,

Why doesn't that surprise me? You keep saying I am belittling your faith, I say I am not, then you ignore that.

As for the prophecies, I am assuming you think they have been fulfilled because the Bible says so? That's not proof.

Virgin birth of a messiah - no proof.

Triumph over death and rise again - no.

Manifest God's glory - no.

The 'I read it in the Bible so it must be true' line simply won't work. For the nth time I do not beleive this - but if you want to, that's fine by me. Please try to be less defensive when you encounter someone with a different outlook on the world.

2 Samuel 24:8
So when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days.

24:9
And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.

24:10
And David's heart smote him after that he had numbered the people. And David said unto the LORD, I have sinned greatly in that I have done: and now, I beseech thee, O LORD, take away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly.

24:11
For when David was up in the morning, the word of the LORD came unto the prophet Gad, David's seer, saying,

24:12
Go and say unto David, Thus saith the LORD, I offer thee three things; choose thee one of them, that I may do it unto thee.

24:13
So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall seven years of famine come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee? or that there be three days' pestilence in thy land? now advise, and see what answer I shall return to him that sent me.

24:14
And David said unto Gad, I am in a great strait: let us fall now into the hand of the LORD; for his mercies are great: and let me not fall into the hand of man.

24:15
So the LORD sent a pestilence upon Israel from the morning even to the time appointed: and there died of the people from Dan even to Beersheba seventy thousand men.

Do you think that also happened?

Manach · 10-01-2001 11:18pm

Hi if I can just quietly post something here I'll be on my way hehe.
Ahem, Excelsior book wise:
I have read Lewis and found him to be an excellent read, brisk and clear of thought, my fav-book would be the Screwtape Letters.
My preference for G.K. Chesterton is based on his whimsical attitude to life. Try his short stories or his novel "The man who was Thursday".
Finally, might I recommend to all, Stephen J Gould. He is a science writer, an avowed non-theist, but who uses bible quotes to point out that Religion and Science are not mutually antagonistic but share a common goal in the search for truth.

Y2.1K - the end of the world?

Comments