Re: Does Prophecy Prove Christianity

Another response to mystrybox.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Debate
• Religion

[Ridikai]

Maybe a better way to put it is with the comments that he doesnt disprove of directly he indirectly disproves of them in another comment that he tries to directly disprove of. and when I say indirectly i mean non-legitamentally.(however you spell it)

[thegreatapologist]

@Ridikai Wait, what? Could you clarify your comment a little?

[MystryBox]

I think if you're honest with yourself you would have to admit you would not accept these sorts of claims when they come from other religions or groups. In fact you likely already do reject similar claims (probably even using the same logic I do) as there are similar claims made by other groups and ancient writings that I doubt you accept on their face. This is the sad state of evidence for religion, and not just your religion. To me it's obvious why the evidence is so poor.

[thegreatapologist]

@MystryBox No. Those claims aren't supported by historical documents, which is what happens in the Bible. I would simply state that either most of their predictions didn't come true, having contradicted the historical record, or that they are prophesies that can not be supported by historical data and therefore can not be accepted as evidence to support their conclusion. I base my claim on history. You are basing your claim on logic that flies in the face of history. Facts always trump.

[MystryBox]

@Ridikai if you view the early comments on this video you'll see me responding in detail to his points.

[Ridikai]

@MystryBox THIS is not a reply to mysttryBox, I just wanted him to see this. I like how you go into detail rather than mystrybox. Athiests like to pick and choose(manipulative strategy to bend truth)what to disprove and what not to disprove.For example thegreatapologist go ahead and check out my comments on the video you replyed to. He picked and choosed from my comments and ignored the ones that he had no explanation for with his athiest mentality.

[steeeeevve]

Pretty lad!

[krazycrossover]

Im gonna have to agree with you. You nailed.

@MystryBox im gonna pray for you man. you have a vail over your eyes that you yourself cannont see. Your vail doesnt allow you to see the truth about Christ.

2 Corinthians 3:16

But whenever a person turns [in repentance] to the Lord, the veil is stripped off and taken away.

[MystryBox]

@thegreatapologist you clearly haven't a clue what science is. Science requires evidence, repeatability, falsifiability, etc. Revealed religions are unsupported claims of men (prophets) that have no evidence, are not repeatable, and are purposefully unfalsifiable. Some would argue faith and science are practically opposites, so pardon me if I find your comparison of religion to science laughable.

[thegreatapologist]

@MystryBox Religion isn't scientific theory? Its an explanation devised for phenomena in the world, so I'm not sure why it shouldn't be. Once again, by taking your idea of "after the fact" writing, we would have to throw all dating completely out the window. And just because God doesn't present himself on a silver platter or send mail to you doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. It just means that he hasn't revealed himself in trumpet fanfare to the whole modern world.

[MystryBox]

As a final comment note that there could be actual genuine prophecies in ancient writings and yet still the most likely explanation is *selection* not the supernatural. We have thousands of years of time for prophecies correct just by lucky or skilled conjecture to have been selected and gathered together in writings that were passed down in history why missed prophecy was rejected. "Prophecy" is simply very poor evidence unless it's repeatable. A god would know that.