Hi Jeff,
It's a pleasure to hear from you (or I should say read from you) again. As always, you've put me up to the challenge, and I'm enjoying every minute of it.
I read your "100 Reasons....." paper and looked up over half of the scriptures. The following is a rebuttal. This is not intended to be a comprehensive rebuttal, due to time restraints, but I want to extend an offer of invitation for you to come over to my house for dinner and further discussion at your convenience. I have learned a lot more since our last debate that I would love to share with you.
I want to start by giving you a more detailed version of my belief in the inerrancy of the Word of God, providing some specifics which I didn't understand the first time that we debated.
For all practical purposes, I believe that the Bible is the Word of God. But to get specific, I believe that the Bible is an imperfectly translated copy of the perfect word of God, which only exists in a perfect copy/translation or autograph (original text). Whew, that was a mouthful! Let me better explain. I believe that Moses, David, the prophets, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul and the other writers of the Bible, were inspired by God and therefore couldn't err in writing the autographs. But, the scribes and copyists were NOT inspired by God. They could err. To believe otherwise would also, by necessity of logic, mean that anyone who wrote a copy of the autograph, could not err and hence would be inspired. I can easily prove this to not be the case by writing a copy of the autograph, errantly;
"In the beginning Man created the heavens and the earth." - Gen 1:1
I just wrote the Bible, but I wasn't inspired, because I erred. Also, if you look inside any bible, you will see a publisher's name and date of print. These words aren't inspired either.
Simple enough. What this means, is many alleged errors of the Bible are copyist or translation errors, thus neither proving or disproving the divine inspiration of scripture. Many people disagree on this, citing II Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God....." to mean that even the copyists/translators were inspired by God. I clearly disagree and have already backed it up.
Others ask, why would God allow errors in his Word? This is certainly a legitimate question. If I were God I wouldn't have allowed any copyist/translation errors, but all I can say is that God allowed very few copyist/translation errors.
Let me give you some facts about the Bible. First a definition;
Extant manuscript - a copy of the autograph which still exists.
* I will abbreviate manuscript to MS.
There are over 5,300 known Greek MS's of the New Testament. Add over 10,000 Latin Vulgate and at least 9,300 other early versions and we have more than 24,000 MS copies of portions of the New Testament in existence today.
"No other document of antiquity even begins to approach such numbers and attestation. In comparison, the Iliad by Homer is second with only 643 ms's that still survive. The first complete preserved text of Homer dates from the 13th century." - "Our Bible. How We Got it" by Charles Leach p. 145
With the Bible leading all other books of antiquity, with so many extant MS's, the copies can be compared to each other and tested for agreement. Some differences have been found, which again can be attributed to copyist/translators but not to God. And the more extant MS's, the more chance for error, but the Bible's error rate is extremely low;
"Next to the New Testament, there are more extant MS's of the Iliad (643) than any other book. Both it and the Bible were considered 'sacred,' and both underwent textual changes and criticism of their Greek manuscripts. The New Testament has about 20,000 lines, the Iliad has about 15,600. Only 40 lines (or 400 words) of the New Testament are in doubt whereas 764 lines of the Iliad are questioned. This five percent textutal corruption compares with one-half of one percent of similar emendations in the New Testament." - "A General Introduction to the Bible" Norman L. Geilser, and William E. Nix p. 366.
Well, what about the Old Testament you ask?
"In the case of the O.T. we do not have the abundance of close MS authority as in the N.T. Until the recent discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest complete extant Hebrew MS was around 900 A.D. This made a time gap of 1,300 years (Hebrew O.T. completed about 400 B.C.). At first sight it would appear that the O.T. is no more reliable than other ancient literature. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a number of O.T. MS's have been found which scholars date before the time of Christ." "Our Bible and the ancient Manuscripts" Frederic G. Kenyon p. 23
Time does not permit me to belabor this point any further. For more information, you'll have to come over and we'll talk.
"to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.". "History and Christianity" by John W. Montgomery, p. 29
So the bottom line is that unless one can show an error in the autograph, one cannot attribute the error to God and thus disqualify it from divine inspiration. One can only prove that the copyist/translator erred.
This "burden of proof" is increased by the fact that no autograph of the Bible exists due to two facts:
1. Most autographs were written on perishable material like parchments, which don't survive 100's of years unless preserved.
2. The Jews considered a copy to be so authentic that they had a practice of considering it superior to the preceding copy (and possibly even the autograph) and hence burned it.
Concerning translation, remember, the some of the original meaning of any text is inevitably lost when that text is translated. Thus, I would argue that many of your allegations are misunderstandings of the Hebrew/Greek language, culture and history. I will now begin my rebutal of your criticisms with a look at one of these misunderstandings.
-----------------------------------------------------------
REBUTTAL
Time did not permit me to address all of you criticisms, here are a few:
The following reference to hebrew and greek can be checked with a "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance."
Genesis 11:12 vs. Luke 3:35-36
Genesis 11:12 is using the Hebrew word "nacah" which is more accurately translated "prove" than "tempt". Luke 3:35-36 uses the Greek word "Peirazo" which is accurately translated. Thus, God can't be tempted but he can be "proven" or "tested". Temptation would be to expose someone to a proclivity or weakness. This is more than "proving".
II Samuel 8:4 vs. I Chronicles 18:4
Genesis 46:26-27 vs. Exodus 1:5; Acts 7:14
II Samuel 24:9 vs. I Chronicles 21:5-6
I Kings 4:26 vs. II Chronicles 9:25
I Kings 5:16 vs. II Chronicles 2:18
II Kings 8:26 vs. II Chronicles 22:2
II Kings 24:8 vs. II Chronicles 36:9
II Kings 25:8, 11 vs. Jeremiah 52:28-30
All of these contradictions are number errors. They prove the errancy of the copyists but not the errancy of God. Unless these errors can be shown to exist in the autographs, these are pointless.
Exodus 34:7 vs. Ezekiel 18:20
Please read these again to get the correct context. Exodus 34:7 states that God has the authority of punishing the children for the parent's actions. Exekiel 18:20 prohibits the nation of Israel to punish children for the parent's actions under the law, hence there is no contradiction. Please delete this one from your list.
Deuteronomy 24:16 vs. Isaiah 14:21
This one is related to the above. Again, you misunderstand the context of this one. Deuteronomy 24:16 is stating that every man shall be put to death for his own sin and not the sin of his father. Isaiah 14:21 is talking about Satan and those who follow him being put to death for following him and making him their father.
Compare with Jesus's words in John 8:38; 44 "I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father." v.44 "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own; for he is a liar, and the father of it."
Judges 11:29-40 vs. Psalms 40:4-6
Psalms 40:4-6 is refering to the new covenant. Faith in Christ is the new covenant which replaced the old one of sacrifices and burnt offerings. Read the following verses,
Ps 40:7-8
"Then said I, Lo, I come: in the volume of the book it is written of me,"
"I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, they law is within my heart."
This is Christ speaking. This is clearly Messianic. Compare with Hebrews 10:7. In fact read the whole chapter of Hebrews 10, it expounds on this. Paul understood this passage to be Messianic also. This affirms Psalms 40:4-8 to be fulfilled Messianic prophecy, thus a proof of the divine inspiration of scripture not a reason for rejection!
Also compare to Jeremiah 31:33 which talks about this new covenant. It says:
"But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people."
Also II Corinthinans 3:3:
"Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ ministered to us, written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the Living God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." [emphasis mine]
The Bible foretold of a new covenant to replace the Mosaic Law in which sacrifices would no longer be required as a redemption for sin because the Messiah would come and become the ultimate sacrifice for sin on the Cross.
Hebrews 10:1 "For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect."
The law was a "picture" of the Messiah to come! The passover feast, for instance (Leviticus 23), was given, as all of the Mosaic law was, to teach about Messiah. Compare the imagery. In Exodus 12, at the first passover, the Jews are required to kill a lamb and put it's blood on the door post to prevent the angel of death from killing their first born. 2,000 years later, the blood of the "Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." (John 1:29) is given as a fulfillment of this prophecy.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 says, "The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done; and there is no new thing under the sun."
Have you ever wondered about what the significance is of all of the historical accounts of the Bible? All Biblical history is unfulfilled prophecy in one way or another. This is just one example.
II Samuel 6:23 vs. II Samuel 21:8
II Samuel 6:23 says that Michal will be barren. II Samuel 21:8 says that she raised up Adriel's children. (adoption) There is no contradiction. Delete from your list.
II Samuel 24:1 vs. I Chronicles 21:1
II Samuel 24:1 says that God moved David to number Israel and I Chronicles 21:1 says that Satan did. This isn't a contradiction because Biblical truth is progressive.
In other words, the Bible is a progressive revelation.
II Samuel was written between 931 - 722 B.C. I Chronicles was written between 425 - 400 B.C.
If you analyze the books of the Bible chronologically, you will see that the farther back the books of the Bible go, in time, the less God had revealed to them. The oldest book, Job, doesn't speak of the resurrection (although he alludes to it). This isn't because he didn't believe in it, but because it hadn't been revealed to him yet. The Messiah is not explicitly mentioned in Job, but there are striking similarities to Job and Christ. This is because Job didn't have an understanding of the Messiah to come, yet God taught us about the Messiah through Job's own life, his sufferings, his humility, his righteousness, his patience, all which in the end, allowed Job to be restored "7-fold", just as Christ, because of his suffering, will receive a greater glory in his coming kingdom. But Job didn't understand this, yet it's there. A shadow of the Messiah is mentioned in Genesis 3:16 as well as other writings of Moses. Isaiah mentions the messiah the most, adding to the previous revelations given, like "adding more pieces to a jigsaw puzzle." But even Isaiah didn't understand that Christ was to have to comings. In fact the prophets, wrote many things, in which they didn't even understand the meaning.
"Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:"
"Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow." I Peter 1:10-11
Therefore, in II Samuel, as well as many older books of the Bible, evil is sometimes attributed to God, and ultimately God has allowed evil, in the sense that he knows all things, and yet still allowed Lucifer to fall (Ezekiel 28:13-19; Isaiah 14:12-19) and Adam and Eve to be tempted into sin by Satan. In fact, before these scriptures in Ezekiel and Isaiah were written, people didn't even know the origin of Satan. This goes into teritory that is too deep for me, but the Bible says that, "all things work together for those who love Christ and are called according to his purpose."
The book of Job does give some additional insight into this when one considers that even though Satan was responsible for inflicting Job with suffering, God allowed it. Thus, either statement, II Samuel 24:1 or I Chronicles 21:1 is accurate. This also answers the question of I Kings 22:23 vs. Proverbs 12:22. There is thus no contradiction.
The above is to not imply that we do not have "free will". God has still given all his created beings "free will". He merely knows our choices before we make them.
So evil is attributed to Satan and God has allowed Satan for the time being to propogate evil due to the curse of sin. The curse was implemented because of man's choice. God has given man a choice as opposed to the alternative of making us robots.
Proverbs 1:28 vs. Proverbs 8:17
In both scriptures "wisdom" is being personified. In Proverbs 1:28, the call is rejected because it was after calamity had striked. See verse 27. Proverbs 8:17 is a call for wisdom before calamity. Christ gave many parables that echo this. One was the parable found in Matthew 25:1-13 of the 10 wise virgins and the 10 foolish virgins. The 10 wise ones had prepared in advance for the wedding (weddings in scripture refer to the Messianic Kingdom), while the 10 foolish ones had not prepared, thus the wise virgins had oil in their lamps (oil refers to the Holy Spirit), while the foolish ones didn't. The foolish ones went into the city to buy oil, but when they came back the bride chamber doors had been shut and they couldn't get in. It was too late.
Ezra 2 vs. Nehemiah 7
This geneological error is simply a copyist error. This doesn't disprove the divine inspiration of the scriptures because it can't be proven that the autographs contain these errors. With the absence of the autographs, either assertion of the Bible's errancy or inerrancy, requires faith.
Matthew 1:1-17 vs. Luke 3:21-37
The geneology in Matthew is Christ's lineage traced through Joseph's geneology while the one in Luke is his lineage traced through Mary's. But according to Jewish tradition, when giving the geneology of a woman, her name is to be substituted with her husband. This is the case in this passage. Remember that in the 1st century Jewish culture, almost all women married.
This is a classic example of a misunderstanding based upon the cultural and historical idiosyncracies of the text.
Matthew 15:21-22 vs. Mark 7:24-26
The woman is listed as being from Caanan in Matthew. According to Mark she was a Greek. She was a Greek who lived in Caanan. Where's the contradiction?
Matthew 27:3-10 vs. Acts 1:16-20
There is no discrepancy here. This is exactly what one would expect from someone who committed suicide by hanging himself from a tree and fell on sharp rocks below. As for the field that was purchased, the priests, considering the bribe money paid to Judas to be his legal property, purchased the field in his name. This death and purchase was prophesied by David in Psalm 109:6-8. Now that's amazing!
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Moral Rebuttal
I was quite amused to see a few of your criticisms having moral presuppositions. I would now like to address some of these.
Psalm 14:1 - A false teaching? &
Atrocities
"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good."
I want to specifically address the B-section of this verse which calls atheists corrupt, attributing them to abominable works and saying, "there is none that doeth good."
Jeff, what is good? According to the Bible it is to obey God's Word. Is your criticism of this verse based upon a belief that atheists can obey God's Word too? Of course not! An atheist is clearly disobeying God's Word and therefore being evil, the antithesis of Good as defined by the Bible. But you don't believe in the Bible, so you judge that all atheists aren't evil. Granted, I'm not implying that there aren't "moral" atheists, but according to the Biblical view of morality, they are evil, in need of a savior.
If the Bible isn't true then is killing immoral or evil? What about capital punishment or abortion? Is racism a sin? Why? What about lying? How should morality be determined? Should it be based upon "the law of the land?"
If so, then it wasn't evil for Hitler to exterminate Jews because the "law of the land was on his side." What about Mao Se Tung or Mussolini's massacres? Were they evil because these acts are prohibited by U.S. law? Of course not.
Perhaps you take the pragmatic approach, which says that if it benefits the society as a whole, then it's "good" or "moral" and if it hurts society as a whole, then it's "bad" or "immoral". If so, then is it "moral" to kill the physically and mentally retarded? After all, don't they just have inferior genes which could be passed on to other generations thus slowing down evolution? This was Hitler's thinking with the extermination of Jews. What about killing the elderly in order to save health care costs? They're going to die soon anyway.
Perhaps you believe that morality should be chosen based upon individual happiness or the "happiness test". "If it makes you happy, do it, so long as you're not hurting anyone else." First of all, why is hurting anyone else wrong if there is no God? Second doesn't this abdicate the justice system of punishing criminals? After all they're hurting someone. Does "....not hurting anyone else" extend to animals in an atheistic world view?
The point to all of this is that as an agnostic, I believe you are being inconsistent to arbitrarily dictate one belief or statement as "attrocious" or "immoral" or "reprehensible" while not providing a moral reference point. If you can't provide a moral reference point, the criticism becomes meaningless........simply your opinion.
Atheism, clearly has had a problem with establishing a moral reference point outside of God. This doesn't disprove atheism, but nullifies any moral judgments including your criticisms of Psalm 14:1 and the "attrocities".
As Dostoevski said, if God is dead everything is justifiable.
In other words, I'm pointing out your inconsistency. Now perhaps you'd assert that these "attrocities" (you could not say this about Psalm 14:1) were inconsistent with the "loving God" of John 3:16 and therefore Christians are inconsistent to follow such a God and claim to be loving. I have more respect for this argument even though it too is erroneous. It is erroneous because the Christian is following the Biblical definitions of "morality" and "love". The definition of morality is to follow God. Of love the Bible says:
"And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him." I John 4:16
One could argue that they don't think that love, as defined outside of the Bible, should include a God who would send murderers, liars, the unbelieving and others to a lake of fire, but love as defined in the Bible allows for this. The Christian isn't inconsistent with the Bible, he's inconsistent with the world.
I Corinithians 13 is the "love" chapter. Verse 6 says:
"(Love) Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth."
This is how a loving God can condemn sinners to a lake of fire. Sinners killed Christ's son. He died because of Sin. Sin, by Christian definitions, is the worst thing found in the Bible so no wonder sinners are judged so harshly. Romans 6:36 says that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." The only difference between me and you is that my sin is covered by Christ's blood and yours isn't.
"The Lord is.......longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." - II Peter 3:9
My God doesn't want you or anyone else to go to hell. It's a myth that Christians are "hate-mongers" for warning people about hell. That's like saying that Paul Revere was evil for warning people that the British were coming.
"But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand." - Ezekiel 33:6
The Christian is required to be the watchman. One may disagree with the warning, but he cannot be called a "hate-monger"
-----------------------------------------------------------
WHY I AM A CHRISTIAN
I can't comprehensively give a defense of my faith, due to time restraints, but I will attempt to give an brief overview.
Fulfilled prophecy
Daniel 9:24-27 - "The Prophecy of the Seventy Sevens"
This is the most amazing prophecy found in scripture. It gives a time line of the following events; The rebuilding of the Jerusalem after the Babylonian captivity, Christ's 1st coming and the 7 year tribulation. It is dated at about 536 B.C. Some scholars have tried to post-date the book of Daniel but it cannot be done because the date of the septuagint (greek translation of the O.T.) is unequivocally between 450-400 B.C. The book of Daniel is included within the septagint.
This prophecy can be misunderstood because of the translation. I wouldn't say it's mis-translated, but rather that the given translation doesn't render well within a 20th century, english context.
"Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy place.
"So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty- two weeks; it will be build again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress."
"Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
"And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate." - Daniel 9:24-27.
The word translated in the King James as "week" (translated in other versions as "seven", thus the alternative name, "Prophecy of the seventy-sevens".) is the hebrew word "shabua" which means "seven". Disassociate any English concept of week. The Jews were familiar with a "seven" of both days and years. Leviticus 25:2-4 illustrates the above fact.
".....When ye come into the land which I give you, then shall the land keep a sabbath unto the Lord."
"Six years thou shalt sow thy field, and six years thou shalt prune thy vineyard, and gather in the fruit thereof;
"But in the seventh year shall be a sabbath of rest unto the land, a sabbath for the Lord: thou shalt neither sow thy field, nor prune thy vineyard."
Leviticus 25:8 shows that there was a multiple of a week of years.
"And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and the space of the seven sabbaths of years shall be unto thee forty and nine years."
Also compare the last few verses of this passage with what Revelation 13:5 says about the antichrist and the 7 year tribulation:
"And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate." - Daniel 9:27
"And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months (3 1/2 years) - Revelation 13:5
Also compare with Revelation 12:6:
" a thousand two hundred and three score days" (1,260 days or 3 1/2 years)
* Understand that the Biblical year consisted of 360 days, with a "leap year" every 7th year consisting of an additional month. Each month contained 30 days.
The fiftieth year was the "year of Jubilee".
Therefore the word "week"=7 years. The "week" in this prophecy is a week of years. I will now requote the passage, substituting the word "seven" for "week".
"So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven sevens and sixty-two sevens; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress."
"Then after the sixty-two sevens the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.
"And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one seven, but in the middle of the seven he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate." - Daniel 9:24-27.
So, this prophecy talks about 70 "sevens" of years, thus totaling 490 years. It is divided into three time periods; 7 weeks (49 years), 62 weeks (434 years), and 1 week (1 year) (vs. 25,27)
The first time period of 49 years is from the time of the decree (of king Artaxerxes) until the completion of the rebuilding of the city of Jerusalem.
The second time period of 434 years is from the completion of Jerusalem until the Jesus's crucifiction ("...until Messiah is cut-off")
The third time period of 7 years is the 7 year tribulation (still to come).
Check out these dates:
444 B.C. year of decree:
"....In the month Nisan, in the twentieth year of King Artaxerxes" -Nehemiah 2:1
There is no date specified, so according to the Jewish custom, the date is understood as the first day of the month, which would be Nisan 1, 444 B.C. (March 5, 444 B.C.)
March 30 A.D. 33 - Christ crucified.
"The terminal event of the 69 weeks is the presentation of Christ Himself to Israel as the Messiah as predicted in Zechariah 9:9 H. Hoehner, who has thoroughly researched this prophecy in Daniel and the corresponding dates, calculates the date of this event: 'Multiplying the sixty-nine weeks by seven years for each week by 360 days gives a total of 173,880 days. The difference between 444 B.C. and A.D. 33 then is 476 solar years. By multiplying 476 by 354.24219879 or by 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, 45,975 seconds [there are 365 1/4 days in a year], one comes to 173,855 days, 6 hours 52 minutes, 44 seconds, or 173,855 days. This leaves only 25 days to be accounted for between 444 B.C. and A.D. 33. By adding the 25 days to March 5 (of 444 B.C.), one comes to march 30 (or A.D. 33) which was Nisan 10 in A.D. 33. This is the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem." "Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ." - Harold Hoehner p. 138
The 7 year tribulation
This is still to come. If the Bible was right about the first 2 periods of time, then it has to be right about this last one. This is why it is imperative that you study this prophecy. If you wish to remain an agnostic, these types of prophecies must be refuted.
Jeff, if you really care about knowing whether or not the Bible is indeed the Word of God, and you are not merely trying to justify your unbelief, please study this prophecy closely.
Other Prophecies FULFILLED
Isaiah 63 Christ's crucifiction.
Psalm 2:7 The Son of God
Psalm 22 Christ's crucifiction, his burial in a "borrowed tomb", his hands and feet pierced and lots cast for his clothing.
Psalm 69:21 Christ given vinegar and gall. on the cross.
Zechariah 14 This whole prophecy is speaking about Christ's second coming. It also talks about Jerusalem, Egypt and Israel in general. It is stating that these nations would exist at Christ's second coming. For almost 1000 years Israel was dispersed among the n nations. It wasn't until the Zionism movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries along with Israel's return to a nation in 1948, that this prophecy was fulfilled. You will also notice that Egypt is still a nation today. What are the chances that these nations could exist in the "last days"?
Isaiah 45 - Fortells Cyrus the great, mentioning him by name over 200 years before he's even born.
Malachi 3:1 - Christ came to the temple and thus fulfilled this one (see Matt 11:10, mark 1:2, Luke 1:76; 7:27; John 1:23; 2:14, 15
Micah 5:2 - Prophecied that Bethlehem would be Christ's birthplace. Compare with Matthew 2:6.
These are just for starters. There are plenty more. None of these prophecies can be post-dated past the date of the septuagint, which even secular scholars agree upon it's date of 450-400 B.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
MY FINAL ARGUMENT
My final argument hinges upon who Christ was. Many people say that he was a good teacher but nothing more. This is proposterous because in John 10:30 as well as other in passages he taught that he was God! If Jesus was a good teacher than he was God also.
Christ's historicity
Some people have ignorantly argued that Christ wasn't a historical figure. This is easily refutable by checking out the 1st and 2nd century writings of non-christians, most of whom were antagonists to the Christian faith. None of them denied his existence.
For further study check out:
Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 52-54)
Lucian of Samosata (2nd century)
Flavius Josephus (A.D. 37)
Suetonius (A.D. 120)
Plinius Secundus, Pliny the Younger (A.D. 112)
Thallus (52 A.D.)
Phlegon - 1st century historian
Jewish Talmuds
Also check out these Christian defenders of the faith:
Tertullian (A.D. 197)
Justin Martyr (A.D. 150)
And finally the Encylopaedia Britannica says the following:
"These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries." - Encylopaedia Britannica 15th edition, 1974 P. 145
Therefore, there are only 3 conclusions of Christ's identity based upon the following: Christ is indeed a historical figure. Christ taught that he was God. This teaching is either true or false. If false, then Christ either believed it, thus defining him as a lunatic, or disbelieved it, thus making Christ a liar. Therefore the 3 choices of Christ's identity are:
1. Christ the lunatic
2. Christ the liar
3. Christ the Son of God
The wisdom of Christ's teachings prevent him from being labeled a "lunatic". Christ couldn't have been a liar because no one dies for a lie. He had to be the son of God.
I will not belabor these points any further in this material. I only wish to "wet your appetite for more".
You are welcome at our house any time to discuss these issues in greater depth.
God bless you,
Greg