The Second Coming...

[thinkfreelivefree]

Prophecies, lots and lots of prophecies

Most notable are those of Nostradamus, the Pope Predictions, and those of the Bible

Nostradamus was considered a false prophet by most. Do you have any links I can read about the others?

 

[ArchaicTruth]

http://www.yeshuahamoshiach.com/

good stuff on the biblical prophecies and Jesus

 

[GreenMunchkin]

We are living in the end times now.

Agree 100%. Aside from Biblical prophesies, it's amazing how many people simply feel it instinctively, or spiritually. It's an altogether more etheral reason for believing it, but that so many agree is very interesting.

 

[thinkfreelivefree]

http://www.yeshuahamoshiach.com/

good stuff on the biblical prophecies and Jesus

Thank you. I'll read yours if you read mine

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/daniel.html

 

[ebia]

Thank you. I'll read yours if you read mine

http://www.atheists.org/christianity/daniel.html

Absolutely. One can't use prophesies as 'proof' unless:
1. The prophesy is genuniely unambiguous.
2. The prophesy was uncontestably written before the event it talks about.
3. The prophesy was recognised as prophesy before the event it talks about.

Other 'prophesies' have value in other ways, but not as proofs.

Where the article looses it is when it gets to:

The Book of Daniel has, since ancient times, been considered to be an important Old Testament source of Messianic doctrines. The use of the expression "Son of Man," the prediction of "an anointed one" (priest or messiah) who will be "cut off (Dan 9:26), and other passages have been thought by many to presage the coming of Jesus. How embarrassing for true believers, therefore, is the fact that Jesus himself seems to have been unaware of the fraudulent nature of the book. On at least one occasion — when forecasting the end of his world -- he referred to the Book of Daniel:

So when you see "the abomination of desolation," of which the prophet Daniel spoke, standing in the holy place ... then those who are in Judea must take to the hills (Matt. 24: 15-16).​

The fact that Jesus not only did not recognize the fraud, but was also unaware that the "abomination of desolation" had already appeared nearly two centuries earlier, does not reflect favorably either on Jesus's wisdom or his knowledge of history. If Jesus was mistaken in regard to the Book of Daniel, we may well ask, "What other mistakes did he make?"

where it assumes that Daniel is either accurate history/predictive or nothing. Daniel is fundamentally neither of those two. In the Jewish canon Daniel is in the Writings - ie it's theological literature.

 

[thinkfreelivefree]

So you agreed with everything except the very end?

 

[MrsHolwager]

Yes i believe he is coming just for the simple fact that the bible says that daughter will be against mother, son against father, their will be earthquakes, wars and blood shed, etc. and its all happening.

 

[thinkfreelivefree]

Yes i believe he is coming just for the simple fact that the bible says that daughter will be against mother, son against father, their will be earthquakes, wars and blood shed, etc. and its all happening.

That's been happening since biblical times....

 

[ebia]

So you agreed with everything except the very end?

The basic premise - that Daniel probably wasn't written until after most of the events it describes - yes. Some of the detail I wouldn't entirely agree with, and I skimmed over some of it.

[Editted to add]: the intro notes to Daniel in quite a few bibles (eg New Jerusalem) put it's authorship mid 2nd century BC. Your not telling us anything that many Christians don't happyly acknowledge.

 

[ArchaicTruth]

Well, I don't quite have time to read the entire article, but I skim read it and I get the gist