Atheists, would you believe in God if presented with ONE undeniable truth? or would it take more?

Question

OK, I know that many of you would say that using the Bible to prove the existence of God is "circular reasoning", but not really if we are talking about writing events and happenings in advance and being absolutelly correct in their forcast... one such prophecy is in Isaiah 7:14, written approximately 700 BC. "Behold the LORD Himself shall give you a sign! A virgin shall conceive and bear a son!!!" If you need more such "proof" then do yourself a favor and research the more than 300 such prophecies about the man Jesus and His life.

That is proof, for no one could actually write such a thing 700 years in advance; much less carry it out 700 years after the fact, unless they were some kind of supreme being. To those of you who have a whit of serious & earnest seeking of the truth, there are more than 300 of these kind of specific "to the life of Jesus" foretellings in the OLD TESTAMENT written by the prophets and scribes of ancient Hebrew tradition. Will you consider the truth of this?

Answer 1

Christians cannot prove anymore than their audience is willing to accept, with the open mind they criticize us for "not having." Ultimately, it is your choice what you believe. Christians, those who follow everything the Bible says, without adding or changing or taking anything away, believe the Bible is the ultimate source of truth. There are multiple outside references that support events recorded in the Bible. If one does not believe in the Bible, what more can one do? You can attempt to direct them in the way of truth, but faith must start with faith in the Bible. In believing that, you are open to salvation from eternal damnation.

Answer 2

Oh, please. Your standard for "undeniable" is really really weak.

Two specific points:

First, where's your evidence that a virgin bore a son? The Bible claims it, but there's no supporting evidence. That means that the "came true" part of your claim is unsupported.

Second, those prophecies are not by any means specific. Hundreds of fakes have used this tactic: make a lot of vague predictions, then claim to have been right about the ones that you can later fit the facts to, and ignore the rest.

Now, if you wanted to present one undeniable truth, you would make exactly one specific prediction right now, about some event that has not yet happened. Care to try it? Of course not - because you're not interested in evidence. You're just like the "psychics". All you have done here is to demonstrate that your mind is closed to the truth.

Later:
Let's reiterate the most important point here. You seem to believe that the large number (300) of prophecies makes your story more convincing. In fact exactly the opposite is true. If you want the story to be convincing, make exactly ONE prediction, make it specific, and most importantly, make it about the future, not the past. You get exactly zero points for "predicting" the past, no matter how many times you do it, and you get exactly zero points for throwing out a laundry list of 300 things and then making a big deal about the ones that arguably "come true". Give us exactly _one_ prediction about something that has not happened yet, make it specific, and then we'll consider this. Otherwise you've got nothing.

Answer 3

I'm not an atheist, but if I were I don't think I'd find your argument compelling, because accounts of the virgin birth only prove that someone _wrote_ that there was a virgin birth, not that it actually happened. So the fact that the accounts in the New Testament matched the prophesies in the Old Testament don't prove a thing, especially when the New Testament authors had the Old Testament to draw on when writing their account.

On top of that, the New Testament includes two accounts that trace Jesus' lineage to King David by way of Jesus' father, Joseph. This suggests that the virgin birth was a later addition after "the begats" were written.

Answer 4

The problem is it was all written hundreds of years after jesus was supposed to have lived, not 700 years prior, like you suggest. You have offered proof of nothing.

Have you ever played the telephone game? You know the one where you whisper something to the person sitting next to you and they do the same, and on and on till it comes back around the circle and the new message has absolutely nothing to do with the original.

A person would have to completely crazy to literally interpret the bible. Its a collection of parables and mythology, not the recordings of actual occurrences.

Think for yourself.

Will you consider the truth of this?

Answer 5

The one thing Atheists have in common is that they are open minded. How else would they be able to accept the reality of 'no god' when the alternative, with its promise of immortality, is so much more appealing. We would welcome with open arms, rather than resist, an 'undeniable truth' That's just common sense. What you have presented is simply not an undeniable truth, or even a probable proof. A prediction made in one part of the bible and then said to have come true in another part of the same book is meaningless, and with millions of events happening in the world every day and you make a somewhat general prediction of something, finding an event over a period of thousands of years that appears to fill the prediction is a no-brainer.

Answer 6

your hideously influential book of FICTION also includes Unicorns and Giants. Read that book of yours again and you'll find it.
Unicorns: Job 39:9,10, Deuteronomy 33:17, Numbers 23:22 and 24:8; Psalm 22:21, 29:6 and 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7
Giants: Genesis 6:4, Numbers 13:33 Deuteronomy 2:10-11, 2:20-21 and 3:11, Joshua 12:4 and 18:16, 1 Samuel 17:4
Since it says so in the bible, it must be true? Even though though science has proven the Universe to be about 13.8 BILLION years old, your book says the universe is no older than 10,000 years old. Since it self proclaims that it is right, we can't possibly question it? your book also says to kill anyone who works on the Sabbath, eats meat on friday, talks back to their parents, questions the holy spirit, blasphemes, and anyone who stand in the way of the Jews (OT) or Christians (NT).
As to your "prophecy," it is complete rubbish. It's a recycled story that was taken for numerous pagan religions that had been around for for thousands years. One example is Mithras. Mithra originated in Persia around the 7th Century BCE and then was worshiped by the Roman Empire around the 1st Cetury BCE. He was born of a virgin, in a stable or cave, on December 25th, visited by Shepherds and Magi, called the savior, worshiped on Sunday, his followers ate sacramental bread marked with a cross, and his "Cave Temple" was located on the current location of... Vatican Hill (it was seized by Christians in the late 4th Century.) I laugh at your lack of Logic and Reason, yet I weep for the species because there are so many ignorant people like you who will never realize the damage caused by your closed-minded and Stone-Age approach to the world.

Answer 7

Did Isaiah actually write "a virgin shall conceive and bear a son." The Hebrew word which Isaiah wrote, translated to English, means "young woman." When the Hellenistic Jews translated the scriptures into Greek, they used "parthenos," which means virgin. So your evidence is based on a bad job of translation.

Answer 8

But, there is no truth to consider....

Consider this.... Youre living in the bronze age. You are a highly intelligent, perhaps "ahead of your time" individual. You and everyone around you has a book that for the past 700 years has claimed that a virgin is going to birth the Messiah.... Seeing as no one knows youre early history, you MAKE UP THE STORY ABOUT YOUR VIRGIN BIRTH, so that youre named the Messiah. Meanwhile, those Jewish Zealots who helped elevate you to that point grow weary that you refuse to start another war with Rome, so they complain to Pilate and have you murdered. You are later made into a God by those that followed you but still thought like bronze aged fools.....


Ever consider that scenario??

Answer 9

Even assuming that the phrase refers to at "virgin," and that it doesn't refer to another person, both of which are iffy at best, I have no idea why you think it would apply to Jesus. You write as if there were some credible evidence of the virginity of a woman, known to ba married, in a culture where that would be as likely as pigs flying. And given the immense time between the events, doesn't it occur to you this is a "retro-fit" to force it to "coincide" with that interpretation? This is beyond gullibility.

Answer 10

You consider something that is written down in part ONE of a book, and happens in part TWO of a book a "prophecy that came true" ?

Now, that's kinda silly.

If I write a book today, in which I state that in 3 years a Flying Pink Nun will fall down from from the sky, and in 3 years I write another book in which this actually happens, did that make me a prophet? Does it make it true?

...sigh...