False Prophet=Joseph Smith=Brigham Young

[_grindael]

So your Jesus was a liar as well? Shoot, there are few authors in the Bible that can't be shown to be flat wrong about something.

How can he follow Christ when it's clear he lied? How can he follow the Bible when it's clearly wrong in so many places?

You called Jesus a liar Daniel. I'm not misinterpreting anything. Now, was Jesus a liar? Yes or no. You never answered that question.

[_grindael]

From the very beginning I have stated that it is the reading of the fundamentalist that demands Jesus be understood as a liar.

Where did you state that, exactly?

Are you a scholar of the Fundamentalist persuasion Daniel? If not, then why should we believe you know what the Fundamentalist argument really is?

You see how silly your argument is?

[_maklelan]

The ancient city of Tyre does not exist.

Wrong on so many levels.

It has never been rebuilt. It's ruins still stand today.

What do you think the verb "rebuilt" means? Do you honestly think that it means to take the ruins and perfectly recreate the city as it originally was constituted with the original material? Is this seriously what you think the prophecy is saying?

Another city of Tyre was built near those ruins, but the original city, is still in ruins.

No, the ruins that exist currently where mainland Tyre stood are from Roman times. The city was continually inhabited, and the current ruins are actually from centuries after Alexander's siege and are there only because the Roman buildings were abandoned when those portions of the city fell into disuse. You would do well to actually look up the archaeology rather than just regurgitate what some website tells you.

http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/IMAGES/Tyre.jpg

Those are Roman ruins, grindael. They date to centuries after Alexander's siege. Tyre was continually inhabited even after Alexander's siege. It was a Seleucid city until 126 BCE, at which point it gained independence. That lasted until 64 BCE, when Rome annexed that part of the Mediterranean. The ruins you see do not date to Alexander, they date to centuries later. Maybe you mean to interpret the prophecy to say that it would never be rebuilt after it was rebuilt and inhabited for centuries and then slowly left to ruins when inhabitants abandoned certain parts of the city in favor of others.

You really do not have the foggiest idea what you're doing.

"The modern city of Tyre is of modest size and is near the ancient site, though not identical to it. Archaeological photographs of the ancient site show ruins from ancient Tyre scattered over many acres of land. No city has been rebuilt over these ruins, however, in fulfillment of this prophecy." (Dennis and Grudem, “Tyre,” The ESV Study Bible)

Yes, of course a fundie study Bible is going to insist the prophecy it is required to believe was fulfilled, even if it means fudging the facts quite a bit.

"In point of fact, the mainland city of Tyre later was rebuilt and assumed some of its former importance during the Hellenistic period. But as for the island city, it apparently sank below the surface of the Mediterranean…

Completely and totally false. It never sank below the Mediterranean. And the instant you quote Gleason Archer you are basically shouting from the rooftops that you have absolutely no idea what you're doing.

All that remains of it is a series of black reefs offshore from Tyre,

Completely false. The island city has thousands of inhabitants and roads and commercial buildings and everything. That city extends across the remains of the causeway (which were built up over the centuries by sediment deposits) and into the mainland city.

which surely could not have been there in the first and second millennia b.c., since they pose such a threat to navigation. The promontory that now juts out from the coastline probably was washed up along the barrier of Alexander’s causeway, but the island itself broke off and sank away when the subsidence took place; and we have no evidence at all that it ever was built up again after Alexander’s terrible act of vengeance. In the light of these data, then, the predictions of chapter 26, improbable though they must have seemed in Ezekiel’s time, were duly fulfilled to the letter—first by Nebuchadnezzar in the sixth century, and then by Alexander in the fourth." (Archer, “Tyre,” Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties)

Pure nonsense. The ancient island city wall remains in places along the current peninsula. The ancient island city's northern and southern harbors still exist. There was an associated smaller island called the Island of Hercules that is now submerged, but this was never a part of the ancient city attacked by Alexander. It existed outside Tyre's original city walls. Archer is just completely and embarrassingly wrong.

[_maklelan]

Sigh. Joseph Smith was no scholar.

But a lot of current scholars do support many of his positions on ancient Judaism and Christianity. Certainly you're familiar with the scholarship that marvels at how he was able to restore ideologies that had not existed since biblical times. If you're not, I suggest you go familiarize yourself with it.

So we should then ignore all of what he says, right? So I guess this argument is over. Seriously though, here is one scholar that agrees with me: http://www.gci.org/prophecy/matt24

I didn't ask for a scholar, I asked for a mainstream academic publication. An evangelical Bible commentary is not a mainstream academic publication.

D.A. Carson was born in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, to Thomas Donald McMillan Carson and Elizabeth Margaret (née Maybury), but grew up in Drummondville. He earned his B.S. (1967) in chemistry and mathematics from McGill University, his M.Div. from Central Baptist Seminary (Toronto), and his Ph.D. (1975) in the New Testament from the University of Cambridge. Carson married Joy (née Wheildon) on August 16, 1975.[1]
Career

Ph.D from Cambridge. Is that good enough for you?

Missing the point entirely.

[_maklelan]

Where did you state that, exactly?

I've stated it numerous times, and I'm not going to waste my time searching through these different threads for the sake of someone showing up late to the party. You're just gonna have to trust me.

Are you a scholar of the Fundamentalist persuasion Daniel? If not, then why should we believe you know what the Fundamentalist argument really is?

Because I've been engaging the argument for years.

You see how silly your argument is?

No, I see how silly your attempt to mischaracterize my argument is, though.

[_grindael]

Pure nonsense. The ancient island city wall remains in places along the current peninsula. The ancient island city's northern and southern harbors still exist. There was an associated smaller island called the Island of Hercules that is now submerged, but this was never a part of the ancient city attacked by Alexander. It existed outside Tyre's original city walls. Archer is just completely and embarrassingly wrong.

Perhaps they are, to you. But then so is the Mormon Church who also say that the prophecy was fulfilled. But the old city, is still in ruins. That is a fact. No people live there. They were totally destroyed. It was never rebuilt. Another whole separate city called Tyre was built NEAR those ruins. You can quibble all you want, but the prophecy was fulfilled.

[_grindael]

Where did you state that, exactly?

I've stated it numerous times, and I'm not going to waste my time searching through these different threads for the sake of someone showing up late to the party. You're just gonna have to trust me.

Are you a scholar of the Fundamentalist persuasion Daniel? If not, then why should we believe you know what the Fundamentalist argument really is?

Because I've been engaging the argument for years.

You see how silly your argument is?

No, I see how silly your attempt to mischaracterize my argument is, though.

I can say the same thing Daniel. I've been engaging for years also. So what? So you need me to be a scholar when it's convenient for you, but not the other way around? Silly. And no one else is going to search out all your old comments on different threads either. You called Jesus a liar on this thread, but you won't say if you believe it. You still haven't answered that question. What do you believe Daniel?

[_maklelan]

You called Jesus a liar Daniel.

No, I have pointed out that if one takes the account as his verbatim words then he must be understood as a liar. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop presuming to tell me what I meant.

I'm not misinterpreting anything.

Yes, you most clearly are.

Now, was Jesus a liar? Yes or no. You never answered that question.

I did answer that question. The answer is, I don't know. Please don't reduce this to demanding I answer a loaded question one of two predetermined ways. That's just childish. You wouldn't like it if I asked any of the following questions and demanded a yes or no answer:

Are you still beating your wife?

Have you ever tried sugar or heroine?

[_maklelan]

I can say the same thing Daniel. I've been engaging for years also. So what?

I've been doing it professionally.

So you need me to be a scholar when it's convenient for you, but not the other way around? Silly.

You're not a scholar, and I never need you to pretend to be one.

And no one else is going to search out all your old comments on different threads either. You called Jesus a liar on this thread, but you won't say if you believe it. You still haven't answered that question. What do you believe Daniel?

I've directly answered your question multiple times. I can't help it if you don't like the answer. These continued rhetorical puppet shows aren't going to suddenly convince me you've got my number.

[_grindael]

You called Jesus a liar Daniel.

No, I have pointed out that if one takes the account as his verbatim words then he must be understood as a liar. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop presuming to tell me what I meant.

I'm not misinterpreting anything.

Yes, you most clearly are.

Now, was Jesus a liar? Yes or no. You never answered that question.

I did answer that question. The answer is, I don't know. Please don't reduce this to demanding I answer a loaded question one of two predetermined ways. That's just childish. You wouldn't like it if I asked any of the following questions and demanded a yes or no answer:

Are you still beating your wife?

Have you ever tried sugar or heroine?

Exactly. Why are you here Daniel? You are defending the Mormon Church and Joseph Smith and saying that they are not understood. But they believe that Jesus did not lie. They believe that the Tyre prophecy was fulfilled. But you are calling Jesus a liar. That is exactly what you did. You are doing to them, what you just said I was doing to you. And the questions you asked, have nothing to do with the topic at all. You called Jesus a liar. Why won't you answer if you believe he lied?