Isaiah 53, 700 B.C: Historical Evidence of the Divine Omniscience.

[Angrboda]

Not in the eye!

[Silver]

In the eye, I say ya.

[Angrboda]

[Nishant Xavier]

Lol. Typical Atheist Rubbish. The Book of Daniel is no forgery. The Book of Daniel, by predicting Christ would come in the 1st Century A.D. before the fall of the Temple of Jerusalem which it prophesied to happen shortly afterward (and which did happen) refutes both Pharisaical Judaism and - far more important - the silly Atheism of today. This fad is truly for a day. God will triumph, as He always has over every heresy or false teaching, and Atheism will fail. The points I made stand unrefuted. Even scholars known Daniel 9 is a timeline of when the Messiah would come, admitted by Josephus and others, and expired long ago. Then, extra-ordinarily, at precisely the right time, John Dominic Crossan and others concede that Jesus Christ did come and be killed, under Pilate and Tiberius. These facts are devastating for the false Atheistic belief that there is no such thing as Divine Omniscience. St. Thomas explains it perfectly. Only after the abandonment of St. Thomas in the West did people lapse into such absurdities as first Deism and then Atheism. The God of the Bible is not Deistic. He intervenes in the affairs of men, as Abraham Lincoln said. He prophesied some 500 years earlier that He would come down from Heaven, Then, on time, He just did.

Atheism stands refuted and Christianity prevails.

[Fake Messiah]

The Book of Daniel, by predicting Christ would come in the 1st Century A.D. before the fall of the Temple of Jerusalem which it prophesied to happen shortly afterward (and which did happen)

Let's look at Daniel 9:25-26

From the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks [sixty-nine weeks total]: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks [sixty-two weeks] the Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood.

So there you go, it says weeks, and yet Jesus supposedly came 500 years after this.

The phrase "Messiah the Prince" does not apply to Jesus, because Jesus was no "prince".

It also ends by saying, "And the end thereof shall be with a flood," but Jerusalem was never destroyed with a flood.

Atheism stands refuted and Christianity prevails.

Christianity was and still is a minority in the world. The only time it thrived was when people were forced and threatened into it.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Atheism stands refuted and Christianity prevails.

Lol you couldn't "refute " atheism if we gave you a million years and you nope Christianity has intellectually crumbled to dust and is held together by lies. 

[Bucky Ball]

Lol. Typical Atheist Rubbish. bla bla bla

Atheism stands refuted and Christianity prevails.

LOL
Unfortunately for you, the LONG LONG list of errors proves Daniel is totally bogus. 
Your assertions are dismissed as the bullshit they are. 
You are so dishonest and incompetent that you could not address EVEN ONE of the many points made in the link. 
How utterly pathetic. The subject is Daniel, not atheism. 
Do try to stay on topic instead of copy-pasting your usual tripe.
Are you suffering from dementia ? The subject is not deism or anything other than the errors in Daniel.
Why do you keep saying "come down from heaven".

Run along now outside and play dear ... you need some fresh air.

There is in the link a long list of errors which Pissant couldn't even begin to address.

---

"In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some of the articles from the temple of God. These he carried off to the temple of his god in Babylonia and put in the treasure house of his god.

DANIEL 1:1-2
This didn’t happen. “The third year of the reign of Jehoiakim” is 606 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar attacked and sacked Jerusalem in 598 B.C. which is the eleventh year of Jehoiakim, a fact confirmed not only elsewhere in the Bible but in contemporary Babylonian records. Technically Jehoiakim was killed before the sack and his son, Jehoiakin (a.k.a. Jeconiah), reigned a few months still holding out, but this passage is vague enough to encompass such a train of events (in ancient literary parlance we would call that a standard compression of events, which deliberately doesn’t distract a reader with pedantic trivia). It’s the rest of it that makes no sense. Nebuchadnezzar didn’t even ascend the throne until 605 B.C. (although disagreements of only a year can be due to the use of different calendars or other minor causes of error). In that year, though, when Nebuchadnezzar threatened to besiege Jerusalem, Jehoiakim, then a vassal of Egypt, pledged allegiance to the Babylonians instead, and served as their vassal until 601, when he allied with the Egyptians again, provoking Nebuchadnezzar to finally make good on his threat, ending Judah as a kingdom in 598 (or 597, depending on calendar, etc.). To confuse all this is an impossible mistake for anyone contemporary to these events.

Daniel then erroneously has Belshazzar succeed Nebuchadnezzar as his son (Daniel 5; cf. Daniel 7:1 and 8:1). But Belshazzar was neither his successor nor his son; and abundant contemporary records show he was never King of Babylon, but only served occasionally as regent under his father—but even that was a decade or so after several other rulers of Babylon had come and gone. Belshazzar’s actual father, Nabonidus, took the throne six years and three kings—Amel Marduk, Neriglissar, and Labashi-Marduk—after Nebuchadnezzar. There is no possible way any contemporary of events could have gotten this so horribly wrong. Whoever wrote Daniel was bad at history, and somehow mistook Belshazzar as a king of Babylon (he wasn’t), the son of Nebuchadnezzar (he wasn’t), and as succeeding Nebuchadnezzar (he didn’t; not even as regent).

Daniel then invents a king who never existed: Darius the Mede. Daniel claims he “took over the kingdom” after Belshazzar was killed (Daniel 5:30-31). In fact the actual king of the Babylonians was not killed. The Persians (not the Medes) took over Nabonidus’s kingdom, and spared his life (the real fate of his son and sometimes-regent Belshazzar is not recorded). Daniel’s author was clearly quite confused by the political chronology of this period, mistaking the famous Darius the Great as the Persian king who freed the Jews, when in fact all records show—including other books of the Bible—that that was Cyrus the Great, who reigned several kings previous in succession (Darius succeeded only after Cyrus’s sons had their turn at the throne, first Chambyses and then Bardiya). Daniel even confused who fathered whom, getting the line of succession exactly backwards: Daniel says Darius was the son of Xerxes (Daniel 9:1); in fact Xerxes the Great was the son of Darius. Darius’s father was Hystaspes, a distant relative of Cyrus the Great. etc etc etc "

---

[Bucky Ball]

Lol. Typical Atheist Rubbish. bla bla bla

Atheism stands refuted and Christianity prevails.

LOL
Unfortunately for you, the LONG LONG list of errors proves Daniel is totally bogus. 
Your assertions are dismissed as the bullshit they are. 
You are so dishonest and incompetent that you could not address EVEN ONE of the many points made in the link. 
How utterly pathetic. The subject is Daniel, not atheism. 
Do try to stay on topic instead of copy-pasting your usual tripe.
Are you suffering from dementia ? The subject is not deism or anything other than the errors in Daniel.
Why do you keep saying "come down from heaven".

Run along now outside and play dear ... you need some fresh air.

There is in the link a long list of errors which Pissant couldn't even begin to address.

---

"In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And the Lord delivered Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, along with some of the articles from the temple of God. These he carried off to the temple of his god in Babylonia and put in the treasure house of his god.

DANIEL 1:1-2
This didn’t happen. “The third year of the reign of Jehoiakim” is 606 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar attacked and sacked Jerusalem in 598 B.C. which is the eleventh year of Jehoiakim, a fact confirmed not only elsewhere in the Bible but in contemporary Babylonian records. Technically Jehoiakim was killed before the sack and his son, Jehoiakin (a.k.a. Jeconiah), reigned a few months still holding out, but this passage is vague enough to encompass such a train of events (in ancient literary parlance we would call that a standard compression of events, which deliberately doesn’t distract a reader with pedantic trivia). It’s the rest of it that makes no sense. Nebuchadnezzar didn’t even ascend the throne until 605 B.C. (although disagreements of only a year can be due to the use of different calendars or other minor causes of error). In that year, though, when Nebuchadnezzar threatened to besiege Jerusalem, Jehoiakim, then a vassal of Egypt, pledged allegiance to the Babylonians instead, and served as their vassal until 601, when he allied with the Egyptians again, provoking Nebuchadnezzar to finally make good on his threat, ending Judah as a kingdom in 598 (or 597, depending on calendar, etc.). To confuse all this is an impossible mistake for anyone contemporary to these events.

Daniel then erroneously has Belshazzar succeed Nebuchadnezzar as his son (Daniel 5; cf. Daniel 7:1 and 8:1). But Belshazzar was neither his successor nor his son; and abundant contemporary records show he was never King of Babylon, but only served occasionally as regent under his father—but even that was a decade or so after several other rulers of Babylon had come and gone. Belshazzar’s actual father, Nabonidus, took the throne six years and three kings—Amel Marduk, Neriglissar, and Labashi-Marduk—after Nebuchadnezzar. There is no possible way any contemporary of events could have gotten this so horribly wrong. Whoever wrote Daniel was bad at history, and somehow mistook Belshazzar as a king of Babylon (he wasn’t), the son of Nebuchadnezzar (he wasn’t), and as succeeding Nebuchadnezzar (he didn’t; not even as regent).

Daniel then invents a king who never existed: Darius the Mede. Daniel claims he “took over the kingdom” after Belshazzar was killed (Daniel 5:30-31). In fact the actual king of the Babylonians was not killed. The Persians (not the Medes) took over Nabonidus’s kingdom, and spared his life (the real fate of his son and sometimes-regent Belshazzar is not recorded). Daniel’s author was clearly quite confused by the political chronology of this period, mistaking the famous Darius the Great as the Persian king who freed the Jews, when in fact all records show—including other books of the Bible—that that was Cyrus the Great, who reigned several kings previous in succession (Darius succeeded only after Cyrus’s sons had their turn at the throne, first Chambyses and then Bardiya). Daniel even confused who fathered whom, getting the line of succession exactly backwards: Daniel says Darius was the son of Xerxes (Daniel 9:1); in fact Xerxes the Great was the son of Darius. Darius’s father was Hystaspes, a distant relative of Cyrus the Great. etc etc etc "

---

More about the Pious Fraud ... Book of Daniel. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN9EzAjHPUk

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The very definition of a Prophet is to foretell future events.

The very definition of a Heffalump: A Heffalump is a type of elephant-like character in the Winnie-the-Pooh stories by A. A. Milne. Heffalumps are mentioned, and only appear, in Pooh and Piglet's dreams in Winnie-the-Pooh (1926), and seen again in The House at Pooh Corner (1928). Physically, they resemble elephants; E. H. Shepard's illustration shows an Indian elephant. They are later featured in the animated television series The New Adventures of Winnie the Pooh (1988–1991), followed by two animated films in 2005, Pooh's Heffalump Movie and Pooh's Heffalump Halloween Movie.

Neither creature above is real.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The Book of Daniel, by predicting Christ would come in the 1st Century A.D. before the fall of the Temple of Jerusalem which it prophesied to happen shortly afterward (and which did happen)

Let's look at Daniel 9:25-26

From the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks [sixty-nine weeks total]: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two weeks [sixty-two weeks] the Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood.

So there you go, it says weeks, and yet Jesus supposedly came 500 years after this.

The phrase "Messiah the Prince" does not apply to Jesus, because Jesus was no "prince".

It also ends by saying, "And the end thereof shall be with a flood," but Jerusalem was never destroyed with a flood.

Atheism stands refuted and Christianity prevails.

Christianity was and still is a minority in the world. The only time it thrived was when people were forced and threatened into it.

You utter fool. In the Bible ‘weeks’ doesn’t mean ‘weeks’, just as ‘days’ and ‘years’ don’t mean what we think they mean. These are sacred and holy metaphors for non-specific periods of time, used by the ancient Hebrews to make the magic spells work.

Boru