Arguments about "first cause" and fulfilled prophecies

[DMB]

Daughter thread of this one (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=1204).

[Zygote]

Yeah the old teapot is not really helpful. About as helpful as it is microscopic.

My arguments for spiritual beings are fairly Thomistic. I work, usually, on the idea that all things have a cause and without the un-caused cause...

Hold it right there. My brain is exploding at the presence of an un-caused anything in the same sentence as the statement that all things have a cause. If the un-caused cause is not a thing, then it is no-thing. If it is a thing, then not all things must have a cause.

...everything sums to zero and can't exist.

I seem to have missed this application of arithmetic. What exactly are we adding up here and can we have some diagrams, please.

So it all has, as it's cause the un-caused cause.

Why can't it just be un-caused by itself?

This reminds me so much of the need for the earth to be supported by Atlas, or elephants or turtles. What do they stand on? Is it, as one person suggested, "turtles all the way down"?

I also argue that there is natural law and that comes from somewhere,

I think I spy a gap...

instilled as a reflection of a greater law that has it's origin in God.

...and, what do you know, there's a god that fits right in it.

There is also the odds of prophecy fulfillment. But that is more of a validity of Christ argument.

But that is just to give you an idea of my general approach.


I'd be very interested in hearing more if the reasoning isn't contradictory or self-referential.

I find that if someone is going to discount the "God says so" argument, then only infinitesimally more valid in a discussion is: "Science just has not found a reason yet." At that point both parties are making a leap of faith. One the faith in God and the other the faith that it has an explanation that science will discover outside of God. It is really a personal call on which is more "rational" to who.

"I don't know" isn't a belief; it's a statement of fact. Gods, unicorns, teapots or demons just don't strike me as logical inferences to draw from "I don't know yet."

Science has a pretty good track record so far for finding evidence and coherent explanations for many things that were previously assumed to be caused by gods. It's a pretty fair bet that discoveries and understanding will continue to increase, brought to you by those who value evidence-based conclusions about their world.

For some people, though, the god of the gaps will always be at hand for stuffing those pesky crevices where uncertainty might lurk.

[Davidnic]

Hold it right there. My brain is exploding at the presence of an un-caused anything in the same sentence as the statement that all things have a cause. If the un-caused cause is not a thing, then it is no-thing. If it is a thing, then not all things must have a cause.



The argument is called, at times, The Cosmological Argument of St. Thomas Aquinas. There are arguments for and against it: link (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/)

I do get you on how the phrase "uncaused cause' is used and then saying everything has a cause. Think of it more as the argument of the "necessary cause".

Un-caused cause is just one of about 6 names for the argument. I should have used a better one.

[Davidnic]

There is also the odds of prophecy fulfillment. But that is more of a validity of Christ argument.

But that is just to give you an idea of my general approach. I'd be very interested in hearing more if the reasoning isn't contradictory or self-referential.


Make of it what you will, the general argument comes from a book called Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. Now I have seen it presented both effectively and ineffectively. But the basic version is that if you look at all the prophesy about the Messiah, from the Old testament and other sources, you can make a case for Christ by the sheer number of them He fulfilled:
"The following probabilities are taken from Peter Stoner in Science Speaks (Moody Press, 1963) to show that coincidence is ruled out by the science of probability. Stoner says that by using the modern science of probability in reference to eight prophecies, ‘we find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 10 to the 17th power." That would be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. In order to help us comprehend this staggering probability, Stoner illustrates it by supposing that "we take 10to the 17th power silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas.

They will cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man."

Stoner considers 48 prophecies and says, "we find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10 to the 157th power, or 1 in 10,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000, 000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0 000,000,000."That would be 48. Christ fulfilled 1,093 out of about 1,093 discernible prophecies.

Just saying on the Christ argument (that is if you believe in the Messiah) it is compelling that He was. Now a full discussion would entail:

What are each of the prophesies?
Where do they come from?
What are the standards for fulfilling them or declaring them fulfilled?

It's a conversation in and of itself. And some of the prophecy is basic and broad, so fairly you can argue that you have to have the conversation of how statistically likely it is on the merits of each one. That statically some of them could be fulfilled by most people. That could be argued. It is a conversation worth having in some form.

I just find it one of the better arguments.

[David B]

I do hope my old friend Tod finds this thread. He's pretty good at dissecting, even dismembering, McDowell's arguments.

And he is not alone.

I've never read McDowell, myself, and so will not take on one quote out of context, but leave this part of the argument to people who are familiar with 'Evidence that Demands a Verdict', which I only know by disrepute.

David

[Danhalen]

Make of it what you will, the general argument comes from a book called Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. Now I have seen it presented both effectively and ineffectively. But the basic version is that if you look at all the prophesy about the Messiah, from the Old testament and other sources, you can make a case for Christ by the sheer number of them He fulfilled:
"The following probabilities are taken from Peter Stoner in Science Speaks (Moody Press, 1963) to show that coincidence is ruled out by the science of probability. Stoner says that by using the modern science of probability in reference to eight prophecies, ‘we find that the chance that any man might have lived down to the present time and fulfilled all eight prophecies is 1 in 10 to the 17th power." That would be 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000. In order to help us comprehend this staggering probability, Stoner illustrates it by supposing that "we take 10to the 17th power silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas.

They will cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would have had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man."

Stoner considers 48 prophecies and says, "we find the chance that any one man fulfilled all 48 prophecies to be 1 in 10 to the 157th power, or 1 in 10,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000, 000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0 000,000,000."That would be 48. Christ fulfilled 1,093 out of about 1,093 discernible prophecies.You do know that the stories written about Jesus were written after the prophecies were made, right?

Just saying on the Christ argument (that is if you believe in the Messiah) it is compelling that He was. Now a full discussion would entail:

What are each of the prophesies?
Where do they come from?
What are the standards for fulfilling them or declaring them fulfilled?I think the more important question would be whether or not the authors of the Gospels wanted to convince people that their main character fulfilled prophecies in order to establish their belief that Jesus was the messiah.

[Davidnic]

I do hope my old friend Tod finds this thread. He's pretty good at dissecting, even dismembering, McDowell's arguments.

And he is not alone.

I've never read McDowell, myself, and so will not take on one quote out of context, but leave this part of the argument to people who are familiar with 'Evidence that Demands a Verdict', which I only know by disrepute.

David

Everything has it's detractors on both sides, the argument is valid. I am not a big McDowell fan despite my fondness for this bit. That is the original source of the argument and I have seen it done better. Fulton Sheen did it better, that is where I first heard it.

As I said, my personal belief is that on this argument each prophecy would need to be taken on one at a time. And then you would need conditions for fulfillment and such. Some of the prophecies are very general and as such someone may have a 1 in 2 chance of fulfilling it. And others maybe 1 in 300. But if someone fulfills 17 prophecies that they have a 50% shot of fulfilling then it can not be said that they had 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000 chance. It would be more accurate to compare it to the odds of a coin coming up heads 17 times in a row.

That being said. The argument is about prophecy concerning the Messiah, that is why I only mentioned it tangentially and then followed up with an answer when asked. To validly have the conversation that the numbers mean anything the prophecies must be considered to be...well actually prophetic. I believe in such things. Now if someone wanted to have it on the statical basis alone and infer that if He fulfills a statically unlikely amount...then that mean more. They can.

So to look at the argument fairly and deeply you could look at all of the prophecy and decide how many could be filled 50% of the time. A coin flip. Then see of you thought Christ did fulfill it by whatever standards you set. And take that number and see what the odds are for a coin coming up heads that many times. And see if that was so unlikely as to be either Divine or a quantum burp.

[Zygote]

From the link:
The theist responds that the Principle of Sufficient Reason does not address logical contingency, but metaphysical contingency. One is not required to find a reason for what is not metaphysically contingent. It is not that the necessary being is self-explanatory; rather, a demand for explaining its existence is inappropriate. Hence, the theist concludes, Hawking's question, "Who created God?" (Hawking, 174), is out of place (Davis).

Where then, is the appropriate place for the question "Who created God?"

A path of reasoning that raises certain questions and yet requires that those be considered off limits doesn't seem particularly stable.

[David B]

I do hope my old friend Tod finds this thread. He's pretty good at dissecting, even dismembering, McDowell's arguments.

And he is not alone.

I've never read McDowell, myself, and so will not take on one quote out of context, but leave this part of the argument to people who are familiar with 'Evidence that Demands a Verdict', which I only know by disrepute.

David

Everything has it's detractors on both sides, the argument is valid. I am not a big McDowell fan despite my fondness for this bit. That is the original source of the argument and I have seen it done better. Fulton Sheen did it better, that is where I first heard it.

As I said, my personal belief is that on this argument each prophecy would need to be taken on one at a time. And then you would need conditions for fulfillment and such. Some of the prophecies are very general and as such someone may have a 1 in 2 chance of fulfilling it. And others maybe 1 in 300. But if someone fulfills 17 prophecies that they have a 50% shot of fulfilling then it can not be said that they had 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000 chance. It would be more accurate to compare it to the odds of a coin coming up heads 17 times in a row.

That being said. The argument is about prophecy concerning the Messiah, that is why I only mentioned it tangentially and then followed up with an answer when asked. To validly have the conversation that the numbers mean anything the prophecies must be considered to be...well actually prophetic. I believe in such things. Now if someone wanted to have it on the statical basis alone and infer that if He fulfills a statically unlikely amount...then that mean more. They can.

So to look at the argument fairly and deeply you could look at all of the prophecy and decide how many could be filled 50% of the time. A coin flip. Then see of you thought Christ did fulfill it by whatever standards you set. And take that number and see what the odds are for a coin coming up heads that many times. And see if that was so unlikely as to be either Divine or a quantum burp.

I have yet to see one that could fairly be called a 50-50 split.

Could you point me to one?

David

[Davidnic]

You do know that the stories written about Jesus were written after the prophecies were made, right?

Indeed I do. I would assume everyone knows that.

And in a discussion on them that is a no doubt a factor. It has to be part of the discussion. All I was doing was giving the argument in a summary of how it is made. In a full discussion I find it much better than the argument: "because God said so."

If people were to have the argument on the prophecy fulfillment issue they would need to address issues of historical proof outside of the Gospels, validity of facts from the Gospels....all of those issues.

That is why I said the discussion of what it means to have fulfilled them...would need to come into play.

[Davidnic]

I have yet to see one that could fairly be called a 50-50 split.

Could you point me to one?

David

You mean a prophecy that has a 1 in 2 chance of being fulfilled?

[David B]

I have yet to see one that could fairly be called a 50-50 split.

Could you point me to one?

David

You mean a prophecy that has a 1 in 2 chance of being fulfilled?

No, that is easy. Predicting the next toss of a coin being tails will do.

A prophesy, made before the event, that would require supernatural intervention to be deemed a hit, better than 50-50.

David

[Davidnic]

From the link:
The theist responds that the Principle of Sufficient Reason does not address logical contingency, but metaphysical contingency. One is not required to find a reason for what is not metaphysically contingent. It is not that the necessary being is self-explanatory; rather, a demand for explaining its existence is inappropriate. Hence, the theist concludes, Hawking's question, "Who created God?" (Hawking, 174), is out of place (Davis).

Where then, is the appropriate place for the question "Who created God?"

A path of reasoning that raises certain questions and yet requires that those be considered off limits doesn't seem particularly stable.

The point of it is that if there is a necessary cause, at some point it needs to be a cause that existed uncreated. If not creation can not exist. And since it does then there is a necessary cause.

The point where we get to how something exists from the beginning uncreated would the the leap of faith. Now, you would be perfectly within logical rights to say that the argument, to you, logically falls apart if that quesiton is considered out of place. At that point the discussion would need to turn elsewhere. To others, at that point, they accept the argument.

[Davidnic]

I have yet to see one that could fairly be called a 50-50 split.

Could you point me to one?

David

You mean a prophecy that has a 1 in 2 chance of being fulfilled?

No, that is easy. Predicting the next toss of a coin being tails will do.

A prophesy, made before the event, that would require supernatural intervention to be deemed a hit, better than 50-50.

David

Ah I see. I thought I was not getting exactly what you asked. I guess if I was to try and find one for you I would need to know what you felt was a historical viable source to be proof of the fulfillment.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Could the First Cause have been a small chicken sandwich that popped into existence, caused the first event, then ceased to exist?

Show your working.

[JamesBannon]

You do know that the stories written about Jesus were written after the prophecies were made, right?
And are read by a biased audience; namely, Christians. One might as well argue that the Muslims are correct when they argue that the Kuran is holier because it was handed to Mohammed by the angel Gabriel. Both arguments are utter bullshit.

And the cosmological argument? Please, you're going to have to do better than that old chesnut!

[Davidnic]

Could the First Cause have been a small chicken sandwich that popped into existence, caused the first event, then ceased to exist?

Show your working.

Well the argument of the essential cause needing to exist past the moment of first cause is an interesting one. A Christian would argue to the evidence of continued involvement through the miraculous as a sign of the necessary causes involvement past the first cause.

[JamesBannon]

I may have come across as being a bit "harsh", for which my apologies. I have no problem with people who have a personal faith; whatever floats their boat. However, if by public expression of that faith, they start demonising sections of the population because they are somehow "different", because they believe differently, do not believe at all, or for any other reason, then it immediately becomes an issue of serious concern.

[Davidnic]

I may have come across as being a bit "harsh", for which my apologies. I have no problem with people who have a personal faith; whatever floats their boat. However, if by public expression of that faith, they start demonising sections of the population because they are somehow "different", because they believe differently, do not believe at all, or for any other reason, then it immediately becomes an issue of serious concern.


No, you were not harsh. I did not mean to indicate that. I get that debate gets a bit...well...upfront. Upfront is honest. Needs to be honest.

I get your concerns. I usually don't demonize or judge anyone. I do disagree with some actions and beliefs of others. But personally I'd rather take a bullet than harm anyone over it physically or take away their dignity. The latter often being more insidious and worse on a societal level.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Could the First Cause have been a small chicken sandwich that popped into existence, caused the first event, then ceased to exist?

Show your working.

Well the argument of the essential cause needing to exist past the moment of first cause is an interesting one. A Christian would argue to the evidence of continued involvement through the miraculous as a sign of the necessary causes involvement past the first cause.

Why would they have to be related?

A universe that permits spontaneous, temporary chicken sandwiches could just as easily permit spontaneous, temporary miracle-working imps that pop into existence, do something physically impossible, then cease to exist.

Why must the agent of the First Cause necessarily be the proximate cause of other specific events?

Also, if you're going to invoke miracles that aren't a part of the chain of events, it strikes me that you've denied the necessity for a first cause in the first place.

[Davidnic]

Also, if you're going to invoke miracles that aren't a part of the chain of events, it strikes me that you've denied the necessity for a first cause in the first place.

Depends on how you define miracles. the miraculous does not have to be spontaneous and outside the chain of events in the same way the first cause would be. Rather than have their energy (if that is even the right word) from nothing miracles could take their energy from somewhere. Essentially the miraculous would only contradict the first cause if miracles were "free"

[Worldtraveller]

From the link:
The theist responds that the Principle of Sufficient Reason does not address logical contingency, but metaphysical contingency. One is not required to find a reason for what is not metaphysically contingent. It is not that the necessary being is self-explanatory; rather, a demand for explaining its existence is inappropriate. Hence, the theist concludes, Hawking's question, "Who created God?" (Hawking, 174), is out of place (Davis).

Where then, is the appropriate place for the question "Who created God?"

A path of reasoning that raises certain questions and yet requires that those be considered off limits doesn't seem particularly stable.

The point of it is that if there is a necessary cause, at some point it needs to be a cause that existed uncreated. If not creation can not exist. And since it does then there is a necessary cause.

The point where we get to how something exists from the beginning uncreated would the the leap of faith. Now, you would be perfectly within logical rights to say that the argument, to you, logically falls apart if that quesiton is considered out of place. At that point the discussion would need to turn elsewhere. To others, at that point, they accept the argument.
I'm not sure I follow. We know (because we can observe it, at least indirectly) that uncaused things happen all the time at the subatomic 'quantum' level. There's a reasonable amunt of evidence that there are 'unbalanced' (I don't know the precise scientific term) events where a particle of some kind isn't annhilated, in seeming contradiction to the classical laws of physics. It could only be a matter of scale to go from that to an unbalanced event causing the big bang. We obviously don't know yet, but positing some kind of 'necessary cause' is begging the question, especially in the face of modern physics.

[DMB]

Besides, I always thought that the idea of the "uncaused cause" simply reflected Aquinas's horror of infinite regression.

[Jobar]

The point of it is that if there is a necessary cause, at some point it needs to be a cause that existed uncreated. If not creation can not exist. And since it does then there is a necessary cause.

The point where we get to how something exists from the beginning uncreated would the the leap of faith. Now, you would be perfectly within logical rights to say that the argument, to you, logically falls apart if that quesiton is considered out of place. At that point the discussion would need to turn elsewhere. To others, at that point, they accept the argument.

I point out that the language you're using is a problem. You're sometimes equating 'creation' to 'existence', and sometimes not.

There is no least reason existence- the ever-changing universe of mass/energy/space/time- cannot be eviternal, uncaused, of itself so. No need for creation, or creator.
http://www.secularcafe.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=8&d=1239654295

(I'd like to mention that this .gif is the work of Winace, of fond memory; any time I use it I dedicate it to him. )

[JamesBannon]

The point of it is that if there is a necessary cause, at some point it needs to be a cause that existed uncreated. If not creation can not exist. And since it does then there is a necessary cause.

The point where we get to how something exists from the beginning uncreated would the the leap of faith. Now, you would be perfectly within logical rights to say that the argument, to you, logically falls apart if that quesiton is considered out of place. At that point the discussion would need to turn elsewhere. To others, at that point, they accept the argument.

I point out that the language you're using is a problem. You're sometimes equating 'creation' to 'existence', and sometimes not.

There is no least reason existence- the ever-changing universe of mass/energy/space/time- cannot be eviternal, uncaused, of itself so. No need for creation, or creator.
8
Or it might have been caused by the spontaneous appearance of HNA's cheese sandwich (which is funnier, though possibly less accurate). :D

[lpetrich]

Make of it what you will, the general argument comes from a book called Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell. ...
"The following probabilities are taken from Peter Stoner in Science Speaks (Moody Press, 1963) ..."

(8 prophecies; probability of coincidence: 10-17)
(48 prophecies; probability of coincidence: 10-157)

... Christ fulfilled 1,093 out of about 1,093 discernible prophecies.You do know that the stories written about Jesus were written after the prophecies were made, right?
I can understand 8 or 48 prophecies, but 1093 prophecies???

I must note that Jesus Christ was far from alone in supposedly fulfilling prophecies. As I've pointed out in my Lord-Raglan thread (http://secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=1237), these gentlemen were also described as fulfilling various prophecies:

Zeus, Oedipus, Theseus, Perseus, Romulus, King Arthur, Krishna, the Buddha, Alexander the Great, Augustus Caesar, Harry Potter, Anakin Skywalker

So why believe some prophecy-fulfillment claims and not others?

[His Noodly Appendage]

Also, if you're going to invoke miracles that aren't a part of the chain of events, it strikes me that you've denied the necessity for a first cause in the first place.

Depends on how you define miracles. the miraculous does not have to be spontaneous and outside the chain of events in the same way the first cause would be. Rather than have their energy (if that is even the right word) from nothing miracles could take their energy from somewhere. Essentially the miraculous would only contradict the first cause if miracles were "free"

Um, you're confusing causality with conservation of energy.

[Davidnic]

Also, if you're going to invoke miracles that aren't a part of the chain of events, it strikes me that you've denied the necessity for a first cause in the first place.

Depends on how you define miracles. the miraculous does not have to be spontaneous and outside the chain of events in the same way the first cause would be. Rather than have their energy (if that is even the right word) from nothing miracles could take their energy from somewhere. Essentially the miraculous would only contradict the first cause if miracles were "free"

Um, you're confusing causality with conservation of energy.

No. They are connected. If something is spontaneous it comes from nothing. A miracle does not. It comes from somewhere. There are some who believe that they are out of nothing or break the laws of physics totally, but I am not one of them.

So miracles are indeed part of the chain of events. Supporting them does not deny the necessity of the first cause.

[His Noodly Appendage]

The fuck?

[BWE]

from the void, all things are formed and to the void they return.

Just thought I'd throw that out there. It's as good as anything else I think.

[DMB]

Davidnic, what do you mean by a "miracle"? Do you have modern examples that you can point to?

[Davidnic]

Davidnic, what do you mean by a "miracle"? Do you have modern examples that you can point to?

I am referring to a miraculous healing or something like that. I usually look at Lourdes. They honestly do have a well documented procedure. The medical bureau of Lourdes provides fairly in depth documentation and investigation on alleged miracles. They come to a decision of either medically explainable or medically inexplicable. The average investigation of each case take 5-15 years. To even reach the point where they will look at it many conditions need to be met. Those conditions mostly concern having proper documentation of your case before coming to Lourdes and cooperating with the medical bureau while there in order to prevent people from saying there was a cure without having any documentation of the condition.

The most recent cure certified by them as medically inexplicable and then declared a miracle by the Church was in the late 1980's.

I can post the details of some cases. The bureau does publish a journal. Cases have been peer reviewed by doctors of all faiths and no faith. I can try to get some that were subjected to the scrutiny of the medical bureau and then to further study by outside sources.

Would people want me to do that?

[JamesBannon]

Deciding that something is "medically inexplicable" does not make it a miracle. Spontaneous cures / regression of illness happen all the time. When something like that happens, it is simply because it is beyond our current state of knowledge.

[DMB]

Isn't it curious that only certain kinds of miracle cures occur? See Why won't God heal amputees? (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm)

[Davidnic]

Isn't it curious that only certain kinds of miracle cures occur? See Why won't God heal amputees? (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm)

In one of the cases at Lourdes optic nerves in atrophied eyes grew back and the eyes returned to normal.

[David B]

Isn't it curious that only certain kinds of miracle cures occur? See Why won't God heal amputees? (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm)

In one of the cases at Lourdes optic nerves in atrophied eyes grew back and the eyes returned to normal.

Please point to the case.

Incidentally (to Lourdes, but not miracles) am I right in thinking that miracles have to be attributed to people before they can be given the title of Saint, and further right in thinking that many of these claims do not stand up to sceptical examination.

There is ample reason, I think to distrust those who certify miracles in the Catholic church.

David

[Davidnic]

Please point to the case.


Let me find it, it is in a book by an author named Ruth Cranston. I'll dig it up. We should have a copy available in the library. The author is sympathetic to Lourdes but the case itself stands on it's own.

[Davidnic]

Incidentally (to Lourdes, but not miracles) am I right in thinking that miracles have to be attributed to people before they can be given the title of Saint, and further right in thinking that many of these claims do not stand up to sceptical examination.

There is ample reason, I think to distrust those who certify miracles in the Catholic church.



I get that. That is why I focus on Lourdes or ones that have some documentation to them. Lourdes has a process. Actually the process for certifying all miracles is a bit involved. And those miracles (for saints) are actually different than others, to an extent. Get's a bit complex. I can get into it in a bit. My supper was over a few min ago.

[lpetrich]

Let's check on some prophecy fulfillments.

Zeus: His father Kronos learned that he would have a son who would overthrow him as Ruler of the Universe. So Kronos gulped down all the kids as his partner Rhea had them. But when she had Zeus, she grew tired of that and gave Kronos a stone wrapped in swaddling clothes and sent Zeus to a cave in Crete. He grew up there, and when he grew up, he made Kronos vomit up his brothers and sisters. Zeus and his friends then fought Kronos and his friends, overthrowing Kronos.

Oedipus: When he was born, his parents King Laius and Jocasta learned that he would one day kill his father and marry his mother. So they left him in the wilderness to die. But a shepherd found him and raised him. Oedipus once got into an argument with someone over who had the right of way on a road, and he killed that someone, not knowing that it was Laius. He then went on to marry a middle-aged widow, not knowing it was Jocasta. When he and Jocasta found these things out, she hanged herself and he then poked his eyes out. (Homer, Iliad and Odyssey; Euripides, Phoenissae; Sophocles, Oedipus the King)

Theseus: When his mother Aethra became pregnant with him, his father King Aegeus buried his sword and sandals under a huge rock. He then told Aethra that their son could prove what a hero he was by moving that rock and taking that sword and sandals. When he grew up, Theseus moved that rock and claimed that sword and sandals. (Plutarch, Parallel Lives)

Perseus: His grandfather King Acrisius learned that his daughter Danae would someday have a son who would one day kill him. So he locked Danae up in a bronze-plated dungeon, but Zeus showed up by turning himself into a shower of gold and letting himself pour onto Danae's lap. When Danae had Perseus, Acrisius put them into a trunk and tossed them into the sea, but that trunk came ashore and both of them survived. Perseus grew up, and while in an athletic contest, he accidentally beaned Acrisius with a discus, killing him.

Romulus: Amulius had deposed his brother Numitor as king of Alba Longa, and made Numitor's daughter a Vestal Virgin so she wouldn't have any children who could challenge him. But the god Mars made her pregnant, and she had Romulus and Remus. Amulius put them in a basket which he put into a nearby river, but they survived, with Romulus growing up to depose and kill Amulius. (Livy, History of Rome; Plutarch, Parallel Lives)

King Arthur: He demonstrated that he was the real heir of Uther Pendragon by pulling a sword out of a certain stone. (Robert de Boron, Merlin)

Krishna: His parents, Devaki and Vasudeva, were imprisoned by Devaki's cousin King Kamsa, after Kamsa learned that Devaki's eighth son would kill him. So as she had son after son, Kamsa would kill them. But she switched her eighth son with someone's daughter, and Krishna survived. He grew up and ended up killing Kamsa.

The Buddha: When he was born, his father King Suddhodhana discovered that the baby Siddhartha Gautama would grow up to become either a great king or a great religious leader. So Suddhodhana tried to keep him away from scenes of pain and suffering, and he grew up and married and had a son. But he ended up seeing an old man, a sick man, a corpse, and an ascetic, and he got puzzled by those sights. Wanting to resolve the riddle of them, he snuck away from his wife and son and searched for the answer, eventually finding it. He told others about it, and he became known as the Enlightened One, the Buddha.

Alexander the Great: When he was born, the temple of Artemis at Ephesus burned down, and some local soothsayers concluded that a great disaster for the East had been born that day. And indeed he was such a disaster. (Plutarch, Parallel Lives)

Augustus Caesar: When the wall of the town of Velitrae was struck by lightning, someone predicted that someone would someday be born there who would rule the world. Also, when the Roman Senate learned that a new king of Rome was soon to be born, they decreed that no male child born that year was to be raised, but some Senators with pregnant wives buried that decree. And indeed he grew up to rule much of the known world. (Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars)

Harry Potter: Lord Voldemort learns of a prophecy that someone born at a certain time will be the only one who can defeat him. When that someone is born, Lord Voldemort tries to kill him, without success. That someone is Harry Potter, who ends up defeating Lord Voldemort. (J.K. Rowling)

Anakin Skywalker: Jedi master Qui-Gon Jinn becomes convinced that Anakin Skywalker will bring balance to the Force. And by some interpretations, he does. (George Lucas)

So Jesus Christ was far from alone.