Atheists have rightfully rejected Christianity, as they know it.
The Christianity of the New Testament cannot be found today.
There are no miracles.
There are no true tongues spoken, only unintelligible gibberish.
There is no love, only on Holidays.
The Clergy is lustful and wicked.
False doctrines and traditions have been assimilated:
All of the above comes from man in complete defiance of what is written.
These people are not blessed with any power, because what they do is a complete lie.
Then to the casual observer; "Oh my, looked at all the bad things happening to good Church going people, there can't be a God"
Well sometimes good Church going people get what they deserve.
Atheist are the Diogenes of their time carrying a Lantern looking for a honest man,
and bring all things to the test.
This is why we need real evidence.
Unless the Oracles of God make an appearance, we are to believe nothing.
You've obviously put a lot of thought and/or research into your answers and that's appreciated; I think I can speak for most of us when I say that.
However, wordy claims, despite ambiguous circumstantial evidence or rough correlations, are still just that: claims. No matter how many paragraphs, how many lists, how many maps or charts you bring out, you are still making claims that you still haven't sufficiently backed up.
I just read a fascinating article yesterday--here at TA as a matter of fact--about how easily malleable the human mind and memories can be, even under the most healthy of circumstances. It talked a bit about how attached we get to what we want to be true, even to the point of replacing true memories in our own minds with the false ones we create for ourselves.
It seems to me that a lot of what you've written here--and to be fair, I only skimmed a good portion of it--stems from an overwhelming want of something to be true, not an accurate assesment of what really is true. One case in point is in a previous comment thread you mention fulfilled prophecies, but you really aren't able to give a specific example of a specific prophecy which has absolutely been proven to be fulfilled.
Here is a (fictional) example of an exact prophecy (which I just made up): "On the tenth day after the first Full Moon, Twelve and Two Thousand years after Our Lord's Crucifiction, the Star of David shall appear in the Northwestern Skies, the earth shall shake in the Western Lands, stars will rain down from the skies, and..." so on. There is a specific date/time (10 days after the full moon, 2012), and specific events: not just a planet or comet, but the Star of David, an earthquake, and meteorites. There are even specific locations: the Western Lands (admittedly, not as specific as the West Coast of North America), and the northwest skies being where the Star of David will be seen.
The closest example to any fulfilled prophecies (and I will reiterate that word, fulfilled, not just "looks like it might be starting to happen") anyone seems able to bring up--including yourself--are references to vague (and WIDE open to interpretation) passages no more specific than a daily newspaper horoscope.
I posit (with my little lamp here) that there may likely be a strong instance on your part of seeing what isn't there; falsely recognizing patterns that aren't in fact present. The human mind is remarkably good at doing that.
Yes the future is in process so yes we are living out the rise of the Beast as I described earlier.
But also read the excerpt on the prophecies of Daniel above. And you may have not read another reply yet, above. Please do not get the impression that I am submitting evidence. I am answering Adriana's question as to why I believe. The evidence the world needs is the return of the Living Oracles of God, performing miracles and speaking daily on God's behalf just like in the bible.
"Actually, the book was written in Palestine in the mid-second century BC by an author who expected God to set up his everlasting kingdom in his own near future, as we read in the mainline commentaries and Bible dictionaries:"
This author is slightly behind the times. This premise was long standing, but refuted by later archeological evidence. I will furnish the reference for you. The author may be referring to the Greek bible commissioned in the Hellenistic era, and the supposition is that it was entirely an oral tradition. but writings in Aramaic dating to the six century BCE. have been found that confirm the text of Daniel.
The Aramaic is supposedly “Hebraicized”, this would be expected if the writer was a native Hebrew speaker, just as the present author’s Hebrew writing tends to be Anglicized since English is his native language.
The Aramaic clearly belongs to the time period the book itself claims. This is supported by Wilson: “This Aramaic is almost exactly the same as that which is found in portions of Ezra. On account of the large number of Babylonian and Persian words characteristic of this Aramaic and of that of the papyri recently found in Egypt, as well as on account of the general similarity of the nominal, verbal and other forms, and of the syntactical construction, the Aramaic of this period might properly be called the Babylonian-Persian Aramaic” (Wilson p.25). He also states “We claim, however, that the composite Aramaic of Daniel agrees in almost every particular of orthography, etymology and syntax, with the Aramaic of the North Semitic inscriptions of the 9th, 8th and 7th centuries BC and of the Egyptian papyri of the 5th century BC, and that the vocabulary of Daniel has an admixture of Hebrew, Babylonian and Persian words similar to that of the papyri of the 5th century BC; whereas, it differs in composition from the Aramaic of the Nabateans, which is devoid of Persian, Hebrew, and Babylonian words, and is full of Arabisms, and also from that of the Palmyrenes, which is full of Greek words, while having but one or two Persian words, and no Hebrew or Babylonian.” (Wilson p.30)
Also Townsley writes: “As for the Aramaic words, 90% of them are found in texts of the fifth century BC or earlier (Vasholz, pg. 315). Rosenthal's studies have led him to conclude that the ‘Aramaic employed in Daniel was that which grew up in the courts and chancellors from the seventh century BC, and subsequently became widespread in the Near East’ (Waltke, pg. 322-323). Robert Vasholz says: ‘Many morphological forms were deemed ' late' ...have been established as early as the eighth to the fifth centuries BC [by the Elephantine papyri of the sixth century and Old Aramaic treaty texts from Sefire],’ (Vasholz, pg. 316). Further, some syntactical forms found in Daniel did not survive past the fifth century BC, for example the preposition Ie before a king's name, and the Assur Ostracon (seventh century BC) which agrees with the word order in Daniel”. (Townsley 22nd paragraph)
Aramaic is generally classified as follows (as recorded in Stefanovic p17):
Old Aramaic (900-700 BC)
Official Aramaic (700-300 BC)
Middle Aramaic (300 BC - 200 AD)
Late Aramaic (200 - 700 AD)
Modern Aramaic (700 AD -the present)
The finds at Qumran have shed a little light on the subject. Stefanovic states “The Aramaic documents from Qumran, especially the Targum to Job, have been evaluated as pointing quite definitely to a ‘pre-second-century date for the Aramaic of Daniel’” (Stefanovic p22, with reference to Vasholz, Qumran and the Dating of Daniel p320).
Stefanovic also states in his conclusion “The text of DA (Daniel Aramaic) in its present form (including ch. 7) contains a significant amount of material similar to OA (Old Aramaic) texts.” (Stefanovic p108). He shows that Daniel’s Aramaic is similar on many levels to Old Aramaic or to the transitional period from Old Aramaic to Official Aramaic. His work takes into account literary correlations, grammatical correlations and syntactical correlations to other ancient Aramaic finds. Perhaps most surprising is the similarities between DA and the Tell Fakhriyah inscription (9th century). This inscription is both in Aramaic and Akkadian. Of the 95 different words found in it, 65 are also found in DA. (Stefanovic p61) The word-order of DA, is eastern in character and ‘comes closer to the Akkadian version of Tell Fakhriyah than to its Aramaic version’ (Stefanovic p106)
It must also be remembered that Daniel has been copied and recopied time and again allowing for updates in spelling and perhaps even changes in the wording itself. In comparison to this, the other ancient Assyrian texts we have are often inscriptions in stone and are not copies, thus they have been unaltered grammatically by the passing of time. Yet despite any changes introduced since the original writing, Daniel still resembles the Aramaic of the 5th, 6th and 7th centuries.
Some would wonder as to why the Aramaic section continues into chapter 7 and if thus far why not into chapter 8. But I noted in 7:1, something very important. That is that someone else is recording Daniels words. Notice - “Daniel had a Dream…his head…he wrote down and told the sum of the sum of the matter. Daniel said…” The rest of the chapter is quoting Daniel. Chapter 8 reverts to Hebrew and we find in 8:1ff “…appeared to me, Daniel…. to me…I saw….” Here Daniel is again the actual recorder. When we see the first person being used in Chapter 7, it is within the framework of a quotation. The same treatment of Daniel also occurs throughout the first part of the book through chapter 7, but from chapter 8 onward Daniel speaks in the first person, with the exception of 10:1.
Perhaps the Aramaic section of the book was intended for publication on a large scale and was also therefore written in the language of the Empire. If the writer was recording Nebuchadnezzar’s words in the lingua franca of the day in order to declare the sovereignty of the God of Israel to the surrounding nations, then the use of Old Aramaic makes sense. But why use Old Aramaic if the book was written c. 165 in the Hellenistic period.
Both early and late daters confess that Daniel’s Aramaic is almost identical to that of Ezra’s. Both sides also place the writing of Ezra in the 5th century. If one wishes to date Daniel in 165 BC then he must also date Ezra to this period, yet no respectable scholar is willing to do that.
Four words in the Aramaic, which are apparently of Persian origin, are not attested to after the 5th century BC. The are אחשדרפן דתבר תיפת אזרא. (Collins p19 footnote 182) The use of these words weighs heavily in favor of a 6th or 5th century date.
The Aramaic belongs to the period from the 9th to 5th centuries. Even supporters of a late date such as Collins (in his introduction) are forced to confess that the Aramaic is not consistent with a 2nd century date and belongs to an earlier period.
I remembed a protestant man was explaing some of the prophecies to coptic christians..
and he said, The Lord will himself come to Egypt and save you and He will kill all Muslims dont worry coptic brothers you will be in heaven.. and everybody said halleluiah halleluiah praise to the Lord!
and I was like, what?! what is this stupidity? everybody is explaing the prophecies on his own way?!!why?
Again the is Lord quiet and silent,, he has to be silent behind the scenes...even you screamed: Oh God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob just show me a sign! he will keep more quiet and silent..for this reason he created "hell"..
If I worshiped the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob on my own way I will go to hell...
Why do I bother myself this is craziness..