Prophecy for Buzsaw

As I said, Jesus comes with clouds. With clouds comes storms. That's a given, and we're seeing more clouds and more storms for sure, here in Eastern US. They come rapid fire off the West coast, one after another, over the Rockies and on East with the prevailing winds, not to mention the hurricanes. Devastating ornadoes are ever on the increase in intensity and frequency as these fronts move across the continent. Since a kid in the 30s and 40s I've watched the clouds continually on the increase, even in my home state of Wyoming as well as here now in the East from what they were 50 and 60 years ago.

Is that your response ? I thought you approved of Marcos' debating style so at least I would expect a defence of his methods. Come on, explain why an increase in hurricanes and floods proves an increase in earthquakes and pestilence. Or is it just falsely claiming a fulfilment of prophey you approve of ?

quote:

---

if he can find just one hole to discredit someone, he'll come down on you hook-line-and-sinker...

---

I'm sorry that's a bit rich come from someone who tries to present themselves as an expert but then gets taken in by the most clear hoax sites and lectures the rest of us about not reading links and websites correctly!

Don't worry Charles Knight, I'm not taken in by them 100% by them as you think. I'm simply more willing to give them a benefit of the doubt as long as their is no 100% accurate proof against it. There are a lot of uncovered things in this world...things that will one day be revealed. There are also a lot of "good" things that the world likes to cover. Secret things are held everywhere and are not released to the public ear (especially in its accuracy and entirety), so therefore, not only should we be skeptical against a claim, but we should also be skeptical against the claims against it.I trust you respect and are willing to understand my style of approach. This message has been edited by Lysimachus, 09-21-2004 09:36 AM

---

~Lysimachus

quote:

---

Don't worry Charles Knight, I'm not taken in by them 100% by them as you think. I'm simply more willing to give them a benefit of the doubt as long as their is no 100% accurate proof against it.

---

Are you honestly trying to claim that's not a hoax? A well-known hoax at that? I'm gobsmacked - you really that's going to fly? Who are you trying to kid?Don't you think we are wise to the smileyfaces that come out when you are being hammered and your "evidence" is debunked?All you have is your usual tactic (1 of 2) of claiming "wait till tomorrow" or "here's one I cut and paste earlier".This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 09-21-2004 09:48 AM

You should have responded to me in the Giant thread to keep it on topic, as I answered your same question there.

---

~Lysimachus

My comment pertained to Marcos's thoroughness in stating his position so as to know exactly where he stands. I stand by that.My point about the weather is that your implication that earthquakes and pestalences are not all that's prophesied in the Bible concerning latter day weather. With clouds comes bad weather as I've shown the prophecies to verify.

Buz buzzin outa town in the buzbus. Have a good'n, all.

That doesn't change the fact that Marcos specifically listed the prophecy that there would be earthquakes and then tried to back it up with an article referring to hurricanes and floods becoming more frequent.And your references aren't a lot better. None of them refers specifically to hurricanes and floods.As to the Olivet Discourse, I'm still waiting for you to support your assertions. And to find VALID arguments against my reading. Which so far you have utterly failed to do.

.Taken from, "Dear christian, judge not lest you be judged" - how ironic! Ahahahaha. Just what exactly caused this rant of hokum overspill Dan?Provide one quote - yes one, which shows an ounce of provokation. Your judgements are totally unjustified, and come as a response to the fact that I provided a prophecy which was fulfilled and could be verified outside of the bible.If there is any hope for you, you shall refrain completely from your foul language and insulting behaviour, by heeding the truth of the biblical prophecies. You say it's semantics, but infact, the thread was made to defend people like you, and you would rather insult me and/or debate Christ prophecised. So, you've put up nothing but opinionated spiel concerning me, which can be described as "hokum". I believe what I actually said, was that not only do you not accept prophecy within the bible, but you will not accept an extra biblical source like a Gospel that is outside the bible. I then asked, HOW do you expect me to verify anything if anything "in favour" or "supporting" the prophecies in the bible, is a no no to you. So now you can refrain from side-banter and insults, and answer the question. Or shall I answer it for you? ---You full well know how hard it is to meet those rules, because you are "for" these rules, and none-believers "made" these rules,, or even designed them to fit their argument. This is apparent because I even played by your rules and your stubborn pre-conceptions about the bible, won you over, and forced you to deny my prophecy despite it meeting the rules. Another insult, without provokation. I recommend you calm down - take a stress pill and think things over.. You know that Mike is ice and can never be provoked to foul words and emotional outbursts. So, calm down, keep your opinion to yourself and address these bible truths! Dan,..only to the unbeliever in the bible my friend. Did I not say early on that I favour God's rules above mens? Should I heed you over the Spirit of God?I believe fully that the bible is not a weak source of prophecy, but rather - I have frustrated you in your attempts, and failures to show this pre-conception/biased unbelief - is acceptable. So calm down take a stress pill and think things over.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 09-21-2004 02:42 PM

If this is so, why should everything with the name "Christ" on it, be judged as a none-starter for an extra-biblical source? What about the acts of pilate?This just shows that Dan wouldn't accept any christian texts concerning a prophecy of Isaiah - his prophecy just said how Christ would suffer, there is ENORMOUS amount of texts (not in the bible) - saying that Christ suffered. I will even hunt for non-christian texts, AND I AM CONFIDENT they will also be dismissed by Dan and his gang of unbelievers.

If the way you lop out a few words of Percy's post in post 311 of this thread, while ignoring the point he was trying to make isn't an example of your dishonesty, I don't know what is.Little quote mining tip, Mike: it's easier to misrepresent something if it's not right there in another thread for all to see. Really? It was fulfilled? It refers to "the Lord" as part of the fulfillment... you're gonna prove his existence now, to show that the prophecy was fulfilled? Can't wait to hear it.And it's been explained to you why your source is not extra-Biblical. I notice you haven't responded to the reasoning... just repeatedly screamed "IT'S NOT IN THE BIBLE!!!"Interesting.Feel free to ignore these points, and repeat over and over again that you have a prophecy that meets the rules. Oh, and that there's no provocation for calling you dishonest and/or idiotic. Yeah, and I believe what I actually said... you're either dishonest, or a genuine idiot.This message has been edited by Dan Carroll, 09-21-2004 03:18 PM

---

"Good evening. I'm playing the role of Jesus; a man once portrayed on the big screen by Jeffery Hunter. You may remember him as the actor who was replaced by William Shatner on Star Trek. Apparently Mr. Hunter was good enough to die for our sins, but not quite up to the task of seducing green women."
-Stewie Griffin

I might add that this is a bald-faced lie. The prophecy specifically assigns motive and agency to the suffering. God is the one inflicting the suffering, and the reason it is happening is for our sins.

quote:

---

He was wounded and crushed because of our sins;
by taking our punishment
he made us completely well

​

All of us were like sheep that had wandered off
We had each gone our own way
but the Lord gave him
the punishment we deserved

---

So please find extra-Biblical sources that include God as the agent behind Christ's suffering, and establish the reasoning behind the suffering.Heck, establishing that there's such a thing as "God" would be a good start.

---

"Good evening. I'm playing the role of Jesus; a man once portrayed on the big screen by Jeffery Hunter. You may remember him as the actor who was replaced by William Shatner on Star Trek. Apparently Mr. Hunter was good enough to die for our sins, but not quite up to the task of seducing green women."
-Stewie Griffin

Yes. He laid down his own life, and he can take it back up again. Christ and his father are together, so? Why that's just silly, everybody knows God is. Infact, I only cut out the parts which were relevant to the point I was going to make. That isn't dishonest, and it doesn't make me an idiot. Insultive behaviour Dan, is for teenagers and f- wads(bravery from hiding behind a pc) - and I'll leave it to them. You see, some of you unbelievers are under the impression that we must come to your conclusions if we also study what your outlook is in a topic. This is just arrogance though, surely - as I am obliged to listen but not take your position. So quit the jive about me not hearing - I hear, I know, and I still stick to my guns, get over it!Furthermore, rule 5 is against the Holy Spirit. Scripture says that the Holy SPirit of God makes prophecy known to man, and the spirit of prophecy thereof, is not interpreted by man, but by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, I cannot abide by the rules anyway, I cannot put man before God. I mean, how can we have a rule which rules out the one who made the prophecy because you might think the interpretation of the Spirit is "convoluted". This shows a lack of understanding concerning prophecies. Therefore it's like saying;" Despite these prophecies comong from the spirit - according to biblical texts, if we (unbelievers) feel the interpretation thereof is convoluted - then it doesn't qualify "THIS is the height of man's arrogance against God.

1. Your link was dead when I tried.2. Your dates of category 4 and 5 hurricanes are wrong, too. We had unnamed Atlantic hurricanes (dates listed are the date of first detection of >= 160mph winds) on
Sep. 13, 1928
Sep 5, 1932
Sep 3, 1935
Sep 19, 1938
Sep 16, 1947Then, the named ones.
Dog: Sep 6, 1950
Easy: Sep 7, 1951
Janet: Sep 28, 1955
Cleo: Aug 16, 1958
Donna: Sep 4, 1960
Ethel: Sep 15, 1960
Carla: Sep 11, 1961
Hattie: Oct 30, 1961
Beulah: Sep 20, 1967
Camile: Aug 17, 1969
Edith: Sep 9, 1971
Anita: Sep 2, 1977
David: Aug 30, 1979
Allen: Aug 7, 1980
Gilbert: Sep 14, 1988
Hugo: Sep 15, 1989
Mitch: Oct 26, 1998
(no more recent data available)http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/...iteseye/educational/cat5hur.htmlGeez, will a single creationist present some *accurate* data in this thread for once?The "highest winds at landfall" hurricane? Camile, in 1969. The "most intense at landfall" hurricane was the 1935 one that hit the Florida keys. The only other records were the less significant "Longest category 5" and "most intense Atlantic hurricane", which were Allen and Gilbert, respectively.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."