Prophecy re-visited

We don't NEED the bones as evidnece of evolution.. although the bones suggest it.SOme of the most powerful evidence of evolution comes from DNA evidence that we looked for because the bones suggested it would be there.

quote:

---

a message from God via someone
'Called by god', to try to steer the nation of Isreal back to God from straying from God.

---

The prophetic books make more sense when read with the ancient Hebrew viewpoint.Any idea when it morphed into fortune telling?Could the passages in Deuteronomy have been added later to accomodate the new trend of fortune telling?

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

quote:

---

For example, the absence of any mention of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in at least two of the Gospels (if I remember correctly) is a good indication -at least to me- that they were written before 70 AD.

---

I think Mark, Matthew and Luke all make mention of the destruction of Jerusalem. Then there are the allegories in Mark 12:1-9 and Matthew 22:1-10, which make no sense until after the event.

quote:

---

I don't think that the lifetime of a prophecy should be within the lifetime of the prophet,

---

Then the portion of the passage that says would not be applicable once the prophet had passed. Then what would be the point of the prophecy if not to prove that the speaker spoke for God. Also in the earlier portion of that passage: Hard to do if he already died decades if not centuries before the prophecy supposedly came true.Then there's Deuteronomy 13 A sign or wonder happening centuries later doesn't help the prophet's cause or reputation in dealing with the people in his own age, nor does it help the people to discern who is speaking the word of God and who isn't.From these passages it sounds as though the Hebrews would expect the prophecy to happen within the prophet's lifetime unless specifically stated otherwise.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Deuteronomy is one of the more interesting books of the OT for demonstrating the attitude, beliefs and theology of the people at the time it was written. Throughout, it is very polytheistic, recognizing that there are multiple gods and the various gods are all powerful and can perform miracles, have valid and accurate prophets and in general, are equals. It shows the relationship between the Hebrews and the Hebrew GOD to be based on loyalty, not on the fact that the Hebrew GOD is somehow superior to the other gods.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Mark, Matthew and Luke all refer to the future destruction of the temple, as prophecised -amongst other things- by Jesus. Many scholars make the point that none of the gospels mention the actual destruction of the temple, which historically happened around 70 AD. Obviously, such a mention would have enhanced the gospels' credibility as confirmation of the fulfilled prophecy. The absence of such a mention is used an an argument for dating the gospels before 70 AD.The allegories in Mark 12:1-9 and Matthew 22:1-10 are just that, allegories, standing perfectly well on their own. I can't see how they can be related to a specific event. Well, if that was the case that would invalidate at least all the Messianic prophecies (Isaiah, Zechariah, Psalms, etc) as none of these prophecies came true within the prophets' lifetimes.Also, the New Testament repeatedly refers to Old Testament prophecy fulfillment, hundreds of years after the death of the prophets. Furthermore, many Christians claim that many prophecies are in the process of being fulfilled right now. So, it seems that even if that view was held by ancient Hebrews, it's not held anymore. That's why I think that a prophecy should be considered within it's own timescales, not within the prophet's lifetime.P.S BTW, is that your cat?

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

quote:

---

The allegories in Mark 12:1-9 and Matthew 22:1-10 are just that, allegories, standing perfectly well on their own. I can't see how they can be related to a specific event.

---

Then please tell me what these allegories were teaching the people?

quote:

---

Well, if that was the case that would invalidate at least all the Messianic prophecies (Isaiah, Zechariah, Psalms, etc) as none of these prophecies came true within the prophets' lifetimes.

---

Exactly! So do you follow the rules that God gave for judging prophets, or do you cast it aside because it doesn't agree with the traditions of today?

quote:

---

P.S BTW, is that your cat?

---

Yes, his name is Shadoe. He's a very curious cat.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Both parables, in context, are veiled threats against anyone thinking of mistreating him or his disciples / prophets. Also, Matthew 22:1-10 is a warning to potential followers (not having a wedding garment, etc.) I suppose you could see it as a moral teaching against greed and ingratitude, but I doubt the Pharisees and Saducees saw it that way.Again, I fail to see how they relate to the destruction of the temple, or any other specific prophecy. Following the rules that God gave for judging prophets would be pretty cool, as it would invalidate Bible prophecy in its entirety! However, Christians today don't follow these rules (not surprisingly), so how could I?Furthermore, in this thread I'm trying to establish some independent, objective criteria for defining prophecy, wherever it comes from and putting the Christian God's word in there would immediately make it one-sided, excluding prophecy from any other religion. Mike the wiz would also accuse me of bias (again) and we don't want that, do we!? P.S Shadoe is a beautiful cat. We got two of our own, very curious too.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

quote:

---

Furthermore, in this thread I'm trying to establish some independent, objective criteria for defining prophecy, wherever it comes from and putting the Christian God's word in there would immediately make it one-sided, excluding prophecy from any other religion.

---

Understood. Unacceptable for your neutral objective list.

quote:

---

Timeframe. Prophecy must have specific time-limit, i.e. cannot be open-ended.

---

When we start discussing a specific OT prophecy though, IMO the verses would give the specific time limit for prophecies within the OT that your objective criteria requires. I will save them until then.

quote:

---

Both parables, in context, are veiled threats against anyone thinking of mistreating him or his disciples / prophets.

---

Short version: The king is God and the Jews are the invited guests. The destruction of the guests' city is the fall of Jerusalem. The Gentiles represent those who were invited after the main guests rejected the king/God etc.It is the same general scenerio for the one in Mark.From "The Parables, Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation by Brad H. Young" Any Bible study I've been a part of has presented this interpretation.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Fair enough. The parables, like some prophecies, are open to interpretation. They may explain the fall of Jerusalem (with hindsight) but they fail to point at it explicitly. I've heard interpretations relating the Matthew parable to the second coming (the wedding) and saving by grace / works (the wedding garment). I'm sure there are many more out there.Looking at the parables in context, they are given as a reason why the authorities were reluctant to lay hands on him, at that stage. Both parables make it very clear that those who mistreat God's (king / landlord) prophets (servants / heralds) come to a sticky end, i.e. get killed.I still think that the parables, due to their nature, are pretty much event-independent and with post-reasoning can be made to fit into most events and situations.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

quote:

---

Both parables make it very clear that those who mistreat God's (king / landlord) prophets (servants / heralds) come to a sticky end, i.e. get killed.

​

I still think that the parables, due to their nature, are pretty much event-independent and with post-reasoning can be made to fit into most events and situations.

---

Getting into parables would probably drag this thread off the topic of prophecy, but just something for you to think about.Jesus was supposed to teach with parables, which was a common teaching tool of the time.A parable is a simple story that means what it says. It teaches a moral or religious truth through analogy with common experiences and uses pictures to express its meaning.An allegory, on the other hand, does not mean what it says, but hides its meaning using symbols.Matthew 22 strays away from the common experience. Given the etiquette of the times, those not going to the banquet would not mistreat or kill the king's servants. When the king invited people in off the street to eat, he wouldn't expect them to have the proper clothing since they were given no warning and possibly didn't own wedding clothes. The story had a hidden meaning.Only after you put the salvation symbols in the story does it make sense, but it would not have made sense to the audience of the time.Study the parables some more.On the topic of Prophecy.
I think MTW has made it clear he probably won't participate in this thread. So if you want to discuss prophecy, I suggest you choose one you would like to hold up against your criteria.Maybe start with the one you mentioned in Message 35

quote:

---

Mark, Matthew and Luke all refer to the future destruction of the temple, as prophecised -amongst other things- by Jesus.

---

Mark 13:1-31, Matthew 24:1-51, Luke 21:5-36 Run the complete prophecy through your criteria machine and let me know how it stacks up?

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

But your motives were made clear with your speech about christians. Also, if rules were made for prophecy before reading the bible - or by a neutral source, not interested in God existing/Not existing, then I could be re-assured about your intentions. However, at the moment you are a suspicious newbie - albeit a reasonable/nice one so far, but the rules will only ascertain validity anyway.Example; This is vague and therefore probably invalid by any said rules. But that doesn't matter - even if I have established validity truth cannot be known through any rules. Why? Because I cannot establish if you seen a vision, and were sick certain days - and if that revelation was from God.Therefore, Dan says that truth doesn't matter. This is funny, as this is fitting from an unbelieving perspective. I suppose Christ doesn't matter aswell. Thus, people assume validity will remove the prophecy's credence. Yet I can show specific prophecies in moby dick, and the book was made before 9/11. So, specifics/vagueness don't necessarily prove much. Certainly it's hard to prove - that validity even helps in the matter of prophecies. It might filter the bullsh***ers to a certain extent. But the deciding and important factor of truth is missing.Now - I understand Dan's frustration when he made that post about anything being able to pass without rules - but that's not necessarily true if we think deeply about this, as common sense prevails. For example - if the bible has one prophecy to Messiah that is accurate in Isaiah and a another that is also accurate in psalms - then these different books are predicting Christ way before he happened - and these were written by Jews. Common sense tells us that if a guy on the street predicts something by chance - then it's coincidence, but if he does it again and again.......Now if Lam's fish tries to get food, is it a coincidence if it makes the same action each day before feeding?So, my post about me and Buz deciding some rules for evolution establishes well what I am talking about concerning none-believers - that they cannot be trusted like we couldn't be in such a thread. You will know what I mean if you are not new. Are you?

If you want to comment on what I've said, you should probably go do so in the thread where I posted it, so it'll be in context. While you're in that thread where I posted, you could address my points about Isaiah.

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer

Dan, you're absolutely right..sorry. I will give a reply shortly to your post. Again, I apologize for my delayed replies.

Maybe, but they're still irrelevant ! What do my motives have to do with what people accept as prophecy ?! If, as you hinted, you wanted to discuss evidence of evolution, I'd be happy to discuss it with you, even if your intentions were to disgrace the ToE. I would still be able to tell you why I accept or reject certain pieces of evidence. All I'm asking is that you do the same with prophecy. Even if I was Hitler, Attila the Hun and the Ebola virus, all rolled into one, shouldn't you stil be able to justify your beliefs to me ?! So, based on this, isn't it fair to say that you accept criteria #3 (Specificity) and (B} (Independent evidence must exist) ?Also, isn't it fair to say that you add a new rule, say #5 : prophecy must be revealed from God ?If you accept this as fair, say so and we can discuss that extra rule. What's trust got to do with it? We don't know each other from Adam. Still, I'd be happy to justify my position in a debate with you, Buzz, whoever, even if your motives were to discredit me. Can't you do the same ? Like I said in my first post:

quote:

---

This is my first post, though I've been browsing for months.

---

Again, I'm asking : When you read the Bible, you decided that the prophecies in it were valid, true and impressive. How did you decide this ? Did you decide this because the prophecies,

1. met your standards for truth, validity and impressiveness.
2. were in the Bible.
3. other - ??

In anticipation,

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Good point about the allegory / parable differences. How do we know if the Matthew / Mark passages are allegories or parables ? Given that the audience of the time were the priests and Pharisees (Mt:21:45, Mt:22:1, Mt:22:15), the implied threat about what happens if you mistreat God's prophets and son would have made perfect sense.I have not forgotten about the temple destruction prophecy, but I'd rather wait -if you don't mind- for the discussion with MTW about the rules to bottom out, before I start on specific prophecies.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."