Prophecy for Buzsaw

You can go back and read page 1 yourself.So far as I am concerned you could have ended the whole thing by admitting that you shouldn't have complained about rule 1 without a good reason - or indeed producing a good reason. I am perfectly open to a reasonable discussion of the rules we should use to work out if a prophecy should be considered good evidence of the supernatural. Personally I think the rules suggested in post 1 have a significant loophole that favours your side, while being too stringent in other areas. I've been thinking about offering an alternate set which I think solve some of the problems but I need to spend some moretime thinking on hte matter.

If I read page one, will you then forgive me for appearing hostile? But I was convicted that I did have a good reason, my opinion hasn't changed, but I don't want to be hostile ofcourse. If I go this mile will you then forgive me?Come on, what fun would there be without the wiz?

Mike, Ah, but it's not "him", it's them, & some of them are "she".Doesn't the bible tell you unequivocally that there is one true God? Don't you believe this? Because if you accept the bibles account then you do reject ALL of the Hindu Gods, & Hinduism with it. No, you *think* you know Jesus, let's not forget the gaping hole that you have left unfilled by any empircal evidence whatsoever. I have no problem with you *believing* he is the messiah. It's when you entered the thread like a raging bull pretending you had evidence, as opposed to faith.It may not sound like it but I really have no problems with Christians, next month it becomes my honour to marry one. It's the say one thing one minute, then pretend I was saying something else all along that got my goat. The flying in all guns blazing that you did when, once the dust had settled, you had nothing more than Buz. Firstly, I never said your opinion didn't need to be added, it was that you weren't adding anything to the argument but your opinion. It was an argument about evidence, after all.I'm sorry, Mike, but if you're a follower of any of the Abrahamic religions then you believe in one God by definition. That means rejecting polytheistic religions. You are either a polytheist or a monotheist & they are mutually exclusive. This means you have rejected religions.Your hypocritical because you think the age of your religious texts & that it mentions characters is evidence of them but not when it applies to other religions. Or are you prepared to retract & admit that this isn't evidence for any religion?You are gullible because you accept (as far as you are concerned) because you accept a circular argument as being valid. The bible proves the bible type of thing.That's pretty much it, isn't it? See above. Let's see, gullible, hypocritical, rejector of religions, & a misquote to boot. Who said you insulted religions? Who said you rejected all religions. That is patently untrue! I don't recall. Did you say that to someone else?I assume therefore that you accept that specificity is a requirement for prophecy validation? We could draw a line under the above & discuss any further objections you have with 2-6, if you'd like? Then we could get back on track, agree the premises & look at a few prophecies. We could even kick off with a non-christian one. Rules 1-6 are perfectly reasonable. There's nothing that you have objected to with a rationale beyond, "it's not fair".Yes, you have kept me busy, but it was still easy, I don't mean that in a nasty way. I could contest you in another thread without providing a shred of evidence, & all I would have done would be to have wasted your time.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

I read all page 1 as Paul requested. And I noticed another stab at me. Apart from that I might have came off slightly bullish. So I am sorry to you and Paul for that.
I do have a strange sense of humor though, which you could mistake for being hostile. For example: "bonce of bias inquiry" I thought amusing. That truly was it's purpose - my own laughter. No, I do. He answers my prayers and has done all good things for me, even when I don't deserve it. If you could just stop saying that, I'm sure we could forget this stuff. I know put up or shut up sounds a bit harsh but, reading back, I was maybe slightly irritating but then you were not exactly on your best behaviour either. I said it to everyone when I offered my hand by saying 'Am I out of line?' Maybe - I am open to it. But would like a better version of rules, or atleast an update of a neutral nature. I myself do not even seek discussion about the rules anymore....not really, not much. Ho hum......

Mike, That's right, you call me names & I call you them, right? We can, but you did bring it up again. "But for the record, 3 minutes ago I made the following prophecy, making the prophecy REAL & no longer hypothetical:I prophecise that a particular car will come down my street in the next five minutes.A blue Astra, reg X593 BNU came past my front wall 2:24 after the prophecies beginning. That was exactly the car I meant. I therefore conclude I have supernatural powers."Can't you see the prophecy is meaningless because of the lack of specificity? You don't need a neutral referee to see that, surely? A prophecy MUST be specific or there are a number of potential ways in which the prophecy could be claimed to have been fulfilled, & they can't all be right.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Yah, PaulK, you're right and I stand corrected. I was still thinking of the generation statement being talked about so much, which by the way is in all three gospels.Regardless though, the desciples had such a close knit relationship that I'm sure they all knew the story well which is evidenced by the absence of contradiction in the three accounts and the detail of the discourse given. The Matthew account states that his desciples were with him and asked him "privately." Then in Mark 13 when he leaves the temple, "one desciple" asks him about the temple. He and the desciples then went to the Mount of Olives and "Peter, James, John, and Andrew" ask him when "these things" shall come to pass, etc and he goes on with the discourse. Now, we are sure that the desciples did the recording, but some seemed to have that duty. It is unclear as to exactly how many desciples heard the discourse, though four were listed in Mark as asking the question. These four may have asked him and after they all sat together he may have given the answer to all. We don't know. We do know the ones who recorded the words of Jesus gave close enough accounts with enough detail that It can be assumed the account was accurate because of the lack of contradiction concerning the message. That 12 people were closely and devoutly involved with Jesus adequately satisfies the witness matter in all things pertaining to his ministry.The fact that the three accounts are not worded the same shows that three, not one, as in the Quran or the BOM, author the story about what was said and that in itself should satisfy the witness matter, for they either had to have been there and heard what Jesus said or all three did their own homework to get the facts to report and get the facts about what was said.

quote:

---

The evidence that I am the Messiah is that I say so.

​

Fact.

---

Dan, I don't see any miracles yet.

---

Bible
Search Results
"love" was found 865 times in 751 verses.Thats a Whole Lotta Love

Babylon being rebuilt mentioned in Revelation. Saddam Hussein rebuilt Babylon.Revelation 18:21 - And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.This quote from Rev. talks about Babylon being destroyed, obviously meaning it was rebuilt. Still trying to find a quote blatantly stating that "BABYLON WAS REBUILT."About Saddam's renovations : 16Less "Biased" Story about Saddam and Babylon: Ken Raggio teaches about Saddam Hussein - Did He Fulfill A Bible Prophecy?

---

Bible
Search Results
"love" was found 865 times in 751 verses.Thats a Whole Lotta Love

Just found out that the second link may be under Christian influence, in rush to find news reports of old.

---

Bible
Search Results
"love" was found 865 times in 751 verses.Thats a Whole Lotta Love

Sorry - we can't find that pageGotcha! This may be the one.

---

Bible
Search Results
"love" was found 865 times in 751 verses.Thats a Whole Lotta Love

I can't beleieve that you are still trying to put forward "there will be wars and rumours of wars" as the sort of prophecy that ought to be considered. There are simply no specifics that could possibly be used to make it anything less than a virtual certainty. It's like predicting that the toss of a coin will come up heads or tails - only it's *more* likely that the coin would land on edge than that there would be a permanant end to war circa 30 AD. The same applies to virtually any point in human history. I've already pointed that out.So any sensible set of rules MUST rule out "there will be wars and rumours of wars". And that means that it is impossible that your objection could be a good reason.The whole point of the rules is to find if there is a prophecy that presents strong enough evidence that a reasonable person would have to accept it as a genuine supernatural prediction. If you want to argue that any prophecy attributed to Jesus in any of the canonical Gospels must automatically be accepted then you are proposing a set of rules that are obviously biased in your favour. But if you do NOT wish to propose that, then you must accept that some prophecies attributed to Jesus may be ruled out. And that is the whole problem. You certainly CAN'T honestly accuse others of bias when your main complaint is that the rules aren't blatantly rigged in your favour.

OK so we are agreed that the exile and return is only found in Luke.
So we only have ONE witness for that part of the prophecy. Accordingly, by your own rules, we can't include it.As to the rest of your post you are engaging in speculation. We do not know that any of this was written down at the time - nor can we even be sure that any of it was written down prior to the Gospel of Mark. Literary analysis has shown that there was considerable copying between the three synoptic Gospels so it cannot be claimed that those Gospels are independant accounts as you are trying to do. Again this is not controversial (although there is controversy over who copied who - especially over whether Luke used Matthew).

You do realise that most Christians regard the references to "Babylon" in Revelation to be symbolic ?

Hi,Can I just let you know that I saw Dan curing a man who was blind, Dan put some of his saliva on his thumbs and pressed them against the blind man's eyes and suddenly the man could see!It truly was a miracle.Brian.

You have both accused me of bias. But did I ever say I wanted the prophecy " wars and rumours of wars " to be included in this topic?NO. I simply said, if a rule is to be unbiased how can it include a prophecy, and say in effect, " you cannot use this prophecy "I am not going to put this particular prophecy forward. I think there are other good examples. But my point is, am I a follower, going to say, " Oh Jesus, I now don't believe in wars and rumours of wars, your words, because of Percy's rule 1 "I severly doubt that!!You are not understanding my position. Or, you are deliberatly misleading and misquoting me.
How can I still trust you after the things you have accused me of?You and Mark have came up with NO QUOTES WHATSOEVER concerning any bias or hypocrisy I might have.How many times do you want to discuss rule 1?Does rule 1 include or not include a "prophecy" by Christ concerning war?NEVERTHELESS I am willing to drop this, are you?---------------------------------------------------Mark: Could you quote the names I called you Mark?[This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-12-2004]