|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: fulfilled prophecy - specific examples. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
There are of course problems with this claim.
Firstly the particular part of the prophecy is absent from both Mark and Matthew's version. So we really have to wonder whether Jesus said it at all. Secondly if we compare it with Mark and Matthew we see that Luke 21:20 refers to the Tribulation mentioned in the other two Gospels. Thirdly, we have the question of the length of the supposed exile. Luke 20:31 indicates that the whole series of events will happen within the span of one generation. Matthew and Mark also indicate that the timespan will be short - the "signs" in the sky will immediately follow the tribulation with the Second Coming close behind . This is a good example - of a failed prophecy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: And the Israelites NEVER controlled all this land. And there's no reason to suppose that they ever will. l that can be said of this "prophecy" is that it is one of the major causes of bloodshed in the Middle East.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
It's not a question of wanting to believe something specific or not. I want to believe the truth. Whatever that is. If Christianity is true, then, the way for God to respect my free will - and my intellectual integrity - is to provide solid examples of prophecy fulfilment. Ones that don't require twisting or misrepresentation to claim "success". So obviously if you're right there are going to be solid examples of fulfilled prophecy. Where are they ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Let it be known that I do NOT agree with this rubbish. The people to blame are Jewish extremists, and nobody else. However, this is NOT the place to discuss it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
Of course the problems are not the ease of finding grounds for doubt - it is the difficulty in finding grounds for belief. The Bible simply lacks demonstrably good examples of fulfilled prophecies - although failed prophecies are easy to find.
Your "explanation" doesn't deal with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: But you know that it isn't. If it was nonsense you wouldn't be relying on insinuations. You would be presenting your solid examples of fulfilled prophecy.
quote: Well lets see. Firstly you have to show that Jesus said that. Then we have to show that Jesus was resurrected. Then you have to show that the "explanation" is not just an ad hoc reinterpretation made up after the fact. When that is exactly what it looks like. No, there are no good grounds for belief in this example. And by providing such a poor example you have proved that my point is not nonsense at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: I don't have to. You're the one claiming that this is an absolutely clear example of a fulfilled prophecy. That it would be unreasonable to deny that it was a fulfilled prophecy. At the least you have to show that the alleged prediction was made before the supposed fulfillment. And you won't even do that ! Let alone make any attempt to deal with my other points. Thanks for proving my point - again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Reason says it. You're the one making the claim, so supporting it is your burden. There's nothing arbitrary about it. Now maybe YOU want to set up arbitrary rules so that you get to "win" - but that would be hypocritical.
quote: Which only demonstrates the nastiness of your attitude.
quote: According to the Gospels. Can we really trust the Gospels to accurately report what Jesus' enemies said ? I think not. But then again according to Mark the accusations are false - so Jesus never said it...
quote: Of course that's not what I'm doing. You are trying to set the bar ridiculously low.
quote: But we don't have to uncritically accept the sources you happen to like. That just begs the question. So what it comes down to is this: You slandered the skeptics with your insinuations. When asked to back it up you couldn't. All you can do is repeat the same slanders. So what it comes down to is that your God wants us to PRETEND that there are good examples of fulfilled prophecies in the Bible - and to slander anyone who tells the truth that there aren't. Why would anyone WANT to join your religion ? Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
Yes, I pointed that out in my fiorst reply on this prophecy. Jaywill didn't address it then and hasn't addressed it since. It's not even that ambiguous. The ambiguity seems to be artificial, and is very likely based on reinterpreting a possible genuine statement after the fact.
The other interesting thing is that if Jesus did say it the "false accusations" from Mark are in fact true.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
Google finds one reference. Here Guess who posted it, with absolutely no attribution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: No, because I think that the Gospels are going to be heavily biased against Jesus' enemies.
quote: So Mark is wrong - the accusations WEREN'T false ?
quote: Another attempt to deceive from you. I never said that John was hostile to Jews in general. And the hostile reference we were discussing comes from Mark - not John.
quote: Mark says that the accusations were false.
quote: According to Mark the accusation was false. But I certainly didn't say that you had to believe Mark. And I certainly didn't suggest that the author(s) of John were out to deceive me specifically.
quote: OK. Here's a reasonable guess. Jesus really did say it. Mark, wanting to "whitewash" Jesus denied it (so far we agree !) John retrofitted it to the idea of the resurrection story. What's so unlikely about that ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
So it still hasn't been fulfilled. And it's more than 1900 years late. I think we can chalk that one up as a failure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
So that's it. You don't have a good example, but God demands that we pretend. Come off it - if God was real there wouldn't be any need to pretend - in fact if God was real He'd be opposed to such dishonesty.
Sorry Jay, but the threat of slander isn't enough to make me join your false religion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: Yes. Certainly less so than you.
quote: The people accusing him, of course. Really, how can you not see that ? Why invent this silly idea that I mean all the Jews, every single last one ?
quote: No, I don't. We can't expect exact quotes from any source - the more so since in addition to the limits of human memory all those we have will be translations (from Aramaic into Greek). The quotes agree in substance, and that's enough.
quote: The synoptic Gospels DO have Jesus saying that the Temple will be destroyed - and a link with Daniel's "predictions" referring to the desecration and reconsecration of the Temple (the Olivet Discourse, which Buz has already referred to). And then we have the attack on the money changers indicating that Jesus was at odds with the Temple authorities. You can't ignore those. According to the Gospels Jesus was at odds with the Temple, did predict its destruction and at least implied that it would be rebuilt (it can't be reconsecrated otherwise !).
quote: The only evidence so far is that John said so. Well it's obviously theologically convenient to John, the more so since the Temple had been destroyed and NOT rebuilt at the likely time of writing.
quote: If they were honest people who fairly assessed the truth of what they heard, then maybe. Is that what you are suggesting.
quote: Which didn't say anything about anyone identified as Jesus' enemy - in John.
quote: So you don't REALLY believe that Jesus said it. Because if he did then you disagree with Mark.
quote: You mean how often am I going to catch YOUR attempts at innuendo ? You tried to suggest that I thought that John's Gospel was written specifically to deceive me. Of course it wasn't. Maybe it wasn't even written with an intent to deceive. Some people are so controlled by bias that they cannot see the way they twist and spin everything.
quote: Sure. The resurrection itself is really, really unlikely. Almost any alternative scenario comes out better.
quote: We don't have any writings that can be reliably attributed to those men. And relying on one side of any story is not a reliable way to do history. I wouldn't trust a Mormon biography of Joseph Smith or a Scientiology-approved biography of L Ron Hubbard - and they'd have (and have to cope with) better sources and a far better developed tradition of history and biography than the Gospel writers did.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.6 |
quote: If the examples you are setting here illustrates your "regeneration" it is hardly something I can see as positive. And let us remember that what we are dealing with is your assertion that you have good examples of fuliflled prophecy which unbelieivers need to seek excuses not to believe. An assertion you only prove more and more wrong with every post.
quote:Absolutely not. quote: Since we are not dealing with such a dramatic case - and since none of the disciples was even present at Jesus' trial this hardly helps you.
quote: In other words you want me to just assume that you are right. WHere I want to fairly evaluate the evidence you want to marshal it towards a predetermined conclusion. Which comes back to my point - you have to work for belief in this prophecy. The evidence doesn't stand on it's own - you have to beg the question.
quote: On the contrary, since the Gospels say that Jesus quite definitely talked about the destruction of the Temple elsewhere your case collapses. There is no way to be sure that if he prophesied that he would destory the Temple and raise it in three days he did not mean the literal Temple. And according to the Gospels that is what the people who heard him say it thought that he meant.
quote: Since taking the plain literal meaning of it is the easiest reading - and according to John the view those that heard it understood Jesuis to be saying - then you support my point. Jesus must have meant that actual Temple.
quote: It would help a lot if all four said it since John is at least partially independant of the synoptics. However the fact that Mark denies that Jesus even said it is a clear problem.
quote: I'm sure that you did work extra hard to come up with that, but it's not anything I said. You CAN look back at previous posts, you know. Now we both know that Mark and John BOTH make reference to such a saying. Mark denies that Jesus said it. John insists that he said it but REALLY meant his owen body. But what's wrong with the idea that Jesus said it and meant it - just as it sounds ? That's SIMPLER than either Gospel. I don't have to work hard.
quote: There's nothing stopping you from doing just that.
quote: This isn't an anti-resurrection argumnet. The question here is whether Jesus actually made the "prediction". John says he did , Mark says he didn't. One is wrong.
quote: According to John. Mark says he didn't say it, and we have only John's word that he "really" meant his body. Anfd no good reason to beleive John.
quote: Actually I don't - and I did raise the issue. It's just that you haven't really got around to addressing it.
quote: i.e. without begging the question your argument is in trouble - again.
quote: Setting Homer aside, that's untrue. We have NO good idea about who wrote Matthew. Mark is barely more certain, Luke is also uncertain (but even the "traditional" author is NOT a disciple anyway) and so is John - the only one that even plausibly comes (mostly) from someone who was there, but also the most influenced by theology.
quote: If I were asserting that the Gospels had been corrupted that is certainly a point I would have to deal with. On the other hand, since I have not even suggested such a thing this is a huge irrelevance. Why can't you just be honest ?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024