fulfilled prophecy - specific examples.

The major prophecies are there in the Bible. We didn't have to create them.At issue, as I said, is your not recognizing that the explanations of those prophecies given by the new covenant apostles and prophets are authentic and authoritative.For example, in His resurrection Jesus opened the minds of the wavering disciples to show to them that what was written concerning Him must be fulfilled: Perhaps you feel that Jesus needs to spend some time with you to get straightened out a bit on His error prone explanations of the Hebrew Bible. Perhaps you think He needs to consult with your superior insight into the Bible to get His faulty interpretations corrected.Some of us rather take His explanations a authoritative. We didn't have to create prophecies. We trusted in Christ and His apostles as to their explanations.Then the resurrected Christ explains to us: Some of us trust Jesus over you. We trust His explanations over yours. Luke says that "He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures." And we also think there is a serious problem with those who refuse to have their minds opened.So you challenge me, DARING me to try to open your minds to understand the Scriptures. There's a saying:"A person convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."Anyway, I believe the prophesies concerning Christ's life, death, and resurrection.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Okay, fine. This is a thread where you can present the best case possible for those you believe have been fulfilled. So far all that has been presented is one that was shown to be failed, one example of creating prophecy by quotemining those lines that might support some prophecy while ignoring the context surrounding them, one second hand example of someone claiming decades after the fact that Jesus said something which even according to the very passage was NOT seen as prophetic at the time and only manufactured again out of context after the fact.Pick a prophecy you think can be supported and present it. Then we will look to see if it is reasonable and stands up to examination.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

quote:

---

I think that is kind of nonsense.

---

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:

---

I mean your - "it is the difficulty finding grounds for belief"

​

Here is a prophecy of Jesus "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19)

​

They did their best to destroy Him and in three days He was raised up from the dead. But you say you have "difficulty finding grounds for belief."

​

You have a problem then. YOU ... have a problem.

---

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.

You show that He didn't say it.

quote:

---

SO Joseph - Would you please either show us where you got this quote or admit you made it up?

---

As if there is a reason to prove that Jews were persecuted and barred from returning for 2000 years! Of coz, I will do what you ask. But first one must state if it is true, it was a great violation of Godliness or any assumed religious belief. Also, a stain upon all Europen christians who never took it up - and instead annointed such a person as a Saint - as was done with Isabela of Spain, which was responded to with the expelled Jews discovering America - Columbus, and all his ship Mapsters were Jewish, making America a Zionist Plot!? Else it all goes cyclic, denial upon denial, etc.

The issue is whether or not you just made up the quote. Did you just make up the quote? If not, please provide the source.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

quote:

---

You show that He didn't say it.

---

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.

quote:

---

This too much. I spent the better part of the morning trying to find any support that 'W.W.11 Pope' (I assume you mean Pius XII?) ever said this or anything that could be twisted into this. The only hits I find on it are (drum roll please) OTHER posts on other forums by IaJ. That is suspicious in itself.

---

I will retrieve this, which is not usually published by Wiki, due to its inflamatory nature. However, the quote about restricting Jews' returning to Israel, and the Vatican's barring of it, is commonplace history, and I have seen that quoted numerously, and thus quoted it. Re which Pope, what I have seen is that many Jews, quite a large portion, hail the Pope X11, while others call him the silent Pope - while qualifying this as his intention was good, etc. I personally do not believe the 'other reasons' impacting on such a critical issue, namely the worst in humanity's history. I do believe if the Pope spoke out, there was a reasonable chance Hitler, the holocaust, and millions [not just Jews] would have been saved. I don't think there was any option for a religious leader to speak out, even risk his life, at such a time. There are many instances when the Pope did not respond to fervent calls to say/do something - in the Vichy France instant, which sent 10,000 children to the camps, by camp prisoners, and many others: all met non responses.All christians should be aghast at beautifying a Pope who was unsuccessful of stopping such a terrible attrocity: it downgrades the status of beatification, and establishes a treshold of a poor example for other Popes.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I did find a bio on wiki about this pope which mentions nothing about his opinions on the State of Israel but he did reverse his earlier WWII neutrality stance and make it RC policy that the church is to aid and assist all Jewish refugees.

---

---

Re hstorical rejection, and that of Israel, this does show the similarities between european christianity [as oppsed American christianity in general], and that of Islam, namely where these doctrines come from:

quote:

---

XI: Both Pius XI and Pius XII firmly believed that theirs was the only true religion. Hence, they agreed with the claim asserted by their predecessor Pope Boniface VIII, in his papal bull Unam Sanctam, promulgated in 1302, that outside the church "there is neither salvation nor remission of sins." As we shall see, this ancient claim goes a long way toward explaining the Vatican's Jewish policy before and during the Holocaust.

​

Boniface's claim was to remain the official position of the church until the Vatican Ecumenical Council of 1962--65. In the spirit of that council, in 1964 Pope Paul VI proclaimed the conciliar decree Lumen Gentium: On the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church. It allowed for the possibility that non-Catholics might "attain eternal salvation" while affirming the church's unique place in the divine plan for salvation: "For they who without their own fault do not know of the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but yet seek God with sincere heart, and try, under the influence of grace, to carry out His will in practice, known to them through the dictate of conscience, can attain eternal salvation."

​

The church's new attitude of inclusiveness has made a powerful and welcome difference in its relations with other Christian churches and other religions, but that attitude came only after the pontificates of Pius XI and Pius XII.2

​

A MONOPOLY ON SALVATION

​

Before we turn specifically to Pope Pius XI, let us consider what was at stake for the church in insisting on its claim to be the only true mediator between humanity and the Creator. In effect, the church sought a cognitive monopoly in matters religious within those territories subject to its control. By cognitive monopoly, I mean the exclusive power to define religious and moral reality. Indeed, until modern times the church had no other choice. Membership in the Catholic Church involved more than belief and ritual participation. It meant membership in a religiously grounded civilization at a time when that civilization was challenged continually by a rival civilization, Islam, that also claimed to be the true path to salvation.

​

The issue came down to whether the Bible or the Qur'an would be taught at the universities of Oxford, Cambridge, Paris, and Bologna and whether the sacred space at the heart of Paris would be occupied by Notre Dame Cathedral or a structure like the Great Mosque in C-rdoba, Spain. (Under 'Abd ar-Rahman III [891--961], the caliphate of C-rdoba had one million inhabitants and was arguably the largest and the most cultured city in Europe.) Until very recently, there was no way that the church could permit Islam free access to the Christian faithful. To this day, most Islamic nations deny Christians the right to propagate their religion on pain of death.

​

Nor could the church permit religious dissent within Christendom. Faced with the challenge of a powerful and militant external religious adversary, it could not tolerate internal enemies. In its eyes heretics were internal enemies and, as such, constituted at least as great a threat to the church's cognitive monopoly as the external enemy. That was the logic behind the Inquisition and its attempts to secure unity of faith within Christendom.

​

Jews were considered nonbelievers rather than heretics, and Judaism was the only non-Christian religion permitted to survive within Christendom, albeit in a strictly regulated form. The fundamental reason was theological. Under the influence of Saint Paul and Saint Augustine, Jews were permitted to survive but not thrive in full confidence that God would eventually lead a remnant of Israel to accept Christ. Nevertheless, their lives and freedom were greatly restricted. As an added assurance that Jews could not challenge the church's cognitive monopoly, their credibility was impugned as "deicides" in league with Satan. Under no circumstances were Jews permitted to lead the faithful astray. At stake was the credibility of the religious foundations of Christian civilization.

​

All this changed with the French Revolution. By disestablishing the Catholic Church and granting full political and civic rights to the Jews and Protestants, the French Revolution destroyed the church's cognitive monopoly in religious matters. During the nineteenth century, the church saw all of the forces unleashed by the French Revolution-- such as modernity, liberalism, nationalism, and secularism--as its enemies, and not without reason.

​

The church was determined to fight back. Believing the Jews were both the instigators and the chief beneficiaries of the new world of modernity, it was determined eventually to restore the old order. Moreover, there was one corner of Europe where the...

---

quote:

---

Well lets see. Firstly you have to show that Jesus said that.

​

Then we have to show that Jesus was resurrected.

---

What most disregard, it that christian belief has nothing to do with resurrection, or if Jesus existed or not. Its foolish to even speak of a resurrection reported by far removed third party reports, supposedly witnessed by someone; nor is the report of a resurrrction for a few days, followed by death or non physical existence - a resurrection! For that matter - who says a messiah needs resurrection - its the dead which need this feat, remember?! [Isaiah].Quoting OT scriptures also is devoid of any merit and veracity: the quotes are totally distorted, translated eronously, affirmed as such by most christian scholars - these pick out only certain verses which were selected because they can be subject to distortion easily, while disregading the entire body of works in the OT and Isaiah. One can quote 1000s of verses from both Isaiah and the OT which points only to the antithesis of what was concluded by christianity.So how come millions harkened to it, and others did not? Bearing in mind that christianity is the world's most powerful and advanced peoples, humanity's 'educaters', what compelled them to entertain such way out, blatantly unbelievable reports: why did they not demand proof? Fact is, even if absolute proof was presented today all of the NT was a fiction, in a manner which cannot be rejected - christians would still uphold and cling to their beliefs. So there is a certain mystery here, and its not a virtual, made up one, but better described as a 'compulsion'; an almost uncontrolled, involuntary action.Here, the 'belief' is very powerful and sincere, while the 'proof and evidence' to back it up is wanting, deficient or even non-existant. This only highlights a compulsion. What is not understood here is, had a compulsion not occured, there would be no christianity today. This is true even if Jews accepted the NT: this would result not in christianity, but only an extended Judaism. But when one reads the OT, we have another prophesy to contend with:'AND ABRAHAM SHALL BE THE FATHER OF MANY NATIONS' [Gen]The term 'nations' applies to a nation state and a religion ['Nation of Israel'/Exodus]. This marks another prophesy, one which predates Christianity, and is also vindicated. A close examination of the OT prophesies being fullfilled is that this never occurs in shrouded form [it is always in OPEN form], and it appears when it is least possible - highlighting the merit of its occurence. Here, christianity flourished - when all the facts and reasoning was against its occurence. Till this day, no one can prove the veracty of the NT reports - while it occured when writings was commonplace, allowing no excuse for no Hebrew gospels - specially in the midst of the Dead`Sea Scrolls, the copious Flavius Josephus books and the Roman writings: not a thing in history of the Gospels - nothing whatsoever exists of this writings and its reportings out-side the Gospels; and to boot, the OT adherence [Jews] did not accept it, nor did the Pre-islamic arabs in the same spacetime.IMHO, the above factors prove christian belief as Godly inclined and heaven bestowed or sanctioned, more so than any other factors. There is no reason whatsoever that any peoples can logically believe what is written in the NT - save for a mysterious compulsion. This factor highlights also, the power of the OT prophesies. Like Jews and Muslims, christians were impacted by OT sparks. That each of these belief systems have a core, irreconciable difference is also easily explained: a religion cannot subsist unless it posits a stance it is the only right way - and any other not so; the other factor is the OT prophesy which had to come about - which appears non-negotiable. A big pic view shows a different tale when the small pic is zoomed out from.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Who says you don't have to? That's rather arbitrary of you. You get to establish all criteria and set the bar of proof. Maybe I reject that.Maybe I first require you to show us that you are not clinically mentally deficient. I don't know that you're sane.Concerning, the saying that Jesus claimed that if they destroyed the temple He would raise it up in three days - His enemies accused Him of saying something like it in one gospel. That sounds something like what we have written that He actually said in a different gospel. After some troublesome activity at the temple (John 2:12-17)they came to question Him: I do not agree that you can set all criteria and raise the bar of evidence as infinitely high as you wish to rationalize your skeptical opinion. Eventually in this life we all have to trust someone.Do you really know that your mother and father are actually your mother and father or could they be mistaken or lying to you? Did you ever go have a DNA analysis done to prove that they are actually your mother and father? If not why not?You don't really KNOW who your real father is. You don't really KNOW who your real mother is. A birth certificate can be fudged can't it? How do you KNOW it was not ?You trusted them, perhaps? Well, I trust the evangelist John and I trust Jesus Christ.Even if you had the DNA analysis done, how do you know for certain that the nurses and doctors did not do something to deceive you? Is it not possible for them to have fudged the evidence? Is it not possible that they made a mistake in the evidence?Do you still believe that your mother and father are really your natural parents? Why? You haven't checked out all the possible things which could be erroneous with this proclamation.In this life, we all eventually have to trust someone or someones.I trust that Jesus said that if they destroyed the temple He would raise it up in three days. I do not have it on video for you. Even if I did video can be fudged, fabricated.I don't have it on tape recorder. Even so, tape recordings can be tampered with and made to sound authentic.I do believe that I have the Holy Spirit that Christ said the Apostle Paul said Christ became in resurrection:"the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45)I testify and others could about me that my life changed from the time I accepted Christ as the resurrected Savior. But you'er likely to reject this. I mean people change by joining Amway Products also. Big deal.So I trust that Jesus said it to begin with. And though the disciples did not excactly know what He was talking about at the time, in hind sight after the resurrection, they gave their interpretation of what He must have meant. And I take this as significant evidence: I believe He said it, though they did not have an opinion about it at that time. It also shows that they recognized that the Scripture (Hebrew Bible of that time) confirmed the same thing. That is that the Christ should suffer and be raised on the third day.Anyway, we all have to trust someone eventually about some important decisions in our life. I find Jesus trustworthy. I find the Gospels worthy of my trust. And it doesn't surprise me that you could come up with endless rationals why you shouldn't believe the NT.At least the NT tells me that "belief" is the goal of the writing. Most people who are trying to lie to me do NOT tell me that they are telling me something so that I would believe it, not in that direct kind of way. If John were here I might say:"Thankyou Apostle John! I certainly will think about this and pray about it. I have no knee jerk reaction why I shouldn't anymore. In fact I'm kind of tired of my sinful life anyway and am opened to another way to live - through this Jesus - Son of God. " Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Who says you don't have to? That's rather arbitrary of you. You get to establish all criteria and set the bar of proof. Maybe I reject that.

---

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:

---

Maybe I first require you to show us that you are not clinically mentally deficient. I don't know that you're sane.

---

Which only demonstrates the nastiness of your attitude.

quote:

---

Concerning, the saying that Jesus claimed that if they destroyed the temple He would raise it up in three days - His enemies accused Him of saying something like it in one gospel.

---

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:

---

I do not agree that you can set all criteria and raise the bar of evidence as infinitely high as you wish to rationalize your skeptical opinion.

---

Of course that's not what I'm doing. You are trying to set the bar ridiculously low.

quote:

---

Eventually in this life we all have to trust someone.

---

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.

One key point is that all of the reports jaywill is pointing too are reports written after the fact, and not right after the fact, but rather decades at least after the fact.They also point to an ambiguous assertion, and make the claim that Jesus was speaking of "his" resurrection as opposed to the physical temple building. They also include specific references from others that show the others understood Jesus to be speaking about the physical temple, but NO mention of Jesus saying "idiots, I'm speaking of my resurrection not your physical temple."This is not an example of prophecy, but rather at best, post hoc rationalization.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Okay, now I understand. In other words, YOU MADE UP THE QUOTE. It supports your position, you believe the attitude was there, so you made up and cited something that didn't exist. It is good that your position on honest scholarship is clear, I hope we all remember this the next time you cite, well, anything.Also, it did not escape me that you were 'palming the pea' here. I did not ask you for evidence of antisemitism in the RCC, I asked you to prove that that your quote was not a complete fabrication. Instead you say it is well known history then go off on the above tangent. Still haven't admitted you made it up.

---

"I have seen so far because I have stood on the bloated corpses of my competitors" - Dr Burgess Bowder

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.

Actually, there are fewer Jews living in Jerusalem (ie the "old city") *today* than ever.When the Muslims liberated the persecuted Christians and (nearly exterminated) Jews of Jerusalem in 638 BCE , they allowed Jews to return and were afforded complete protection and freedom.Jews had access to the Wailing Wall.Jerusalem became a center of Judaism.The Temple was rebuilt. (Christians were using it as a garbage dump to insult Jews, but after the Arabs liberated Christians and Jews from East Rome/Byzantium, the insulting garbage dump was discontinued and the garbage cleared).True, the Crusaders invaded Jerusalem 461 years later (1099 AD) and killed all Jews in Jerusalem yet again, but the Muslims took Jerusalem back and Jews prospered again-even becoming the majority by the mid-1800s.However,since the Zionism movement started, Jerusalem has become a war-torn region.And Jews no-longer live in the "old-city". South Africa was 10% white and 90% native, yet whites ruled.Rhodesia was only 3% white and 96% native , yet whites ruled.It all depends on who has the superior weapons,better trained military-officers, etc.Speaking of which...The best Russia had to offer essentially made up the Israeli army in 1948.Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.