fulfilled prophecy - specific examples.

Not unless you present the supporting verses. If you are talking about the John 2 material it is addressed already. see Message 69.Any chance you will present an example of fulfilled prophecy?

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Are you trying to allege that there are fewer Jews in the old walled city of Jerusalem today than during all of the past 19 centuries?? History of Jerusalem - Wikipedia(Middle_Ages)

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I. Abrahamic covenent prophecy Genesis 15:18-21II. Covenent prophecy reaffirmed to Isaac: Genesis 21 and 16III. Covenent prophecy reaffirmed to Jacob, Isaac's son: Genesis 28IV. Covenent prophecy reaffirmed to Judah, son of Jacob: Genesis
49:10V. Covenent prophecy reaffirmed to King David, descendent of
Judah. II Samuel 7:9-12VII. Covenent prophecy reaffirmed to messiah to come. Kingdom in Israel to be forever: II Samuel 7:12VIII. Messiah appears as per prophecy corroborated by numerous other corroborating and supportive prophecies concerning Jesus, descendent of King David.VIII. Messiah Jesus crucified as per such prophecies as Isaiah 53 and many more for the sins of all who repent and receive this vicarious salvation including Gentile nations as per propmise to Abraham that all nations would be blessed by Abraham's seed.IX. Messiah extends kingdom prophecy by his own prophecy of a period of Gentile occupation which will end before his 2nd advent to destroy the armies of the world and establish his kingdom on earth. This prophecy found in Luke 21:24 where Jesus prophecies that Gentile occupation of the old walled city of Jerusalem will end meaning Jewish occupation will be resumed before his 2nd advent to rule the world.So, my friends, there you have the ongoing prophecy first given to Abraham that all nations would eventually be blessed by his seed all the way down to the Six Day War in 1967 AD when the Jews for the first time since he spoke this remarkable prophecy, marched into the old walled city to rejoice at the Wailing Wall!There remains one and only one more event to consumate the prophecy to Abraham way back in Genesis, the first book of the Bible. The last book of this great book, the book of Revelation has yet to be fulfilled when Armaggedon comes and the wrath of God is poured out upon the earth in preparation for this advent (ABE: in the prophesied restored nation of Israel and specifically at the city of Jerusalem and even more specifically at Mt Zion, the Temple Mount were the Muslim Dome Of The Rock presently stands!So I have outlined the prophecy as per the OP and as per the call to do so by AdminPhat.The specifics of the outlined are found here in my message 17 on page one.Enjoy, and take it or leave it for what it's worth to you. Edited by Buzsaw, : Enter URLEdited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

jar, You can reject it a hundred times and it changes nothing.Jesus prophesied that He would rise from the dead in three days. Repeating that this was not a prophecy means nothing.I use it because it is a very important one and is quite central to the Bible.

quote:

---

Oh you think not? Why, is it because you don't think Jesus had any enemies?

---

No, because I think that the Gospels are going to be heavily biased against Jesus' enemies.

quote:

---

You have in Mark hostility and an accusation. When people want to find fault with someone they usually lay hold of something the person did and exploit any possible negatives with it. We see politicians talking about who said what or did what years ago.

​

It is completely plausible that to do Jesus in they would exploit something that He said or close to it.

---

So Mark is wrong - the accusations WEREN'T false ?

quote:

---

Another question to you. If John is going out of his way to unfairly villify the Jews how come John records Jesus teaching that a true Israelite is without guile in chapter 2?

---

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 their accusations were not consistent with each other.

---

Mark says that the accusations were false.

quote:

---

Now, should I believe that they made a false accusation and then latter the apostle John took that false accusation and modified it a little to pull the wool over everybody's eyes. He took a false accusation and gave it an air are authenticity in order to deceive you?

---

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:

---

I think whatever conspiracy theory you come up with requires more of a blind leap of "faith" then what is written there in the NT.

---

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 ?

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.

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.

And you count yourself as unbiased about the Gospels?And Who are His enemies? Joseph of Aramethea stepped forward to bury the body of Jesus. His own disciples were scared to go to the scene of the crucifixion and to see to that honor. What an embaressment, that they were afraid to bury their revered Master. Another rich Jew, not of the twelve, had to do the honor.Why wouldn't the apostles hide this emabassessiing fact that they were too chicken to bury the body of Jesus? Why would they record that one of the supposed unfairly treated enemies had to do the job instead? So now you say that John modified the quotation.
According to you then Jesus REALLY said this:Mark 14:58 - "I will destroy this temple made with hands, and in three days I will build another made without hands"But John latter tampered with this accusation and it come out this way:John 2:19 - "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up."Nothing about "another" temple.
Nothing about "made with hands".
Nothing about "made without hands".You want me to believe that John nicely dropped these details.I don't believe you. You have no sure proof that that is how the words were tampered with.I have evidence that the resurrection of Himself was a theme oft repeated though. And I have no confirming evidence that He spoke of building another physical temple. So the weight of the evidence is that He more likely WAS refering to His body. The overwhelming weight of the evidence is that Jesus was NOT refering to Him building another temple, as they charged, but with the miracle of Him rising from the dead.Could it be that you are simply carrying on the tradition of rejection of the chief priests, elders, and scribes who then reacted unbelievingly to the teaching of Jesus?Where is your evidence that Jesus must have refered to Him buildng another temple of stone?
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. I am building a case by using both testimonials, one from Mark and the other from John.I am not trying to deceive you. I believe that you said that the GOSPELS would be counted on to put the enemies of Jesus in a bad light. So I refered to one of the Gospels, John.Incedently, I take Mark's word for it that the accusations were false as he writes: We don't know what they were talking about until we come to John's gospel. The source of the accusation is discovered in chapter 2 of John. Oh no,no,no. Perish the thought that you would make such an accusation that the Gospels are deceptive.How long are you going to rely on subtle innuendo? Right. Spend at least some equal time considering what is UNLIKELY about some men being blown away by the miracle of the resurrection of a person like Jesus, and subsequently wanting to tell the world about it for future generations?What is unreasonable about some men being so impacted by the personality and deeds of man like Jesus of Nazareth and thinking that this was important enough to tell future generations of human beings what they had experienced, and in so doing were telling us the truth?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:

---

And you count yourself as unbiased about the Gospels?

---

Yes. Certainly less so than you.

quote:

---

And Who are His enemies?

---

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:

---

So now you say that John modified the quotation.

---

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:

---

I have evidence that the resurrection of Himself was a theme oft repeated though. And I have no confirming evidence that He spoke of building another physical temple. So the weight of the evidence is that He more likely WAS refering to His body.

---

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 overwhelming weight of the evidence is that Jesus was NOT refering to Him building another temple, as they charged, but with the miracle of Him rising from the dead.

---

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:

---

Could it be that you are simply carrying on the tradition of rejection of the chief priests, elders, and scribes who then reacted unbelievingly to the teaching of Jesus?

---

If they were honest people who fairly assessed the truth of what they heard, then maybe. Is that what you are suggesting.

quote:

---

I am building a case by using both testimonials, one from Mark and the other from John.

​

I am not trying to deceive you. I believe that you said that the GOSPELS would be counted on to put the enemies of Jesus in a bad light. So I refered to one of the Gospels, John.

---

Which didn't say anything about anyone identified as Jesus' enemy - in John.

quote:

---

Incedently, I take Mark's word for it that the accusations were false

---

So you don't REALLY believe that Jesus said it. Because if he did then you disagree with Mark.

quote:

---

Oh no,no,no. Perish the thought that you would make such an accusation that the Gospels are deceptive.

​

How long are you going to rely on subtle innuendo?

---

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:

---

Spend at least some equal time considering what is UNLIKELY about some men being blown away by the miracle of the resurrection of a person like Jesus, and subsequently wanting to tell the world about it for future generations?

---

Sure. The resurrection itself is really, really unlikely. Almost any alternative scenario comes out better.

quote:

---

What is unreasonable about some men being so impacted by the personality and deeds of man like Jesus of Nazareth and thinking that this was important enough to tell future generations of human beings what they had experienced, and in so doing were telling us the truth?

---

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.

If you want to take that position, it only means that it was a failed prophecy.The point of Prophecy is that it is a message sent by God for the use of those people living at the time it is given. To be successful it must be before the fact, and must also be understood.This is a classic example of either a failed prophecy or one that is made up after the fact. Take your pick. Bullshit jaywill. Whether Jesus death and resurrection were prophesied or not is totally irrelvant.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Im saying that as a percentage of the population, Jews are much much smaller in the Old City.Im pointing out that the "Old City" is the ancient Jeruslam that we think of when we talk about "Jerusalem" in past times.But understand my point.I am responding to your claim that 1948 somehow witnessed some ground-breaking prophetic event where Jews gained the ability to control Jerusalem, and formed the major percentage of inhabitants, like never in the past 1800+ years. (The above quote sounds like it was something I said,anyway...)Your link shows (see Late Ottoman Period) that the "old city" was so crowded by 1860 (1 sq.km and full of the residents) that the "New City" began to be developed.The fact is that Jews were the largest religious group in 1860 Jerusalem; forming at least a plurality and probably the absolute majority.They were living in the "Old City" which is historic Jerusalem.Today-essentially following the situation that political events in 1948 created- Jews live outside the historic "Old City" and infact make up an extremely small percentage of the residents in the historic population center of ancient "Jerusalem".Hence your "1948 AD" interpretation of 1900 year old prophecies is severely flawed.

The fact remains that for most of the past 1900 years there have been fewer Jews residing within the confines of the Old walled city of Jerusalem than there are today. Percentages has nothing to do with my statement. That is a strawman spin on your part from my position.Your position to which I was responding is claiming that there are fewer Jews residing in the confines of the old city than any time in history, i.e. ever, to use your wording. That is a blatant false allegation which I have soundly refuted.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

... Might want to re-adjust your timeline.(here I will start the historical coverage- from the world-class conservative Christian historian Charles Pfeiffer- after 2 Aramaic Christian legions joined the Arab armies in liberating jerualem from the opressive East Roman empire) Might want to move the 1967 prophecy back to 638 AD! But "Israel" (which you define as ethnic Jews; Paul in Galatians 3:26-29 and Romans 10-12 defines "Israel" as believers in Christ) is now absent in the "old city" of Jerusalem.Your definition of "Israel" that is.The return of Jews came just after 638 AD (actually,they did return slightly before 638 AD when the Persians let them back, which they were promptly driven out.Persia took jerusalem briefly from East Rome) when the Arabs liberated the Jerusalem residents from the eprsecution of East Rome.Again, maybe 638 AD is the timeline based on the logic of people like you and IamJoseph (however, Buzzsaw I respect your honesty in the time that I have read your posts, so I dont wish to compare you to Joseph). Nice (maybe I will read it), but did you also know that the Crusaders called the Dome of The Rock the "Temple of Solomon" and nothing else?It was rebuilt in the 7th century.We keep coming back to the 7th century as the restoration, dont we?Im NOT saying that I hold any "prophetic" views which extend past the time current to the Biblical writings, but it is something to ponder, is it not? By your prophetic standards and measures. it surely must be!Have you read Hank Hanegraaff's book "The Apocalypse Code"?Here is what he said in the early pages. Hanegraaff's book is fantastic because he doesnt tell you what to believe.He actually teaches the discipline of "hermeneutic's" and then using proper hermeneutical principles, he lets the reader's apply that to the reading of the Biblical text.I have enver seen such a fantastic book on the teaching of Exegesis in my life!And it is based around a topic ("Biblical Prophecy") which has been starved of scholarly principles for nearly 200 years.This 2007 book is a God send!Here is what one of the leading (fundamentalist Christian) Classical scholar Paul Maier said about the book. Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.

There were 10,000 Jews in Jerusalem in 1850.I think there were about 15,000 before the Crusaders slaughtered them in 1099 AD.Are there actually more there today?And if so, then is it signioficant enough to prove your point?You havnt soundly refuted my point.(I will see if I can get some numbers on the current Jewish population of the "Old City" however)

[qs] Wikipedia
Old CityMain article: Jewish Quarter
The Jewish Quarter (Hebrew: ‘ ”, HaRova HaYehudi or the Rova) lies in the southeastern sector of the walled city, and stretches from the Zion Gate in the south, along the Armenian Quarter on the west, up to the Cardo in the north and extends to the Western Wall and the Temple Mount in the east.The quarter has had a rich history, with a nearly continual Jewish presence since the eight century B.C.E. In 1948 its population of about 2,000 Jews was besieged, and forced to leave en masse. The quarter had been completely sacked, with ancient synagogues destroyed. The quarter remained under Transjordanian control until its capture by Israeli paratroops in the Six-Day War of 1967. The quarter has since been rebuilt and settled, and has a population of 2,348 (as of 2004) Here we see that the historic "Jerusalem" doesnt exactly have a huge amount of Jews as of 2004 or 2006.Far less than 150 years ago, though slightly more than 1948.Not more than Jews present from 638 AD till 1099. (generally less)Only slightly more than those from post-crusader times till the 1800s (roughly 1500 Jews on average)ONE THE OTHER HAND, the "City of David" is believed to be just outside of the "Old City" beyond an "Old City" wall called the "Dung Wall" but Im not sure of the population of residents.Im not sure of the exact boundaries and over-lap (in relation to the Old City of today) during the time of Christ.East Jerusalem seems to be the center of much of the historic country.And it seems that the Old City is the main part.East Jerusalem has about 180,000 Jew and about 500,000 non-Jews.But the Israeli government is trying to give east jerusalem to the Arabs for a Palestinian state, which could see an agreement where jews have to leave or part of it will be severed.I just dont see a whole lot of Jewish control that fits any prophetic scenario.(you did seem to specify the soverign power of Jews as strong during Roman rule in your initial post)And Jews are actually a severe minority almost like never before (as emasured by the periods Muslims ruled) in percentage terms. Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.Edited by Nimrod, : No reason given.