fulfilled prophecy - specific examples.

quote:

---

Now we are not saying the same thing.

---

Then you're contradicting yourself. You accepted that the division exists and then you deny it.

quote:

---

I say obviously Jesus is continuing in private about what He said in public.

---

But it isn't a simple continuation because it is prompted by the disciple's question.

quote:

---

Otherwise you will have to explain why Jesus is catagorically and specifically EVADING the question put to Him about when THESE things would be (ie. the tearing down of the temple stones).

---

You're simply wrong here. You're the one implying that Jesus is evading the question, not me.

quote:

---

Isn't this a little bit of a different question Paul?

---

No, it isn't It's an attempt to get you to answer the question you dodged in your last post.

quote:

---

First of all let us realize that there were no chapters and verse numbers in the original document. Chapters and numbering of verses were provided as helps for readers. It might well be possible to come up with totally different chapter arrangements in the New Testament books. These helpful lines of deliniation should not be made more of than what they are - helps to organize and structure the writing.

---

Of course I'm aware of that. However it is completely irrelevant, to this point as you know very well.And I've already dealt with your use of Luke 19, by pointing out the fact that - even though Luke almost certainly used Matthew, Mark or both as a major source - and Matthew and Mark agree very closely on the material found in Matthew 24 - Luke's version of the Olivet Discourse (found in Luke 21) is quite different. And the differences reflect a knowledge of the destruction of Jerusalem. Obviously it's not safe to use material from Luke alone to interpret Matthew !

quote:

---

The Son of Man is Jesus Himself. Could Jesus be a candidate? Could Jesus have meant that He Himself would pull down the stones of the temple? I don't think so, at least not directly.

---

I disagree. Firstly my arguments for the timing of the destruction make the Son of Man the most likely candidate. Sp far your main "rebuttal" is to insist that I am claiming that Jesus was "evading" the question by giving a MORE precise answer than YOU believe he did ! Obviously such an objection holds no water leaving you with no real answer.Secondly, why not destroy a desecrated Temple, built by a hated ruler, to miraculously replace it ?You reference to chasing out the moneylenders is hardly relevant either. According to you Jesus DID intend to destroy the priests - but he didn't do that.

quote:

---

So what ? History has gone on. The Second Coming of Christ is still to come and the temple was destroyed. So it is logical to assume that the discussion of Matthew spans over a longer period by human accounting.

---

Well it MIGHT be honest, if you admit that it's based on the assumption that the prophecy must succeed - which rather begs the question of this thread. Or it would be IF there were no clues t the actual timing in the text which you have to ignore. Jesus repeatedly describes the events as if at least some of the disciples WOULD see them (e.g Matthew 24 verses 4, 9, 15, 23). Matthew 24:33 has Jesus saying: These indicate that everything listed above would occur within the span of a single generation, indeed during the natural lifespan of the disciples. It's hardly honest to ignore the text for an assumption which has no basis in the text.

quote:

---

Then you are saying what I am saying. Then you just said what I said.

---

And you should ask yourself how you managed to miss it.

quote:

---

Rather than blame me for not reading you right you just might see if you are not appearing to contradict yourself. What I see is your saying at one time that:

​

1.) The Discourse on the Mount of Olives is NOT about the temple being torn down.

​

2.) The Discourse on the Mount of Olives IS about the temple being torn down.

---

But you DIDN'T see me saying your "1.)" for the reason that I never said it !The post that you appear to have misinterpreted is in Message 130[qs] The Olivet Discourse, while about the predicted destruction of the Temple, never mentions the actual event of the destruction. [/quote](Bolding added).
I have already explained the natural divisions of the text exclude the original statement attributed to Jesus from the Discourse proper. Even if you don't like these divisions all that is required for this discussion is that you recognise and accept that I am using them. To argue about it is simply a distraction from the real points.

quote:

---

I try to concentrate on communicating and not just winning a debate with as few words as possible.

---

You seem to focus on winning a debate by confusion, evasion and misrepresentation. The added verbiage is helpful to you in that respect.

quote:

---

I don't agree. He did not give a specific date as to year, month, and day. He did say that these other things compose the manner of time in which the WHEN is to occur.

​

Some may flank the event on one side and some may flank the event on the other.

---

And according to you it is the "sort of time" that has endured for more than 1900 years - and still continues, with no end in sight. That is far more vague than my reading which puts it at the end of the listed events - and in the lifetime of the current generation.

quote:

---

The UN was NOT called the League of Nations. They are two separate creations.

---

You have played semantics all along. It is why debating with you ends in a cyclical off topic extension.Every one knows the UN replaced the League, and took on board all of its agreements and mandates. That a new name and entity was created does not mean there was no replacement of the same office: I also pointed to you, the UN had to ratify the Balfour which was deposited with the League as a continuation of its mandate. 'New entity' and 'replacement' here is pure semantics and deflection. Its like a new President takes over the outgoing, even as the new president is a new entity, or when a TV station is bought from another new owner: there is a new entity but the same office: so there is no 'falsehood' in my statement of 'replacement'. There has to be a new entity in such replacements/continuations for other unrelated reasons.The League was shut down because of its horrific corruption; the same occurs with the UN and EU and Islamic league today. All I said were facts, yet you use words such as 'falsehood' and 'new entity' when the office and station is the same. There is thus no possibility of impressing you with the subject criteria.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Bullshit IaJ. The League of Nations and the United Nations are two entirely separate, totally differently structured organizations. Bullshit Iaj. The Balfour Declaration was an internal British Document and if you had bothered to read the thread I linked for you you would know that there were also other equally valid British and even International Documents that DID promise the Arabs a Nation State (not simply a national home) in the same area. Bullshit IaJ. The League failed because it was ineffective.Quit misrepresenting truth.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Son of man = the species of humans, aka 'kind', referred to in Genesis 1/1 creation preamble. And the first two of the 10 C's, and 'God is not like man' [Samuel] applies. The church realised this, and thus applied the gospels being subject to 'belief' only, namely it is a subjective and percieved issue, as opposed historical or factual. Here, only 'shrouded' inference, as opposed 'open' manifestation in the sight of millions, can be attached to the gospel scriptures.But this does not render this 'belief' as voidable, lessened or negatable; there is obviously a mysterious issue here, else the belief premise would not take hold on 2 B people. Once the world believed the world flat - yet when this was over-turned, the people took on board the new belief; this did not happen when Islam emerged, for example, and christians still held on to their own 'beliefs'. This also means, by subsequence, the issue of prophesy cannot be applied as a fact, but presented with the qualification of 'belief' only, meaning non-factual: christianity cannot have it both ways.The issue concerning fullfilled prophesy with christianity, outside of belief, is best seen in the OT verse, 'ABRAHAM SHALL BE THE FATHER OF MANY NATIONS'; this applies to all three M/E religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, because this prophesy was given before any of these 3 religions existed, namely it was pre-covenant. This is an 'open' vindication of prophesy which is not subject to belief, and also gives the reason all three religions are upheld by a divine mandate which cannot be negated, explained, ratified by facts or reasonings alone.Thus the OT gives more credibility to christianity than the NT, which applies to its existence as a mysterious compulsion, rather than its ability to prove itself via the premises of the Gospels. This says all three religions are activated by divine sparks of the Torah, w/o denting any of the OT criteria. Paul had no choice but to go ahead, even in the face of contradiction of all logic, and the NT adherants likewise had no choice but accepted this scripture by a compulsion.Paul would have failed if he remained true to the OT criteria, but this would also render the OT prophesy failing; the greeks failed 200 years before in the same pursuit of Paul. A new religion cannot take hold unless it contains a variant, non-allignable core factor, else it is not a new religion; had Paul alligned with the OT criteria, christianity would remain a denomination of Judaism. This is seen in all three religions, beginning with the irresolvable differences of Judaism and the canaanite religion, and ending with each of the new religions being in core difference of each other. The prophesy of the Gospels is thus true only by belief and a subjective believing criteria; it cannot be posited as an actuality. The only open vindicated here is the OT prophesy which produced numerous religions from the entity of Abraham.The significance of all this is, there will be a new manifestation in establishing the OT as pivotal here; all three religions will adapt to the OT criteria, with one stroke of revelation. How this will occur is not known by anyone, but indications are this will happen, and this, IMHO, can only happen via a manifestation of the OT: if Jesus or Mohammed were to reveal themselves now - it would not resolve anything; christians would demand Jesus, and Muslims would insist on Mohammed. But if Moses, or the Creator as at Sinai, would be revealed, in the sight of all humanity, this would answer both Christians and Muslims - because any rejection here would also negate the dictates of both the NT and the Quran, exactly how it would also negate Judaism if the new revelation is rejected, whatever this may be. Eg: the criteria of any of these three religions is on a cliff hanger, subject only to the OT criteria. The question is, what manifestation would clarify the OT, w/o negating any genuine beliefs. One path is all the names be dropped but their message, where it is correct, will survive; the laws will overtake the names, and this can be a new view of the laws, which is alluded to in Isaiah.This also means, a new revelation will emerge which will clarify any inconsistancies. No genuine belief will be kicked in the soul, because its adherants were subject to a compulsion from another prophesy. Here, not just three religions are involved - there is also the issue of other religions, humanity, other life forms, atheists, agnostics, science and maths, etc - the covenant involved all these entities.

quote:

---

Bullshit IaJ. The League of Nations and the United Nations are two entirely separate, totally differently structured organizations.

---

The UN took on board the Balfour, which I clearly pointed to you, and this means the office was the same, with new names and construct only. The agreed contractual agreements do not cease. Its exactly like a new entity taking over your telephone or gas account. Read and study the applicable law of new entities taking over existing offices and contractuals. The UN could not create Jordan unless the Balfour was ratified, and this occured. Your new entity is gibberish and superfluos, intended only as a deflection.

IaJ you just keep digging yourself in deeper by continuing to misrepresent the truth. I've posted the Balfour Declaration several times but I can post it once again for all to read. There is no contract. It is an INTERNAL British document and declaration of sympathy with Zionist aspirations.It does NOT propose a Jewish State.Again Iaj, you continue to post bullshit that is not simply false, it has NOTHING to do with the topic.How can you expect anyone to believe anything you say when your track record on even just history is abysmal.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

What "division" Paul?Define what you mean by "the division"? It was a continuation in a "dove tail" manner. "These things" certainly include the tearing down of the temple. Jesus said. The disciples are concerned about it. They asked about it. Jesus continued with it.It is only that the scope of his comments was not restricted to that one matter. This charge makes no sense to me. We move on. This charge also makes no sense to me. We move on again. This may make sense depending on what you define as "the division".It is not irrelevant. That is irrelevant. And it is not known for sure WHO used WHO. It is one of the mysteriess of textural criticism which as far as I know scholars still have no universal agreement on.The last time I studied statistical comparisons in document content of the gospels no formula pointing out WHO used WHO is without problematic exceptional evidence.I don't the matter does a lot for your argument. But I will think about it.I have to go now. Be back latter. I am not finished responding to your last message.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

What "division" Paul?

---

The one I mentioned in my previous post of course. If you can't remember what I said in recent posts then you really ought to go back and check them.

quote:

---

It was a continuation in a "dove tail" manner. "These things" certainly include the tearing down of the temple. Jesus said. The disciples are concerned about it. They asked about it. Jesus continued with it.

---

In other words it wasn't a simple continuation. It was a response to a specific question.

quote:

---

This charge makes no sense to me. We move on.

---

If an obvious fact makes no sense to you than you really do have problems.My reading of the Olivet Discourse indicates where the destruction of the Temple is in the sequence of events - and includes a timescale. Yours includes neither. Thus my reading has Jesus providing a more precise answer to the question. It is therefore completely absurd for you to characterise my reading as Jesus evading the question - but not your own.

quote:

---

This charge also makes no sense to me. We move on again.

---

Again it's an obvious fact. If you actually know what was said. Your "careful reading" seems to consist of skimming each post in isolation.

quote:

---

This may make sense depending on what you define as "the division".

​

It is not irrelevant.

---

Wrong AGAIN ! For it to be relevant you would have to find some text that belonged to the Olivet Discourse, that addressed the issues under discussion and had been wrongly excluded on the grounds of chapter and verse divisions. You didn't. Your chosen verse came from a different Gospel. So it is obviously false to say that it depends on the division I refer to, and completely false to say that it is relevant. And you don't even have to read one of MY posts to know that !

quote:

---

That is irrelevant. And it is not known for sure WHO used WHO. It is one of the mysteriess of textural criticism which as far as I know scholars still have no universal agreement on.

---

It is relevant, but you would have to have read the rest of my argument to understand that. For some reason you decided not to quote it. Apparently either your "careful reading" managed to completely miss it, or maybe you assume that by failing to quote it people will assume that it didn't exist ?You're also presenting a very superficial view of the state of scholarship. Yes there are lots of arguments over whether Mark or Matthew came first. Where the material common to Luke and Matthew but not Mark came from. Even over which of Matthew and Mark Luke used. But none of those touch on my point. A big majority of scholars would accept that Luke used at least one of Mark or Matthew. (And in this particular case which is more likely ? That Luke changed the Discourse to more accurately reflect past events ? Or that Matthew or Mark changed it to be less accurate ? The answer is obvious...)

Since Paulk's and my own suspicions of the manner in which each of us is discussing this are mutually distrustful, I'll simply come back to the main point and close my part of this discussion.I believe John 2:18-22, including the Apostle John's comment about what Jesus meant when He said it. And I also believe that Jesus actually did rise and in so doing fulfilled the prophetic word spoken in John 2:19.PaulK's alternative arguments I take as a product of a fertile imagination.John says Jesus meant the temple of His body. And the disciples understood His resurrection as the raising of that "temple" in three days.Convoluted and retrofitted skepticism under the guise of simplicity I don't trust on this passage.What I trust is the Jesus predicted that He would rise from the dead after He was killed. And I think He did.Eventually, in this life, we all have to trust someone or someones.
I trust Christ and His apostles.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

There is no contract. It is an INTERNAL British document and declaration of sympathy with Zionist aspirations.

---

It is, as stated, a Mandate by the Mandate Government appointed, which produced all the Arab states, as well as the division of that mandate to create Jordan. By the latter, the UN had to first ratify the Balfour - which the UN did, then only Jordan was ratified. If you want to choose which is not a state, you have some 23 others to deal with: who do you suppose created all those Arab states some 120 years ago - the same Brits!

quote:

---

It does NOT propose a Jewish State.

---

Yes, it does. Jewish Home, in the context of a Mandate, is best affirmed by the UN Resolution which ratified the Mandate: it uses the term, JEWISH STATE. Selective, are you not?!

quote:

---

Again Iaj, you continue to post bullshit that is not simply false, it has NOTHING to do with the topic.

​

How can you expect anyone to believe anything you say when your track record on even just history is abysmal.

---

But I won't allow you to post gibberish, then choose to call me names as your deflection. If its off topic, only what it responds to best fits that description.Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

Uh, no IaJ. The British did NOT create all those states. Did you even read the So let's look at why the Islamic world might be annoyed by the West? where the actual history of how the Nations of the Middle East were formed? Iaj, please point to the passage in tha Balfour Declaration that mandates a Nation State.I will post it yet again:

quote:

---

Foreign Office,
November 2nd, 1917.

​

Dear Lord Rothschild,

​

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:

​

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

​

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

​

Yours sincerely
Arthur James Balfour

---

Now once again, do you have ANYTHING on topic?

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

quote:

---

Uh, no IaJ. The British did NOT create all those states. Did you even read the Thread So let's look at why the Islamic world might be annoyed by the West? where the actual history of how the Nations of the Middle East were formed?

---

All the new states, including Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and all of the gulf states Kuwait to Emirates. None of these existed before 150 years; none have historical borders; all were created on a whim with swamp land owners who signed up contracts for oil; none were encouraged to be democratic - instead the Regimes were handed vast countries as their personal and private properties; all were ratified by the UN. None of these states' creation underwent a UN Motion which required all countries to vote - except Israel. So you wish to question the M/E's most historical and legally established state - and also play semantics.Of note, the British gave Herzl two other choices for a jewish state, much larger and richer than Palestine, namely in Africa and Australia. The Jews rejected this and went for their own historic land which was stolen by Rome, then by various groups of Europeans and arabs.

quote:

---

Iaj, please point to the passage in tha Balfour Declaration that mandates a Nation State.

​

I will post it yet again:

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foreign Office,
November 2nd, 1917.
Dear Lord Rothschild,

​

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:

​

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

​

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

​

Yours sincerely
Arthur James Balfour

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

Now once again, do you have ANYTHING on topic?

---

You are hopelessly wrong, even disregarding the UN Motion. Here's your answers:"Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by," -this refers to the return of the jews to *THEIR* homeland, and Herzl's submission of this re-establishment of Israe was approved. This was also approved, prior to Britain, by America and Russia. Briton was not making any gesture of sympathy here - quite the reverse was the case."the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people".No, one does not establish ranch homes in Palestine and declare this in her majesty's name. There was no HOUSE FOR SALE sign here."it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,"- this affirms the state status. Only a sovereign state can make prejudicing others.There is no other reading here but of a Jewish State. Jordan was declared as a state for the arabs of Palestine. With the latter, two states were allocated instead of one previously declared [for 30 barrels of oil]. This makes the current premise for another 2-state in what's left of Palestine, the greatest hoax in all recorded history - second only to the hijacking of the name Palestinian. Note this name was not used in the declaration of 2 states [guess why!]. I paraphrase it for safety:'IT WILL BE AN HISTORIC COMPROMISE TO GRANT TWO STATES IN PALESTINE - ONE FOR THE JEWS [JEWIST STATE], AND ONE FOR THE ARABS [ARAB STATE]. - Churchill.Why is Jordan not being taken to task here - it is in violation of the only condition of its creation: to house the Arabs in Palestine, for which a free state which never existed before was given. Jordan's barring of the 30% arab palestinians is the cause of 1000s of deaths and wars. The Dwarf belongs in Gitmo!Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

There is no "suspicion" involved on my side. The fact of blatant and repeated misrepresentation is there for all to see. Whether Jay is simply unable to remember the content of previous posts - even those immediately preceding the post he is answering - and is too lazy to actually look or is engaging in intentional dishonesty is harder to determine.The real reason that Jaywill is abandoning this discussion is because he is making no progress. He can't answer my arguments. He keeps getting caught making misrepresentations.

quote:

---

I believe John 2:18-22, including the Apostle John's comment about what Jesus meant when He said it. And I also believe that Jesus actually did rise and in so doing fulfilled the prophetic word spoken in John 2:19.

​

PaulK's alternative arguments I take as a product of a fertile imagination.

---

Let us note that I say that John 2:21 is a reinterpretation after the fact - based on actually reading the Bible (a huge leap of imagination there !). Anyone who honestly reads John 2 can see that John 2:21 is an authorial comment, And Jaywill has even admitted that he EXPECTS such reinterpretations to occur - but he doesn't want to admit that this could be one.

quote:

---

Convoluted and retrofitted skepticism under the guise of simplicity I don't trust on this passage.

---

Of course there is no "convoluted and retrofitted skepticism" here. Just the simple observation that John 2:21 is an authorial comment - and thus made long after all the facts. Including the alleged fulfillment of the prophecy. But Jay doesn't like that so he has to invent excuses to dismiss it. Obviously the real reason is that he doesn't like it - and can't refute it

quote:

---

Eventually, in this life, we all have to trust someone or someones.
I trust Christ and His apostles.

---

But nobody has to offer unquestioning trust in the Gospels (we can't really trust Jesus because all we have is second hand words - virtually all of them in translation - written down long after the fact.). There's plenty of room for critical investigation of the Gospels - and they don't do well. Luke's revised version of the Olivet discourse being a case in point. Why should we unquestioningly trust both we trust both the versions found in Mark and Matthew and the quite different version found in Luke ?What Jay means is that he trusts himself above and beyond the Gospels - and Jesus. We've seen enough errors in his Bible reading to know that. And we've seen how he insists that my reading of the Olivet Discourse has Jesus evading the question when his own preferred reading is even vaguer. If he really trusted the Gospels, then why wouldn't he admit the fact that his interpretation was badly flawed by his stated standard ?So really Jay is saying here that everyone should unquestioningly trust him. Despite all the falsehoods he's produced in this discussion. Obviously no sensible person should do that.

In case PaulK didn't notice for the last 2,000 years quite a few readers have understood that John's words were not "reinterpretation" but interpretation.PaulK's living in some kind of skeptic's dream world to think
everyone naturally will see his conspiracy theory in the Apostle John's comment. And this is long becomming a pattern with PaulK - he's again trying to put words in my mouth. PaulK is fond of fashioning straw arguments and then dishonestly putting them into the mouths of others.John's comment is not a "reinterpretation". They were an interpretation. The reason I don't like it is because it is much more obvious to me that it is a skeptic's daydream. In case you don't swallow PaulK's theory that John fabricated a meaning out of the words of Jesus, all hope is not lost to the skeptic. You can always just throw up your hands and say that we don't really know what Jesus said anyway. Another bit of weasel worded nonsense. PaulK wants to portray me as having no questions. I have plenty of questions.Some of them I know where not to go to get answers to them.Any questions I have on what Jesus meant by "Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up" I won't be going to PaulK or any of his sources to get enlightenment on those words.The Apostle John's explanation is good enough. I think there is such a thing as a Christian disciple knowing what they're talking aboutEdited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

In case PaulK didn't notice for the last 2,000 years quite a few readers have understood that John's words were not "reinterpretation" but interpretation.

---

I really don't know how many people have made that mistake, but it's still a mistake.

quote:

---

PaulK's living in some kind of skeptic's dream world to think
everyone naturally will see his conspiracy theory in the Apostle John's comment.

---

Of course I'm not proposing any sort of conspiracy theory (do you even know what that means Jay ?). Indeed inMessage 135 you found this sort of reinterpretation to be an "obvious FACT".

quote:

---

And this is long becomming a pattern with PaulK - he's again trying to put words in my mouth. PaulK is fond of fashioning straw arguments and then dishonestly putting them into the mouths of others.

---

Of course I'm not putting words in your mouth, am I Jay ? The quote from Message 135 above proves that you said it.

quote:

---

The reason I don't like it is because it is much more obvious to me that it is a skeptic's daydream.

---

Which is why you have to call it a "conspiracy theory" when it's obviously nothing of the sort. But it's not a daydream. You CAN'T refute it.

quote:

---

In case you don't swallow PaulK's theory that John fabricated a meaning out of the words of Jesus, all hope is not lost to the skeptic. You can always just throw up your hands and say that we don't really know what Jesus said anyway.

---

i.e. the truth is on the side of the skeptics. We certainly don't know what Jesus said on a word for word basis. Not when we are dealing with translations written decades after Jesus' death.

quote:

---

Another bit of weasel worded nonsense.

---

No weasel-wording. No nonsense. Just another proven example of your dishonesty.

quote:

---

PaulK wants to portray me as having no questions. I have plenty of questions.

---

And yet another obvious falsehood from Jay.The bottom line is that John 2:18-22 is a lousy example of fulfilled prophecy. For a good example we would have to be able to show that the prophey was made before the event and that the alleged fulfillment actually happened. (There are other things we'd want to show but those two are the most basic). John 2:18-22 fails badly on both. That's it.