Prophecy for Buzsaw

Well Mark, it's your thread.I was just pointing out that if discussion is to take place it has to consist of more than "I don't like it, so it's wrong".But I will acquiesce. Carry on.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

Ill drop out of admin mode since I think we are in discussion mode now.It seems we may need meta-rules (this could get complicated). The real problem with objections so far isn't that the rules are objected to themselves. It is that the outcome of the rules aren't liked. It is possible to argue against a rule based on outcome but that has to be done carefully.For example, showing that a rule produces results that everyone can agree to is "silly" would be arguing against the outcome but not in the same sense as saying "I don't want it to come out that way".

---

Common sense isn't

I totally agree Ned. One rule or another trips up any prophecy made in the Bible. For instance, Jesus told Peter that he would deny him three times before the rooster crowed. This was a very specific prophecy that the New Testament said was fulfilled. But then you run into the nasty little rule of corroboration from an outside source, of which there is none. The rules laid out at the beginning are very fair rules, whether applied to prophecies in the New and Old Testament, or any other religious text, or even to Nostradamus for example.

I didn't. As you said I took an out of context quote (guilty) and shown that I thought you were wrong to say Jesus is "wishful thinking". It implies all Christians are just living a fantasy. I was never saying I could prove Jesus according to your own satisfaction or by independent evidence. Either way, I don't feel you need to curse at me. Okay, this is all I wanted you to admitt. You may think it does not speak the truth on the strength of it's own text - I do. That was my whole point - I did not invent Jesus Christ. No, I am not a hypocrite I am simply ignorant of religions and religious texts. I only know in great detail the prophecies of Christ. Did shiva or vishnu say their words will never pass, or that they are the truth and the way? - that whoever believes in them would be saved e.t.c.
I'm sure prophecies of other religions might have come to pass. I never said they didn't - so why call me a hypocrite? No offence, but I don't think you are looking too good. You seem to just be attacking the person at the moment, with judgements and swear words. If you prophecised a particular car, I would obviously know if you were right or wrong when the particular car came down the street or when that particular car didn't. If you said "red ford sierra" (a particular car) and it came down the street - it would strike me spooky. I would indeed be impressed. Well you said you would prophecise a 'particular car' remember. For example a "red ford sierra". So if a taxi came down the street you would be wrong. Is this going anywhere?

Okay, people seem to think I'm being a little harsh on Percy. I won't mention the 1st rule then. Maybe the rules are viable - it's simply my opinion that they arent, or at least that rule 1 is dodgy, I'll say no more, but in all honesty I think a reasonable person, if shown the prophecies will conclude there seems to be truth to them. 1947 e.t.c.
Again, my opinion. A lot seem to be saying I'm wrong, so ....just ignore me, it's not personal concerning Percy - I included him as an honorable opponent, so..... aw shucks forget it already folks. I'm outvoted anyway - why worry, be happy.

Asgara is getting uptight about pages being consumed on setting the rules and rightly so. Why not just use the standard forum rules and let the chips fall where they may, rather than going through all this rhetoric.

quote:

---

Okay, people seem to think I'm being a little harsh on Percy. I won't mention the 1st rule then. Maybe the rules are viable - it's simply my opinion that they arent, or at least that rule 1 is dodgy

---

Even though you may not want to talk about the 1st rule, there are prophecies in the Bible that pass that rule (eg. Peter denying Jesus three times before the rooster crowed). The only problem is that there is no extra-biblical corroboration. Without these rules Nostradamus could be just as prophetic as any prophet in the Bible. If I were to make the prophesy "a great nation will go to war" what are the chances that future events could fulfill this prophesy? Pretty good, I would think. Specificity and corroboration by an outside source are the best ways to define fulfilled prophecy.

The Olivet Discourse of Jesus shortly before he was to be executed, in answer to the query of the desciples as to his return and the end times is one prophecy but it gives somewhat of a prophetic overview of what will happen from that point until the end times and the 2nd advent.1. I'll pick the Mark 13 account for the format, but when the Matthew 24 and the Luke 21 parallel renderings of the discourse, they must apply. That's the way the gospels work All of the three likely remembered or wrote according to their memory of what Jesus said, none contradicting, but contributing. The Bible requires that two or three witnesses come to play for preservation and accuracy of the message. This is one of my contentions with the Quran and the Book of Mormon. The witness and credibility of the one person is all one has to go on.2. From the onset it MUST be understood that given all the stuff that must take place until the return of Jesus and the end time put forth in this prophecy, the statement in verse 30 about the generation passing cannot in any way shape or spin apply to the living generation at the time Jesus spoke the words.

Buzsaw,"The Bible requires that two or three witnesses come to play for preservation and accuracy of the message."I'm not great when it comes to details and the Bible, but there's a problem with this that I think has been brought up in a couple of threads. Not every chosen author for the Bible that writes about the life of Jesus witnessed it, or even most of it, so how is the above true? But, maybe I have misunderstood you in some way.

Mike I think the biggest problem is that you havenn't actually demonstrated any problem with the rules. All you have attempted to do is to get the rules biased in your favour by making indefensible accusations against those who believe other than you do.In short Mike you are accusing people of being biased and closed-mionded because YOU are biased and clozsed-minded and THEY don't share your bias. That makes you a hypocrite and something of a liar. If Christianity does that to people then all I have to do is remind you of this saying "By their fruits you shall know them".

1) By your reasoning that two or three witnesses are required any statement that appears in a single gospel only can be ignored. Thus the exile-and-return can be correctly ruled out as it appears only in Luke.2) It must also be pointed out that there is no reliable evidence that ANY of the gospel authors was a direct witness. Mark is supposedly based on what the author heard from Peter - but how much of it came from Peter's own memory of Jesus ? We have even less information on Matthew but most Bible scholars beleive that it was based on Mark - and so it is even further from the direct witnesses than Mark is. Luke is almost universally accepted as an accunt compiled by a man who was not a witness - and aside from Mark and either the hypothetical Q or Matthew his sources are unknown to us.3) It has yet to be established that there is any problem with the required events fitting into the timespan of a single generation. Firstly as I have already stated the exile-and-return must be excluded both on your criteria of needing two or three witnesses (we have only the word of a single person who was not there and who gives no indication of his source) as well as the argument that it can be adequately explained as an addition written after the fact of the exile (Luke is usually dated 70-80 AD) and that having aded the exile the return must also be added for the other prophecies to be fulfilled.
Secondly it must be shown that the events are genuinely impossible even allowing for divine intervention, unless you wish to make a case that God either could not or would not intervene in any way to make it possible.
Thirdly an alternate explanation must be produced which adequately takes account of the fact that a major part of the prophecy - the destruction of the Temple - occurred in 70 AD. Mark 13:1-4 is quite clear on this and therefore the generation referred to MUST be alive in 70 AD. Indeed the whole issue of a gap of over 1900 years between these events and other parts of the prophecy raises a big question against its accuracy. Moreover this explanation must not run into rule 54) Since it is agreed that parts of this prophecy have yet to occur rule 2 applies, even if there were not good grounds to believe that it has failed as discussed above.I note that parts of section 3 were produced in the original discussion. Buzsaw failed to adequately address them then and is now attempting to rule on the issue by fiat WITHOUT refuting the problems with his position. Any accusations of "bias" and "closed-mindedness" shoudl take THAT fact into account.

I personally think that believers of Bible prophecy really are unable to see what circular reasoning is. They do not seem able to realise that the Hebrew Bible was available to the authors of the New Testament and it is the easiest thing in the world to CLAIM that Jesus fulfilled this or that prophecy.What I would like the believers to realise that for people like myself, an unbeliever, to use a book to prove that another part of the book is true is circular reasoning.Believers claim that Jesus fulfilled hundreds of Old Testament prophecies, however, they do not seem to realise that the ONLY evidence they have of this is the books of the New Testament.Buz and Mike, do you realise that you take verses like Matthew 1:23 and then claim that this fulfills the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14! This is ALL the proof that you provide, can you see the problem with this, can you see why we non-believers have problems with using the Bible to prove the Bible!I realise that for the believers they have chosen to believe that the Bible is the word of God and everything in it is true, and that they are happy to have the bible validating itself. But they cannot expect people who take a more critical approach to the texts to have the same opinion as the believer.If anyone wants to read page 65 of a book and then conclude that the contents of that page are 100% accurate because page 115 of the same books says so, is, to me the epitome of self delusion.I hope that the believers will understand why those of us who take a critical approach to ancient texts are so sceptical towards what they consider to be 'proof' of the fulfillment of prophecy.Brian.

Let me just get this straight, I have been called a "lying hypocrytical religious gullible Christian whos opinion does not F'ing need to be added. And I am a wishful thinker."And this is all because I "think" and have admitted this is only my opinion concerning a rule which I find biased? - and have said don't take it personally!!!Apart from that my argument was with Mark, who has run away, not you. So, ?Basically you're jumping on the train. You've heard Mark call me a hypocrite - but can you explain that, I will stop being a hypocrite if you can find my awful dreadful words in a quote. Because right now I don't care for your judgements concerning me.Besides this the issue is buried, the topic has moved on, as Buz has now offered his example. Continue name calling if you must, and I'll add it to the self righteouss judgemental list of names I've been called.

1. That "one rule trips up any prophecy made in the Bible" would also apply to toe and other sciences, so we're back to square one on that issue.2. Whoever among the creos have ever used Peter and the cock for argument of debatable evidence for the Bible?3. This is in no way as you state, a "very significant" prophecy. In all the thousands of sermons and all the books I've read on prophecy, this is not even significant enough to mention so far as the study of eschatology. It is most often used and referenced to in addressing the crucifixion events in Jesus' life.

My intended point was that unlike Mohammed and Joe Smith, Jesus never wrote his own gospels. Two or more witnesses quoted him and wrote the books.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz