Prophecy for Buzsaw

1. You err. The exile-and-return is recorded in both Mark 13:30 and Luke 21:32.2. I will clarify my understanding of the witnesses. There were up to 12 or more witnesses to much of what is in the gospels, but on occasion only one scribe recording certain specific events, unlike Mohammed and Joe Smith who were sole witnesses of their own alleged unique spiritual experiences. Most of the important events including those events of miracle in his life were not only witnessed, but recorded by two or more. Most of this is contrary to the consensus of the most reliable older sources of information and pure hopeful conjecture to discredit the gospels, imo. If you want to do a thread on it with your evidence, go for it, but I'm too busy to research every argument that comes up. Itemize ALL the events and descriptions prophesied, read, think and add up the minimum REASONABLE time that would be required. Then, go, figure. Oh, you mean impossible like we creos believe natural selection producing the entire universe and everything in it is impossible?How about highly unlikely, like it's very unlikely a nation of people would be scattered worldwide and return to their homeland as an identifiable nation 19 plus centuries later to reoccupy the land and city under fire from ten times the surrounding enemy forces? As I stated at the onset, the prophecy covers all the time from the time the prophecy was spoken until the latter days, the return of Jews, and the return of Jesus. I came to this discussion with the understanding I am to follow the general forum rules and not those of your evo friend designed specifically for this thread. If that's not permissible, let Percy or the moderators say the word and I'll move on to another forum. I'm addressing the events of the prophecy which have thus far been fulfilled. Jesus has not yet returned yet, has he? The sun and moon have not yet dimmed yet, have they? But the fig tree is blooming again after all those centuries of desolation aren't they; and Israel became a nation eventually occupying the strategic old city of Jerusalem with the gentile occupation ending haven't they? Get real. If I required a thousandth of all this detail you people are requiring of me as to all the stuff you are claiming to be 10 million years ago, I'd be thrown outa town in short order wouldn't I?

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz< !--UE-->[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 01-10-2004]

Ther fact is that you have presented NO good reasons for your accusations of bias and closed mindedness. If the real reaon is your own bias and closed mind that makes you a hypocrite, just as I said. And if you DID have a good reason then why did you never even attempt to offer one ?If you are going to make unfounded accusations against others you are in no position to complain if others offer justifiable criticism of you. That is just more hypocrisy.

Mark 13:30 "Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place."No mention of either an exile or a return from exile.As for the rest of your post it is equally poor.Firstly your "twelve witnesses" are irrelevant - all you have is the word of one man, who was not there and does not even mention his source.I wrote nothing that was at all controversial on the authorship of the Gospels. They are the standard views you will find in any ordinary refwerence work. It is you who needs evidence if you wish to claim anything elseAnd it goes on - you are the one who claims that the time requires is much more than a single generation - indeed you insisted that your assertion should be accepted without fact. But now you want ME to work out the time required ? It's your claim so it is your responsibility to support it.SO we're down to the fact that the only part of the prophecy you want to deal with is the exile and return which -I have already rebutted. You cannot or will not deal with my rebuttal and you have unilaterally decided to ignore the rules set up for this thread without discussion or even admitting you were doing so (with the implication that your prophecy DID fit the rules - which is negligent at best).You tell me to "get real" and just accept your preferred example - apparently since offerign a genuinely good example is possible the "realistic" position is to set aside the problems and just accept whatever you say. Now THAT'S unrealistic. Why don't you just accept the truth that you picked a lousy example.

So you insist I am a hypocrite. Erm, did you realise what you were doing when quoting from the Bible?Ahem, so you are a believer? Right, you do follow the Bible don't you?....... NO, then hmmmmmmm. Think about that recent word you used, I'll give you a clue. You called me a hypocrite. Now you weren't quoting something you don't follow yourself were you?So you can't find my nasty quote then. My recent post to you has a list of what I have been called. Whereas I have only talked of 1.Bias and a rule I think is dodgy.
You know full well as to why I thought Mark was biased. I quoted what he said about Christ, and I voiced that I thought rule 1 is dodgy. This is hardly the same as swearing at me and calling me a "gullible hypocritical liar".If you still think I have personally attacked anyone with personal talk, again - put up or shut up.I am not closed minded, if you read my topic 'an example of science for Quetzal' you'll see my mind is open.Paul, shall we forget this. I think I am being terribly fair considering what I have been called here.

What the prophecy is clearly implying, as the context of the chapter, as well as the events ocurring when "this generation" passes, is that "this generation" means the generation which witnesses the things stated were to happen in the prophesied latter days.For example, I might be a military officer talking to a tank crew. I might be in charge of Company A. I say we will do such and such. After that Company B will then do such and such and so on until I get down the line to company E. Then I might say, On Monday, next week, such and such is going to occur, and THIS COMPANY WILL MOVE OUT before the operation is completed. Now, which company is "THIS" company, Company A, to whom I am talking or Company E? It's E, of course, the last company. How do you know? The context makes that clear. So with the prophecy.I've gone over this before generation matter in another thread, but there it is for this thread. Take it for what it's worth. I'm not not going to get bogged down about that again here.

---

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

Hello mike the wiz,

quote:

---

Originally posted by mike the wiz

​

. . . 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.

---

According to my understanding of the text, it is not unreasonable to recognize that there is a serious problem in regarding the events of 1947 as fulfilled prophecy.Buzsaw's original reference for this prophecy, (in a previous thread), was Luke 21:24. According to buzsaw, this verse describes the 70 a.d. fall of the temple, the subsequent dispersal and the reconquest of Jerusalem in 1947. IOW, according to buzsaw's interpretation of vs. 24, Jerusalem was "trodden down of the Gentiles" until the Jews regained control in 1947.However, verse 24 says, "Jerusalem will be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled."When I pointed out to buzsaw that his assertion,(that the events of 1947 were the fulfillment of this prophecy), consequently meant that 1947 must also have been the "fulfillment of the times of the Gentiles", his response was that, "They are for all practical purposes."For all practical purposes?? No. The times of the Gentiles are either fulfilled or they're not. Consider Paul's statement in Romans:Romans 11:25 "For I would not , brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."Paul is here talking about the Christian doctrine that God has placed a veil over the eyes of Israel for the duration of the Gentile dispensation. That it is "in part" is in reference to the fact that this "blindness" is not total; some Jews did and do believe.Thus, the problem is that if the events of 1947 are in fulfillment of this prophecy, then 1947 must necessarily have been the "fullness of the Gentiles", and as such, this partial blindness over the eyes of Israel (in regard to Jesus as Messiah) would have necessarily been lifted in 1947. And yet, that didn't happen. Not even a large percentage of Jews believe in Jesus as Messiah, let alone having had their eyes opened and all Jews now being able to "SEE".Therefore, 1947 cannot have been the fulfillment of this prophecy. Buzsaw's "practical purposes" not withstanding.Edited in fairness to buzsaw: In a moment of lucidity which suddenly interrupted my half-awake state, I think buzsaw was referring to the 1967 six-day war as the fulfillment of this prophecy. Nevertheless, the problems still stand.Namaste'Amlodhi[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 01-10-2004]

Mike I have explained exaclty why I consider your position to be hypocritical. You have not offered any reasonable defence/Let me add that "he did it first" is a rather dubious excuse even if you restricted YOUR accusations to the person you are blaming.Le me also add that your accusation of hypocrisy against me is completely unfounded. Firstly so long as YOU accept the authority underlying the relevant quote it IS a valid rebuke to your behaviour. Moreover even if I do not accept the authority underlying it that does not mean that I must DISAGREE with it - and in fact I would say that it is valid in this case. In other words you are are making a false accusation - yet again - to try to suppress the evidence of your unChristian behaviour.Your position seems to be that throwing around accusations is fine when your side does it - even when those accusatiosn are completely unfounded and false - and wrong when accusations are made against your side even if they are justified and true. And you call THAT fair ?And what is more I certainly CAN find YOUR nastiness. Look at the last paragraph of message 17, this thread (page 2).And am I right in thinking that you beleive that if you make a blanket accusation against MANY people it is not a "personal attack" and thertefore OK ? If I had said that "Christians are lying hypocrites" you would have had no objection at all? I don't think so.
So is it OK when YOU do something similar ?And no Mike it is NOT name-calling to point out that certain behaviour is hypocritical. Your claim to the contrary is just another excuse to deny the truth.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 01-11-2004]

Well indeed your claims about the meaning of the "generation" were discussed but it is also true that the discussion was NOT resolved in your favour.The fact is that you have not presented any clear indication from the context that some future generation was meant. Indeed your example relies on an explicit reference to Company E for it to be correct - but there is no such reference in Mark 13.You are also ignorign other issues I have raised on this such as the fact that the destruction of the Herodian Temple is a central part of these "signs" - and that happened in AD 70. There is no generation which saw both that and 1947.You can rest the matter of the generation here if you wish but that leaves us with the conclusion that the prophecy has probably failed.I really have to wonder why you chose this particular example when it was adequately rebutted in previous discussiosn and you seem to have no new arguments of any significance.BTW I hope your next post will address some of the issues left dangling such as your claims about Mark 13:30. Did you mean some other verse ?

Mike The wishful thinking quote is based upon the assertions of Buzsaw & his premises. I am entirely correct to say his conclusion is wishful thinking based upon his premises(see previous post). It was YOU who jumped in & extended my words to all Christians.However, since you did, perhaps you can make a valid premise with which to infer biblical accuracy based upon the existence of Jesus the messiah without invoking a circular argument? No? It is wishful thinking then, you want something to be true despite not being able to show it to an acceptable logical. I didn't invent the Hindu gods, what's your point? Does that mean they exist? Nope, you are a hypocrite. You advanced two reasons for believing the bible to be true, namely, it is very old, & it repeatedly says XYZ. Other religions have exactly the same type support & you reject them out of hand.Let us call a spade a spade. Irrelevant goal post moving. The point is that you said: "Yet, 2 thousand years later, I am reading 4 similar accounts of Jesus". This has nothing to do with prophecy, it is based on age & the text being evidence of its own truth. Other religions can can claim the same & you reject them. Oh, per-lease. I am judging your argument that the notion that there was a bloke called Jesus & he was the messiah as being wishful thinking based on the premises you & Buz have presented. Neither of you have come up with anything logically valid to support your claims, & therefore the notion that Jesus is the messiah being wishful thinking is perfectly apt.Exactly the same level of "evidence" & logic should lead you to conclude that the Quran is written by Mohammed from the true words of the one God. No, I said that I prophecised a particular car & never actually named it until the event had passed. Rule 1 states that I should be specific. You think this is laughable! So why when I predict that a particular car (without naming the particulars) will come under the bridge do you believe me, when only after the event that I claim a red Sierra was what I meant all along?Of course you wouldn't believe me, I hadn't been specific. If I had said that any car would come under the bridge you would say, "so what?" Of course there is going to be a car coming under the bridge at some point. It is an entirely trivial & pointless prophecy that proves nothing of my supernatural powers. Yet it is exactly these rules that seek to eliminate such things that you are arguing against.If you have a problem with the rules based on reason, then please say so.Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

Buzsaw, Because the standard forum rules don't deal with prophecy, obviously.Mark

Hi Mark, well have you calmed down now. Or am I your new enemy? I didn't say these are the reasons the Bible is true. I believe because of faith. I simply don't like being implied as a "wishful thinker" - This junk is the exact opinionated thing I warned about in message 1 of "example of science, for Quetzal"
Jesus said his words would never pass, they haven't. You say I would deny other prophecies from other religions: Quote where they say their words shall never pass being of a small party, like Jesus was in his day. I am not against other religions, I have not said that they are true or untrue and I have not rejected them. And I am supposed to be lying? (says Paul)- Quote where I say I'd reject other religious prophecies. You wouldn't be speculating as to my thoughts on other religions would you? Well, if you said in exactly 5 minutes, and I counted the seconds on my watch, I'd certainly think twice about the event. But then you could have told your hypothetical friend to come down the street in aproximately 5 minutes. Hypothetical situations aren't very specific and probably wouldn't happen anyway. Like when the people told Jesus about the hypothetical "seven wives".Paul : So I'm nasty to say an evo will not be neutral?
Is that why you're carrying on this argument?
Why, ofcourse he/she is not neutral, neither am I. Really Paul, you'll have to quote something nasty from me, something a lot nastier than message 17.

Mike, If you believe because of faith alone, how is that not wishful thinking? Surely, in order to not be wishfully thinking you need logically valid evidence. What does this mean? Pass what? Come to pass? I really don't understand what you mean. Do you believe the Hindu Gods exist? You'd better ask Paul. My street is fairly busy & a car will come down the street or it won't.Here's the prophecy again:

quote:

---

So if I prophecised that a particular car will come down my street in the next five minutes & "a" car did come down my street, you would happily accept that I meant that particular car despite there being tens, if not hundreds of millions of cars in the world?

---

Would you validate my prophecy if *a* car came down my street & I said, "yep, that's the one I predicted would appear. Told ya, I have supernatural powers"? Yes or no?Mark

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall

You're attacking my faith. (example of science...topic)
It's not as simple as that for a start. For one, I cannot answer my prayers for myself. And I have always recieved specific answers. Is it wishful thinking if I recieve answers? - Well, that's just one example out of many (personally) as to why unsubstantiated speculation is best avoided concerning my faith.I will however admitt the "wishful thinking" quote was out of context. But yet you still accuse me of it, - So it's not out of context NOW. I don't believe they do, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. Come on now Mark, you know disbelieving is different from saying something like: example: " these hindu gods are a load of rubbish and so are the prophecies about them".Since I haven't said anything like that or against another religion, you are speculating that I am a hypocrite simply because I don't believe in Hindu. Wrong - I simply am ignorant of other religious texts, and/or have no opinion towards them because my opinion is irrelevant when I have a lack of knowledge. Now, provide the quote where I attack a religion. It's a hypothetical situation, it's irrelevant and very different from the Biblical prophecies. Are you saying a war comes down your street all the time?I think our exchange is over. I'm not going to budge. Personally I think my warning in that topic for Quetzal has came true. I think you are good at arguing for evolution and I recommend sticking to that, because at the moment I do not think I am wrong much at all. All you've done in this topic is get angry because I've give you a hard time and/or I'm a Christian and CAN think, and CAN defend. I suggest you let Buz get back to his examples of prophecy.Don't expect another response from me,
God Bless, Mike.

So Mike what you are saying is that you ONLY stated that someone who beleives in evolution is necessarily biased against Prophecy fulfilment ? That in itself is a pretty nasty falsehood.But that isn't what you really said, was it ? What you really said WAS even nastier. Now note that sicne the discussion was based on the rules proposed by Percy, that te followibg statement is in fact directed at him. Let us note that you have shown NOTHING wrong with the rules - you have evaded or ignored every attempt to get you to describe the bias you claim is there.So without ANY grounds at all you called Percy "hardened and unnaturally Atheistic", "unreasonable" with a "closed minded bonce of bias". Does that qualify as nasty ? As a personal attack ?Now let me ask you a question. Is it hypocrisy to call other people biased with NO grounds other than that they do not share YOUR bias ? If you answer "no" can you give a sensible reason why such behaviour is justified ?

You know full well that comment you quoted did NOT include Percy's name. Nor was it for Percy. Now, you're just being dishonest because you can't win this debate. I suggest Percy read for himself and indeed find out for himself. You had no right to say that quote was at Percy.It's bedtime for you Paul.... You lose, by lowering yourself. And YOU called ME a liar. [This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-11-2004]