Prophecy for Buzsaw

lol

---

Revelation 22:16 - I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Well since a "could be" prophecy is not good enough under the rules anyway. But the point is that since most Christians believe that the references to Babylon in the Revelation even the "could be" rests on a rather questionable interpretation. Do you take the reference to Babylon as being a woman (17:5) literally ?Even if you do not go so far in being literal, does the city of Babylon sit on seven mountains (17:9) ? Is there any realistic chance of a king ruling from Babylon in the forseeable future (17:10) ? Is there any chance that Babylon could rule over a major empire in the forseeable future (17:15) ?I would say that the interpretation of Babylon as a "code" for Rome is rather more reaonable than the wishful thinking required to accept your "could be" prophecy.

quote:

---

Any witnesses?

---

A bunch of guys saw it happen. My evidence that they saw is that I say so.

Like I said in the beginning of this thread, Brian, Mark opened this thread on his own without regard to the time I might have for response and it has hit me at a very busy time with my business. I said I'd go with it so long as I can participate at my own pace. It is suppose to be a thread about the significant prophecy that I choose, if understand correctly. I have chosen the Olivet Discourse of Jesus and have made some statements on that, but have a lot more to say when I can get some time. In the mean time it seems to be going every whichy way. Why is this? Why can't it be either kept on topic or rest til I can get back to it?[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 01-13-2004]

Buz, Not a problem, mate. Although it was directed at you it's a topic that can be thrown open to anyone.Mark

---

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

Well since Buzsaw is currently pressed for time I'll give my quick review of the Oliver Discourse as it appears in Mark,Mark 13 opens with Jesus stating that the Herodian Temple complex would be destroyed (13:2). The disciples ask him to elaborate on this, specifically asking for the signs that will indicate that that destruction is near (13:4). Now on the simple principle that the sign must precede the actual event and since the destruction of the Temple and the surrounding buildings occurred in 70 AD the majority of this prophecy must either refer to events leading up to 70 AD or the prophecy has failed.First the prophecy talks of false Christs (13:6), wars and rumours of wars stating that these events must happen first but that they do not indicate that the end is near (13:7). Earthquakes and famines are alosspredicted (13:8)The disciples will be arrested and punished by both religious and secular authorities (13:9). The Gospel must be brought to "all nations" (13:10).There is more general talk of violence and persecution (13:11-13) and then we come to a more significant event - the "abomination of desolation" of Daniel is to be set up (13:14). In Daniel this is firmly linked to pagans taking control of the Temple and banning sacrifices - and it is accepted that Daniel was referring to Antiochus IV Epiphanes action of setting up an altar to Zeus in the Temple. The chief reference is Daniel 11:31 which states "...they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate".
While I have looked for an equivalent action in the correct timeframe I have not found a good match - Caligula came close to setting up a statue to himself in the Temple but his commander delayed things and Caligula died before the statue was put into place, calling a halt to the enterprise.Now at this point we still have no indication that the destruction of the Temple has been reached - indeed the "abomination" supports the idea that the Temple is still standing.The prophecy continues with how terrible those times will be (13:15-19) and how greatly people will suffer. God has apparently cut the time short to avoid destorying all of humanity (13:20). These times immediately follow the setting up of the abomination (13:14-16)There will be more false Christs and supernatural disasters (13:24-6) before Jesus returns and gathers together the elect (13:25)These final events indicate the destruction of the Temple (13:29) - remember that is what the whole thing is about (13:1-4). Everything will happen within the current generation (13:30)In conclusion it is clear that the events of this prophecy must take place in the 1st Century AD. However, even if we are generous enough not to include the New World or other regions not reached by the early Christians in "all nations" or to ignore the lack of any evidence of an "abomination" we do not have the terrible times predicted, nor the supernatural disasters nor Jesus returning within that time frame - remember these must immediately follow the "abomination". The prophecy of the Olivet Discourse, therefore, is a failed prophecy.

PaulK,Good post.I'm stepping out of the bounds of what I intended, but since we know that Christianity hadn't reached the new world in the first century, what is the status of a prophet that is shown to be false?Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-13-2004]

Well according to Deuteronomy 18:20-22 a failed prophecy indicates that the prophet was putting forward his own ideas as the word of God and he should be killed.On the other hand in the story of Jonah, Jonah knew that God would NOT do what He said and that is why he tried to refuse the call to prophecy against Nineveh (Jonah 4:2).So if you haven't got a clear answer, at least you have a Bible contradiction.

PaulK, Now there's a new angle. Jesus was executed because he actually was a false prophet!Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-13-2004]

PaulK, remember what I said back on page three about the need to factor in all the data from all three accounts of the discourse, since they all are recording the same event? That's how the gospels work. I said I would use Mark 13 for the format, but that when Matthew and Luke apply, they must be considered. It's like in determining scientific theory. You use all the information to support the evidence for you proposition.With that in mind, note that the discourse is about a whole lot more than the destruction of the temple. That is really the first event. Matthew makes that clear.1. As they leave the temple, the desciples were pointing out to him the greatness of the temple. Jesus said that it was to be demolished.2. Then the group proceeds to the Mount of Olives, another hill and sat around talking. Some desciples come to him and ask him the following:
A. "When shall these things be?" Matt 24:3
B. "What shall be the sign of your coming," referring of course his 2nd advent return as he prophesied. same verse
C. "....and of the end of the world?" Note: That word world is a poor translation. The common Greek word for world is kosmos. That is not that word that is in the Greek text from which this was taken. The word here is aionos which is better translated "age."So, yes he was answering about the temple, but much more as the text which follows proves. The temple was to be the first major event of the discourse.Nice try, my friend, but your airplane is still on the ground.

..........Back to Mark and proceeding with verse 5:
"And Jesus began to say to them, 'Take heed that no man lead you astray. Many shall come in my name, saying, I am he; and shall lead many astray. And when you shall hear of wars and rumors of wars, be not troubled; these things must needs come to pass; but the end (end of age) is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There shall be famines. These things are the beginning of travail."Note that last phrase indicating these are only the beginnings and there's more to come, which he goes on to discuss. For now I'll leave it there for your responses to this point. I will be coming and going so bear with me and thanks for your patience.

Tee hee hee. Can't wait for Marks post.
I'm not troubled, but I've heard there will be a war of words shortly. Yet it could just be a rumor I picked up.Buz, retract your post immediately, or I'm in for it! Doh!

Buz, when was the last time in, oh say, 4,000 years that there has not been wars, rumours of war and famines? Something has been "beginning" for this long?

---

Common sense isn't

(As a side point it should be noted that both Mark and Luke agree that the subject is the destruction of the Temple, alone while Matthew's acount improbably has the Disciples asking about Jesus' return before they have any idea that a "return" is somehow linked to the destruction of the Temple. The evidence therefore indicates that the reference to Jesus' return in Matthew 24:3 is an addition).But your argument is easily answeredFirstly if the destruction of the Temple were anywhere before the end then it should be explicitly mentioned. It is not, therefore the most reasonable reading is that in Mark's version is that it is one of the final events - part of Jesus' return.The same applies to Matthew.Even Luke does not explicitly mention the Temple's destruction. But he does refer to the Roman siege of Jerusalem, which he uses to replace the "Abomination that causes desolation".So we have further confirming evidence. The beginning of the Tribulation is marked by the "Abomination" in Mark and Matthew - and I have already argued that this indicates that the Temple is still standing. Luke in 21:20 uses the opening of the siege of Jerusalem instead ("And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh."), which certainly preceded the destruction of the Temple. All three accounts indicate that the Tribulation must start, at the latest, by 70 AD.Therefore my conclusion is unchanged.[Added in edit]
I don't see how you can get around the problem.If you want to argue that the destruction of the Temple and the Tribulation and Second Coming can be widely seperated in time you go against not only the points I raised but your own reading of Mark 13:30.There's no way to move the destruction of the Temple that is likely to be of any use to you. Even if you assume that the buildings referred to excluded Herod's additions to the Temple (an unlikely speculation in itself) the Romans flattened Jerusalem after the Bar Kochba revolt in the 2nd Century AD.So unless you want to argue that the Tribulation and Second Coming happened the best part of 2000 years ago, you really don't have much chance of even denying that the Olivet Discourse is a failed prophecy.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 01-14-2004]

So, given that wars, rumours of wars, famines and earthquakes are normal events either the only way that this sign could be of any use is if it referred to the first time that it was true after it was spoken, putting it very close to Jesus' time.So either it must be taken as further support for my view that the prophecy must refer to the 1st Century or it is virtually meaningless. It could refer to any point between the time it was spoken and now - and into the forseeable future - there is no prospect of wars, famines and earthquakes ceasing to happen anytime soon.