about those prophecies...

Prophecies allegedly fulfilled in Jesus were otherwise fulfilled or their fulfillments are pending. Messianic prophecies, correct me if I'm wrong, seem to always refer to a coming in power--the end of the world. I always hear, "the Jews thought that their messiah would be a political savior as has always been," but isn't that what most messianic prophecies give reason to believe? I've found no indication of a "first" and "second" coming in prophecy, so, like i said, messianic prophecy could logically be pending.
But other prophecies were already fulfilled within the context of its book/political event, and, in the case of Matt 2:17-18, have nothing to do with a messiah.
(Forbidden)
ps, anyone know of a longer list? i'm sure this battle has been fought already.

Franky,
1. Much of the stuff in your link has already been covered with us creos showing most positively that they were fulfilled and the other side showing most positively that they were not. The difference is how much in text you want to interpret, how liberally you want to interpret and how well you've assimilated the other related prophecies. If you want to simplify these as flybynighters tend to do, you can make them say whatever your ideology likes, but like science, they're not all quite that easily mastered.2. There's gona be only one end of the age/world, and that comes when all the prophecies pertaining to it are finished. They've still a while to go for fulfillment, but the time is near for all to pass for the 2nd advent of the Christ.

quote:

---

buzsaw

​

If you want to simplify these as flybynighters tend to do, you can make them say whatever your ideology likes, but like science, they're not all quite that easily mastered.

---

Forgive my slight indignation, but are you really that oblivious to your surroundings? Do you measure your memory span in minutes?In the short time I have been on this board (and you can check the archives on this), I have had to correct your ridiculously faulty understanding of the chronology of the OT, re-insert statements of biblical text which you conveniently leave out, and point you to parallel instances of scripture in order to correct your faulty eisegesis.Your responses to explicit examples and serious scholarship have been consistently devoid of substance and amount to nothing more than the repetitive chanting of your mantra.And yet, while you have demonstrated that your knowledge of the bible is virtually nil, you have the unmitigated cheek to castigate the other posters on this board who invest a great deal of time and effort to afford you the benefit of their studies.I'm afraid that it's going to take a little more effort on your part than simply declaring how superior your knowledge is; you're going to have to actually put in the time and sweat that it takes to be able to demonstrate it.I'm sorry I had to say this buzsaw, but your condescending attitude in the absence of any demonstrable indication that you have ever put any effort into this besides memorizing dogma is insufferable.Amlodhi

1) Literature unless based on science, has nothing to do with science. The Bible and/or 'ideologies' (latest creationist buzzword) is not based around science however much you want it to be.2) The universe will end when maximum entropy occurs within the closed system we call the 'Universe'. This has nothing to do with the fulfilment of 'prophecies' or 'Christ'. Oh yeah and how can there be more than one end of the world?

Nonetheless, Amlodhi, let me assure you that your responses are greatly appreciated by some of us here. Even if you feel like you are repeating yourself, or that you are wasting your breath, I am no expert in Biblical criticism, so I do learn an awful lot by reading your responses.Rock on, dude.

Hi Chiroptera,Thank you for the kind words. However, better informed minds than my own share their hard-earned knowledge on this board, and I am ever conscious of the gratuitous benefit they provide to anyone willing to learn.I just wanted to make buz conscious of it too.Namaste'Amlodhi

Ahem! Who's condescending attitude?

buzsaw,First, let me apologize for losing my temper. Regardless of the provocation that's my responsibility.However, the statements in my post were not made for condescension but were statements of demonstrable fact made to point out your hypocrisy.

quote:

---

buzsaw

​

. . . as these flybynighters tend to do, you can make them say whatever your ideology likes, but like science, they're not all quite that easily mastered.

---

The majority of the people posting on this board are not "flybynighters" but have invested a great deal of time and energy to educate themselves in the subject matter.The hypocrisy of your condescension is inherent in the fact that, because you cannot credibly respond to this scholarship, you are reduced to making condescending and snide remarks.This is exacerbated by your showboating to a newcomer on this board by insinuating that the "flybynighters" are too dense to understand the apologist interpretation of prophetic passages.

quote:

---

buzsaw

​

. . . they're not all quite that easily mastered.

---

There's nothing difficult about understanding your interpretation of these prophecies. 5 minutes with a Chick Tract and anyone could post what you post. As a former Christian, I understood the tenets of your position before I was out of elementary school.You have questions and issues waiting to be answered on this board. Rather than spouting self-serving assertions of superior knowledge to newcomers, why don't you go see if you can actually demonstrate it.Amlodhi[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 03-13-2004]