Fulfilled Prophecy

yes, i think this is the important part of the statement above. this, ie: predicting the future in nice conrete and testable terms, is not how prophecy works.at least, according to the fundamentalists who see fit to twist things that very often aren't even prophecy at all into their particular reading of the bible. nevermind that if one were to actually read the bible, every instance of prophecy is rather concrete, starting with joseph's statement to pharaoh about 7 years of prosperity and 7 years of famine. was the symbolic of something to do with jesus? does it apply to the bush regime? no, it was something very specific that helped pharoah, and actually happened very shortly afterward. written after the fact, sure. but in concrete terms.when we go back and look at prophecies, and actually read what they say, for the most part they follow this pattern. even the ones that didn't come true, probably a fair number here -- nice, concrete terms. but look at how buz is known for distorting those. apparently, tyre really was destroyed and left permanently uninhabitable, just like the bible says. nevermind that they are quite a booming port in lebanon today.see, for the fundamentalist, they like to make sure things stay vague, so that they are always true. out of context is even better, because then we can change a few words around and apply to something entirely unrelated, and no one's the wiser. sure, jesus (and several million other people) rode into jerusalem's east gate on a donkey. great! prophecy fulfilled! world peace at the threat of violence? no, that next verse in zechariah must be about something else.

---

in your opinion, do the people who write for newspaper horoscopes have this gift of prophecy? why or why not? even the quote-mining? it's sad that stripping context and meaning from verses, and re-applying them to whatever you see fit is considered sound doctrine these days. but i suppose it always has been, hasn't it? afterall, look at how many times matthew does it. nothing new under the sun, i suppose.

---

Yes Buz is interpreting the Bible for our benefit since it appears in his own mind that he speaks for God and us mere mortals are too stupid to actually read and properly understand it. I say take it to the mainstream forms of Christianity (Catholic majority) and see if it it floats like the hypothetical unicorn in hypothetical flood sediments.When, if ever, will the authoritarian fundies show the proper respect for their preferred deity over temporal rulers of such false interpretation? How many warnings concerning false prophets in the Bible does it take for the message to stick?If one has respect for God, shoudn't such respect extend to the point where one is allowed to actually think about what is said in the Bible rather than violate the literal warning against false prophets?Chapter and verse - where does the Bible predict television? Please show a specific quote.Edited by anglagard, : ClarityEdited by anglagard, : appropriate question

quote:

---

All you need do is check out items preceeding Nahum 2:3-4 which I have cited, having never yet been fulfilled, most of which do not directly apply to Nineveh.

---

IF you bothered to read my post you would see that I already did, pointing out that they were not predictions at all. As I noted they are in the present tense - they are simply declarations of God's power. Even if they were predictions it would not change the clare maening of Nahum 1:1 and Nahum 2:8.

quote:

---

As I've stated, This sort of ambiguity is often encountered in the study of Biblical prophecy but the more you study the prophecies, the more you recognize corroborating events which work to complete the picture the artist is painting so to speak.

---

What you actually mean is that the more you study prophecy the more you reject the Bible. You ignore or misrepresent parts of the Bible that contradict what you want it to say. You ignore the simple face readings that make perfect sense for twisted readings whose only virtue is that they happen to please you.

quote:

---

...if you refuse to acknowledge the facts I've stated I can't waste my time repeating them

---

Which facts would those be ? I think that you mean that if I don't throw out the Bible and start worshipping you, you'll run away from the discussion. Sorry but it won't work.

quote:

---

I can't say with complete certainty who is right and who is wrong here because I just got around to dealing with this thread. From the little I have seen, Buz seems to be offering his analysis on the scriptures in question. I should add that his interpretation is not far off from the majority of Christian scholarship. Some people here are making Buz out to be coming up with some off-the-wall interpretations. I haven't seen that. From the little I have read it seems sound, doctrinally.

---

So far as I can see Buz is not offering any real or valid analysis. He is ignoring context, he is ignoring the obvious readings in favour of strained readings which really don't fit the text that well. If Christian doctrine agrees with Buz then Christian doctrine is opposed to understanding the Bible.

Why haven't we had an exmple of fulfilled prophecy yet?After all there's supposed to be hundreds of fulfilled prophecies, you think that one wouldn't be a lot to ask for.Brian.

If true, that is a sad commentary on Christian Scholarship.How can something be sound doctrinally when it is not supported by the very words in the passages?I will agree that there are many evangelists hawking the prophecies that Buz repeats here, but they are like so many other products hawked by Commercial Christianity Inc.When the package is unwrapped and the contents examined, nothing is found except lots of refined sugar and caffeine. Sure those who consume such Prophetic Products get quite a high and buzz. But there is no nutritional value.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Of course, whenever we read into scripture what is not plainly seen, we change it. "Every eye shall see him" would have to mean that everyone in the world was watching television at the same time, would it not?

The section being quoted is from a doxology that introduces the missive.Doxologies are general and formal songs of praise to GOD. It is not prophecy in anyway.If you look in the Bible you will even find that it is included in the section, "Greetings and doxology".From the NIV To pull one phrase out of context and claim that it is referring to tv simply makes no sense. The passage is what it seems to be, just a doxology and any other interpretation is not the intent of the author but post hoc injection of meaning by folk today.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I believe it was either you or someone else who challenged Buzsaw to prophesy what events would transpire in 2007. As a response I was saying that prophecy doesn't work on demand, nor are specific dates given.A lot of prophetic naysayers argue that because no specific dates are mentioned it remains cryptic and vague. And if we wait around long enough, eventually the prophecy will fulfill itself all on its own. But lets think for a moment why no specific dates are ever given. Specific dates ruin the integrity of the prophecy by creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. The second, and most important reason is, if people knew the day and the hour when the Lord would come, they would be ready. That's the wrong attitude. You can't live like hell your entire life without the hopes that your 'reserve chute' is gonna back your play. You should start preparing the moment of your conversion, rather than changing your mind just in case this Christian stuff is actually true. Lets look at one off the top of my head. Lets examine Matthew 24. Jesus here tells His disciples that the Temple was going to be thrown down and that not stone was going to be left on top of another. In 66 AD, the Jewish revolt to overthrow the yoke of Roman rule was underway. By the year 70 AD the Romans destroyed the Temple completely and the Diaspora had begun. The destruction is recorded just as Jesus had said because its reputed that the Roman, knowing the Temple was full of gold, sought heat up the huge stone slabs with incredible heat in order to melt the gold.Naysayers claim that the book of Matthew and Mark were written after 70 AD which wouldn't have made it a prediction, but a postdiction. Or if Jesus had really mentioned it before, it was not annotated ahead of the destruction so that its reputation is in question. Give me an example and of what you think is vague and we can examine it step by step using biblical and extra-biblical sources.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

I would opine that they do not have the gift of prophecy. I would say that they are trying to tell people what they want to hear. Case in point, I'm a Gemini. Every month, the soothsayers give a prediction for Gemini's, apparently all of them, that they will meet the love of their life, or what have you. (I'm just using a generic example). That means everyone born between May 21 and June 20 will mysteriously meet the love of their life the month of the prophecy. But, hmmmm? That isn't the case is it? And interestingly enough, another astrology columnist in some other part of the world will give a completely different prediction. Which one is right? I have read any posts of quote mining or anyone claiming him to be quote mining. I would have to see an example of the allegation and in context. How does Matthew do strip the context to mean whatever he wants it to? I'd have to see an example and analyze it from there.

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

for as often as it's quoted, you still seem to be misunderstanding isaiah 7.see, isaiah delivers a prophecy to king ahaz, that he will defeat the assyrians. concrete terms. isaiah says to ahaz, "ask of god a sign of your choosing." when ahaz objects, isaiah gives him one. a woman (who appears to be present) is currently pregnant. when the child she is carrying reaches a certain age, the prophecy will be fulfilled. that's a nice concrete date.this is, of course, not the way the vast majority of christians choose to read the verse. they opt for out-of-context, ignorant of hebrew grammar and vocabulary, and incredibly distortionary readings, and apply it to jesus. it's no wonder you have little idea how prophecy works -- you're too busy bending it your needs to actually stop and read it. no, you intend to make it cryptic and vague. prophecy is very specific. you don't need dates for that. just someone reading the text and trying to fulfill it.Edited by arachnophilia, : subtitle

---

But any prophecy can be "self-fulfilling" in the sense that believers can fake it just to "prove" that prophecy works. For example, Jesus could have deliberately ridden a donkey into Jerusalem "so that the prophecy would be fulfilled".Why would specific dates make that more likely?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I see that Buz is giving his interpretation on the matter, not calling anyone stupid. Consequently, I have seen his detractors speaking poorly about his beliefs. And even supposing that an unbeliever read the prophecies, they may not understand them in full. That doesn't mean the unbeliever is dumb or anything like that. Though seeing, they may not see. Though hearing, they may not hear or understand. Its really about discernment, not intellect. A false prophet is someone claiming to give a prophecy from God, when it didn't come from God. The implication is that they are secretly aware that they are full of bs, but don't divulge that information because they covet power. So they feign the gift of prophecy in order to inflate their own self-worth. Everybody who forms an opinion thinks they are right. No one goes out seeking to be wrong. What they do is to try and assert that they are actually right and that their opposition is actually wrong. Someone interpreting scriptures may believe that they are interpreting correctly. The other person thinks that they are the ones interpreting it correctly. One or both parties can conceivably be wrong, but only one of them can conceivably be right in accordance to the law of non-contradiction. Nowhere in the Bible, that I'm aware of, does it predict the television. However, the book of Revelation makes allusions towards it when it says that the Two Witnesses will be seen by every nation. Well, how can every nation be in the same place simultaneously? There's obviously some physical problems with that. However, since the advent of the television, podcasting, satellites, etc, all nations can view the same thing at the same time-- likely something that John the Revelator could not wrap his mind around at the time."I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy for 1,260 days, clothed in sackcloth." These are the two olive trees and the two lampstands that stand before the Lord of the earth... Now when they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the Abyss will attack them, and overpower and kill them. (After 1,260 passes from the time they began)"Their bodies will lie in the street of the great city, which is figuratively called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. For three and a half days men from every people, tribe, language and nation will gaze on their bodies and refuse them burial." -Revelation 11So, the Bible does not mention television outright, only possible allusions of it. Its just one of those things that is only now conceivable because of the increase of technology. Why do you ask?

---

"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." -C.S. Lewis

evidently, both of them. i bet that in any given month, a gemini somewhere in the world meets the love of their life. and the completely different prediction is also true, though maybe for a different gemini.now compare and contrast buz's vague and out-of-context use of prophecy with horoscopes. read the posts on the book of nahum again. buz is taking one little tiny reference in a chapter that is about the destruction of nineveh and applying it to something entirely different. that's quote-mining, when the context contradicts the use of the smaller quote. i believe i gave an example above. zechariah predicts that the messiah will ride into jerusalem on a donkey, through the east gate. jesus rides into jerusalem on a donkey, through the east gate. therefor jesus=messiah, right? matthew would have us believe that this is the qualifier, that riding in on a donkey makes one the messiah.but if you think about, "riding a donkey" is rather meaningless. donkeys are quite commonly owned by lots of peasant, hundreds of thousands of which would enter jerusalem every year for passover. what matthew has done is stripped the context of the verse. the very next verse in zechariah (where matthew quotes the prophecy) gives us the effective definition of the messiah:

quote:

---

And I will cut off the chariot from Ephraim, and the horse from Jerusalem, and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall speak peace unto the nations; and his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.

---

and so on. it goes on to describe how the people of judah, led by the messiah and the lord himself, will conquer their enemies, and rule the world. the messiah will bring peace, because no one would have any hope fighting against him. clearly, this is not what happened with jesus, is it? he did not militarily conquer the planet, and force peace on everyone.matthew ignores this, opting for one brief reference about a donkey.

---