Prophecy for Buzsaw

Firstly, let me show you your bias and/or listen to yourself: What does the NT say about a certain person who was the Messiah and suffered. It is not Buz's claim - it is documentation, - fact.
The evidence Jesus was the Messiah,is the NT. Christ says himself it's a matter of belief though, according to the scriptures your unbelief is and has been explained.
Then you want us to buy some ridiculous rules for "self satisfaction". Sorry Mark but "bias" is written all over this self righteouss topic. The first rule is laughable, basically if you don't have complete justification via your will then it's not a prophecy? - Lol, sorry that's not the way it works. 1947 for example is a FACT. Buz has also offered you many examples including the Isaiah one, and you ignored him. Again - irrational. Now if you still seek proof of bias, just read the above bullony. Who is Percy to say, "You can't include Christ's prophecy". This is definitely the icing on the cake for me now. Your ulterior motives of your "evolution" position are written all over you. You might aswell call the sight evolution versus Jesus.The 6 rules are laughable, I can just hear Percy's thoughts as I write: " Hang on a minute, Christ was accurate, oh dear....I'll have to get rid of that one. That's it - bingo, I'll write a rule saying you can't include it"Indeed a desperate notion, but I'm hoping these bizarre attempts to ridicule the Bible will end. At the moment, as one of your fellow unbelievers wrote - to the effect at least " we deserve answers". Well, no you don't, Buz has shown you many examples and I feel you do not deserve anything concerning truth. All you do is hound Buz with your self righteouss position.

Hmmmm.Good to see you back anyway Dan. My main point though, is that we do base our beliefs on happenings in history. Remember the prophecies we discussed concerning Israel?
Percy is making it so that no Prophecy will pass the test.I would adhere to your jargon, only the NT does not mention Dan Carrol

NO, you are under the illusion that what the evo refutes then becomes reality. And/or if you refute Biblical prophecy that means Buz is wrong - rubbish, many many agree Biblical prophecy has come to pass. My point is the Bible prophecies ARE good enough, but they are not good enough for the evo - which, guess what: does not surprise me. Besides 'rules relaxed' - LOl, who are you to make the rules. Who is an unbeliever to make the rules? - A biased rule maker!

Well, firstly I call you biased because you say Jesus being the Messiah is wishful thinking. You have got to be kidding?
I did not write the NT. If I said Garfield was the Messiah I would be thinking wishfully. However the "heaven and earth shall pass but my words shall not pass" - not quote, (from memory) - WELL. That is the same word I read 2 thousand unlikely years later - and it doesn't mention Garfield. Do I take it that is your full knowledge concerning 1947? You tell me. In a topic concerning evolution, how is it - you being evo, that you end up saying Christ is wishful thinking? : There you go again. Letting that nasty anti-Christian personality out. Yes. Two short planks and Mark24. Let a neutral party make the rules then. I hereby volunteer the real God. There is no way an evo is neutral that's for sure. Therefore an evo will make rules to fit his mindset. Probably making out that a prophecy cannot come true, but missing the point that it might have actually come true and be true. I am not gullible, infact prophecy isn't a major reason as to why I believe in the Bible. But things like 1947 are good evidence for a hardened and unnaturally Atheistic unreasonable evo touting hardened scrutineer of sorts, if he actually opens up that closed minded bonce of bias inquiry.

When I said 'Who is Percy to say' I meant in the grand scheme of things. I am sure Percy will apreciate a neutral capacity is the best route to take when we have controversial issues like this. Certainly if he has power at this site he will notice rule 1 incorporates an evolutionary perspective, when coupled with message 1, because let's face it - would a creationist say such a thing as or to the effect; " You cannot include this prophecy by Jesus " - I doubt it. Together with reading that Mark said (to the effect)
" Jesus being the Messiah is wishful thinking " angered me, when you are Christian you can indeed see that when a specific statement by Jesus is mentioned - well, why Jesus? I'm sure the 6 rules might have been taken out of context by Mark, but the 1st rule, well...angers me, and I can't help it.
I'm sure Percy will comment shortly as to whether I am out of line or not.

You just don't get this do you. Did you miss the part about Garfield?
"my words shall never pass" - was an extreme statement for a person who you yourself say, the Jews didn't even accept as Christ. Yet, 2 thousand years later, I am reading 4 similar accounts of Jesus, who gives us no choice but to believe he is the Christ. I have not conjured up Christ in my mind, the NT does exist, it would be wishful thinking on my part if I were to believe Garfield was the Messiah. If rule1 is not biased why need it mention Christs prophecy?
You say I have a religion? - I don't have a religion. I believe in Christ. 'Christian' - if it means follower of Christ, then so I am.Sore?
I don't give a hoot what you evo's include in your silly mindset. It's not like you've made any difference anyway. Make your rules for each other, but it don't mean you're right. I'm just not going to sit by and read the guff without mentioning your obvious bias.So far I am gullible and I have a religion, and I think wishfully. Aim again! You might come within a mile this time.

Oh, so it's one rule for the Bible. But your quite happy for me to give you a Vishnu prophecy?If a prophecy is true it will come to pass. The real God can be our neutral source who makes the rules. Because 1. Wiz's wager and 2. He is the source of true prophecy.If your much admired rule 1 is so great. Why does it effectively say "This Jesus prophecy cannot be included" - man, Dan - admitt it, it's a lame rule. You might aswell just say " listen I've heard the prophecies, and I don't believe they are real" - hell, it would at least be honest. Okay, you want God to sign the relevant documents and prove to you on your own terms that the prophecies are real, fair enough, but - No can do - Wiz's wager.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

" But things like 1947 are good evidence for a hardened and unnaturally Atheistic unreasonable evo touting hardened scrutineer of sorts, if he actually opens up that closed minded bonce of bias inquiry "I'll break this down, incase you don't understand English.Things like 1947 are good evidence FOR A hardened unnaturally Atheistic evo.... e.t.c. e.t.c.So HE is then whomever the hardened unnaturally Atheistic... e.t.c. e.t.c. person is. - Anyone who is that way, in itself, and there is no name there called Percy.