Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
36 online now:
Heathen, jar, kjsimons, Percy (Admin), Theodoric (5 members, 31 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Upcoming Birthdays: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,367 Year: 18,403/19,786 Month: 823/1,705 Week: 75/518 Day: 1/74 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fulfillments of Bible Prophecy
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6653
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 286 of 327 (508231)
05-11-2009 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by jaywill
05-11-2009 2:13 PM


Final reply to Jaywill
I have to make one more reply to you then I am finished trying to have any sort of meaningful discourse with you.

quote:
The things you actually say are bad enough.

What do you mean by the above? Have I impugned him by saying the book was not a serious book of scholarship? Have I been blasphemous?

quote:
You might read it. But I won't hold my breath waiting.

Well you don't have to hold your breath. I have attempted to read it. But it is the same old same old, geared toward reinforcing the belief in those that are swaying away from religion or reinforcing beliefs for the christian god(they are very insulting to other religions) and against atheists. I found a great comment about the book on Amazon. I agree wholeheartedly.

It should be made clear in the beginning whom this book is for: it is not for the philosophical or scientific atheist, nor is it for someone who is familiar with classic Christian apology. The arguments this book contains have all appeared before, and many have been discussed, refuted, or otherwise addressed elsewhere, and in much greater depth. Many of the subjects in the book are broached with little care and less thoroughness, such that if you've encountered books on these subjects separately, their treatment here will seem minimal at best.

You might want to search reviews on this book. There are a number of christians who feel it is a very flawed book. Their logic is flawed. They try to build a syllogistic argument, but build it on a lot of false logic and false facts. It seems to be a book written by people proficient in debate, where rhetoric is much more important than reason.

Edited by Theodoric, : comment about other religions


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by jaywill, posted 05-11-2009 2:13 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by jaywill, posted 05-13-2009 9:41 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1740 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 287 of 327 (508233)
05-11-2009 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by jaywill
05-11-2009 1:54 PM


Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
quote:
Since (b) is a valid definition of the word, my case is established that this is what He meant. Especially since in Acts chapter one He told them that they WOULDN'T know when all these things were to happen. Otherwise He would have been self contradictory about it.
I agree that the usage of generation in Mark could mean a group of people very like each other in endowments, pursuits, character, etc.; but the statement didn't describe characteristics of the generation. What we do know from the text is that he was speaking of the current generation of the time in which he spoke.

Just because he said they wouldn't know the exact day and hour is irrelevant to what was said about the generation. According to his statement, once the signs start happening the end is near and the signs would all happen with Jesus riding in on the clouds before that generation, at the time he was speaking, would pass away. That's what the text says.

quote:
Definitions you provided which allow for my interpretation.
You have not yet explained how all such definitions make my interpretation impossible. But let me read on.
The usage of the word in the sentence and the rest of the words in the sentence. We can pick any definition of the word we want, but it has to fit in the sentence. This isn't so much about what generation means, it is the use of the word "this" that makes the statement refer to the time of the speaker.

That's why I said, generation by itself doesn't tell us anything. We need the descriptive words to define the generation, not the meaning of the word "generation".

Houtos is the word for "this" which comes before the word generation in English.

The word generation by itself doesn't mean a bad group. We need the sentence to tell us what they mean by generation. The sentence we are using could be using the word generation to refer to the current age. Unfortunately it isn't descriptive as far as good, bad, or other grouping; but it is specific as to when. It was the generation the disciples could see in front of them, so to speak.

We are looking at the whole sentence: (Mark 13:30)

I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by jaywill, posted 05-11-2009 1:54 PM jaywill has not yet responded

Kapyong
Member (Idle past 1725 days)
Posts: 344
Joined: 05-22-2003


Message 288 of 327 (508237)
05-11-2009 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by jaywill
05-11-2009 12:18 PM


Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
Gday,

jaywill writes:

Where are the protests of the mythic invention of a Jesus of Nazareth in the first and second century or third century?

Well,
2 John
warns of those who don't
"acknowledge the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh".

Marcion
in mid 2nd century, claimed Jesus was a phantom or spiritual entity, and not born of Mary :

“Marcion, I suppose, took sound words in a wrong sense, when he rejected His birth from Mary...”

“...they deny ... His humanity, and teach that His appearances to those who saw Him as man were illusory, inasmuch as He did not bear with Him true manhood, but was rather a kind of phantom manifestation. Of this class are, for example, Marcion...”

Polycarp's epistle
refers to those who do not agree Jesus came in the flesh :
"For whosoever does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, is antichrist"

Basilides
in mid 2nd century, denied Jesus was really crucified, and denied the physical resurrection :
"Christ sent, not by this maker of the world, but by the above-named Abraxas; and to have come in a phantasm, and been destitute of the substance of flesh: that it was not He who suffered among the Jews, but that Simon was crucified in His stead: whence, again, there must be no believing on him who was crucified, lest one confess to having believed on Simon. Martyrdoms are not to be endured. The resurrection of the flesh he strenuously impugns, affirming that salvation has not been promised to bodies"

Bardesanes
in mid 2nd century, denied that Christ was physical :
"...assert that the body of the Saviour was spiritual;

Minucius Felix
in mid 2nd century, explicitly denies the incarnation and crucifixion along with other horrible accusations.
"...he who explains their ceremonies by reference to a man punished by extreme suffering for his wickedness, and to the deadly wood of the cross, appropriates fitting altars for reprobate and wicked men ... when you attribute to our religion the worship of a criminal and his cross you wander far from the truth", and also: "Men who have died cannot become gods, because a god cannot die; nor can men who are born (become gods) ... Why, I pray, are gods not born today, if such have ever been born?"

Tatian
in later 2nd century, compared Christianity with pagan mythology and wrote:
“Compare you own stories with our narratives. Take a look at your own records and accept us merely on the grounds that we too tell stories

Celsus
in late 2nd century, attacked the Gospels as fiction based on myths :
"Clearly the christians have used...myths... in fabricating the story of Jesus' birth...It is clear to me that the writings of the christians are a lie and that your fables are not well-enough constructed to conceal this monstrous fiction"

Porphyry
in late 3rd century, claimed the Gospels were invented :
"... the evangelists were inventors – not historians”

Julian
in the 4th century, claimed Jesus was spurious, counterfeit, invented :
"why do you worship this spurious son...a counterfeit son", "you have invented your new kind of sacrifice ".
Julian was “convinced that the fabrication of the Galilaeans is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.. ”

So, we see various early Christians deny Jesus was a physical being, adn we see various critics say the stories are "fiction", "lies" and "BASED ON MYTHS".

Kapyong

Edited by Kapyong, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by jaywill, posted 05-11-2009 12:18 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 224 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 289 of 327 (508240)
05-11-2009 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Theodoric
05-11-2009 9:19 AM


Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
I think the key point is we can not give a firm, solid, clear date to Mark, or any of the other NT writings. Therefore, they can not be used a validation of any prophecy. Without a complete provenance, these books can never be used to verify the prophecies. There needs to an external verification if the people that claim the prophecies are fulfilled want to be taken seriously.

Is there a scenario by which someone after the Invasion of Pearl Harbor would write a fradulant history pretending that the event was in the future to the time of writing ?

Could you see someone writing a fake history of New York after the falling of the Twin Towers pretending that such an event was a prophecy to be fulfilled in the future?

What I am hearing is that the Gospel of Mark had to have been written after the temple was destroyed by the Roman army. Such a momentous event is sneakily "ignored" by the writer except for a pretended reference to its future destruction to the events being recorded.

I think this is unrealistically conspiratorial. What I hear is the theory that AFTER the destruction the writer of Mark wrote a pretended history of Jesus totally ignoring this momentous event. Furthermore the writer of Mark pretended to make it a prophesied event to occur in the future.

Now while the writer of Mark is perpetrating this devious hoax he is also portraying high standard of morality, honesty, truthfulness and ethics as taught by the central figure, Jesus.

This doesn't make too much sense to me.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Theodoric, posted 05-11-2009 9:19 AM Theodoric has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Richard Townsend, posted 05-11-2009 6:56 PM jaywill has responded
 Message 297 by Percy, posted 05-12-2009 8:43 AM jaywill has not yet responded
 Message 307 by Peg, posted 05-13-2009 5:51 AM jaywill has not yet responded

Richard Townsend
Member (Idle past 3014 days)
Posts: 103
From: London, England
Joined: 07-16-2008


Message 290 of 327 (508241)
05-11-2009 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by jaywill
05-11-2009 6:34 PM


Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
Is there a scenario by which someone after the Invasion of Pearl Habor would write a fradulant history pretending that the event was in the future to the time of writing ?

Could you see someone writing a fake history of New York after the falling of the Twin Towers pretending that such an event was a prophecy to be fulfilled in the future?

What I am hearing is that the Gospel of Mark had to have been written after the temple was destroyed by the Roman army. Such a momentous event is sneakily "ignored" by the writer except for a pretended reference to its future destruction to the events being recorded.

I think this is unrealistically conspiratorial. What I hear is the theory that AFTER the destruction the writer of Mark wrote a pretended history of Jesus totally ignoring this momentous event. Furthermore the writer of Mark pretended to make it a prophesied event to occur in the future.

Now while the writer of Mark is perpetrating this devious hoax he is also portraying high standard of morality and ethics as taught by the central figure, Jesus.

This doesn't make too much sense to me.

This is weak reasoning. All the prophecies in this thread have needed specific interpretations of the text, and the eye of faith. All these have an element of doubt to them.

I'm still looking for a prophecy that

- was made explicitly, ie does not need 'interpretation' for us to know what it means
- is specific enough to be an 'unlikely' prediction and one whose fulfillment would be clearly detectable.
- is guaranteed to have been written before the prophesied event took place
- is proven to have been fulfilled by material outside the bible
- is not potentially self-fulfilling

If I had knowledge of the future I could write any number of prophecies that would (eventually) meet my criteria. If God has shared knowledge of the future with the prophets, then so should they.

I have never seen a prophecy like that and I don't believe there are any in the bible. Can you show me to be wrong?

If there were a number of prophecies of that strength, then the claims of the bible would become more credible. It would be strong evidence that something interesting was going on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by jaywill, posted 05-11-2009 6:34 PM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by bluescat48, posted 05-11-2009 11:21 PM Richard Townsend has not yet responded
 Message 292 by jaywill, posted 05-12-2009 6:15 AM Richard Townsend has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2472 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 291 of 327 (508275)
05-11-2009 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Richard Townsend
05-11-2009 6:56 PM


Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
Richard Townsend writes:

I'm still looking for a prophecy that

- was made explicitly, ie does not need 'interpretation' for us to know what it means
- is specific enough to be an 'unlikely' prediction and one whose fulfillment would be clearly detectable.
- is guaranteed to have been written before the prophesied event took place
- is proven to have been fulfilled by material outside the bible
- is not potentially self-fulfilling

Funny, I've been trying to find that for years. Still no-one has produced such.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Richard Townsend, posted 05-11-2009 6:56 PM Richard Townsend has not yet responded

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 224 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 292 of 327 (508293)
05-12-2009 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Richard Townsend
05-11-2009 6:56 PM


Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
This is weak reasoning. All the prophecies in this thread have needed specific interpretations of the text, and the eye of faith. All these have an element of doubt to them.

What is wrong with one needing to have faith in what the Bible prophesied ? Your basic objection that "It requires an eye of faith" may be a criteria which you reject but God has in mind.

You may be wanting God to play strictly by your rules that no "eye of faith" be required. In response to this objection I think it would be a good idea for one to make an examination of fulfilled promises told about in the Bible and see if no "eye of faith" was required upon those for whom the prophecy came about.

When Jesus showed doubting Thomas empirical and scientific evidence that His wounds and holes in His living body proved that He had risen from the dead, He added to His proof the words [b]"And be believing.

"Then He said to Thomas, Bring your finger here and see My hands, and bring your hand and put it into My side; AND DO NOT BE UNBELIEVING, BUT BELIEVING." (John 20:27 my emphasis)

What I hear you saying is that you want a case of fulfilled prophecy in which it is not required of you to be believing.

Give me some time to study this. It seems on the first consideration is that the prophecy of God exists only for the sake of man's intellectual curiosity. I'm not sure that that is valid.


I'm still looking for a prophecy that

- was made explicitly, ie does not need 'interpretation' for us to know what it means

There is always disagreement among people as to the meaning of history. What does the American Civil War MEAN. To some it is the war between the states. To others it was the war of Northern Aggression.

I think I would lean towards accepting what meaning was given to the fulfillment given by the same God Who caused it to come to pass.


- is specific enough to be an 'unlikely' prediction and one whose fulfillment would be clearly detectable.

A man name Stoner wrote a book on this. I only saw some examples of his statistical calculations of the unlikelyhood of certain fulfilled prophecies was a chance event. The book was called "Science Speaks". The quotations of which I read decades ago in "Evidence That Demands a Verdict" by J. McDowell. I do not know of further editions of that book since the 80s still contain Stoner's statistical examples.

No doubt someone will yawn at the mention of Josh McDowell.


- is guaranteed to have been written before the prophesied event took place

I think it should be obvious that Isaiah 53 for example was written way before Jesus came teaching that the New Covenant was in the blood of His sacrificing Himself for the sins of people.

Of course you said that you don't want to have to interpret the meaning. But if you don't, for instance, believe that there is a God or that sin exists, then you won't agree with the "meaning" of Jesus going to the cross for the sins of man. Would you?

No "eye of faith" and "no need for interpretation" could be so restrictive as to allow you to dismiss all proposals of Bible prophecy.


- is proven to have been fulfilled by material outside the bible

Then you may run into the problem of the interpretation given to that event by the "outsider" to the community of faith. Plenty of ancient authorities agree that Jerusalem's walls were torn down to the ground as Jesus predicted. They may find it coincidental or not necessarily the doing of the Christian God.

Outsiders to the Bible confirm that Jesus virtually offered Himself up to Roman execution. The meaning of that history for them may be entirely removed from what Isaiah said was the significance of the event.

Jesus predicted "wars and rumors of wars" and "earthquakes" in various places, with famines and false Christs arising saying "I am the Christ". Paul spoke of a general apostasy of the Christian church. He said the Spirit of God expressly said that some would depart from the faith and give heed to deceiving spirits. One of the doctrines that Paul prophesied would come about was the forbidding of marriage to Christian workers. The celebacy of the Roman Catholic Church is a good candidate for the fulfillment of that prophesy.

But saying "I want a prophesy in which I do not have to have an eye of faith" may be purposely restrictive. I will spend some time to think about it.


- is not potentially self-fulfilling

Those are sometimes the best kind. The prophesy pronounced upon Joseph caused his brothers to hate him. And all that they did only caused the prophesy to come about anyway !

I wouldn't exclude instances in which the very reaction TO the prophesy of God was a contributing cause for its fulfillment. They are fascinating examples of God's sovereignty over time.

Then again I am looking for reasons to believe the Bible. Perhaps you are hunting for reasons why NOT to believe the Bible.


If I had knowledge of the future I could write any number of prophecies that would (eventually) meet my criteria. If God has shared knowledge of the future with the prophets, then so should they.

He said somewhere in the prophets that He does nothing without letting His prophets know.

But then prophecy is not usually with the sole purpose of entertaining man's curiosity. The Bible is not the same as the predictions of Nostradamus or Jean Dixon. The aim is to instill faith and impart the Spirit of God into people.

There are number of passages in Ezekiel or Zechariah in which God says "And they shall know that I am Jehovah" when thus and such comes to past.

I'd have to think about prophesy in which the witnesses of fulfillment may not want to know Jehovah. This is not meant to be offensive. But the "NO EYE OF FAITH" criteria concerns me. God has restricted Himself to the process of faith to reveal Himself to man.

That leave man with nothing to boast about. And it instills trust in God which man needs. Are you saying "I want a none faith instilling fulfillment of Bible prophecy" ? I need time to think about that.


I have never seen a prophecy like that and I don't believe there are any in the bible. Can you show me to be wrong?

Maybe you should give up looking then. If no example meets your criteria, maybe you just should remain in unbelief.

I find a number of prophesies impressive. And I look forward to seeing some unfold in the future.


If there were a number of prophecies of that strength, then the claims of the bible would become more credible. It would be strong evidence that something interesting was going on.

When I am really interested in the Bible, some matters I put on the back burner for a season. I go to study other things. Then again I want to love God, want to find God, want God to be real, and want to submit myself by His mercy to God.

I'm biased. God has been faithful to me and encouraged me that I am on the right track of my life to believe the Bible, discerningly of course, with wisdom as to what is what. I don't take the Bible as Nostradamus type predictions for the sake of wowing human curiosity solely.

Stoner's book on probablity and prophesy fulfillment is called "Science Speaks". Maybe that could help you.

Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Richard Townsend, posted 05-11-2009 6:56 PM Richard Townsend has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Peepul, posted 05-12-2009 8:41 AM jaywill has not yet responded

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1740 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 293 of 327 (508294)
05-12-2009 6:31 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by jaywill
05-11-2009 8:30 AM


Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
quote:
I am light on the side of extra-biblical confirmation perhaps. I am purposely not going to give some of you credence to the implication that biblical confirmation is not valid. Luke was writing history. He was not writing a "Once Upon a Time in a Far Off Land" kind of document.
What makes you think the author of Luke was writing History?
Facts are boring. Technical manuals are boring. Writers make information interesting. The gospels weren't biographies as we understand biographies today.

L. Michael White, Professor of Classics and Director of the Religious Studies Program University of Texas at Austin.
The gospels are not biographies in the modern sense of the word. Rather, they are stories told in such a way as to evoke a certain image of Jesus for a particular audience. They're trying to convey a message about Jesus, about his significance to the audience and thus we we have to think of them as a kind of preaching, as well as story telling. That's what the gospel, The Good News, is really all about.

Even our own history textbooks have misinformation.
Lies My Teacher Told Me

Washington Irving's 1828 biography of Columbus popularized the idea that Columbus had difficulty obtaining support for his plan because Europeans thought the Earth was flat.[7] In fact, the primitive maritime navigation of the time relied on the stars and the curvature of the spherical Earth. The knowledge that the Earth was spherical was widespread, and the means of calculating its diameter using an astrolabe was known to both scholars and navigators[8].

And George Washington did not throw a silver dollar across the Potomac River.

"When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." Robert Wuhl

Why do you assume the authors of the Bible don't have an agenda for their writings?
Writings come from the minds of people and people have agendas.

Why the need for it to be absolute fact or absolute lies? Absolute perfection or absolute corruption?

Life isn't that cut and dried.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by jaywill, posted 05-11-2009 8:30 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by jaywill, posted 05-12-2009 6:44 AM purpledawn has responded
 Message 308 by Peg, posted 05-13-2009 6:04 AM purpledawn has responded

jaywill
Member (Idle past 224 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 294 of 327 (508295)
05-12-2009 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by purpledawn
05-12-2009 6:31 AM


Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
What makes you think the author of Luke was writing History?
Facts are boring. Technical manuals are boring. Writers make information interesting. The gospels weren't biographies as we understand biographies today.

Are you saying historical should be boring? You know they are "Facts" if they are related boringly?

All historical writing should be like a technical manual?

If the writer has interest and enthusiasm in in the facts then it cannot be true history?

Facts in Luke's writing have been verified in archeology. For years I heard that Luke was doubted because no "pavement" was located in Jerusalem upon which Pilate examined Jesus. Then in the 20th century the pavement was found and Luke's writing was vindicated.

In spite of the fact that Luke had a vested interest in the spread of the Christian faith he could still be a good historian. I think he encouraged his reader to verify the accuracy of the things he wrote.

I have to go now.

I know - Luke didn't write Luke, John didn't write John, Matthew didn't write Matthew, Isaiah didn't write Isaiah, Mark didn't write Mark, etc, etc,. I know what higher criticism believes.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by purpledawn, posted 05-12-2009 6:31 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by purpledawn, posted 05-12-2009 8:45 AM jaywill has responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 386 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 295 of 327 (508296)
05-12-2009 7:22 AM


Summarising the prophecy scam
To conclude then, I raised the objection that at least one prophecy that jaywill provided was worded in such a way as to be impossible to be considered unfulfilled. That this prophecy is a stark example of the confirmation bias inherent in prophecy.

Time and time again, we start from a claim that there is some good reason, or 'proof' of supernatural claims of the Bible or religious viewpoint, and within 300 posts we see a view quite different begin to emerge. The view that the touted 'proof' isn't something which leads to belief (ie proof) but instead should be considered more closesly to a 'confirmation' of an already existing belief.

That is to say, we start from

quote:
Bible prophecy was one of the main reasons I started to take a serious look at the bible and religion. I really had very little knowledge of God or the bible when I was growing up and I could not say for sure that God was real because I had never experienced anything supernatural.

So when someone offered to show me 'proof' that the bible was a book inspired by God, i was obviously interested in how they could prove it. That 'proof' was prophecy.


(From Message 1).

And we end with the likes of

quote:
What is wrong with one needing to have faith in what the Bible prophesied ? Your basic objection that "It requires an eye of faith" may be a criteria which you reject but God has in mind.

You may be wanting God to play strictly by your rules that no "eye of faith" be required. In response to this objection I think it would be a good idea for one to make an examination of fulfilled promises told about in the Bible and see if no "eye of faith" was required upon those for whom the prophecy came about.


(From Message 292)

I appreciate these are different posters, but even the originator of this thread, Peg, concedes that to understand the text one needs some kind of divine intervention:

quote:
If someone really wants understanding, God will grant it.

(from Message 232).

To answer the OP, were any prophecies fufilled (ignoring the date of authorship)? Yes, I think that is fairly certain. There are two types of fulfilled prophecy:

1) Where the prophecy is constructed so that no matter what the future outcome was, an argument could be raised to suggest the prophecy is still fulfilled - this is the variety jaywill and I discussed.

2) Those that were actually prophesised 'after the event'.

There are other categories, such as prophecies that aren't actually prophecies in the 'specifically predicting future events' kind of fashion, and those that may predict future events but they are written in such a fashion that it would require later biblical authors to 'interpret them' and write about a character that they claimed fulfilled them in line with their...unorthodox interpretations. Being the eager pattern seekers we are, we are suckers for vague symbology. Being fools for confirmation bias, we are prone to fall for a whole host of tricks and cons that are designed (almost always unconsciously) to convince us it is all real.

Did the relevant authors of the Gospels lie when they made prophetic claims on behalf of Jesus? I don't think so. Many of the Jesus stories were probably passed orally for decades before being formally written down in the format we have them today. All it takes is for one person in the chain of story telling to lie, exaggerate, or more honestly - make the assumption that something like the destruction of the Temple would be something Jesus would have prophesized and since Jesus was really the Messiah he must therefore have done so.

And finally we have the selection problem. There were other gospels, but if they made prophecies that were false, the early Church would probably have destroyed them. Until there were only a few surviving gospels (and other letters etc) which had the cream of the crop of prophecy making and fulfillment (and had the best possible claims of having been written before the events). A psychic that predicts a massive array of future events, seals them all and has proof of the time and date they were sealed can destroy all of the failed prediction and dramatically reveal one or two predictions that were spot on, and three or four which, with a bit of interpretative work can be seen as basically being fulfilled - it's an old magic trick, and a variation of an old scam.


Peepul
Member (Idle past 3300 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 296 of 327 (508298)
05-12-2009 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by jaywill
05-12-2009 6:15 AM


Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
Jaywill, thanks for your very thoughtful reply to my post.

I do understand the role of faith in interpreting the bible. I'm a scpetical person and that's why I'm looking for a prophecy of the kind I describe. If I'm honest, I'm not sure what would convince me of the truth of the Christian faith - would a large number of explicit, fulfilled prophecies do that? I'm not sure.

But I'm for sure not trying to disprove the bible. In a sense I'm starting from this point of view: I don't really believe it to be true - is there good evidence that it is? So I am looking for evidence of its truth rather than otherwise. In a way I would like it to be true.

Rich


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by jaywill, posted 05-12-2009 6:15 AM jaywill has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 18868
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 297 of 327 (508299)
05-12-2009 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by jaywill
05-11-2009 6:34 PM


Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
jaywill writes:

Is there a scenario by which someone after the Invasion of Pearl Harbor would write a fradulant history pretending that the event was in the future to the time of writing ?

Could you see someone writing a fake history of New York after the falling of the Twin Towers pretending that such an event was a prophecy to be fulfilled in the future?

After both Pearl Harbor and 911, many psychics claimed to have predicted these events. These are examples of post facto reinterpretation, and like most predictions of this type they were probably purposefully vague.

Obviously there are plenty of people who want to give the appearance of having predicted something, so your skepticism about the existence of such people is misplaced. And writing predictions after the fact is even easier. Obviously Mark (or his source) had motive and opportunity to fabricate Jesus foreseeing the destruction of the temple. Whether he actually did or not is another question.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by jaywill, posted 05-11-2009 6:34 PM jaywill has not yet responded

  
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1740 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 298 of 327 (508300)
05-12-2009 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by jaywill
05-12-2009 6:44 AM


Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
quote:
Are you saying historical should be boring? You know they are "Facts" if they are related boringly?

All historical writing should be like a technical manual?

If the writer has interest and enthusiasm in in the facts then it cannot be true history?


No, I'm saying, straight facts are boring. A writer adds life to the facts.

One has to understand the purpose the writer's had for writing the story. If outside records (the unvarnished facts) do not substantiate assumed facts within the story, then we have to look at the writer's intent.

Example: In Acts 527-37, the apostles were brought before the Sanhedrin. When the members got furious and wanted them put to death a Pharisee named Gamaliel addressed the Sanhedrin and said:

"Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it call came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers scattered.

We can check when the event with Theudas and Judas took place.

According to Josephus, the Theudas event took place about 44-46CE and the Judas event took place 6CE.

From the book entitled A History of the Jews, by Paul Johnson, a conservative Catholic. (Page 119)

There was a rising, led by Judas of Camala, in 6 aD, in protest at the direct rule imposed after Herod the Great's death. There was another, for similar reasons, when direct rule was restored following the death of Herod agrippa in 44 AD, led by a man called Theudas who marched down the Jordan Valley at the head of a mob.

quote:
I think he encouraged his reader to verify the accuracy of the things he wrote.
So when we verify the accuracy of the things he wrote we find that the author of Acts has them in reverse order and has Theudas show up before his event even took place. So the author has the facts wrong, which means the speech by Gamaliel didn't happen as it was written.

Even in works of fiction there can be correct facts. That doesn't mean everything in the manuscript happened in reality.

That's why we have to look at the purpose of the entire work of an author and not just one line here and there.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by jaywill, posted 05-12-2009 6:44 AM jaywill has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by jaywill, posted 05-12-2009 8:37 PM purpledawn has responded

jaywill
Member (Idle past 224 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 299 of 327 (508375)
05-12-2009 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by purpledawn
05-12-2009 8:45 AM


Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
No, I'm saying, straight facts are boring. A writer adds life to the facts.

Not one of your stronger arguments Purpledawn.
The degree of "boringness" depends on the interest of the reader.

Now I think you would have to admit that the miracles recorded in the New Testament are related in a very "matter of fact" way. There is little to no theological commentary on them. There is no embellishment or begging the reader to believe. They are related in a very dry and straightforward way. You get it or you don't - periohd. Would you agree ?


One has to understand the purpose the writer's had for writing the story.

It is helpful. It need not be mandatory.


If outside records (the unvarnished facts) do not substantiate assumed facts within the story, then we have to look at the writer's intent.

Example: In Acts 527-37, the apostles were brought before the Sanhedrin. When the members got furious and wanted them put to death a Pharisee named Gamaliel addressed the Sanhedrin and said:

"Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it call came to nothing. After him Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers scattered.

We can check when the event with Theudas and Judas took place.

According to Josephus, the Theudas event took place about 44-46CE and the Judas event took place 6CE.

From the book entitled A History of the Jews, by Paul Johnson, a conservative Catholic. (Page 119)

There was a rising, led by Judas of Camala, in 6 aD, in protest at the direct rule imposed after Herod the Great's death. There was another, for similar reasons, when direct rule was restored following the death of Herod agrippa in 44 AD, led by a man called Theudas who marched down the Jordan Valley at the head of a mob.

I don't know much about this. I am willing to look more into it.

However, the following discussion is copied by permission from Glenn Miller's website on the matter. A portion of the discussion is provided:

Now, as to Theudas...

All indications lead to the belief that Josephus and Gamaliel were NOT talking about the same "Theudas".

Josephus refers to a more "troublesome" figure than does Gamaliel (Antiquities, 20.5.1.97-98). Whereas Gamaliel ascribes only 400 men to T., Josephus uses the terms "a great part of the people" and "many" [The following paragraph in Josephus recounts a massacre of over 20,000 people, so a band of only 400 would probably not be 'newsworthy' enough for Josephus to even mention. Therefore the ISBE insistence that Josephus WOULD HAVE mentioned so 'significant' an event is unwarranted.].

The terminology for the figure is likewise somewhat different: Gamaliel says T. was 'claiming to be somebody', Josephus uses the terms 'magician' and 'prophet'.

Gamaliel says that T's followers 'rallied to him' (a more political sounding term); Josephus says T.'s followers took their effects and were migrating to the river Jordan.

Gamaliel says that T. was simply killed; Josephus says T was captured and then beheaded, and the head then taken to Jerusalem.

Gamaliel says that after T was killed, "all his followers dispersed", but Josephus says that many of the followers were killed by the Roman troop of horsemen, and that many of them were likewise captured and arrested.

(Additionally, it should be noted that the scholar Origen referred to a Theudas active before the birth of Jesus as well, in Contra Celsum 1.57, although it is possible that this is simply a referral to Acts already.)

At the surface, these events look like different occasions, even though the name 'Theudas' is the same. That this would not create a prima facie case for identity, can be seen from the following considerations:

Although 'Theudas' was not a common name itself, it does show up in Jerusalem ossuaries close in time, e.g. Inscription 1255).

'Theudas' shows up in the Papyrii as hypocoristic forms (i.e. "pet" names, 'nicknames') for many Greek theophoric names (e.g. Theodotus, Theodorus, Theodotion, etc.) [New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, vol 4.183-185], so it could refer to any number of people at the time.

At the time there was a prevalence for having both a Greek AND a Hebrew name, with the Greek name having the same or very similar meaning as the Hebrew. This pattern shows up in the Jerusalem ossuaries and the 'Goliath' family in Jericho [e.g. 'Theodorus' (gk) for 'Nathanel' (hb)]. With this in mind, 'Theudas' could be Greek for a wide range of Hebrew names: Jonathan, Nathanael, Mattathias, Hananias, Jehohanan, etc. In one case, the synagogue ruler in Ophel was listed under his alternate Greek name "Theodotus".

We do know that there were many smaller tumults in Judea after the death of Herod the Great (Josephus uses the phrase "ten thousand" in Antiquities, 17.10.4.269-8.285!), and that we do not have data on many of them. The data seems to indicate that that the two that we know of led by a 'Theudas' are NOT the same event.

Therefore, the reference by Gamaliel to the minor exploits of a Theudas was not necessarily historically illegitimate or confused.

Doesn't seem like a closed case on Luke's "error" yet.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by purpledawn, posted 05-12-2009 8:45 AM purpledawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by purpledawn, posted 05-12-2009 9:22 PM jaywill has not yet responded

purpledawn
Member (Idle past 1740 days)
Posts: 4453
From: Indiana
Joined: 04-25-2004


Message 300 of 327 (508377)
05-12-2009 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by jaywill
05-12-2009 8:37 PM


Re: Destruction of Jerusalem 70CE prophecy
quote:
Not one of your stronger arguments Purpledawn.
The degree of "boringness" depends on the interest of the reader.
It isn't an argument, it's reality.

quote:
Now I think you would have to admit that the miracles recorded in the New Testament are related in a very "matter of fact" way. There is little to no theological commentary on them. There is no embellishment or begging the reader to believe. They are related in a very dry and straightforward way. You get it or you don't - periohd. Would you agree ?
No I don't agree they are presented in a matter of fact way. We may read it that way because we are so far removed from the time and drama. Embellishment has nothing to do with begging the reader to believe.

I do agree that the text we are discussing concerning "this generation" is straightforward. Either Jesus returned soon after the destruction of the temple and fulfilled the prophecy or the prophecy was wrong and not fulfilled. The phrase "this generation" does not refer to future people. It very clearly referred to the people of the time. You haven't shown me otherwise.

Whether the author of the Book of Luke is actually a man named Luke is irrelevant to that statement. Whether the gospels were written before the fact or not is irrelevant to that statement.

Since Christians are still waiting for the return of Jesus (like the Jews are still waiting for their messiah), everything did not get fulfilled in the allotted time, so the prophecy was wrong.

quote:
Doesn't seem like a closed case on Luke's "error" yet.
Sure it does. We're looking at the bland facts. When the events happened. Show me that another one happened, not could have happened.

The only Glen Miller I know is a band leader. I was courteous enough to give you a little background on the authors I've used.


"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by jaywill, posted 05-12-2009 8:37 PM jaywill has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Theodoric, posted 05-13-2009 12:14 AM purpledawn has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019