fulfilled prophecy - specific examples.

There are of course problems with this claim.Firstly the particular part of the prophecy is absent from both Mark and Matthew's version. So we really have to wonder whether Jesus said it at all.Secondly if we compare it with Mark and Matthew we see that Luke 21:20 refers to the Tribulation mentioned in the other two Gospels.Thirdly, we have the question of the length of the supposed exile. Luke 20:31 indicates that the whole series of events will happen within the span of one generation. Matthew and Mark also indicate that the timespan will be short - the "signs" in the sky will immediately follow the tribulation with the Second Coming close behind . This is a good example - of a failed prophecy.

quote:

---

In Genesis 15:18-21, Jehovah expands on the prophecy by prophecying the dimensions of the land which was to be the messianic covenant kingdom. This precludes doctrines which teach that it would be fulfilled in Heaven. This is a kingdom on earth to come and these were the boundaries.

​

15:18 In that day Jehovah made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:

​

15:19 the Kenite, and the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite,

​

15:20 and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, and the Rephaim,

​

15:21 and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Girgashite, and the Jebusite.

---

And the Israelites NEVER controlled all this land. And there's no reason to suppose that they ever will. l that can be said of this "prophecy" is that it is one of the major causes of bloodshed in the Middle East.

It's not a question of wanting to believe something specific or not. I want to believe the truth. Whatever that is. If Christianity is true, then, the way for God to respect my free will - and my intellectual integrity - is to provide solid examples of prophecy fulfilment. Ones that don't require twisting or misrepresentation to claim "success". So obviously if you're right there are going to be solid examples of fulfilled prophecy. Where are they ?

quote:

---

I fully concur. Both Europe and the Arab muslims should be taken to task:

---

Let it be known that I do NOT agree with this rubbish. The people to blame are Jewish extremists, and nobody else.However, this is NOT the place to discuss it.

Of course the problems are not the ease of finding grounds for doubt - it is the difficulty in finding grounds for belief. The Bible simply lacks demonstrably good examples of fulfilled prophecies - although failed prophecies are easy to find.Your "explanation" doesn't deal with that.

quote:

---

I think that is kind of nonsense.

---

But you know that it isn't. If it was nonsense you wouldn't be relying on insinuations. You would be presenting your solid examples of fulfilled prophecy.

quote:

---

I mean your - "it is the difficulty finding grounds for belief"

​

Here is a prophecy of Jesus "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John 2:19)

​

They did their best to destroy Him and in three days He was raised up from the dead. But you say you have "difficulty finding grounds for belief."

​

You have a problem then. YOU ... have a problem.

---

Well lets see. Firstly you have to show that Jesus said that.Then we have to show that Jesus was resurrected.Then you have to show that the "explanation" is not just an ad hoc reinterpretation made up after the fact. When that is exactly what it looks like.No, there are no good grounds for belief in this example. And by providing such a poor example you have proved that my point is not nonsense at all.

quote:

---

You show that He didn't say it.

---

I don't have to. You're the one claiming that this is an absolutely clear example of a fulfilled prophecy. That it would be unreasonable to deny that it was a fulfilled prophecy. At the least you have to show that the alleged prediction was made before the supposed fulfillment. And you won't even do that ! Let alone make any attempt to deal with my other points.Thanks for proving my point - again.

quote:

---

Who says you don't have to? That's rather arbitrary of you. You get to establish all criteria and set the bar of proof. Maybe I reject that.

---

Reason says it. You're the one making the claim, so supporting it is your burden. There's nothing arbitrary about it. Now maybe YOU want to set up arbitrary rules so that you get to "win" - but that would be hypocritical.

quote:

---

Maybe I first require you to show us that you are not clinically mentally deficient. I don't know that you're sane.

---

Which only demonstrates the nastiness of your attitude.

quote:

---

Concerning, the saying that Jesus claimed that if they destroyed the temple He would raise it up in three days - His enemies accused Him of saying something like it in one gospel.

---

According to the Gospels. Can we really trust the Gospels to accurately report what Jesus' enemies said ? I think not. But then again according to Mark the accusations are false - so Jesus never said it...

quote:

---

I do not agree that you can set all criteria and raise the bar of evidence as infinitely high as you wish to rationalize your skeptical opinion.

---

Of course that's not what I'm doing. You are trying to set the bar ridiculously low.

quote:

---

Eventually in this life we all have to trust someone.

---

But we don't have to uncritically accept the sources you happen to like. That just begs the question.So what it comes down to is this: You slandered the skeptics with your insinuations. When asked to back it up you couldn't. All you can do is repeat the same slanders.So what it comes down to is that your God wants us to PRETEND that there are good examples of fulfilled prophecies in the Bible - and to slander anyone who tells the truth that there aren't. Why would anyone WANT to join your religion ?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Yes, I pointed that out in my fiorst reply on this prophecy. Jaywill didn't address it then and hasn't addressed it since. It's not even that ambiguous. The ambiguity seems to be artificial, and is very likely based on reinterpreting a possible genuine statement after the fact.The other interesting thing is that if Jesus did say it the "false accusations" from Mark are in fact true.

Google finds one reference. Here Guess who posted it, with absolutely no attribution.

quote:

---

Oh you think not? Why, is it because you don't think Jesus had any enemies?

---

No, because I think that the Gospels are going to be heavily biased against Jesus' enemies.

quote:

---

You have in Mark hostility and an accusation. When people want to find fault with someone they usually lay hold of something the person did and exploit any possible negatives with it. We see politicians talking about who said what or did what years ago.

​

It is completely plausible that to do Jesus in they would exploit something that He said or close to it.

---

So Mark is wrong - the accusations WEREN'T false ?

quote:

---

Another question to you. If John is going out of his way to unfairly villify the Jews how come John records Jesus teaching that a true Israelite is without guile in chapter 2?

---

Another attempt to deceive from you. I never said that John was hostile to Jews in general. And the hostile reference we were discussing comes from Mark - not John.

quote:

---

Mark says that their accusations were not consistent with each other.

---

Mark says that the accusations were false.

quote:

---

Now, should I believe that they made a false accusation and then latter the apostle John took that false accusation and modified it a little to pull the wool over everybody's eyes. He took a false accusation and gave it an air are authenticity in order to deceive you?

---

According to Mark the accusation was false. But I certainly didn't say that you had to believe Mark. And I certainly didn't suggest that the author(s) of John were out to deceive me specifically.

quote:

---

I think whatever conspiracy theory you come up with requires more of a blind leap of "faith" then what is written there in the NT.

---

OK. Here's a reasonable guess. Jesus really did say it. Mark, wanting to "whitewash" Jesus denied it (so far we agree !) John retrofitted it to the idea of the resurrection story.What's so unlikely about that ?

So it still hasn't been fulfilled. And it's more than 1900 years late. I think we can chalk that one up as a failure.

So that's it. You don't have a good example, but God demands that we pretend. Come off it - if God was real there wouldn't be any need to pretend - in fact if God was real He'd be opposed to such dishonesty.Sorry Jay, but the threat of slander isn't enough to make me join your false religion.

quote:

---

And you count yourself as unbiased about the Gospels?

---

Yes. Certainly less so than you.

quote:

---

And Who are His enemies?

---

The people accusing him, of course. Really, how can you not see that ? Why invent this silly idea that I mean all the Jews, every single last one ?

quote:

---

So now you say that John modified the quotation.

---

No, I don't. We can't expect exact quotes from any source - the more so since in addition to the limits of human memory all those we have will be translations (from Aramaic into Greek). The quotes agree in substance, and that's enough.

quote:

---

I have evidence that the resurrection of Himself was a theme oft repeated though. And I have no confirming evidence that He spoke of building another physical temple. So the weight of the evidence is that He more likely WAS refering to His body.

---

The synoptic Gospels DO have Jesus saying that the Temple will be destroyed - and a link with Daniel's "predictions" referring to the desecration and reconsecration of the Temple (the Olivet Discourse, which Buz has already referred to). And then we have the attack on the money changers indicating that Jesus was at odds with the Temple authorities. You can't ignore those. According to the Gospels Jesus was at odds with the Temple, did predict its destruction and at least implied that it would be rebuilt (it can't be reconsecrated otherwise !).

quote:

---

The overwhelming weight of the evidence is that Jesus was NOT refering to Him building another temple, as they charged, but with the miracle of Him rising from the dead.

---

The only evidence so far is that John said so. Well it's obviously theologically convenient to John, the more so since the Temple had been destroyed and NOT rebuilt at the likely time of writing.

quote:

---

Could it be that you are simply carrying on the tradition of rejection of the chief priests, elders, and scribes who then reacted unbelievingly to the teaching of Jesus?

---

If they were honest people who fairly assessed the truth of what they heard, then maybe. Is that what you are suggesting.

quote:

---

I am building a case by using both testimonials, one from Mark and the other from John.

​

I am not trying to deceive you. I believe that you said that the GOSPELS would be counted on to put the enemies of Jesus in a bad light. So I refered to one of the Gospels, John.

---

Which didn't say anything about anyone identified as Jesus' enemy - in John.

quote:

---

Incedently, I take Mark's word for it that the accusations were false

---

So you don't REALLY believe that Jesus said it. Because if he did then you disagree with Mark.

quote:

---

Oh no,no,no. Perish the thought that you would make such an accusation that the Gospels are deceptive.

​

How long are you going to rely on subtle innuendo?

---

You mean how often am I going to catch YOUR attempts at innuendo ? You tried to suggest that I thought that John's Gospel was written specifically to deceive me. Of course it wasn't. Maybe it wasn't even written with an intent to deceive. Some people are so controlled by bias that they cannot see the way they twist and spin everything.

quote:

---

Spend at least some equal time considering what is UNLIKELY about some men being blown away by the miracle of the resurrection of a person like Jesus, and subsequently wanting to tell the world about it for future generations?

---

Sure. The resurrection itself is really, really unlikely. Almost any alternative scenario comes out better.

quote:

---

What is unreasonable about some men being so impacted by the personality and deeds of man like Jesus of Nazareth and thinking that this was important enough to tell future generations of human beings what they had experienced, and in so doing were telling us the truth?

---

We don't have any writings that can be reliably attributed to those men. And relying on one side of any story is not a reliable way to do history.I wouldn't trust a Mormon biography of Joseph Smith or a Scientiology-approved biography of L Ron Hubbard - and they'd have (and have to cope with) better sources and a far better developed tradition of history and biography than the Gospel writers did.

quote:

---

Then again you may not have had an experience consistent with what Jesus taught. You see the resurrection is far from just an objective fact of history. We believers were regenerated through the resurrection.

---

If the examples you are setting here illustrates your "regeneration" it is hardly something I can see as positive.And let us remember that what we are dealing with is your assertion that you have good examples of fuliflled prophecy which unbelieivers need to seek excuses not to believe. An assertion you only prove more and more wrong with every post.

quote:

---

Would a sign of unbiased recording be that the enemies of Jesus believed in Him and did not oppose His words and deeds?

---

Absolutely not.

quote:

---

Certain dramatic occurences in life are remembered with accuracy. I can remember where I was and what I was doing when President Kennedy was shot. I can remember where I was and what I was doing when 9/11 happened.

---

Since we are not dealing with such a dramatic case - and since none of the disciples was even present at Jesus' trial this hardly helps you.

quote:

---

One of the differences in your way of reasoning and mine is that I include in my reasoning process the power and personality of God. I make room for that. I think you make your initial assumptions - without taking God into account. You develop your reasons - without taking God into account. And finally you come to your conclusions - without taking God into account.

---

In other words you want me to just assume that you are right. WHere I want to fairly evaluate the evidence you want to marshal it towards a predetermined conclusion. Which comes back to my point - you have to work for belief in this prophecy. The evidence doesn't stand on it's own - you have to beg the question.

quote:

---

To predict the destruction of the temple is one matter. To say that in three days He would raise it up is another. By refering to what Jesus may have taught about the Jerusalem temple's destruction only gets you half there.

---

On the contrary, since the Gospels say that Jesus quite definitely talked about the destruction of the Temple elsewhere your case collapses. There is no way to be sure that if he prophesied that he would destory the Temple and raise it in three days he did not mean the literal Temple. And according to the Gospels that is what the people who heard him say it thought that he meant.

quote:

---

I think you have to work hard at misunderstanding that.

---

Since taking the plain literal meaning of it is the easiest reading - and according to John the view those that heard it understood Jesuis to be saying - then you support my point. Jesus must have meant that actual Temple.

quote:

---

How many evangelists have to say so before it becomes likely to you that He said it? Do you insist TWO have to mention it? Do you insist THREE have to mention it? Or is it FOUR?

---

It would help a lot if all four said it since John is at least partially independant of the synoptics. However the fact that Mark denies that Jesus even said it is a clear problem.

quote:

---

I really don't know what your beef is anymore. Maybe your saying:

​

"Yes Jesus mentioned in the synoptics that He would rise in three days. But John hijacked the three day reference and wrongly (deceptively or otherwise) applied it to the rebuilding of a destroyed temple."

​

I don't call that unbiased. I call that laboring extra hard to find an excuse to charge the gospel writers with deception.

---

I'm sure that you did work extra hard to come up with that, but it's not anything I said. You CAN look back at previous posts, you know.Now we both know that Mark and John BOTH make reference to such a saying. Mark denies that Jesus said it. John insists that he said it but REALLY meant his owen body. But what's wrong with the idea that Jesus said it and meant it - just as it sounds ? That's SIMPLER than either Gospel. I don't have to work hard.

quote:

---

It is possible that not being able to refer back and forth to these posts is making it hard for me to follow your thought

---

There's nothing stopping you from doing just that.

quote:

---

I don't think there is anything significantly in favor of any anti-resurrection argument of yours because I believe that what Jesus said was recorded in John's gospel. What the false witnesses twisted and charged Him with is found in Mark's.

---

This isn't an anti-resurrection argumnet. The question here is whether Jesus actually made the "prediction". John says he did , Mark says he didn't. One is wrong.

quote:

---

Jesus alluded to His death and resurrection in His teaching that if they destroyed the temple (referring to His body) He would raise it again in three days.

---

According to John. Mark says he didn't say it, and we have only John's word that he "really" meant his body. Anfd no good reason to beleive John.

quote:

---

Now you can say. "I don't believe He rose." But I think I don't see you saying that. I think I see you saying that He never made those statements and He never prophesied that way.

---

Actually I don't - and I did raise the issue. It's just that you haven't really got around to addressing it.

quote:

---

Reasoning without taking into account the power of God, the personality of God, the plan of God, the purpose of God - yes, agree, the resurrection is unlikely.

---

i.e. without begging the question your argument is in trouble - again.

quote:

---

We have more reason to believe that the writing were attributed to those men then we have for Homer having written the his Illiad, Thucydides having written his histories, Tacitus having written his annuls, Caesar having written what he wrote.

---

Setting Homer aside, that's untrue. We have NO good idea about who wrote Matthew. Mark is barely more certain, Luke is also uncertain (but even the "traditional" author is NOT a disciple anyway) and so is John - the only one that even plausibly comes (mostly) from someone who was there, but also the most influenced by theology.

quote:

---

There are 643 ancient copies of the writings of Homer. His actual writing took place in the 9th Century B.C. Compare that with 5,000 ancient copies of the New Testament, the writing of which occured from around 50 -100 A.D.

---

If I were asserting that the Gospels had been corrupted that is certainly a point I would have to deal with. On the other hand, since I have not even suggested such a thing this is a huge irrelevance.Why can't you just be honest ?