Nero's Boot

Lee_Merril:

Jonny Skeptic has a point. Jesus, assuming he ever even existed, was not the genetic descendent of King David, nor did he lead a military uprising, as the Jews expected. Given this rather glaring error in "prophecy," how can Jews really've been expected to follow Jesus as the Messiah?

--really, there so fricking many failed prophecies in the New Testament it's absurd NB

Nero's Boot

Indeed, Lee_Merril:

How do you reconcile that Jesus explicitly stated that he would return in the lifetime of his "first generation" of believers?

Matthew 16:28--Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Are you proposing that there is a cabal of immortal proto-Christians running around, denied the pains of aging, so that Jesus won't be revealed as a big fat liar and a false prophet? Clearly, Jesus is referring to his listeners at that place and time, no matter how much Christians want to distort it to me a modern-day generation. Jesus' return is very much 2,000 years late!

--yet still, Christians believe NB

Jack the Bodiless

Incorrect. Babylon was supposed to be destroyed and depopulated (by the Medes) THEN not rebuilt.

The prophecy failed.
So you finally admitted that the Tyre prohecy failed?

Well, so did the Babylon prophecy.
Incorrect.

This appears to be a reference to the return from the Babylonian Captivity (which was NOT "only recently fulfilled"). If it could be established that the whole of Isaiah WAS written before the return from Babylon, then this would be an example of a "lucky guess": however, Isaiah is known to be a compilation of different sources, and nobody knows when people stopped tinkering with it (all we can be sure of is that the failed prophecy of the destruction of Babylon must have been written before: because it would be pointless to write in an already-failed prophecy)... though parts of it were clearly written AFTER the Exile (it specifically refers to Cyrus letting the Jews go home).

The later scattering of the Jews by the Romans was not prophesied (indeed, the Jews were supposed to be secure in Israel forever: this was yet another failed prophecy), and the subsequent re-emergence of modern Israel was definitely not prophesied (check the Book of Revelation: none of those "end-times" prophecies mention the re-establishment of Israel).

SO, still no verifiably-successful prophecies. And plenty of failed ones.

diana

Good afternoon, lee.

You apparently missed what I was asking altogether. Until you can point to a reason to posit a divine source for a prediction, you don't have a reason to call it a prophecy. What is your reason?

So far, your answer amounts to "highly improbable," hence my lottery example.

Emphasis mine.

So far, you're conceding my point. (Or do you not understand what I mean by "a neutral stance"?)

Fixed it for you.

Incidentally, my "fix" approximates, as close as possible, your position on the matter--not mine. I have a couple of problems with your position as I understand it:

1. As Johnny Skeptic has pointed out, the "prophecy" wasn't fulfilled after all. You appear to be rather intent upon interpreting the facts so as to confirm your own conviction that the "prophecy" was fulfilled; have you considered, instead, checking the facts in order to determine its truth from a stance not influenced by your need to reach conclusion X?

2. Even if "Babylon" hasn't been rebuilt/inhabited, this does not mean it can't be.

3. You still are not answering my question: What makes you think such a prediction--fulfilled or not, improbable or not--was supernaturally inspired? You seem certain it doesn't apply in my lottery example, although the odds against my winning are phenomenal. This suggests you have some way of knowing whether what inspires a prediction is supernatural knowledge or just blind luck. I'm keen to know what your method is.

d

Johnny Skeptic

I would like to inform readers who may not know it that part of Lee Merrill's defense of Christianity is that he asked God to heal him of food poisoning and God healed him of food poisoning. Lee is obviously not aware that many people in various parts of the world eat fermented foods that sometimes smell and taste bad. Perhaps Lee would like to try again regarding miracle healings.

I do not have any idea why God would choose to heal anyone since there are so many sick people in the world. If God heals people in order to demonstrate his power, he could be a lot more convincing if he showed up tangibly, in person and healed people. What does God have against amputees? He never gives amputees new limbs, at least as far as we know. If Lee Merrill was an amputee, would he ask God to give him a new limb? If so, would he be surprised if God gave him a new limb?

Does God heal animals? If so, why?

diana

Interesting, but off topic. It also smells a bit of ad hom: merrill's position on miracle healing has fuckall to do with his position on prophecy.

Let's please stick with the prophecy discussions. If you want to discuss this, Johnny, you know how to start a new thread.

Thanky.

d

lee_merrill

Well, and expectation is not a prophecy, nor do we have DNA analysis to confirm Johnny's point. I note that Jewish people aren't recorded as disputing the claim that Jesus was descended from David.

Whence this prophecy?

Well, read the thread--but were you not reading it? you were posting in it, and you should then remember what I concluded.

The split between Judah and Ephraim was still present then, however.

Luke 21:23-24 There will be great distress in the land and wrath against this people. They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled.

The times of the Gentiles are coming to a close, it would seem, so look for increased prominence of the Jewish people.

lee_merrill

Predicting a winner before the lottery would imply more than natural reasoning, I would say, and that is the point, the more unlikely an event is, based on natural causes, the more likely a supernatural explanation would be.

May I meet the mayor of Babylon?

Precisely, this is in the range of human ability, and to do this, or to rebuild Hazor, would overturn Christian claims about Scripture.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Lee Merrill: Regarding Bible prophecy, one thing that is quite embarrassing for fundamentalist Christians is that if God really wanted people to believe that he can predict the future, he could easily have already done so in thousands of ways. For instance, he could have predicted when and where natural disasters would occur. This reasonably proves that if a God exists, and is able to predict the future, he does not care whether or not people believe that he can predict the future.

This same line of reasoning applies to many other situations regarding evidence. An example is that if God wanted people to believe that intelligent design exists, it is reasonable to assume that he would show up and demonstrate that it exists. As far as I know, it could not benefit God or anyone else for him to refuse to demonstrate that intelligent design exists.

If a rational man compares what God's agenda are with what his methods are of trying to achieve his agenda, the man finds that the methods do not make any sense.

Johnny Skeptic

Which thread, and what conclusion? Regardless, as I told you on a number of occasions in whatever thread it was, even if the prophecy came true, that does not reasonably prove that the prophecy was inspired by God since you refused on a number of occasions to provide any evidence at all that the prophecy predated the events. Sophisticated, well-informed Christians are well aware that the first requirement regarding debating prophecy is to reasonably prove that a prophecy predated the events. Without first doing that, all arguments are irrelevant.

Regarding the Babylon prophecy, all expert fundamentalist Christian sources that I have read, including five Bible commentaries, disagree with your interpretation of the prophecy. Some fundamentalist Christian scholars believe that the rebuilding of Babylon would be a FULFILLMENT of the prophecy.

Consider the following:

http://www.raptureready.com/rr-iraq.html

The article says that "Some [Bible scholars] believe that [Babylon] will be rebuilt on the very real estate once occupied by ancient Babylon."

I assume that you have appointed yourself as the sole arbiter of which Bible scholars are right.

Following is more evidence that indicates that you have misinterpreted the Babylon prophecy:

William MacDonald's Bible Commentary

MacDonald has done his homework well. He knows that a number of pieces of the puzzle do not fit, and that some future events must take place in order for them to fit. Surely the writers of Bible commentaries have a lot more credibility than you do. Would you be willing to contact a professor at Wheaton College and ask him for his opinion of the Babylon prophecy? Well of course you wouldn't, even though you have said that you like Wheaton college. Your intent since you first started debating the Babylon prophecy at the IIDB over a year ago has been to keep the Iraqis, who are the challengees, and all experts, including fundamentalist Christian experts, out of the debates. Any Christian who believed that he had good arguments would not always refuse to provide corroboration from other sources and expect people to accept his own uncorroborated personal opinions as evidence. Your own personal opinion is not credible evidence.