arnoldo

My belief is that it's in the bible. The book of revelation speaks of a Jewish Temple being defiled and a battle of Armageddon in the land of Israel. It's generally accepted that the book of revelation was written after the destruction of Jerusalem. Do you believe it was written before 70 A.D?

Sheshonq

I don't *care* what you believe. I'm already fully *aware* of what you believe. Repeating your beliefs adds nothing to the dialog.

Why? Because belief isn't worth diddly-squat.

I only care what you can prove and demonstrate.

Do you understand the difference? Or is this just another attempt at preaching, disguised as "dialog"?

arnoldo

Luke 21 gives the following prophecy.

Was this simply written after the fact? Has Jerusalem been trampled under foot by the Gentiles the past 2000 years? Is Jerusalem currently under control of the Jews?

Sheshonq

1. Repeating the bible text is not proof. Nor is asking others what they think proof. You have made claims. Those claims need to be supported.

2. I gave four steps above to having dialog. You have followed none of them.

3. Earlier you were reprimanded for getting off topic repeatedly. If you can't answer questions directly, you can also be reported for preaching (i.e., no interest in dialog).

Ben C Smith

Hi, Arnoldo.

Out of curiosity, what would you define as the end of the period called the times of the gentiles? Is it not, by definition in the Lucan text, the nontrampling of Jerusalem by gentiles? If it is, then could not the prediction be phrased as follows? Jerusalem will be trampled by gentiles until the time of Jerusalem being trampled by gentiles is over. If, as you will find most on this board are wont to believe, this prediction was composed by somebody after Jerusalem had already begun to be trampled by gentiles, how could this kind of prophecy fail in real time? If gentiles were still trampling Jerusalem, one could say that the time is not yet over. If gentiles have ceased to trample Jerusalem, one can say that the time ended (by definition) when they ceased.

Had the prediction been that Jerusalem would be trampled by gentiles for nearly two millennia, I think you would have a trump card. But to leave the timeframe indeterminate seems less convincing a prediction.

What do you think?

Ben.

arnoldo

[QUOTE=Sheshonq;5110542]Sorry, i will look over your questions and respond at a later time, thank you.

arnoldo

Generally speaking, the rebuilding of the next Jewish Temple would signal the end of the "time of the gentiles." Obviously a new Jewish temple could never be built if Israel never came into existence, sorry, I don't want to get "off topic."

Sheshonq

I think you're confused. The questions that I have asked here aren't just for me. They're for everyone here.

These questions are the stepping stones to having any serious dialog you want to have here. For example, you won't be able to convince *anyone* of fulfilled prophecy, if you cannot list your criteria for what counts as fulfilled vs. not fulfilled (which was one of my questions).

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: No loving, rational God would inspire questionable prophecies that invite dissent when he could easily inspire indisputable prophecies that discourage dissent. Inspiring questionable prophecies that invite dissent could not possibly benefit God or anyone else. There is not one single prophecy in the Bible that is indisputable in the opinions of the vast majority of people in the world. That would not be the case if the Bible had accurately predicted when and where a number of natural disasters would occur.

The lesson is that if there are not any stated or postulated motives for God's refusal to make indisputable predictions that make sense, he probably does not exist. Logically, no loving, rational God would ever do anything that he did not intend to benefit himself and/or someone else at present, or at some time in the future.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: If Jews occupied a lot of Palestine, but not Jerusalem, would you call that a fulfilled prophecy?