Bible Prophecies Discussion

[BryanH]

I am starting this topic mainly because of another discussion (http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 19&t=36765) where I did say that some prophecies are debatable and some didn't happen. I suggested to continue talking about Bible prophecies on another topic because of the length of the subject in matter.

Since I am the non-believer in this situation, I will ask you to suggest 1-2 prophecies at a time, discuss those and then move on as time allows us to do so.

Hope you can all bare with me. Thank you.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

According to you, which prophesies are genuine and have seen their fulfillment? Give me a few so that I can gauge your sincerity, then we'll move on to the discussion proper.

FL

[Byblos]

Like FL said, rather than us give you prophecies that may be too easy or obvious, here's a link that lists prophecies related to Jesus and others. You can pick whichever ones you want to discuss. They are even listed by category (birth, ministry, passion, Israel, etc).

[BryanH]

We can start with Luke 24:46 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.

This seems to be a prophecy, but where is the origin of it because in both cases the writer mentions that it was already written in the Scriptures.

Well, this wasn't predicted and there was nothing mentioned about Jesus rising on the 3rd day in any Scriptures.

At the moment this is the start of the discussion and I am waiting for some feedback on it.

[PaulSacramento]

We can start with Luke 24:46 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.

This seems to be a prophecy, but where is the origin of it because in both cases the writer mentions that it was already written in the Scriptures.

Well, this wasn't predicted and there was nothing mentioned about Jesus rising on the 3rd day in any Scriptures.

At the moment this is the start of the discussion and I am waiting for some feedback on it.

You need to understand that the scripture were made clear to them and they they realized what the scripture meant, in this case Psalm 22.
No, it doesn't mention resurrection on the 3rd day outwardly, but mentions the suffering and what happened to Christ and his vindication ( in the form of the resurrection).

[BryanH]

@PaulSacramento

You need to understand that the scripture were made clear

That can be an interpretation of it, but still doesn't explain why they wrote very specific things that were't reflected in the Scriptures.

No, it doesn't mention resurrection on the 3rd day outwardly, but mentions the suffering and what happened to Christ and his vindication

This is one of the problems for the Bible verses I have provided: a lot of interpretation and no actual prophecy.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

You never answered my question, BryanH,

According to you, which prophesies are genuine and have seen their fulfillment? Give me a few so that I can gauge your sincerity, then we'll move on to the discussion proper.

FL

Well? According to you, which prophecies are genuine and have seen their fulfillment?

FL

[BryanH]

Well? According to you, which prophecies are genuine and have seen their fulfillment?

Sorry. I thought that your question was more like an invite for me to open the discussion.

If you want honesty, I will give you that: I don't consider any of the prophets in the bible to be able in foreseeing the future. Hope that answers your question.
Foreseeing the future implies we have no free will. I don't support such an idea.

[PaulSacramento]

@PaulSacramento

You need to understand that the scripture were made clear

That can be an interpretation of it, but still doesn't explain why they wrote very specific things that were't reflected in the Scriptures.

No, it doesn't mention resurrection on the 3rd day outwardly, but mentions the suffering and what happened to Christ and his vindication

This is one of the problems for the Bible verses I have provided: a lot of interpretation and no actual prophecy.

I think you need to realize that what a 1st century Jew saw as prophecy is not what WE call it here in the 21st century.
All prophecies were subject to interpretation and most certainly the Messiah would do just that, as would his followers as hey were guided by the HS.
As the apostles read through the ancient writings and prophecies, so much was made clear to them by the HS.

[Ivellious]

Just saying that vague Nostradamus-like prophecies were interpreted perfectly doesn't mean they were. One could rather easily argue against that logic by saying the Messiah just told everyone he knew how to interpret them and they believed him. That's what you are basically reasoning...that they read the prophecies, interpreted them one way, and then said it was right because their interpretations of the prophecies said so...that's circular reasoning.

[PaulSacramento]

Well? According to you, which prophecies are genuine and have seen their fulfillment?

Sorry. I thought that your question was more like an invite for me to open the discussion.

If you want honesty, I will give you that: I don't consider any of the prophets in the bible to be able in foreseeing the future. Hope that answers your question.
Foreseeing the future implies we have no free will. I don't support such an idea.

They foresaw a possible future as was revealed to them by the HS, that is why the warned Israel ( if the future was set in stone why warn them to repent?).
Of course the imagery they used in their apocolyptic writings was of THAT genre and quite colorful at that, but nevertheless any less dire.
Isaiah warned Israel of what would happen to them if they didn't repent and by repent he meant to quite trying to put their trust on MAN ( their kings and their alliances) and put their trust in YHWH and he was right of course. That Isaiah also prophesied of a far more distant future in regards to the "suffering servant" and the coming Messiah was because he wanted to give Israel Hope that, even if their kings didn't repent and destruction befell them, there was hope in the future for Israel and the world !

[PaulSacramento]

Just saying that vague Nostradamus-like prophecies were interpreted perfectly doesn't mean they were. One could rather easily argue against that logic by saying the Messiah just told everyone he knew how to interpret them and they believed him. That's what you are basically reasoning...that they read the prophecies, interpreted them one way, and then said it was right because their interpretations of the prophecies said so...that's circular reasoning.

The writers make it clear that it was a new understanding of scriptural prophecies and writings.
Circular reasoning would be that they insisted that the prophecies would have been always read that way because they say so and what gives them that authority? because that interpretion is correct and how is it correct? because that is what it meant, and how do we know it meant that, because that was how it was always read, and how do we know that? because they said so...and so forth.
BUT they were NOT saying that, they were saying that it was a NEW understanding of the scriptures.

[Ivellious]

Yes, but again, they are simply saying "but because we are clearly right, that is why you know we are right." How did anyone know their new interpretation was correct? Because they said so. How did anyone know they could take their word for it? Because the new interpretation said so.

[PaulSacramento]

Yes, but again, they are simply saying "but because we are clearly right, that is why you know we are right." How did anyone know their new interpretation was correct? Because they said so. How did anyone know they could take their word for it? Because the new interpretation said so.

That would have been the case IF their interpretation was incorrect, the resurrection of Christ showed that was not the case.
Remember that everything they preached, everything that they "re-interpreted" was based on that event that was THE event in the history of Israel - The resurrection from the dead of Jesus of Nazareth.
That was God's and Jesus's vindication of all he said and did and claimed AND the cornerstone of all (new)interpretation of scripture.
Their interpretion wasn't correct because they said so ( hence the "test everything" from Paul), it was correct because Christ lived and was resurrected.

[BryanH]

I think you need to realize that what a 1st century Jew saw as prophecy is not what WE call it here in the 21st century.
All prophecies were subject to interpretation and most certainly the Messiah would do just that, as would his followers as hey were guided by the HS.
As the apostles read through the ancient writings and prophecies, so much was made clear to them by the HS.

What you say here is an interpretation.

As the apostles read through the ancient writings and prophecies, so much was made clear to them by the HS

BUT they were NOT saying that, they were saying that it was a NEW understanding of the scriptures.

They had to say something or else they could not have explained the lack of consistency with the old scriptures.

So the question remains: There was nothing mentioned about Jesus rising on the 3rd day in any Scriptures.

I do understand that they might have had a new perspective on the scriptures, but this is quite specific and pinpointed.

So I ask you again, where do the old scriptures mention anything about Jesus rising on the 3rd day?