-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Failed NT Prophecies about the Second Coming of Jesus
- Thread starter Rational Agnostic
- Start date
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe I don't know of a Tyre prophecy by Jesus.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe those events will occur so there is no failure.
Earthling
David Henson
Okay, let's look at Matthew 16:27-28. For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. 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.
For the Son of man, that is, Jesus, will come. How? Well, according to the Bible, as in spirit, because, isn't it reasonable that his Father's glory and the angels wouldn't be in fleshly form? And at that time reward, but verse 28 takes you back to the beginning of that, which would be witnessed by some of his disciples. Six days later the transfiguration where God's voice speaks to them in approval of Jesus.
Does that make sense to you?
Earthling
David Henson
Yes. unless you can show me where I'm not getting what you are writing. I can be fairly obtuse, especially when it comes to religious jargon like "immaculate conception." You said the IC, which actually took me a minute to realize was the immaculate conception I had mentioned, reluctantly using such a term since I have never been a part of any organized religion and often find terms like that to be nonsensical.
Then you said the IC was Mary. Well, no, the IC was the conception. That is, specifically, Jehovah fertilized Mary's womb through the Holy Spirit rather than the usual sexual intercourse. The result was Jesus' birth, free from sin.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It is a different failed prophecy in the Old Testament.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Nope, that is not the Immaculate Conception. But a reasonable one to make, I used to make the same error myself. It is a Catholic conception, but I have talked with enough of them to learn what they mean by that. It was believed that a person with "original sin" would be imperfect and could not be the mother of Jesus. So God made Mary's conception immaculate. She was born without original sin in the Catholic mythos. You can read more here:
Immaculate Conception - Wikipedia
No, it refers to Mary's conception. It's a Roman Catholic idea.
"The Immaculate Conception is the conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary free from original sin by virtue of the merits of her son Jesus Christ. The Catholic Church teaches that God acted upon Mary in the first moment of her conception keeping her "immaculate"."
Earthling
David Henson
OH! That's very good, SZ! May I call you SZ? You've taught me something. Come to think of it that makes sense, though, it is, religious nonsense. Now I see what Rival meant by Mary. Excellent! Thanks to both of you for teaching me something.
Earthling
David Henson
But it isn't. A common misunderstanding by skeptics. Would you like for me to explain this conclusion?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
This is a common problem with some Christians. To defend that failed prophecy you have to denigrate all prophecies. You can try to make excuses for its failures, but I can also explain how you are wrong.
Earthling
David Henson
Well, I would enjoy it if you could, but I don't think so. But in what way would defending an alleged failed prophecy denigrate all prophecies? 'Cause, if you are correct I'm about to do just that.
I've been criticized twice for producing walls of text. It's a valid criticism. After 22 years of examining the Bible skeptic and producing walls of text (both of those I was criticized for were old posts from the past) that no one was interested in, and even myself found difficult to bear, I started on my current website which I try to minimize text. To be concise rather than verbose. It isn't easy. Having said that. Tyre, a failed prophecy?
No.
Ezekiel 26:7-12 Nebuchadnezzar II was named conqueror of Tyre.
Nebuchadnezzar II besieged the city. From a military standpoint, after many years it might have seemed futile to continue. But he persevered until Tyre fell at the end of 13 years, thus fulfilling the Bible prophecy that had named him as its conqueror
Later, the Island City of Tyre is considered.
Zechariah 9:3,4 / Ezekiel 26:4,12. Alexander fulfilled this prophecy centuries later in July 332 B .C.E. See Jewish Antiquities, XI, 337 [viii, 5] Alexander took the mainland city, which had been destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar and built a causeway out to the Island city. He was then welcomed by the Israelites and shown this prophecy. [See Image insert: Alexander The Great In The Temple Of Jerusalem, by Sebastiano Conca: c. 1727]
You see, Tyre consisted of two parts, on mainland it was Old Tyre, and about a half a mile offshore on an island was the other part. They would flea to the island when attacked in the Old Tyre.
Starting to get long, but I could write much more. If what I've said so far doesn't satisfy perhaps someone could mention exactly where a failed prophecy regarding Tyre is in the Bible?
Attachments
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Your failure here is that Tyre is the island (at that time) city. It was dishonest Christians that came up with the class claim of Old Tyre being on the land. Read the prophecy, in context it is clear that it is referring to the island. Study the history of the area. If you avoid apologist sources and use real histories you will see that Tyre was the island before and after Nebby's failed attack.
Would you care to try again?
Earthling
David Henson
Real histories, that's funny. History is written by the victors. (Attributed to Winston Churchill) History is a set of lies agreed upon. (Napoleon Bonaparte)
I mentioned two prophecies, you are ignoring the first, which Nebuchadnezzar fulfilled. I'm aware that it is skeptical propaganda that Tyre was a failed prophecy, but there are numerous prophecies about Tyre in the Hebrew scriptures, none of which have failed. According to you, which one are we talking about and how did it fail?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
And to give you a head start, this article very thoroughly goes over how the prophesy fails:
Biblical Errancy: Ezekiel's Prophecy of Tyre: a failed prophecy
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, Nebby only destroyed what are referred to as "her settlements" in the biblical prophecy. Tyre was always the island. Understanding why Tyre was of importance would help you understand that. It was the island that had economic power. It was also a natural port. As to Tyre itself, which was the gist of the prophecy, that did not fall under Nebuchadnezzar.
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
Didn't you read the verses? They were prophesied to occur in the first century (while Jesus' eyewitnesses were still alive). But of course they did not occur then. Thus, the prophecy failed.
Rational Agnostic
Well-Known Member
Again, there were no angels in the transfiguration, even though angels were mentioned in Matt. 16:27. Also, there was no judgment and rewards given to everyone according to their works. So, these verses cannot possibly be a reference to the transfiguration. And even if they were (they're not), the other two verses (Matt. 10:23 & Luke 21:32) are also clearly references to the final judgment (Armageddon), and are also failed prophecies.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
One more point on the failed Trye prophecy. Though it predicted the Tyre would never be found again, I guess that either God or Zeke could not foresee Google maps, it also had the prediction that Nebby would lay waste to Egypt:
Ezekiel 29 19-20:
" 19 Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am going to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he will carry off its wealth. He will loot and plunder the land as pay for his army. 20 I have given him Egypt as a reward for his efforts because he and his army did it for me, declares the Sovereign Lord.
Zeke must have been off of his feed that day. Nebby did not defeat Egypt either.
Ezekiel 29 19-20:
" 19 Therefore this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am going to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and he will carry off its wealth. He will loot and plunder the land as pay for his army. 20 I have given him Egypt as a reward for his efforts because he and his army did it for me, declares the Sovereign Lord.
Zeke must have been off of his feed that day. Nebby did not defeat Egypt either.
Earthling
David Henson
You're not working with me, buddy. You aren't addressing what I present, you are simply dismissing it. I'm trying not to post a wall of text and you give me a link which consists of a wall of text that I assume someone else wrote?