• 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!

How Can Anyone Not Accept This Biblical Prophecy as Real?

Fair enough some of the things are really ambiguous to discern, and are not very clear....

Yet when all 3 Synoptic Gospels (Luke 21:8, Mark 13:5-6, Matthew 24:4-5) tell you the way the world will be deceived, is by those that come after Yeshua claiming to be him using "Ego I-mee" (I Am).

Then this is so blatant that the Gospel of John is made up, as it repeatedly (x7+1) uses 'Ego I-mee' as if Yeshua spoke that way, trying to make him seem like he was claiming to be God.

Many Christians perceive jesus is god because of the made up texts, the whole world has blatantly been deceived as specified, and because people listen to those deceived by said made up texts, everyone is seeing it as a joke, when it can be physically seen in the world that it has happened.

So why do people not question it outside of the religious confusions; how can people opposed to Abrahamic beliefs not take it a bit more seriously to point out the lack of discernment?

How come something so simple, and blatant can be missed by so many? :innocent:

I think the main thing you're missing is that everything in the bible is made up. Its all just a bunch of stories with no more foundation in reality than the Harry Potter books. Why should anyone take the mythological stories in the bible more seriously than the mythological stories from other cultures?
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
It would have been nice if you had addressed the rebuttal. You claimed that there was no evidence of a Q source and called it "silly." I explained to you why you were incorrect, and you ignored that.
Sorry about that, did think to add another explanation....

Basically what if the Q source is the actual real events, what if these manuscripts were passed down for a number of years, before they were ever officially recorded...

Thus they're not borrowing from each other; they could be testimonies from slightly different perspectives...

Personally find no logical reason to assume it was all made up years later, as they would have a more definitive matching story-line between them then; instead what we find is each elaborating on certain aspects, and basically making up bits, how they perceived things.

If a Q source existed and they were just copying, why not make the story truthful, and not start adding stuff that none of the others say, why not stick to the source, whilst working around it?

Imagine yourself making up said text with a Q source, and you want people to believe it, you'd stick to the original more or less, these authors all haven't.
What is the context, here?
Jews generally arent studying the NT, and judaism does not use the same prophetic /texts, that Christianity, & Jesus adherence, use.
I don't see all your religious texts as different; they're all an integrated tapestry, that people are too illogical to comprehend as one.

Yeshua is based on prophecy fulfillment within the Tanakh, nothing to do with Christianity, which is the deception that came after Yeshua's death.
I think the main thing you're missing is that everything in the bible is made up.
Since it is also a history book, and we can show numerous events from history that have happened, that is totally illogical.
Why should anyone take the mythological stories in the bible more seriously than the mythological stories from other cultures?
I've not got any distinction between any religious text globally, and read them as one understanding by humanity about the reality around us.

To claim all religion as mythologies, is such a broad sweeping statement, that it is nonsensical...

Each individual text should be assessed on its own merit, based on criteria within it, quantified by real things in reality. :innocent:
 
Last edited:
Since it is also a history book, and we can show numerous events from history that have happened, that is totally illogical.

The bible is not a history book. It makes claims about things (magical, mythological things) happening in the past, yet there is no credible evidence to back those stories up. So those stories in the bible are just stories.

I've not got any distinction between any religious text globally, and read them as one understanding by humanity about the reality around us.

To claim all religion as mythologies, is such a broad sweeping statement, that it is nonsensical...

Each individual text should be assessed on its own merit, based on criteria within it, quantified by real things in reality. :innocent:

Any religion that makes claims that include supernatural beings/forces are mythology. Logical reasoning and the physical, observable universe we live in do not support claims about the supernatural. Belief in the supernatural is not based on reason and evidence, just wishful thinking.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
The bible is not a history book.
Timeline of Jewish history - Wikipedia :rolleyes:
yet there is no credible evidence to back those stories up.
There is lots of evidence, we still see the Wailing wall; therefore your whole argument is flawed... Go study before making such illogical claims.
Any religion that makes claims that include supernatural beings/forces are mythology.
They can be called a mythology; yet since we have no evidence Hercules didn't exist as a real person at sometime in history, again flawed assumptions.
Logical reasoning and the physical, observable universe we live in do not support claims about the supernatural.
There are peer reviewed studies into NDEs, there have been proven cases of childhood reincarnation, many people get miracles that are unexplainable.
Belief in the supernatural is not based on reason and evidence, just wishful thinking.
[GALLERY=media, 7635][/GALLERY]
Most of your assumptions can't be backed up with evidence. :innocent:
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Basically what if the Q source is the actual real events

The gospels of Luke and Matthew are not eyewitness accounts. Furthermore, that wouldn't account for there being so much material in common between Luke and Matthew not found in Mark. Much of that material is the sayings of Jesus - words attributed to him. It's significant that they appear where they do and only where they do. It tells us a bit about how a Bible gets written.

what if these manuscripts were passed down for a number of years, before they were ever officially recorded...

That would make them less reliable, not more.

Personally find no logical reason to assume it was all made up years later, as they would have a more definitive matching story-line between them then; instead what we find is each elaborating on certain aspects, and basically making up bits, how they perceived things.

"All made up years later"? Obviously, somewhere in the first century AD, between the death of Christ and the writing of the gospels, when Christianity was still in its infancy, somebody somewhere added words to the story that Mark had heard. This would now be the form of the story when Luke and Matthew heard it. All very natural.

Look at how much mythopoesis goes on in these forums. People are making up doctrine as they go along. . One Christian tells us that we will burn in a lake of fire where there will the gnashing of teeth, another that we will exist in an undesirable state of separation from God but not be actively tortured, and another that we will sleep forever after death like we did before birth. It happens continually

If a Q source existed and they were just copying, why not make the story truthful, and not start adding stuff that none of the others say, why not stick to the source, whilst working around it?

It's not really about truth. It's about religious fervor. A religion was in its birth pangs. These were oral traditions for several decades before our earliest written copies of the gospels - the period in which the deification of Jesus began, his story was growing more amazing with each retelling, his powers greater. It's how legends are shaped.

Imagine yourself making up said text with a Q source, and you want people to believe it, you'd stick to the original more or less, these authors all haven't.

The Q source need not have been written. It would be enough if somebody just added content to his preaching sometime after Mark heard the version he learned, someone that Luke and Matthew heard the story from whether directly, or more likely, indirectly via a few more retellings. This accounts for both the similarities and differences. We expect a loss of fidelity during a game of telephone, don't we?

This isn't too different from determining genetic relatedness. Something present in chimps and man but absent from gorillas would have to be acquired somewhere after the man-chimp branch separated from the gorilla branch, but before the man-chimp branch bifurcated into the chimp line and the one leading to man.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
The gospels of Luke and Matthew are not eyewitness accounts.
How do you know? How does anyone, that is such a wild statement so many people make without evidence.
It tells us a bit about how a Bible gets written.
To keep repeating the same flawed hypothesis without evidence, isn't logical.
That would make them less reliable, not more.
They're not reliable; they've got tons of flaws, as does any testimony.
It happens continually
You're doing the same thing in an opposite context, going outside of the text, creating ideologies that are not there in the evidence.
It's not really about truth.
Sorry that so inconsistent, that it explains why you're making so much stuff up, to fit the faulty premise...

If we examine the Tanakh prophecy, the fulfillment is extremely specific, and all of that happened to the letter; now it is possible the whole thing was intellectually made up to fit...

Yet even if that were the case, it wouldn't explain all the physical prophesied events taking place as well.
It's about religious fervor. A religion was in its birth pangs.
This is the whole point of the thread, John, Paul and Simon's Pharisaic ideology is a religion that came about after, and when we separate the two, we can see how Yeshua is a fulfillment of Hebraic prophecy, and Christianity is a Idolatrous Abomination that was made up after.
This isn't too different from determining genetic relatedness.
That is based on a real being, the same as this could be based on real events, else seriously none of history makes sense, the Jews have suffered exactly what was specified, it all happened, it isn't some fantasy. o_O
Jesus》"I", Jeshua //I am

What is the theory again?
Paul, John and other additions claim Yeshua was going around claiming "I Am"; he didn't speak that way...

Therefore this fake name, with a fake ideology is jesus, as the person never existed. :innocent:
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
Yet when all 3 Synoptic Gospels (Luke 21:8, Mark 13:5-6, Matthew 24:4-5) tell you the way the world will be deceived, is by those that come after Yeshua claiming to be him using "Ego I-mee" (I Am).
How are you interpreting the quote? What is he actually predicting? What does the “I am [he]”/”I am Christ” actually mean? Is he predicting many people claiming that they’re Christ or many people claiming Jesus is/was Christ? Wouldn’t prophecy need to be clear and concise?

Also, what makes this actual prophecy rather than just a natural prediction or expectation? What makes you think there was any actual spiritual insight involved here?

Then this is so blatant that the Gospel of John is made up, as it repeatedly (x7+1) uses 'Ego I-mee' as if Yeshua spoke that way, trying to make him seem like he was claiming to be God.
Is it blatant or have you just convinced yourself? I’m not sure John using what would be a fairly common phrase several times is sufficient proof. Again, you’d first need to establish what the “prophecy” was actually predicting and then demonstrate that is exactly what happened. Given you’re reviewing the whole thing after the fact too, you’d need to somehow establish there is no confirmation bias involved either.

You also have the issue that John is only one person but the initial quote refers to many. Even if you somehow demonstrated this connection, you still wouldn’t have demonstrated your claimed prophecy as fulfilled.

Many Christians perceive jesus is god because of the made up texts, the whole world has blatantly been deceived as specified, and because people listen to those deceived by said made up texts, everyone is seeing it as a joke, when it can be physically seen in the world that it has happened.
You don’t know that Jesus wasn’t God though. Isn’t it possible that the “prophecy” was the deception and John was accurate.

How come something so simple, and blatant can be missed by so many? :innocent:
When something seems so obvious to you yet loads of other people simply don’t see it the same way, you have to at least consider the possibility that it’s you alone, rather than everyone else, who is wrong.
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Paul, John and other additions claim Yeshua was going around claiming "I Am"; he didn't speak that way...

Therefore this fake name, with a fake ideology is jesus, as the person never existed. :innocent:
Now I understand your premises. Anyways, what of the Bible do you actually think is legit?
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
what of the Bible do you actually think is legit?
Lots of it is legit, lots isn't... Books that are blatantly fraudulent are: Ecclesiastes, John's writings, Paul's writings, Acts, Peter's letters, the first, and last chapter of Revelations. :innocent:
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
What does the “I am [he]”/”I am Christ” actually mean?
Yeshua in the Synoptic Gospels used the terminology "Ego I-mee", to apply to the master in his parables, and to the presence of God, not himself...

Thus when we look at it in an Ancient Greek definition, it can mean the "Self Existing" one.
Is he predicting many people claiming that they’re Christ or many people claiming Jesus is/was Christ?
Many people assume that, especially as he was saying be aware of false Christs...

Yet when we remove the word 'Christos' which was only found in Matthew, not in the original Greek of Luke and Mark...

Then him claiming people will come along saying "ego I-mee" claiming to be him, makes no sense, it is bad grammar...

It could be phrased much better to say, 'if people come along saying they are me'.
Also, what makes this actual prophecy rather than just a natural prediction or expectation? What makes you think there was any actual spiritual insight involved here?
So Yeshua could have easily predicted the Pharisees would make stuff up after, as they were accusing him of claiming "ego I-mee" at the time (Luke 22:70).

It would be also possible to predict based on other religions, that generally people start to deify messengers.

Yet to know the whole world will be deceived by it, and that it would actually take roots, implies spiritual insight to foretell a future time, where the world actually follows it, and then the Tribulation will come on the world because of it.
Is it blatant or have you just convinced yourself?
Here have a look at all the contradictions, and there are loads more, haven't actually gone over every line yet...
I’m not sure John using what would be a fairly common phrase several times is sufficient proof.
Pronouns are a basic essential of language; yet it is the manner in which they've been used, many Christians perceive jesus is God because of the deliberate wording in the 7 statements.
You also have the issue that John is only one person but the initial quote refers to many.
Was trying to keep it simple; Paul also used "ego I-mee" by jesus on the road to Damascus, the first and last chapter of revelations have been added....

Then due to this, Theosophy has many Ascended Master statements that start with capitalized "I Am", to imply it is coming from him...

A lot of the New Age movement perceives they've got 'I Am' consciousness; even intelligent theologians like Alan Watts, didn't notice the error.
You don’t know that Jesus wasn’t God though.
I've had a NDE, and know Yeshua personally; God is a CPU that is beyond form, anything seen physically within this reality, can not be the Most High.
Isn’t it possible that the “prophecy” was the deception and John was accurate.
That would mean throwing out all Synoptic Gospels, which fit with the Tanakh's prophets; just to fit with one books ideologies.
When something seems so obvious to you yet loads of other people simply don’t see it the same way, you have to at least consider the possibility that it’s you alone, rather than everyone else, who is wrong.
Of course, and why spent years dissecting the case debating it with thousands online, and still not come across a solid enough argument to overturn it logically.
Apocrypha? Anything in the OT?
Some of the the Apocrypha should've been included automatically, they chopped the end of Daniel off.

Ecclesiastes is OT; as for other bits, not really my specialization, personally bothered about the prophetic implications, and it adding up as was intended. :innocent:
 

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Some of the the Apocrypha should've been included automatically, they chopped the end of Daniel off.

Ecclesiastes is OT; as for other bits, not really my specialization, personally bothered about the prophetic implications, and it adding up as was intended. :innocent:

Interesting.
 
They can be called a mythology; yet since we have no evidence Hercules didn't exist as a real person at sometime in history, again flawed assumptions.

Please explain how disbelieving in magic and the supernatural when there is clearly no evidence to support any of it is flawed. Are we to believe everything anyone tells us? Come on now, you're smarter than that.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
Please explain how disbelieving in magic and the supernatural when there is clearly no evidence to support any of it is flawed.
The idea there is no evidence is flawed; there are many miracles that happen to people, where we can not always define a logical reason.
Are we to believe everything anyone tells us?
Of course not; we should examine each individual case based on its own merit. :innocent:
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
It could be phrased much better to say, 'if people come along saying they are me'.
If that’s what it actually meant. All of this seems to support my point that this poorly phrased quote, presented differently in various (allegedly) primary sources and interpreted in all sorts of different ways is a very poor basis for a measureable prophecy. It seems it could be spun and interpreted to fit pretty much anything you might want it to.
Yet to know the whole world will be deceived by it, and that it would actually take roots, implies spiritual insight to foretell a future time, where the world actually follows it, and then the Tribulation will come on the world because of it.
Except the “whole world” wasn’t, only part of the Christian world. Temporal predictors may well be arrogant enough to presume their faith would encompass the whole world (as they knew it) but someone with actual spiritual insight in to the future should be aware that wouldn’t be the case.
Here have a look at all the contradictions, and there are loads more, haven't actually gone over every line yet...
This thread is about your assertion of a prophecy. Contradictions between books of the Bible don’t support that, if anything they weaken it since they can be seen as evidence of inaccuracy of the whole. You’re quoting something, and making much of grammatical technicalities and specific wording, that you’re highlighting yourself as being unreliable. Regardless of whether the quote accurately describes reality, we don’t even know if Jesus actually said it at all!
I've had a NDE, and know Yeshua personally; God is a CPU that is beyond form, anything seen physically within this reality, can not be the Most High.
I don’t see how your claims of an NDE prove anything. Even if you believe it to be true, you still don’t know you’re not wrong (nor do I, I’m just willing to admit it).
Of course, and why spent years dissecting the case debating it with thousands online, and still not come across a solid enough argument to overturn it logically.
If you’re unwilling (or unable) to accept the possibility that you’re wrong, all the evidence and logical argument in the world isn’t going to convince you otherwise.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
If you’re unwilling (or unable) to accept the possibility that you’re wrong, all the evidence and logical argument in the world isn’t going to convince you otherwise.
Been trying to prove it wrong, and am entirely open to a reasonable explanation why... Just the arguments provided so far haven't over turned the case.
Except the “whole world” wasn’t, only part of the Christian world.
It isn't to get people to follow it, it is because here is near Hell, with many people who with the slightest excuse turn against God; so it has succeeded its goals prophetically to deceive the whole world.
Contradictions between books of the Bible don’t support that, if anything they weaken it since they can be seen as evidence of inaccuracy of the whole.
Completely missed the point, the contradictions were meant to be made up, to show that religious leaders often make up texts, and people prefer to follow the lies, before the reality.

The text doesn't make solid evidence on its own, the events that have all happened do.
we don’t even know if Jesus actually said it at all
It really doesn't matter if Yeshua did say it; it could be all intellectually made up, to quantify who the hypocrites are within reality...

The idea that millions of people have followed blatant contradictions, is more to the point, and shows how undiscerning some people are.
Even if you believe it to be true, you still don’t know you’re not wrong
This is my personal history, it isn't a belief, these are events...

Though have questioned if they ever happened, and researched many other cases; yet that starts to be illogical to remove my own experience. :innocent:
 
Last edited:

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
Completely missed the point, the contradictions were meant to be made up, to show that religious leaders often make up texts, and people prefer to follow the lies, before the reality.
I agree so again, how can you base your prophecy claim on those same texts? Even if you could demonstrate that what was written came true (which you haven't) it could have been made up after the fact to be self-fulfilling.

You're either making a point that religious texts are unreliable or you're making a point that religious texts contain prophecy. Presenting both argument together just trip each other up.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
How do you know? How does anyone, that is such a wild statement so many people make without evidence.
No it is not.
The wild claim here is that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses with the agenda of accuracy.
The Gospels are full of implausible claims and self-contradiction. There is no evidence that they were even written while any eyewitnesses were alive, much less proofing them for accuracy.

The likelihood that they were written as communal affairs to promote an agenda, then attributed to someone for authenticity, is far greater than the likelihood that they were eyewitness accounts, with the intention of accuracy that implies.

You do know that eyewitnesses make things up right? Sometimes it's deliberate and sometimes not and often a combination of the two. Especially when the witness has an emotional or ideological stake in the whole thing that is crucial to their self image. Like the 1st century proto Christians certainly did.
Tom
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
Even if you could demonstrate that what was written came true (which you haven't) it could have been made up after the fact to be self-fulfilling.
The Christian text wasn't made up after Christianity came about....

Clearly it had to be made up before it; yet you'd think someone would notice the blatant contradictions, and people would have discerned it false, rather than them go along with the prophecies, proving many people are illogical.
how can you base your prophecy claim on those same texts?
Because there are many different authors within the same book, stemming over thousands of years, and they're all making specific predictions that have come to pass.

Fair enough each one could have made it up, and it is some amazing brainwashing, that people are not intelligent enough to see; yet how can the real events predicted have happened?
You're either making a point that religious texts are unreliable or you're making a point that religious texts contain prophecy.
To me that is a totally illogical way of looking at life in general; that is like saying because a politician tells some things that are truthful, everything they say must be true.
You do know that eyewitnesses make things up right?
Of course, and they will fill in gaps, if they can't remember the events they perceived happened.
The wild claim here is that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses with the agenda of accuracy.
Who said anything about accuracy, they're awful testimonies, as we'd expect from eye witnesses; not from a group of scholars trying to create a religion.
The likelihood that they were written as communal affairs to promote an agenda
The actual authors accounts are like reading a tabloid newspaper, each has its own spin on events...

Yet the testimonies of Yeshua interlink with the Tanakh very precisely, and comes from a unique intelligence that only someone who had advanced knowledge of all things written, and how it would evolve, could have spoken it so precisely, as there is too much consistency....

Unfortunately all the basic mistakes by the authors, actually blinds many to not examining the case provided.

Fair enough willing to question did some team of scholars create this character of Yeshua, and fit it with everything in prophecy; if that was the case why is everyone oblivious to it?

Why have prophecies that literally divorced Israel, had them massacred, then persecuted from nation to nation, and continuing to do so...

So that would make no sense the Jews made it up to torture themselves.

If Christians had made it up, according to all prophecy, they're to be removed from reality for being hypocrites; so that makes no sense they made it up to show that they're illogical.

If a group of elite Essenes made it up to prove that the Pharisees were evil, and to establish who was unworthy, why cause the whole world to go opposite to their own belief system?

Some people think the Roman Empire made it up, and that the Flavians want to create themselves as rulers; yet Rome didn't adopt Christianity until over 200 years later, and again it doesn't make sense to deceive the whole world by showing them to be hypocrites as is the prophecy...

Why not only keep the texts that suit the Roman Empire, and not include the Synoptic Gospels?

Please clarify who you think made these texts up? :innocent:
 
Top