Bible Prophecies

[Halcyon]

I can't think of any that came true that aren't recorded in books of the Bible that were written after the event. Can you?

 

[McBell]

Self-fulfilling prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Popeyesays]

I can't think of any that came true that aren't recorded in books of the Bible that were written after the event. Can you?

I'm trying to make sense of this.

What about books other than the Bible?

Is it old or new testament of which you speak?

I can give you a list of Baha`u'llah's warnings which were fulfilled within years of the event that caused the writing if you wish.

However, prophecies are much like miracles and tend to prove nothing to those who are not sympathetic in the first place.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Halcyon]

I'm trying to make sense of this.

Sorry, I probably wasn't clear. I hear people say that the Bible must be true because it contains prophecies that have been fulfilled. But then, when you look at the dates of composition, all the books containing the "prophecies" are written after the event prophesied occurred.
Or like Mestemia pointed out, the prophecies were deliberately fulfilled, like when Jesus actively seeks out a donkey to ride in the eastern gate upon.

What about books other than the Bible?

I'd rather just stick with the Bible for this thread.

 

[Dunemeister]

Sorry, I probably wasn't clear. I hear people say that the Bible must be true because it contains prophecies that have been fulfilled. But then, when you look at the dates of composition, all the books containing the "prophecies" are written after the event prophesied occurred.
Or like Mestemia pointed out, the prophecies were deliberately fulfilled, like when Jesus actively seeks out a donkey to ride in the eastern gate upon.


I'd rather just stick with the Bible for this thread.

Actually, this claim is materially untrue. Jesus predicted the Fall of Jerusalem at the hand of the Romans in Luke 21. There's no good reason to date The Gospel According to St. Luke after AD 65 or so, which is five years before the event.

Here's my reasoning for this date. Paul was martyred in AD 64 or AD 67. Yet in the biblical book of Acts of the Apostles, Paul is very much alive but awaiting his fate in a Roman prison. Why doesn't the book report Paul's martyrdom, obviously a very momentous time for the church? Likewise, why doesn't it record the fall of Jerusalem, which occurred in AD 70? Jesus staked his claim to prophet status at least partly on the fulfillment of his prophecy that Jerusalem would fall within his generation. If the church were merely writing the prophecy back into history, how could they have failed to include it in Acts, which is concerned to show how Jesus continued to affect history after his resurrection? The best explanation is that these events hadn't happened by the time the book was written and widely circulated. Therefore, Acts of the Apostles must have been written no later than AD 66 - 67, and the Gospel of Luke, its prequel, must have been written earlier, between AD 64 and AD 67. But in any event, the documents were both written and widely circulated before the event.

As far as I know, the only reason to resist this argument is that so-called "common sense" tells us that Jesus "couldn't have made this prediction" because nobody actually has the ability to predict the future.

 

[Halcyon]

Actually, this claim is materially untrue. Jesus predicted the Fall of Jerusalem at the hand of the Romans in Luke 21. There's no good reason to date The Gospel According to St. Luke after AD 65 or so, which is five years before the event.

Actually many scholars suggest a date of 80-130 AD, for the creation of Luke. And considering Marcion's gospel and the controversy around it's authorship, there is really no substantial evidence for its use by Christians prior to 150 AD.

 

[Dunemeister]

Actually many scholars suggest a date of 80-130 AD, for the creation of Luke. And considering Marcion's gospel and the controversy around it's authorship, there is really no substantial evidence for its use by Christians prior to 150 AD.

Those "many scholars" have, as you have done, ignored the evidence I've just presented.

 

[Halcyon]

Those "many scholars" have, as you have done, ignored the evidence I've just presented.

I don't think they ignore it, they just see other evidence as more compelling. For example, the author of Luke and Acts doesn't expound Paul's specific theology, as would be expected if he were indeed of Paul's timeframe and even a companion. Instead we find the theology to reflect later interpretations and even fused theology from different branches of early Christianity that we wouldn't expect to see until the late 1st century and early 2nd.

Not to mention that most people believe Luke to be based at least in part on Mark, which wasn't penned until circa 70 AD itself.

Also Acts does reference Paul's death, if only poetically in Acts 20:25.

Check out this site for accurate datings of Christian literature;
Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

 

[Dunemeister]

I don't think they ignore it, they just see other evidence as more compelling. For example, the author of Luke and Acts doesn't expound Paul's specific theology, as would be expected if he were indeed of Paul's timeframe and even a companion. Instead we find the theology to reflect later interpretations and even fused theology from different branches of early Christianity that we wouldn't expect to see until the late 1st century and early 2nd.

Are you kidding me? Acts has Paul ALL OVER IT. The whole thrust of Acts is the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of God. Paul's major hobby-horse was the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of God. So how is it that Acts is supposed to represent "later interpretation"? Absurd.

Not to mention that most people believe Luke to be based at least in part on Mark, which wasn't penned until circa 70 AD itself.

That's begging the question. If my argument holds, then Mark was written in the 60s.

Also Acts does reference Paul's death, if only poetically in Acts 20:25.

I don't agree, but even if I grant it you, you've still the problem of Acts failing to mention the fall of Jerusalem. If it was written in AD 80 - 130, as you suggest, it certainly should have some reflections on the meaning of that event for the Christian community. It's not there because, most likely, it hadn't occurred yet.

Check out this site for accurate datings of Christian literature;
Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

I'll check them out, but of course, I could post another site with more conservative numbers. I predict that this site, along with others that conclude late dates for the Gospels, simply ignore the history in order to satisfy the conditions of their highly questionable "history of religions" theories a la The Jesus Seminar and other pseudo-scholarship.

 

[Dunemeister]

Check out this site for accurate datings of Christian literature;
Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers

I've checked it out briefly, but I can make some comments about it already. First, it assumes that Q existed, a theory that has been so thoroughly discredited, it's a shock that anyone even refers to it anymore. It also assumes that the Passion Narrative(s) had a written form before their appearance in the gospels, which is an extremely dubious claim that has absolutely no evidence in support of it.

Honestly, dating any of the biblical writings (apart from The Revelation of Saint John the Divine) after AD 80 takes some serious historical gymnastics that involve in effect ignoring the history in order to conform to some a priori theory about how religion must work.

 

[Halcyon]

Are you kidding me? Acts has Paul ALL OVER IT. The whole thrust of Acts is the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of God. Paul's major hobby-horse was the inclusion of Gentiles into the people of God. So how is it that Acts is supposed to represent "later interpretation"? Absurd.

Hey, don't blame me, blame the author of Acts for including Christology and theology that he shouldn't have been aware of prior to 100 AD.

I don't agree, but even if I grant it you, you've still the problem of Acts failing to mention the fall of Jerusalem. If it was written in AD 80 - 130, as you suggest, it certainly should have some reflections on the meaning of that event for the Christian community. It's not there because, most likely, it hadn't occurred yet.

Sigh. If "Luke" were claiming to be a follower of Paul, he would have written his narrative as though he were there, even 1,900 years ago people understood plot development and story setting.

I've checked it out briefly, but I can make some comments about it already. First, it assumes that Q existed, a theory that has been so thoroughly discredited, it's a shock that anyone even refers to it anymore. It also assumes that the Passion Narrative(s) had a written form before their appearance in the gospels, which is an extremely dubious claim that has absolutely no evidence in support of it.

Honestly, dating any of the biblical writings (apart from The Revelation of Saint John the Divine) after AD 80 takes some serious historical gymnastics that involve in effect ignoring the history in order to conform to some a priori theory about how religion must work.

The site has no agenda, it just gives the dating that the majority of scholars agree with, it even gives the date a "reliability rating".
Do you understand all the evidence that's taken into account when attempting to date these scripts? They don't just take Irenaeus's word for it you know.

 

[Dunemeister]

Hey, don't blame me, blame the author of Acts for including Christology and theology that he shouldn't have been aware of prior to 100 AD.

Paul, the earliest of the Christian writers, has an extremely high and developed Christology. So why shouldn't the Gospel of Luke have a high Christology if, as many scholars say, it's The Gospel of Paul as told by Luke? Besides, claiming that the Christology and theology of this book or that book "couldn't have been around prior to year X" involves the imposition of a theory of religious development that begs the question.

Sigh. If "Luke" were claiming to be a follower of Paul, he would have written his narrative as though he were there, even 1,900 years ago people understood plot development and story setting.

Sigh, yourself. The Gospel of Luke is told from the first person point of view in several places, indicating the author's presence in at least some parts of Paul's missionary journeys. But for giggles, let's assume that Acts wasn't written by a companion of Paul. That point is irrelevant to the issue I raised, namely, that Acts is discussing major historical events in the life of the early church, so why aren't the martyrdoms of Paul and the sack of Jerusalem mentioned if the book was written after AD 80? I still maintain that the best explanation for these omissions is that the events hadn't occurred yet.

The site has no agenda, it just gives the dating that the majority of scholars agree with, it even gives the date a "reliability rating".

OF COURSE the site has an agenda. Why appeal only to "the majority of scholars"? What bias do those scholars have? Are the assumptions they use when assigning dates correct, or are those assumptions themselves subject to certain agendas? I maintain that they are, and it's deceptive of the site not to at least acknowledge what those assumptions and agendas are (good scholarship at least attempts to make clear to the reader what assumptions and biases they bring to the discussion).

As Nietzsche said, there's no such thing as uninterpreted facts (my paraphrase). Let me give you an obvious example, and then I'll apply it to the Web site. Take the fact "Christ died for our sins." One might argue that this is a theologically loaded statement, so to reduce it to facts, we might have to say something like "Jesus (not "Christ") was executed as an insurrectionist (from a Roman point of view) and blasphemer (from a Jewish point of view)." But we still have interpretation going on here based on the points of view. So let's just stick with "Jesus died." But at this point, we STILL have interpretation going on. For three people died that day, not to mention thousands of others by the same means at different times, so why mention only this one fellow on this particular day? Obviously, we mention it because we think it has special significance, and that significance is a matter of interpretation. So even when we mention facts as baldly as possible, it still crucially involves interpretation. That doesn't invalidate the facts, it just means that there's more to them than any putative factuality.

That detour taken, let's return to the point. The Web site mentions Q and the Passion Narratives and assigns them a date. Well, is it a fact that either of these documents existed (given that no ancient historical record mentions them)? If it is a fact, it's a strange sort of fact. Certain scholars, appealing to form criticism, believe they see "patterns" in the New Testament that "suggest" that some passages are older or more authentic than others. On what basis do we say this passage is older or more authentic? Well, to answer that the form critic must appeal to a theory of religious development. Well, what justifies that theory? Typically, when you ask the form critic that question, he answers by appealing to the patterns he claims to see, and the circle remains unbroken. This shows that what's at issue in a mere listing of documents with their ranges of dates is more than an objective setting forth of the facts. Why does the site even mention Q and the passion narrative as if they were actual documents that were penned at a particular time and not scholarly fictions? Which theory did the author of this Web site use, and why? Hmm, doesn't say. And since it doesn't say, the site has an air of objectivity which is entirely deceptive.

Do you understand all the evidence that's taken into account when attempting to date these scripts? They don't just take Irenaeus's word for it you know.

I clicked the links for "Reliability of dating" for several items, and received a "Page not found" error message. Not sure what to make of that. And I'm not suggesting that we merely "take Iranaeus' word for it" with respect to authorship attribution and timing. But to ignore him is equally fallacious. He was, after all, nearer the texts than we are and may well have had access to information that has long since been lost given the perishibility of the materials he had to work with.

 

[Halcyon]

Paul, the earliest of the Christian writers, has an extremely high and developed Christology. So why shouldn't the Gospel of Luke have a high Christology if, as many scholars say, it's The Gospel of Paul as told by Luke? Besides, claiming that the Christology and theology of this book or that book "couldn't have been around prior to year X" involves the imposition of a theory of religious development that begs the question.

Because we know certain aspects of the theology espoused in Luke and Acts doesn't gel with Paul, and is known to have originated with groups of later times.

Sigh, yourself. The Gospel of Luke is told from the first person point of view in several places, indicating the author's presence in at least some parts of Paul's missionary journeys.

Uh huh. You've never read a novel written in the first person perspective?

But for giggles, let's assume that Acts wasn't written by a companion of Paul. That point is irrelevant to the issue I raised, namely, that Acts is discussing major historical events in the life of the early church, so why aren't the martyrdoms of Paul and the sack of Jerusalem mentioned if the book was written after AD 80? I still maintain that the best explanation for these omissions is that the events hadn't occurred yet.

Or, like I said before, the writer was simply putting himself into the place of Paul's companion and taking it from there. It's not hard to imagine, if you write an account from the perspective of Paul's companion you set it in Paul's lifetime i.e. before the destruction of the temple.

OF COURSE the site has an agenda. Why appeal only to "the majority of scholars"?

Because they are who count.

What bias do those scholars have? Are the assumptions they use when assigning dates correct, or are those assumptions themselves subject to certain agendas? I maintain that they are, and it's deceptive of the site not to at least acknowledge what those assumptions and agendas are (good scholarship at least attempts to make clear to the reader what assumptions and biases they bring to the discussion).

Their bias is attempting to find the truth, no matter what that truth may be.

So even when we mention facts as baldly as possible, it still crucially involves interpretation. That doesn't invalidate the facts, it just means that there's more to them than any putative factuality.

Sure, but the more the interpreted facts are based on available evidence the more reliable they are.

That detour taken, let's return to the point. The Web site mentions Q and the Passion Narratives and assigns them a date. Well, is it a fact that either of these documents existed (given that no ancient historical record mentions them)?

Do you know why people even think there was a Q? It's because there are sayings in Matthew and Luke that aren't found in the other gospels. It is clear that both Luke and Matthew use the gospel of Mark as their main source, this is undisputed by reputable scholars, so where did these other sayings come from? It's not a stretch to imagine a second source, in fact Q was suggested as a sayings gospel way before a sayings gospel was even discovered. The fact that the Gospel of Thomas discovered in 1945 is a sayings gospel adds weight to the Q hypothesis.
The nature of Q isn't concrete, there could even have been many Qs, fragments of paper with various sayings of Jesus that circulated in the community.

There are various reasons people believe in an early passion narrative, but it's all conjecture. The passion narrative is included in the list because it is a possible historical document.

If it is a fact, it's a strange sort of fact. Certain scholars, appealing to form criticism, believe they see "patterns" in the New Testament that "suggest" that some passages are older or more authentic than others. On what basis do we say this passage is older or more authentic? Well, to answer that the form critic must appeal to a theory of religious development. Well, what justifies that theory? Typically, when you ask the form critic that question, he answers by appealing to the patterns he claims to see, and the circle remains unbroken. This shows that what's at issue in a mere listing of documents with their ranges of dates is more than an objective setting forth of the facts.

You should discuss this with angellous_evangellous, he could explain to you the process of how people date texts far better than I.

Why does the site even mention Q and the passion narrative as if they were actual documents that were penned at a particular time and not scholarly fictions? Which theory did the author of this Web site use, and why? Hmm, doesn't say. And since it doesn't say, the site has an air of objectivity which is entirely deceptive.

You need to click the links to the texts, each one contains a lengthy essay on what the text is, why it is given the dating that it has, why scholars believe it existed if it's controversial and so on.

And I'm not suggesting that we merely "take Iranaeus' word for it" with respect to authorship attribution and timing. But to ignore him is equally fallacious. He was, after all, nearer the texts than we are and may well have had access to information that has long since been lost given the perishibility of the materials he had to work with.

Lets be clear, we're talking about a man who's logical reason for selecting four gospels for his canon of scripture was that "there are four winds and four corners of the Earth". That he chooses to assign the names of apostles, or people close to the apostles to unsigned books is unremarkable - especially considering that it was traditional to do so in his time period.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings, Halcyon!

There are LOTS of Bible prophecies that have come true in the Baha'i view--clearly long after it was written--because they were fulfiled about a century and a half ago!

You can see these at:

www.bci.org/prophecy-fulfilled

And the Founder of the Baha'i Faith, Baha'u'llah, Himself made many propecies, dozens of which have already been proven true! (Details of these upon request.)

Best!

Bruce