Proof of God in Prophecy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_III
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Now you are saying that Newton was duped by the Devil?

My, my, since his calculations about the return of the Jews to Israel are spot on, how could he have been duped? The Devil only tells lies, not the truth. Or have you also overlooked that saying of Jesus? You need to mine the New Testament verses instead of being a Baptist who seems not to believe in them. 🤷
For the third time of asking: Have a look at the CCC and at dictionaries, then please can you explain what you think is the difference between a prophecy and a [supposed] hidden message?
 
Was Brahma a historical person who lived on this earth and said the prayers you quoted? If not your comparison is unjustified.
Special pleading. You equated the teaching and conduct of Brahma with the activity of Hindus, yet you change the rules for Christianity.
Ad hominem based on a false deduction.
It’s not ad hominem to point out special pleading.
To refer to a statement by Luther is hardly sectarianism when it is an incontrovertible fact that if “reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has” there is no defence against the charge of absurdity. Do you subscribe to that belief?
You always make that quote to me, on every thread where we meet, and never for any reason. Do you ever quote it to Catholics and ask if they subscribe to that belief? Sectarianism.
Your deductions are becoming more and more far-fetched. Jesus did not teach that men, women and children are equal in **every **respect.
It was you who said “There has been no detailed application of them in Hinduism as there was by Jesus, …] no demonstration of the equality of men, women and children”.

I asked you several questions, but you forgot to answer them - “Please quote where you think Jesus says women are equal to men. Then state why you think Christians totally ignored this teaching for two thousand years. Then why Christians apparently only noticed the teaching when secularists started to bring about equality. Then why many churches, including your own, still ignore the teaching.”

Don’t bother replying unless you’re interested in having a conversation.
 
For the third time of asking: Have a look at the CCC and at dictionaries, then please can you explain what you think is the difference between a prophecy and a [supposed] hidden message?
For the umpteenth time, there are hidden messages in the prophecies of Revelations.

Have you figured them out?
 
For the umpteenth time, there are hidden messages in the prophecies of Revelations.

Have you figured them out?
For the forth time of asking: Have a look at the CCC and at dictionaries, then please can you explain what you think is the difference between a prophecy and a [supposed] hidden message?
 
For the forth time of asking: Have a look at the CCC and at dictionaries, then please can you explain what you think is the difference between a prophecy and a [supposed] hidden message?
Your instruction here is obsessively vague.

What part of the CCC am I supposed to look at?

Is “hidden message” in the dictionary? I doubt it.

Please stop being so deliberately obtuse. :mad:
 
I asked you several questions, but you forgot to answer them - “Please quote where you think Jesus says women are equal to men. Then state why you think Christians totally ignored this teaching for two thousand years. Then why Christians apparently only noticed the teaching when secularists started to bring about equality. Then why many churches, including your own, still ignore the teaching.”
The secularists started bringing up equality when they decided to pit women against men.

That has always been the strategy of secularism, not equality but rather divide and conquer.

The strategy is still at work when the Democrats try to make out that Republicans hate women and therefore women should vote for women Democrats rather than male Republicans (or even female Republicans).

By the way, as a Baptist do you believe Jesus was a “male chauvinist pig” when he chose twelve men and no women to be his apostles?
 
The problem with prophecy is that the ones that haven’t been just outright disproven are so vague and open to interpretation that you have no real way of knowing what it refers to.
 
The problem with prophecy is that the ones that haven’t been just outright disproven are so vague and open to interpretation that you have no real way of knowing what it refers to.
This is especially true of the charlatans of astrology.
 
**The secularists started bringing up equality when they decided to pit women against men.

That has always been the strategy of secularism, not equality but rather divide and conquer.**
The strategy is still at work when the Democrats try to make out that Republicans hate women and therefore women should vote for women Democrats rather than male Republicans (or even female Republicans).

By the way, as a Baptist do you believe Jesus was a “male chauvinist pig” when he chose twelve men and no women to be his apostles?
Lol what?
Have we devolved into blatant conspiracy theories now?
 
Lol what?
Have we devolved into blatant conspiracy theories now?
That does appear to be the direction of inocente’s thought process.

She can’t get off the feminist rant on women’s equality when this thread has nothing to do with that subject.

I really don’t like conspiracy theories. I find very tedious the notion that the Catholic Church has been conspiring against equality for women all these centuries since Christ select twelve men and no women for his apostles and the Church has honored that tradition in the governance of the Church.
 
That does appear to be the direction of inocente’s thought process.

She can’t get off the feminist rant on women’s equality when this thread has nothing to do with that subject.

I really don’t like conspiracy theories. I find very tedious the notion that the Catholic Church has been conspiring against equality for women all these centuries since Christ select twelve men and no women for his apostles and the Church has honored that tradition in the governance of the Church.
I was quite obviously referring to your conspiracy theories about secularism, yet again you show that you have no idea what secularism even is.
 
I was quite obviously referring to your conspiracy theories about secularism, yet again you show that you have no idea what secularism even is.
Your thought processes to me are obtuse, so I’ll leave you alone. Thanks for the exchange.
 
Special pleading. You equated the teaching and conduct of Brahma with the activity of Hindus, yet you change the rules for Christianity.
You keep repeating “the teaching and conduct of Brahma” as if he were a historical person like Jesus. Do you really believe that? If so produce evidence for your belief.
I asked you several questions, but you forgot to answer them - "Please quote where you think Jesus says women are equal to men.
I did not state that “Jesus **says **women are equal to men” (or children for that matter). It is evident in the way He ignored Jewish customs and in a patriarchal society dared to treat women as if they are equal to men. The very fact that He talked to women amazed and shocked everyone. He also told the apostles not to prevent the children coming to Him as if they had no right to do so. Jesus taught primarily by example, not by giving precepts He didn’t practise. He was a man of action not a writer of theological texts.
Then state why you think Christians totally ignored this teaching for two thousand years. Then why Christians apparently only noticed the teaching when secularists started to bring about equality. Then why many churches, including your own, still ignore the teaching."
Christians did not totally ignore this teaching for two thousand years. Many of the saints, both known and unknown, were faithful to the precepts of Jesus and followed His example. They founded schools, hospitals, orphanages, hospices and lunatic asylums long before the secular authorities. Why do think St Francis, St Vincent de Paul, St Martin de Porres and St Elizabeth of Hungary, to name a few, have been so venerated? Do you think very few Christians were inspired by their heroic sacrifices? If so you are grossly underrating the influence of Jesus on the history of Western civilisation in favour of the secular philosophers of the “Enlightenment” - as if they were the first to discover the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. What was the basis of their belief in fraternity? Where is it to be found in their writings?

It cannot compare with the teaching of Jesus that we have one Father in heaven who cares for all His children, the just and the unjust alike. St Peter understood the full significance of his Master’s teaching:

“Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” Acts 10:34-35
 
If so you are grossly underrating the influence of Jesus on the history of Western civilisation in favour of the secular philosophers of the “Enlightenment” - as if they were the first to discover the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. What was the basis of their belief in fraternity? Where is it to be found in their writings?
A champion of the Enlightenment, Thomas Jefferson gave tribute to the influence of Jesus, about whom he said:

“He pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountainhead.”
 
A champion of the Enlightenment, Thomas Jefferson gave tribute to the influence of Jesus, about whom he said:

“He pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountainhead.”
I was saddened to read “A new portrait of the founding father challenges the long-held perception of Thomas Jefferson as a benevolent slaveholder”.
With five simple words in the Declaration of Independence—“all men are created equal”—Thomas Jefferson undid Aristotle’s ancient formula, which had governed human affairs until 1776: “From the hour of their birth, some men are marked out for subjection, others for rule.” In his original draft of the Declaration, in soaring, damning, fiery prose, Jefferson denounced the slave trade as an “execrable commerce …this assemblage of horrors,” a “cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberties.” As historian John Chester Miller put it, “The inclusion of Jefferson’s strictures on slavery and the slave trade would have committed the United States to the abolition of slavery.”
That was the way it was interpreted by some of those who read it at the time as well. Massachusetts freed its slaves on the strength of the Declaration of Independence, weaving Jefferson’s language into the state constitution of 1780. The meaning of “all men” sounded equally clear, and so disturbing to the authors of the constitutions of six Southern states that they emended Jefferson’s wording. “All freemen,” they wrote in their founding documents, “are equal.” The authors of those state constitutions knew what Jefferson meant, and could not accept it. The Continental Congress ultimately struck the passage because South Carolina and Georgia, crying out for more slaves, would not abide shutting down the market.
“One cannot question the genuineness of Jefferson’s liberal dreams,” writes historian David Brion Davis. “He was one of the first statesmen in any part of the world to advocate concrete measures for restricting and eradicating Negro slavery.”
But in the 1790s, Davis continues, “the most remarkable thing about Jefferson’s stand on slavery is his immense silence.” And later, Davis finds, Jefferson’s emancipation efforts “virtually ceased.”
Somewhere in a short span of years during the 1780s and into the early 1790s, a transformation came over Jefferson.
The very existence of slavery in the era of the American Revolution presents a paradox, and we have largely been content to leave it at that, since a paradox can offer a comforting state of moral suspended animation. Jefferson animates the paradox. And by looking closely at Monticello, we can see the process by which he rationalized an abomination to the point where an absolute moral reversal was reached and he made slavery fit into America’s national enterprise.
We can be forgiven if we interrogate Jefferson posthumously about slavery. It is not judging him by today’s standards to do so. Many people of his own time, taking Jefferson at his word and seeing him as the embodiment of the country’s highest ideals, appealed to him. When he evaded and rationalized, his admirers were frustrated and mystified; it felt like praying to a stone. The Virginia abolitionist Moncure Conway, noting Jefferson’s enduring reputation as a would-be emancipator, remarked scornfully, “Never did a man achieve more fame for what he did not do.”
Thomas Jefferson’s mansion stands atop his mountain like the Platonic ideal of a house: a perfect creation existing in an ethereal realm, literally above the clouds. To reach Monticello, you must ascend what a visitor called “this steep, savage hill,” through a thick forest and swirls of mist that recede at the summit, as if by command of the master of the mountain. “If it had not been called Monticello,” said one visitor, “I would call it Olympus, and Jove its occupant.” The house that presents itself at the summit seems to contain some kind of secret wisdom encoded in its form. Seeing Monticello is like reading an old American Revolutionary manifesto—the emotions still rise. This is the architecture of the New World, brought forth by its guiding spirit.
In designing the mansion, Jefferson followed a precept laid down two centuries earlier by Palladio: “We must contrive a building in such a manner that the finest and most noble parts of it be the most exposed to public view, and the less agreeable disposed in by places, and removed from sight as much as possible.”
The mansion sits atop a long tunnel through which slaves, unseen, hurried back and forth carrying platters of food, fresh tableware, ice, beer, wine and linens, while above them 20, 30 or 40 guests sat listening to Jefferson’s dinner-table conversation. At one end of the tunnel lay the icehouse, at the other the kitchen, a hive of ceaseless activity where the enslaved cooks and their helpers produced one course after another.
**smithsonianmag.com/history/the-dark-side-of-thomas-jefferson-35976004/?no-ist **
 
The problem with prophecy is that the ones that haven’t been just outright disproven are so vague and open to interpretation that you have no real way of knowing what it refers to.
Vague?
My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?
2 O my God, I cry in the day time, but thou hearest not; and in the night season, and am not silent.
3 But thou art holy, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel.
4 Our fathers trusted in thee: they trusted, and thou didst deliver them.
5 They cried unto thee, and were delivered: they trusted in thee, and were not confounded.
6 But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8** He trusted in the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.**
9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother’s breasts.
10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother’s belly.
11 Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.
12 Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.
13 They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion.
14** I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.**
17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
18** They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.**
19 But be not thou far from me, O Lord: O my strength, haste thee to help me.
20 Deliver my soul from the sword; my darling from the power of the dog.
21 Save me from the lion’s mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
22 I will declare thy name unto my brethren: in the midst of the congregation will I praise thee.
23 Ye that fear the Lord, praise him; all ye the seed of Jacob, glorify him; and fear him, all ye the seed of Israel.

24 For he hath not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; neither hath he hid his face from him; but when he cried unto him, he heard.
25 My praise shall be of thee in the great congregation: I will pay my vows before them that fear him.
26 The meek shall eat and be satisfied: they shall praise the Lord that seek him: your heart shall live for ever.
27** All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee**
.
Psalm 22 c 500 BC.
 
So, you are seeking proof of God from the same narrowly chosen writings that said He existed in the first place. Does anyone else see a logical conflict?
 
So, you are seeking proof of God from the same narrowly chosen writings that said He existed in the first place. Does anyone else see a logical conflict?
I don’t see any necessary logical conflict. Please explain.

If the prophecy was made centuries before the fulfillment of the prophecy, why would relying on the text of Scriptures to be assured of God’s existence interfere with the credibility of the prophecy as a proof for the existence of God, and specifically the Christian God?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top