Proof of God in Prophecy?

[oldcelt]

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?

When those texts were chosen from among many, by a group trying to prove a certain belief…there is an issue there.

 

[Winterwolf00]

Vague?
.
Psalm 22 c 500 BC.

Well that’s one prophecy that proved false.
Next?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

When those texts were chosen from among many, by a group trying to prove a certain belief…there is an issue there.

Anyone who is not a believer in a personal God, and our personal God in particular, will approach all biblical prophecy as balderdash. So why would you even read the evidence for prophecy fulfilled?

 

[The_DNA_Rose]

Saint Paul said in I Thessalonians 5:19, “Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophetic utterances. Test everything; retain what is good.”

Is there sufficient reason by way of prophetic utterances to argue that the prophecies of the Old and New Testaments give evidence that the Judeo-Christian religion is authentic?

No…!

 

[tonyrey]

Well that’s one prophecy that proved false.
Next?

An unsubstantiated assertion is worthless…

 

[inocente]

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.

Sorry for delay in answering, real life intervened.

The Church must lay down some procedure by which it can be known what is genuinely of God and what is not. I’m asking you to research that procedure.

The books of Daniel and Revelation contain obscure imagery which attracts loonies who are more interested in numerology and the paranormal than in Christ. I doubt the Church agrees that Newton is a latter-day prophet or that God hid messages in the bible to be decoded by the likes of Newton. God is either darkness, hiding obscure messages, or God is light, revealing openly. He can’t be both. I’m asking what your Church says on this.

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?

You’re not serious - equality is a conspiracy? Where’s the head office of these conspirators?

And the morality of the entire world is dictated by the party politics of your country?

Even for a dyed in the wool moral relativist such as your good self, surely that’s a walk on the wild side?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Sorry for delay in answering, real life intervened.

The Church must lay down some procedure by which it can be known what is genuinely of God and what is not. I’m asking you to research that procedure.

The books of Daniel and Revelation contain obscure imagery which attracts loonies who are more interested in numerology and the paranormal than in Christ. I doubt the Church agrees that Newton is a latter-day prophet or that God hid messages in the bible to be decoded by the likes of Newton. God is either darkness, hiding obscure messages, or God is light, revealing openly. He can’t be both. I’m asking what your Church says on this.

But if I’m not mistaken, you know the Church has not decided whether Newton was loony.

 

[inocente]

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’m not a Hindu but surely Brahma is God? We’ve gone along way off-topic.

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.

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

Founding a lunatic asylum or whatever else is nothing to do with gender equality. Where is equality to be found in the saints’ writings?

It remains that Christians did little or nothing on gender equality for 2000 years, and many Churches, including yours, still do nothing. They could not possibly have received any revelation on gender equality from Christ, or they would surely have done what they thought acceptable to Him.

PS: Sorry for long delay in responding.

 

[inocente]

But if I’m not mistaken, you know the Church has not decided whether Newton was loony.

The Church must lay down some procedure by which it can be known what is genuinely of God and what is not. I asked you to research that procedure.

It appears you prefer not to know. I give up.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Church must lay down some procedure by which it can be known what is genuinely of God and what is not. I asked you to research that procedure.

It appears you prefer not to know. I give up.

If you know the procedures, please let us know.

I doubt there are any formal procedures for determining prophecy and I’m not going to waste my time looking for them. Do your own homework, as you seem often so apt to do when you research the teachings of the Church to try to discredit Catholic apologists in this forum.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Church must lay down some procedure by which it can be known what is genuinely of God and what is not. I asked you to research that procedure.

It appears you prefer not to know. I give up.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a2.htm#2004

 

[inocente]

If you know the procedures, please let us know.

I doubt there are any formal procedures for determining prophecy and I’m not going to waste my time looking for them. Do your own homework, as you seem often so apt to do when you research the teachings of the Church to try to discredit Catholic apologists in this forum.

I asked you because I think you are ignoring them.

Determining what is and isn’t of God is profoundly important to the Church, it is the most important aspect of the entire mission - how could the Church even exist if it could not decide whether its teaching is or is not of God?

Yet you dismiss it out of hand. Would a Catholic apologist cite calculations by Newton, a Protestant, as a revelation which remained hidden from the Church? Since when did the Church rely on eccentric Protestant amateurs to discern the Word of God?

Lay posters can surely work out that they might need to do a little bit more than just write “Catholic” on their profile to be regarded as a world expert apologist in all matters to do with the Church.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Would a Catholic apologist cite calculations by Newton, a Protestant, as a revelation which remained hidden from the Church? Since when did the Church rely on eccentric Protestant amateurs to discern the Word of God?

Would a Catholic apologist cite calculations by Darwin, a non Catholic, which were hidden from the Church for centuries? Most assuredly. The Church relies on truth wherever it may be found, whether from eccentric Protestants or perfectly balanced ones. I like C.S. Lewis almost as much as I like G.K. Chesterton. Most of all, on the subject of prophecy, I like St. Paul.

I Thessalonians 5:19, “Do not quench the Spirit. Do not despise prophetic utterances. Test everything; retain what is good.”

This from the CCC:

2004 Among the special graces ought to be mentioned the graces of state that accompany the exercise of the responsibilities of the Christian life and of the ministries within the Church:

“Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; he who teaches, in his teaching; he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who contributes, in liberality; he who gives aid, with zeal; he who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.” Paul to the Romans 12:6-8.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yet you dismiss it out of hand. Would a Catholic apologist cite calculations by Newton, a Protestant, as a revelation which remained hidden from the Church? Since when did the Church rely on eccentric Protestant amateurs to discern the Word of God?

I have seen no Catholic condemnation of Newton’s work on prophecy.

Have you? If so, cite your source please! Otherwise, cut the self righteous carping.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m not a Hindu but surely Brahma is God? We’ve gone along way off-topic.

Not at all. You are equating Jesus with Brahma as a historical person on this earth.

Founding a lunatic asylum or whatever else is nothing to do with gender equality. Where is equality to be found in the saints’ writings?

It remains that Christians did little or nothing on gender equality for 2000 years, and many Churches, including yours, still do nothing. They could not possibly have received any revelation on gender equality from Christ, or they would surely have done what they thought acceptable to Him.

Founding schools, hospitals, orphanages, hospices and lunatic asylums has everything to do with liberty, equality and fraternity which are based on Christ’s teaching that all of us without exception are children of the same Father. The ludicrous supposition that Christians did little or nothing on gender equality for 2000 years is not only false but it also belittles Christ’s influence on His followers, many of whom have been persecuted, tortured and murdered precisely because they followed His example, disregarded the conventions of the patriarchal society in which they lived and thereby exposed its hypocrisy. There was no need whatssoever for an explicit revelation about gender equality given that Jesus Himself had never discriminated, implied or treated anyone was inferior. On the contrary He stated explicitly “Whatever you did for one of **the least **of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me”. He meant of course “least” in the eyes of the world. The saints took it for granted we are all equal in the sight of God because their Master had gone out of His way to pay special attention to those who were despised and regarded as sinners, notably the woman taken in adultery and the man who was blind from birth.

You might as well condemn Jesus for not having condemned slavery. Do you? If not why not?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It remains that Christians did little or nothing on gender equality for 2000 years, and many Churches, including yours, still do nothing. They could not possibly have received any revelation on gender equality from Christ, or they would surely have done what they thought acceptable to Him.

This is not clearly stated. In what respect are you complaining that the Church denies gender equality?

Also, do you believe Christ did not leave a message on gender equality, or do you believe the Church did not get the message? If Christ left a message, what was it? Book, chapter, and verse if you please … unless you still believe quote mining is not allowed.

 

[inocente]

I have seen no Catholic condemnation of Newton’s work on prophecy.

Have you? If so, cite your source please! Otherwise, cut the self righteous carping.

If the Church rated Newton then it would have said something. We can guess what it thinks from its silence. Unless you’re claiming there is an office in the Vatican which writes specific condemnations for every crackpot and loony.

And you can leave out the bluster. Wannabe Catholic apologists should go to bible study class. They should know the difference between prophets and fortune tellers.

This is not clearly stated. In what respect are you complaining that the Church denies gender equality?

Also, do you believe Christ did not leave a message on gender equality, or do you believe the Church did not get the message? If Christ left a message, what was it? Book, chapter, and verse if you please … unless you still believe quote mining is not allowed.

I don’t believe Christ said anything about gender equality. If He did, Paul for one never heard it, and the Church has no women priests or bishops, so it never heard it either.

 

[inocente]

Not at all. You are equating Jesus with Brahma as a historical person on this earth.

Founding schools, hospitals, orphanages, hospices and lunatic asylums has everything to do with liberty, equality and fraternity which are based on Christ’s teaching that all of us without exception are children of the same Father. The ludicrous supposition that Christians did little or nothing on gender equality for 2000 years is not only false but it also belittles Christ’s influence on His followers, many of whom have been persecuted, tortured and murdered precisely because they followed His example, disregarded the conventions of the patriarchal society in which they lived and thereby exposed its hypocrisy. There was no need whatssoever for an explicit revelation about gender equality given that Jesus Himself had never discriminated, implied or treated anyone was inferior. On the contrary He stated explicitly “Whatever you did for one of **the least **of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me”. He meant of course “least” in the eyes of the world. The saints took it for granted we are all equal in the sight of God because their Master had gone out of His way to pay special attention to those who were despised and regarded as sinners, notably the woman taken in adultery and the man who was blind from birth.

You might as well condemn Jesus for not having condemned slavery. Do you? If not why not?

Jesus never said anything about slavery either. He never said anything about a lot of things. We can infer gender equality, but Christians didn’t for 2000 years.

Here, for instance, is one of Thomas Aquinas’ remarks about the “accidental male”:

“9. Differentiation of the sexes must be attributed to celestial causes. Our reason for saying this is as follows: Every agent tends to form to its own likeness, as far as possible, that which is passive in its respect. Accordingly, the active principle in the male seed always tends toward the generation of a male offspring, which is more perfect than the female. From this it follows that conception of female offspring is something of an accident in the order of nature-in so far, at least, as it is not the result of the natural causality of the particular agent. Therefore, if there were no other natural influence at work tending toward the conception of female offspring, such conception would be wholly outside the design of nature, as is the case with what we call “monstrous” births. And so it is said that, although the conception of female offspring is not the natural result of the efficient causality of the particular nature at work—for which reason the female is sometimes spoken of as an “accidental male”—nevertheless, the conception of female offspring is the natural result of universal nature; that is, it is due to the influence of a heavenly body, as Avicenna suggests.” - De Veritate 5, 9, d 9 dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer5.htm#9

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And you can leave out the bluster. Wannabe Catholic apologists should go to bible study class. They should know the difference between prophets and fortune tellers.

I don’t believe Christ said anything about gender equality. If He did, Paul for one never heard it, and the Church has no women priests or bishops, so it never heard it either.

I feel sorry for you if you rate Newton alongside fortune tellers. You still haven’t overcome Newton’s prediction concerning the return of the Jews to Israel. That is a colossally important prediction based on biblical prophecy, and does not consist of Newton waving his hands around a glass ball and peering deeply into it.

The Church defines Christ as the groom and the Church as the bride.

So we honor the bride spirituality of the Church along with the groom spirituality of Christ.

Christ chose twelve men to lead the Church in his place after his resurrection. This is biblical, though I guess you would not know since you appear not to have read your Baptist Bible, which is more or less the same Bible the Catholic Church assembled for your edification in the 4th Century.

The role of spiritual leadership is not exclusively masculine. Every child’s first catechist is his mother. If she is a true follower of Christ, she will transmit the truth of the Lord to her children, both sons and daughters. They will be equally loved and equally saved.

Though one has to be a priest to lead, one does not have to be a priest to be saved.

And there may well be more women in heaven than men.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Jesus never said anything about slavery either. He never said anything about a lot of things. We can infer gender equality, but Christians didn’t for 2000 years.

Here, for instance, is one of Thomas Aquinas’ remarks about the “accidental male”:

“9. Differentiation of the sexes must be attributed to celestial causes. Our reason for saying this is as follows: Every agent tends to form to its own likeness, as far as possible, that which is passive in its respect. Accordingly, the active principle in the male seed always tends toward the generation of a male offspring, which is more perfect than the female. From this it follows that conception of female offspring is something of an accident in the order of nature-in so far, at least, as it is not the result of the natural causality of the particular agent. Therefore, if there were no other natural influence at work tending toward the conception of female offspring, such conception would be wholly outside the design of nature, as is the case with what we call “monstrous” births. And so it is said that, although the conception of female offspring is not the natural result of the efficient causality of the particular nature at work—for which reason the female is sometimes spoken of as an “accidental male”—nevertheless, the conception of female offspring is the natural result of universal nature; that is, it is due to the influence of a heavenly body, as Avicenna suggests.” - De Veritate 5, 9, d 9 dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer5.htm#9

Here Aquinas is showing the severe limitations of medieval biology.

But it would another priest, Gregor Mendel, a contemporary of Charles Darwin, who would jump start the business of genetic science in the 19th century.