Does history match the prophesies of the bible?

[Faithofchristian]

The thing about prophecies, the real thing is that they are so general and open to interpretation by anyone, that just about any event can be claimed to be prophecised.

And its always after the fact that someone will interpret an event to be prophecised. Never before in warning or advice.

I wonder why that is?

I conclude, that no, prophecies do not prophecise but there is no end of people who claim otherwise.

The only problem your having is that Jesus Christ already given the interpretation of all things in his book of Revelation..

So you going about trying to give your interpretation...goes against what Jesus Christ has given..
Maybe you should listen to what Jesus Christ has given in his book of Revelation.

Your interpretation don't even come close to what Jesus Christ has given in his book of Revelation..
Throughout the book of Revelation Jesus Christ already foretold who those beasts are and who they represents in his book of Revelation..
But you seem to think that you know more than the one who given the book of Revelation...Which is Jesus Christ himself..

 

[ChristineM]

The only problem your having is that Jesus Christ already given the interpretation of all things in his book of Revelation..

So you going about trying to give your interpretation...goes against what Jesus Christ has given..
Maybe you should listen to what Jesus Christ has given in his book of Revelation.

Your interpretation don't even come close to what Jesus Christ has given in his book of Revelation..
Throughout the book of Revelation Jesus Christ already foretold who those beasts are and who they represents in his book of Revelation..
But you seem to think that you know more than the one who given the book of Revelation...Which is Jesus Christ himself..

not my problem, there is not any evidence that JC lived yet alone as lived as described in the bible. If he did live ax described then he died about 33 ad. Surely it is understood that revelation was written at least 60 years after his death. So to attribute revelation to jesus is pushing credulity to its limit

It seems i know more about the history of the bible than you do. And i see no evidence of prophecy

 

[cataway]

The book of Revelation is not a book of the history of the pass..
But a book of the near future..

I am anticipating the fall of Babylon the great

 

[amatuerscholar]

The "book of Revelation" is a warning against the "daughters of Babylon", which would consist of the Roman church and her daughters, the Protestants, and their main leader, the "false prophet", Paul. Martin Luther and the reformation church leaders referred to the Roman church as Babylon, the mother of harlots, but failed to realize that their churches were daughters of the Roman church. Like mother, like daughter. Like yourself, Martin Luther didn't like the book of Revelation, but didn't have the power to take it out of the bible. On the other hand, the message of the "book of Revelation" parallels the "Book of Daniel". Many people are also against the book of Daniel. Both books are prophetic, and describe the beasts using different analogies. Those who do not come out of "her", the daughters of Babylon, remain in the dark, and are destined to "receive of her plagues" (Revelation 18). Babylon the Great, the mother church was the church of the head of the beast, Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2), the mystery church of Babylon.

In my previous response to you, I explained why none of this is true. You're misconstruing what Revelations is saying, and then you're interpreting it wrong.

 

[PruePhillip]

That you will even concede "hard to say" is remarkable.

It has been said at least ten thousand times,
to no apparent effect, that prophecy so vague
as in the bible, so subject to "if" and the interpretation
of symbolism, is no prophecy at all.

The prophecy that "Jesus" is said to have made about
imminent events-within a lifetime- has now stretched
to more than two thousand years with endless excuses
being offered.

Of course, if enough predictions are made, some will
be bound to come true. If that is enough to get a
"believer" to disregard the far greater number of failures,
well, it does.

And then too, people determined to see Signs will see them.*
Like the below surreal statement-

The fall of the Christian churches has happened, or is happening

*same mentality as a girl who I was walking across campus
with one fall day. A leaf fell at our feet, she picked it up and
said, "Look, three parts, God sent it to represent the Trinity!".

When I pointed out it had three big and two little parts, she
said it represented the pentarch.

Here is what is hard to say-
Does religion make people crazy, or were they already like that?

I agree how people take things to absurdity. Some used to say that the
ten horns in Daniel referred to the ten members of the EU - only there's
now, what, 23 members?

Jesus was not referring to events of his follower's own lifetime. There is
an "argument" to that effect but it falls apart fairly easily. In essence - the
Gospel was to go out into all the world. The Gentiles would believe what
the Jews did not. The Jewish nation would end in tragedy. But at a time
when the Gentiles fall away and the "Christian" churches, with their idols,
power and money, gone - the Jews would return from the nations and
take their land back with the sword.
One battle is mentioned, and in extraordinary detail - the battle of the
New Israel against Magog and the enemies of the Middle East and
Northern Africa. Ezekiel 38,39.

 

[PruePhillip]

I am anticipating the fall of Babylon the great

Babylon in the bible represents three things
1 - the city - the prophecy was that it would fall and never be inhabited again, as happened
2 - false religion in general (wealth, power, false doctrine etc..)
3 - a specific church built upon "seven hills" (which denotes Rome.)

 

[cataway]

Babylon in the bible represents three things
1 - the city - the prophecy was that it would fall and never be inhabited again, as happened
2 - false religion in general (wealth, power, false doctrine etc..)
3 - a specific church built upon "seven hills" (which denotes Rome.)

you may have noticed ,Rome has been gone for some time now. its not Rome.
Babylon the Great is still out and about prodding the beast she rides to go and do the things she wants. the beast knows she is there and is getting sick of her meddling

 

[cataway]

she thinks she controls the beast .the beast likes to think it knows better

 

[PruePhillip]

you may have noticed ,Rome has been gone for some time now. its not Rome.
Babylon the Great is still out and about prodding the beast she rides to go and do the things she wants. the beast knows she is there and is getting sick of her meddling

Actually... the bible speaks of Rome as falling yet never falling.
Make sense?
Rome fell 5th Century
It then became Christian Rome
But there was still the Eastern Rome
and then there's the Holy Roman Empire AD800
And then many European nations (and USA) like to think of themselves
as the "new Rome" - even John Lennon spoke of America like this.

"Babylon is fallen" I think it says in Revelation. It's false religion. This is
falling to a new state - no religion.

 

[PruePhillip]

Love god, love thy neighbour?

First is nonsense, the second is highly problematic.

In the event, there is nothing in the bible that is not
found in pretty much every culture on earth.

Try to turn every belief on its head and see if it makes sense, or even
better sense. That "every religion" has commonalities doesn't really
prove much beyond the fact that some things are foundational to wisdom.
Even the Alcoholics Anonymous hold to the idea of appealing to something
higher than yourself; seeking support from like minded people; understanding
that you have been defeated and that you'll never have the strength to stand
alone when it comes to the issue of your condition. None of this obviates the
bible - when you think about it carefully.
And most religions are not the same as Judaeo Christianity - the things which
separate it are telling (here I am not talking about Catholicism or Protestantism
but the bible itself.)

 

[Faithofchristian]

not my problem, there is not any evidence that JC lived yet alone as lived as described in the bible. If he did live ax described then he died about 33 ad. Surely it is understood that revelation was written at least 60 years after his death. So to attribute revelation to jesus is pushing credulity to its limit

It seems i know more about the history of the bible than you do. And i see no evidence of prophecy

Well it's evidence that you don't have any clue or idea about Jesus Christ...

After the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ..
Jesus Christ then about some 60 years after his death and resurrection given his book of Revelation to his angel to give to John on the Isle of Patmos..

Revelation 1:1---"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John"
Revelation 1:9--"John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ"

Therefore Jesus Christ given his book of Revelation to John..

Have you any idea just how close the world is to Jesus Christ coming..
How close is that..
What does Jesus Christ reveal about his second coming in his book of Revelation what will be happening in the world..just before he returns..
Of course you don't..but you'll say that you know more..
So please do tell in the Prophecy that Jesus Christ given in his book of Revelation..what will exactly be happening prior to his second coming?

There's one prophecy in the book of Revelation that Jesus Christ given that has to come to it's fulfilment...before Jesus Christ can return..
What prophecy is that in the book of Revelation?
now remember that you made the statement that you know more about the book of Revelation,
So please by all means..do tell what prophecy is that in the book of Revelation.

 

[ChristineM]

Well it's evidence that you don't have any clue or idea about Jesus Christ...

After the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ..
Jesus Christ then about some 60 years after his death and resurrection given his book of Revelation to his angel to give to John on the Isle of Patmos..

Revelation 1:1---"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John"
Revelation 1:9--"John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ"

Therefore Jesus Christ given his book of Revelation to John..

Have you any idea just how close the world is to Jesus Christ coming..
How close is that..
What does Jesus Christ reveal about his second coming in his book of Revelation what will be happening in the world..just before he returns..
Of course you don't..but you'll say that you know more..
So please do tell in the Prophecy that Jesus Christ given in his book of Revelation..what will exactly be happening prior to his second coming?

There's one prophecy in the book of Revelation that Jesus Christ given that has to come to it's fulfilment...before Jesus Christ can return..
What prophecy is that in the book of Revelation?
now remember that you made the statement that you know more about the book of Revelation,
So please by all means..do tell what prophecy is that in the book of Revelation.

According to academics, scholars, historian when was revelation written???

You may use any magic you want that massages your ego, i really dont care. My thing is evidenced reality, not imaginative dreams.

 

[Faithofchristian]

In my previous response to you, I explained why none of this is true. You're misconstruing what Revelations is saying, and then you're interpreting it wrong.

Your absolutely positively right..

What a lot of people don't understand
and people kip over is that Jesus Christ already foretold what those beasts are and who exactly they represents in the book of Revelation..
Notice in Revelation 17:1..that thru the angle Jesus Christ is revealing to John who the great white that sets upon many waters..and the Kings of the earth are and who they will represents in the book of Revelation..
Revelation 17:1-2..
1--"And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

2--"With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication"

So you see in verse 1 above that the angle.is revealing to John everything.
Who the great white and who she represents.
And who the beast is and who the beast represents in the book of Revelation.

Revelation 17:3---" So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns"

The angle of Jesus Christ is revealing to John who that beast is and who it represents in the book of Revelation..

So you see when people try to give their own interpretation of the book of Revelation,.
Jesus Christ has already done that throughout his book of Revelation..

Thereby people are only giving their own private interpretation.
As written in 2 Peter 1:20---"knowing this first. that no prophecy of the scriptures is of any private interpretation"

Therefore when it comes to the Prophecy's of the bible/scriptures there is no private interpretation of people's own private interpretation.
I hope this helps you...Thank you

 

[Faithofchristian]

According to academics, scholars, historian when was revelation written???

You may use any magic you want that massages your ego, i really dont care. My thing is evidenced reality, not imaginative dreams.

You want to know what I think. It doesn't matter when it was written..as to what matters is that all those prophecy's in the book of Revelation are now coming to their fulfillment..
And there's one particular prophecy in the book of Revelation. That Jesus Christ given. that Jesus Christ can not return until the last Prophecy happens first..
And when this prophecy happens the tribulation is over and then Jesus Christ returns. But not until that last prophecy happens first.

 

[ChristineM]

You want to know what I think. It doesn't matter when it was written..as to what matters is that all those prophecy's in the book of Revelation are now coming to their fulfillment..
And there's one particular prophecy in the book of Revelation. That Jesus Christ given. that Jesus Christ can not return until the last Prophecy happens first..
And when this prophecy happens the tribulation is over and then Jesus Christ returns. But not until that last prophecy happens first.

Actually it does matter when you are making impossible claims about it

Are they? Your evidence please

Interesting how they are reliant on each other happening or they don't happen. Do you see a conundrum here?

 

[metis]

.


The Jewish OT precedes the Roman church's NT canon of 367 AD written down by Athanasius. Athanasius was present at Nicene in 325 AD, and in 367 AD was just another Roman bishop, who continued his heresies from Alexandria. While the Roman canon includes the teachings of Yeshua, the church in fact over wrote them by nailing them to Paul's new construed cross babble/gospel. Yeshua's message was the prophets and the law (Matthew 5). The message of the church of Peter and Paul (Zech 11) is "lawlessness", as in the gospel of grace. (Matthew 7:23). The beast with two horns like a lamb, Constantine, and his church, based on the two horns, Peter and Paul (Zech 11), has "deceived" those who dwell on the earth" (Revelation 13), and "none of the wicked" will "understand" (Daniel 12), for the "words" had been "concealed" to the "end of time". Truth does not "make sense" to the "wicked"/lawless because they live in darkness. They have chosen a false gospel of grace over the gospel of the kingdom, which is based on justice and righteousness.

The canon of the Bible was selected by a relatively large team of bishops from many different diocese, and the process took over a half century. So, if they chose the wrong texts because of what you wrote above, then maybe give your Bible to those who can use and respect it. And for you to quote the Bible selected by these terrible people as you claim, then it makes no sense for you to use it.

IOW, what you're doing is called "picking & choosing".

 

[2ndpillar]

What does this mean?

The canon of the Bible was selected by a relatively large team of bishops from many different diocese, and the process took over a half century. So, if they chose the wrong texts because of what you wrote above, then maybe give your Bible to those who can use and respect it. And for you to quote the Bible selected by these terrible people as you claim, then it makes no sense for you to use it.

IOW, what you're doing is called "picking & choosing".

What I am doing is separating the wheat from the chaff. As for your "large team" of "bishops", who would they be, and did they pull this off by means of a conference call, and was Arius part of that call? A "half century" before Athanasius's Easter cannon letter would be 317 AD, well before Constantine established his Roman Church with its bishops. After 325 AD, Constantine, as Pontifex Maximus, appointed bishops, some of whom were retired illiterate generals from his army.

 

[metis]

What I am doing is separating the wheat from the chaff. As for your "large team" of "bishops", who would they be, and did they pull this off by means of a conference call, and was Arius part of that call? A "half century" before Athanasius's Easter cannon letter would be 317 AD, well before Constantine established his Roman Church with its bishops. After 325 AD, Constantine, as Pontifex Maximus, appointed bishops, some of whom were retired illiterate generals from his army.

Here's more than enough info on this: First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia

BTW, there were 1800 bishops involved.

 

[2ndpillar]

Here's more than enough info on this: First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia

BTW, there were 1800 bishops involved.

The Nicene Council of 325 AD was inaugurated by Constantine, who also published his own 50 copies of a bible, with only one chapter noted by history, which is not in the canon described by Athanasius in 367 AD. I expect that Arius, the right hand man of Constantine, a so called priest, put together that bible. Arius and Athanasius were on different sides of theology. Arius was against the Trinity. The focus of the Council of Nicene was the Trinity, not publishing a bible out of the 1000s of manuscripts found among bogus preachers of many bents. Before 325 AD there were no Roman bishops, only the so called bishop of Rome. There were many so called, self proclaimed bishops involved in the Council, but the bishop of Rome was not among them. The pope sent two secretaries. The so called "bishops", were mostly from the Eastern part of the empire, many were illiterate. Constantine was interested in uniting his empire, and therefore wound up merging his pagan religion theology with this new "Christian" religion.

 

[Ebionite]

To agree that the prophets of the OT were correct, and that there was to be a "worthless shepherd" chosen (Zechariah 11), whose description matches the leader of your Roman church, Peter, would undermine your whole foundation of sand (Matthew 7).

Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.
Zech 11:17

And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
2 Corinthians 12:17