List of Failed AD 70 Predictions

[Richard Amiel McGough]

CWH

I have a question. If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one there to witness it, did it really fall, and did it make a sound?

Or better: "If an event prophesied in the Bible happened but was not recorded in history, does that mean it didn't really happen?"

[TheForgiven]

Or better: "If an event prophesied in the Bible happened but was not recorded in history, does that mean it didn't really happen?"

Per the Futurist rule, it hasn't. Anything fulfilled must be spelled out for them. No wise interpretation is required; only guesses and fabrications to fit any theoretical concoction they can invent. Most people usually hit and miss, but with their doctrines, it's a constant miss.

Joe

[CWH]

CWH

I have a question. If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one there to witness it, did it really fall, and did it make a sound?

I have a question for you too Didy,

If a tree fall in the forest and there is no one to witness it, how do you know that the tree has fallen in the forest? How would I know if it really fall or someone have cut it in stages unless someone witnessed it. Did it make a sound? I think so.

Take another question, if my wallet is missing, can I say that someone has stolen it unless a witness has seen a thief stealing it...or should I speculate that it was misplaced or someone accidentally took it or I have forgotten where I put it? Likewise, can I say Jesus came unless a witness has seen Him? Or should I speculate that He must have come since the Temple was destroyed despite no witness saw Him came?

Obviously, Jesus did not come to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem, He don't need to as the Romans will do it. So why should He come? Does the boss needs to be present to know that the workers worked?...He has the job output to prove, he has his supervisors, his surveilliance cameras.

Many Blessings.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Likewise, can I say Jesus came unless a witness has seen Him? Or should I speculate that He must have come since the Temple was destroyed despite no witness saw Him came?

Obviously, Jesus did not come to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem, He don't need to as the Romans will do it. So why should He come? Does the boss needs to be present to know that the workers worked?...He has the job output to prove, he has his supervisors, his surveilliance cameras.

The reason Preterists believe Jesus came is because they believe the Bible says so. If they believed the Bible said something else, then they would believe that. It's the same thing with Futurists - they have absolutely no evidence that Jesus "will come" in the Future. They believe it because that's how they interpret the Bible.

So here's a question: What if the Bible is wrong on this point? What evidence do we have that proves the Bible eschatology is correct? What if the Bible really meant what it seems to say concerning the literal coming of Jesus, the literal physical resurrection, and the coming of the literal Kingdom of God in the first century? Both Futurists and Preterists would then be wrong.

So here's the question: Where is the evidence that the Bible is not wrong on this point? Preterists base their arguments on the plain facts that Jesus predicted everything to happen in the first century. But Futurists reject the Preterist arguments because they say things DID NOT HAPPEN as predicted. Therefore, we know that the Preterists are wrong, and the Futurists are wrong, so does this not prove that the Bible is wrong?

[Didymus]

Or better: "If an event prophesied in the Bible happened but was not recorded in history, does that mean it didn't really happen?"

That is exactly my point.

[Didymus]

I have a question for you too Didy,

If a tree fall in the forest and there is no one to witness it, how do you know that the tree has fallen in the forest? How would I know if it really fall or someone have cut it in stages unless someone witnessed it. Did it make a sound? I think so.

Take another question, if my wallet is missing, can I say that someone has stolen it unless a witness has seen a thief stealing it...or should I speculate that it was misplaced or someone accidentally took it or I have forgotten where I put it? Likewise, can I say Jesus came unless a witness has seen Him? Or should I speculate that He must have come since the Temple was destroyed despite no witness saw Him came?

Obviously, Jesus did not come to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem, He don't need to as the Romans will do it. So why should He come? Does the boss needs to be present to know that the workers worked?...He has the job output to prove, he has his supervisors, his surveilliance cameras.

Many Blessings.

If a tree fall in the forest and there is no one to witness it, how do you know that the tree has fallen in the forest?

By the evidence. If the tree is laying on the ground with splintering at the base, near a trunk that also has splintering. That would indicate the tree has fallen.

Take another question, if my wallet is missing, can I say that someone has stolen it unless a witness has seen a thief stealing it...or should I speculate that it was misplaced or someone accidentally took it or I have forgotten where I put it?

If your wallet is missing, all you know without evidence is that your wallet is missing.

Likewise, can I say Jesus came unless a witness has seen Him? Or should I speculate that He must have come since the Temple was destroyed despite no witness saw Him came?

But there is evidence that came in the lifetime of some of the apostles, unless you are going to contend that Jesus is a liar. Did not Jesus say, "Some of you who are standing here shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom."

Did Jesus lie?

I base my belief of fulfilled prophecy on the character of Christ. If He said it, and if it didn't happen as He said, then Jesus lied.

How many prophets prophesied that God would punish Israel? And how many times did God raise up foreign armies to punish Israel. The Romans did indeed destroy the temple, under the direction of God.

[TheForgiven]

If a tree fall in the forest and there is no one to witness it, how do you know that the tree has fallen in the forest?

By the evidence. If the tree is laying on the ground with splintering at the base, near a trunk that also has splintering. That would indicate the tree has fallen.

Take another question, if my wallet is missing, can I say that someone has stolen it unless a witness has seen a thief stealing it...or should I speculate that it was misplaced or someone accidentally took it or I have forgotten where I put it?

If your wallet is missing, all you know without evidence is that your wallet is missing.

Likewise, can I say Jesus came unless a witness has seen Him? Or should I speculate that He must have come since the Temple was destroyed despite no witness saw Him came?

But there is evidence that came in the lifetime of some of the apostles, unless you are going to contend that Jesus is a liar. Did not Jesus say, "Some of you who are standing here shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom."

Did Jesus lie?

I base my belief of fulfilled prophecy on the character of Christ. If He said it, and if it didn't happen as He said, then Jesus lied.

How many prophets prophesied that God would punish Israel? And how many times did God raise up foreign armies to punish Israel. The Romans did indeed destroy the temple, under the direction of God.

Amen! And Amen! You put that in the most Biblicaly example of faith than I have ever seen. I've often accused Futurists for their lack of faith, relying solely on eye-witnesses and early church documentation. But sometimes you just have to believe. I mean, if Jesus said that some who were standing with Him at the time He spoke to them, would not die until they saw the kingdom of God coming, then what's wrong with believing that. Now some on this forum will use the transfiguration as the time He was speaking of. The problem is "NONE" of them died during the transfiguration, so His use of the word "some" would not have any impact or element of interest. Some also use the day of Pentecost, but even then none who were standing with Him died. But in 70AD, when the kingdom of God had fulfilled its establishment, some (or most) were in fact dead.

Anyways, good post my friend.

Joe

[Didymus]

Amen! And Amen! You put that in the most Biblicaly example of faith than I have ever seen. I've often accused Futurists for their lack of faith, relying solely on eye-witnesses and early church documentation. But sometimes you just have to believe. I mean, if Jesus said that some who were standing with Him at the time He spoke to them, would not die until they saw the kingdom of God coming, then what's wrong with believing that. Now some on this forum will use the transfiguration as the time He was speaking of. The problem is "NONE" of them died during the transfiguration, so His use of the word "some" would not have any impact or element of interest. Some also use the day of Pentecost, but even then none who were standing with Him died. But in 70AD, when the kingdom of God had fulfilled its establishment, some (or most) were in fact dead.

Anyways, good post my friend.

Joe

Thanks Joe. One correction however. Judas, one of those that were standing with Christ when He made that statement, did die by Pentecost. But one does not equal some.

But, the Bible is a book of faith. Without faith, the Bible is meaningless. Without faith, we have only our physical senses to understand any subject. But our physical senses are limited, and our understanding based on those senses is flawed.

[Twospirits]

Didymus wrote,

Thanks Joe. One correction however. Judas, one of those that were standing with Christ when He made that statement, did die by Pentecost. But one does not equal some.

Lets look at the passages of the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Matthew 16:28, 'Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.'

Mark 8:28, 'Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.'

Luke 9:26, 'For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels. 27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.'

In the passages above we see Jesus clearly state that some in his audience at the time would not taste death until they saw the Son of man coming in his kingdom. But does this verse therefore lead to the conclusion of a 1st century coming of Christ?

Note that Jesus does not say exactly 'how many persons' would not taste death until they see him come in his kingdom. In the Greek the word that is used for 'some' is Strong's #5100. The definition is given here below.

5100. tis

a certain one, someone, anyone

an enclitic indefinite pronoun;; pron
AV - certain 104, some 73, any man 55, any 37, one 34, man 34, anything 24, a 9, certain man 7, something 6, somewhat 6, ought 5, some man 4, certain thing 2, nothing + 3756 2, divers 2, he 2, thing 1, another 2, not tr 17, misc 22; 448
1) a certain, a certain one
2) some, some time, a while

Note that the first primary meaning for this word is a certain, or a certain one. Therefore it's not unlikely that Jesus had in mind as few as just one person. This word "tis" is meant to convey "a certain one" by Jesus elsewhere in the Gospels. As here in:

John 6:64, 'But there are some (tis; #5100) of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.'

Here above, Jesus uses this same Greek word "tis" in part to refer to Judas, the single individual who would betray him. So, it is well within the common usage of this Greek word "tis" to interpret Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, and Luke 9:27.

Jesus states that some standing there would not die before they SAW Jesus coming in his kingdom. In the Book of Revelation John describes a vision he saw of things which were before his time, which were in his time, and which would come after his time. Among the things that John sees (eido) which were to come after his vision is Jesus coming in his kingdom with great power and glory. The event was still in the future at the time John saw the vision. That is to say, what John saw (Jesus coming in his kingdom) was not actually occurring at the time John saw it, yet he did see (eido) it before he died, even though the actual event of Jesus coming in his kingdom was still in the future.

So we have John who was present as Jesus spoke in Matthew 16:28, Mark 8:38, and Luke 9:6 and that he did see (eido) Jesus coming in his kingdom before he died through the vision that God gave him. Therefore John's experience would adequately fulfill this prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 16:28, Mark 8:38-9:1, and Luke 9:26-27; without postulating an actual return or second coming of Jesus within the lifetime of Jesus' audience in order to fulfill Jesus' prophetic words here. Jesus also confirms this in John 21:22-23: "Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die; yet Jesus said not unto him, he shall not die; but, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what (is that) to thee?"

Food for thought---

God bless---Twospirits

[TheForgiven]

Lets look at the passages of the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.

Matthew 16:28, “Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.”

Mark 8:28, “Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. 9:1 And he said unto them, Verily say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.”

Luke 9:26, “For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels. 27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God.”

In the passages above we see Jesus clearly state that some in his audience at the time would not taste death until they saw the Son of man coming in his kingdom. But does this verse therefore lead to the conclusion of a 1st century coming of Christ?

Note that Jesus does not say exactly “how many persons” would not taste death until they see him come in his kingdom. In the Greek the word that is used for “some” is Strong's #5100. The definition is given here below.

5100. tis

a certain one, someone, anyone

an enclitic indefinite pronoun;; pron
AV - certain 104, some 73, any man 55, any 37, one 34, man 34, anything 24, a 9, certain man 7, something 6, somewhat 6, ought 5, some man 4, certain thing 2, nothing + 3756 2, divers 2, he 2, thing 1, another 2, not tr 17, misc 22; 448
1) a certain, a certain one
2) some, some time, a while

Note that the first primary meaning for this word is a certain, or a certain one. Therefore it's not unlikely that Jesus had in mind as few as just one person. This word "tis" is meant to convey "a certain one" by Jesus elsewhere in the Gospels. As here in:

John 6:64, “But there are some (tis; #5100) of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.”

Here above, Jesus uses this same Greek word "tis" in part to refer to Judas, the single individual who would betray him. So, it is well within the common usage of this Greek word "tis" to interpret Matthew 16:28, Mark 9:1, and Luke 9:27.

Jesus states that some standing there would not die before they SAW Jesus coming in his kingdom. In the Book of Revelation John describes a vision he saw of things which were before his time, which were in his time, and which would come after his time. Among the things that John sees (eido) which were to come after his vision is Jesus coming in his kingdom with great power and glory. The event was still in the future at the time John saw the vision. That is to say, what John saw (Jesus coming in his kingdom) was not actually occurring at the time John saw it, yet he did see (eido) it before he died, even though the actual event of Jesus coming in his kingdom was still in the future.

So we have John who was present as Jesus spoke in Matthew 16:28, Mark 8:38, and Luke 9:6 and that he did see (eido) Jesus coming in his kingdom before he died through the vision that God gave him. Therefore John's experience would adequately fulfill this prophecy of Jesus in Matthew 16:28, Mark 8:38-9:1, and Luke 9:26-27; without postulating an actual return or second coming of Jesus within the lifetime of Jesus' audience in order to fulfill Jesus' prophetic words here. Jesus also confirms this in John 21:22-23: "Then went this saying abroad among the brethren, that that disciple should not die; yet Jesus said not unto him, he shall not die; but, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what (is that) to thee?"

Food for thought---

God bless---Twospirits

Sorry Henry. Not buying into this. I know you're only trying, but that is a far far stretch to suggest that Jesus was referring to John's future Revelation of His MORE-THAN-FUTURE coming. Besides, that takes away the "shock" or the "interest" of His statement. In fact, why even bother to state this at all? Furthermore, this wouldn't fit John the Baptist when he also insisted, "The kingdom of Heaven is at hand". I think you may be too affixed on the idea that nothing came in the first century except a "vision" of Revelation. And you'll have a very difficult time trying to convince Christians, or even the world, that everything hinged on a single man having a vision that pertained to noting of their generation, nor their time. So to suggest that the "one" who would not taste death until they saw the "vision" of His kingdom to come, is both ludicrous, and absurd.

Not gonna work.

Joe