Did Jesus tell us nothing of things to come?

[marco]

Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet, albeit taking second place to THE PROPHET Muhammad. But in what way was Jesus a prophet, given he gave no clear indication of anything that was to come.
Yes, like Muhamad he mentioned in-fighting, which by default is a true prophecy of anything you want. Did he know about America, about Luther, about Napoleon, about Hitler, about the Holocaust, about the rise of Islam? Apparently not.

Therefore, why would anyone regard Jesus as a prophet?
How do we explain the billions who have believed that Jesus was special?

[onewithhim]

Muslims believe that Jesus was a prophet, albeit taking second place to THE PROPHET Muhammad. But in what way was Jesus a prophet, given he gave no clear indication of anything that was to come.
Yes, like Muhamad he mentioned in-fighting, which by default is a true prophecy of anything you want. Did he know about America, about Luther, about Napoleon, about Hitler, about the Holocaust, about the rise of Islam? Apparently not.

Therefore, why would anyone regard Jesus as a prophet?
How do we explain the billions who have believed that Jesus was special?

He gave his followers quite explicit prophecies of things to come. Matthew chapter 24 is a road-map.

"In-fighting" was not one of his prophecies. He spoke of wars that would have to be unprecedented in order to be noticed as part of the sign of his "coming." Nation against nation....that's not "in-fighting." WWI was unprecedented war. The whole planet was affected by this war.

He spoke of the increase of crime (which has done so on a steady basis), and the cooling off of people's love for other humans. He mentioned "great earthquakes" and "pestilences and food shortages." Any of these things taken by itself would not necessarily amount to much, but he had said when we saw these things occurring---that is, all at once, and in unprecedented intensity---we would know that "he is near at the doors." (Matthew 24:33) See Matthew 24:1-33 and Luke 21:10-31.

After giving the composite sign of his coming, he clearly stated that there would be the greatest tribulation that ever happened, and one that would not happen again. (Matt.24:21) This will be unfortunate for the wicked people, but Jesus' followers are encouraged to "raise yourselves erect and lift your heads up, because your deliverance is getting near." (Luke 21:28)

[marco]

He spoke of wars that would have to be unprecedented in order to be noticed as part of the sign of his "coming." Nation against nation....that's not "in-fighting." WWI was unprecedented war. The whole planet was affected by this war.

Yes - he said war, disease, earthquake and we look through the centuries for war, disease, earthquake. Good prophecy!

He said they'd all happen together and that would be the end of the world? Well I suppose we've had them all happening close together but the world rolls on.

So you demonstrate that Jesus predicted zilch. We can all find a battle somewhere and say: Ah, that's the one Nostradamus meant. Nostradamus mentions Hister which is close to Hitler. Jesus doesn't even get that far.

Good try. He needs a stronger defence, though. I can't see anyone coming up with one. He just wasn't a prophet.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

In bible terms a prophet is not someone that necessarily predicts the future, but someone that speaks for or represents God. Jesus repeatedly presented himself as someone speaking on the intiative of God so biblically he was a prophet.

Further Jesus did speak of future events including the end of this system of things. We'll only know if that comes true at the end of time (so unless there is a fat lady singing we have no basis for saying his prediction didn't come true). Until then we objectively can say Jesus did make predictions of future events, so if a prophet is someone that speaks of future events (in connection with God's purpose) then Jesus also qualifies as "A Prophet" biblically.

Whether you personally find his predictions convincing is totally irrelevant, someone doesn't qualify as "a musician" because you like their music, or even if they play well but if they play a musical instrument. I hazard a guess that what you really meant to ask was "Did Jesus make any predictions that *I* find personally convincing?" but to re-word your question would be presumptious of me and I won't answer a question that was not asked. As it stands, if the question is, "Was Jesus a prophet?" then by both biblical definitions the answer is "yes".

JW

[marco]

Whether you personally find his predictions convincing is totally irrelevant, someone doesn't qualify as "a musician" because you like their music, or even if they play well but if they play a musical instrument. If the question is, "Was Jesus a prophet?" then by both biblical definitions the answer is "yes".

JW

Well said, JW. The derivation of prophet is one who "speaks for" and in biblical terms, a prophet speaks on behalf of God, which Jesus did. And I like your bad musician is still a musician riposte.

I was single-mindedly looking for some verifiable truth that Christ uttered by way of prediction but, as you eloquently point out, the fat lady has not yet risen to sing.

Go well.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 1 by marco]

In bible terms a prophet is not someone that necessarily predicts the future, but someone that speaks for or represents God. Jesus repeatedly presented himself as someone speaking on the intiative of God so biblically he was a prophet.

Further Jesus did speak of future events including the end of this system of things. We'll only know if that comes true at the end of time (so unless there is a fat lady singing we have no basis for saying his prediction didn't come true). Until then we objectively can say Jesus did make predictions of future events, so if a prophet is someone that speaks of future events (in connection with God's purpose) then Jesus also qualifies as "A Prophet" biblically.

Whether you personally find his predictions convincing is totally irrelevant, someone doesn't qualify as "a musician" because you like their music, or even if they play well but if they play a musical instrument. I hazard a guess that what you really meant to ask was "Did Jesus make any predictions that *I* find personally convincing?" but to re-word your question would be presumptious of me and I won't answer a question that was not asked. As it stands, if the question is, "Was Jesus a prophet?" then by both biblical definitions the answer is "yes".

JW

I agree with your definitions of prophet here, Jesus spoke the will of God, in line with his predecessors, the Hebrew prophets.

The 2nd definition of predictor, he fares less well, I'm afraid. The prediction that he would return in the lifetime of his disciples did not come true.

That can possibly be dismissed as the error of the Evangelists and Paul, but the implications of that is unacceptable to most Bible literalists, who hold that the Bible is infallible in every detail.

SO what's left? Rhetorical gymnastics to obfuscate the plain meaning of the text, that Jesus would return in glory and judgment with the Father's angels (in the lifetime of his disciples ) becomes somehow the transfiguration, where Jesus appears with Moses and Elijah, but no avenging angels.

[JehovahsWitness]

The 2nd definition of predictor, he fares less well, I'm afraid. The prediction that he would return in the lifetime of his disciples did not come true.

That would be based on your personal interpretation of Jesus' words - I'm sure you are not suggesting your interpretation is the only one possible. Your interpretation seems to be a literalist* one but JWs don't take the words in that way.

As Jehovah's Witnesses we take a much less literal interpretation of the prophecy (*my understanding is that "literalists" hold strictly to "plain meaning of the text" without any room for metaphor, symbolism, secondary meaning ect. ). In any case, my point is the prediction only fails if one holds to your literalistic interpretation of the words*, which Jehovah's Witnesses reject. I'm sure there are many a literalist that will jump up and down and scream that heracy has been committed and their way is the ONLY acceptable way, but I'm sure you also can understand that we could not care less if they do.


JW

[Strider324]

If Paul and the Mormons are to be believed, Jesus was so incompetent that he had to come back....twice.... to fill in the details of his teachings. That is somewhat less than impressive for either a god or a son of a living god. Just sayin'.

[Strider324]

The 2nd definition of predictor, he fares less well, I'm afraid. The prediction that he would return in the lifetime of his disciples did not come true.

That would be based on your personal interpretation of Jesus' words - I'm sure you are not suggesting your interpretation is the only one possible. Your interpretation seems to be a literalist* one but JWs don't take the words in that way.

As Jehovah's Witnesses we take a much less literal interpretation of the prophecy (*my understanding is that "literalists" hold strictly to "plain meaning of the text" without any room for metaphor, symbolism, secondary meaning ect. ). In any case, my point is the prediction only fails if one holds to your literalistic interpretation of the words*, which Jehovah's Witnesses reject. I'm sure there are many a literalist that will jump up and down and scream that heracy has been committed and their way is the ONLY acceptable way, but I'm sure you also can understand that we could not care less if they do.


JW

You're simply admitting that when you don't like the plain, clear, simple and obvious interpretation, you guys run to a self-serving one that allows you to pretend that your theology is still intact. Jesus said he would return in the lifetime of those present. EVERYBODY accepted that clear interpretation - right up until it became embarrassingly obvious that it didn't happen and was therefore a lie. You guys have now moved the goalposts every generation for 2000 years - and will doubtless have to continue doing so, in perpetuity.

Where is Christian integrity in this bogus tactic? It's just like Gaddafi. "I draw this line in the sand. You cannot cross it. OK, now you can't cross this line...now this line...now this line. OK, I stick my tongue out at you...."

I want to respect theists. But this kind of convenient replacing of interpretation when shyt goes bad does not help.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 9 by Strider324]

Firstly I don't believe we are here to debate "your feelings" and your feelings about a matter are totally irrelevant to me; who you "want to respect" or not is your own business I couldn't care less.

Further Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe that because the majority hold an interpretation is must be true any more than we believe that when EVERYBODY believed the world was flat that made it so; any argumentum ad populum must be subject to in our opinion to scriptural based logic. My point was clear, Jehovah's Witnesses are not literalist and we don't consider any Jesus prophecies to have "failed".


JW