Does this constitute Prophetic Utterance

[Navigator]

Matthew 24:5 - For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many. Attributed to Jesus

[Beleth]

It depends on two things:

1) Whether it's happened or not
2) Assuming that it has happened, whether the "many" in the statement were aware of the statement.

If it hasn't happened then it's not a prophecy; it's just a statement about the future that isn't true.

If the people who made it come true were aware of the statment then it's not a prophecy either; it's a statement of control.

A statement about a future event can only be considered a prophecy if both the event happens and the cause of the event is not aware that the statement was made.

[Navigator]

It depends on two things:
1) Whether it's happened or not

Greetings Beleth

Since it is recorded, it must have been uttered. It is attributed to Jesus, so then this gives the focus of the utterance to those who claim to be Jesus connected.

2) Assuming that it has happened, whether the "many" in the statement were aware of the statement.

Well the statement is found in the Bible, so the assumption must be that they have read it...that they are aware of the significance of possible prophetic utterance, cannot be assumed.
However, those who can make the connections through observation may be able to verify that indeed, it does appear to be something resembling strong future foretelling.

If the people who made it come true were aware of the statement then it's not a prophecy either; it's a statement of control.

So if the folk stepped back and observed that they were the ones referred to, then they would see it as a statement of control, and depart from being that thing?
Otherwise I am not sure what you are saying.

A statement about a future event can only be considered a prophecy if both the event happens and the cause of the event is not aware that the statement was made.

Thus only those outside the 'cause of the event' would be able to verify it as a prophetic utterance yes?

So therefore IS it a prophetic utterance?

[Note: Burned the toast while replying to this] :crazy:

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Navigator
Since it is recorded, it must have been uttered. It is attributed to Jesus, so then this gives the focus of the utterance to those who claim to be Jesus connected.

Waitaminnit...Jesus was real?!?!?!? I better get my @$$ to church in the morning.

I have an entire book full of utterances from Sherlock Holmes. Therefore they were recorded. Therefore Sherlock Holmes was a real person.

[Navigator]

Greetings Hexxenhammer


I have an entire book full of utterances from Sherlock Holmes. Therefore they were recorded. Therefore Sherlock Holmes was a real person.

How sweet.

Now the difference is, that Sherlock was written as fiction and presented as such.
Therefore, while the author through the character uttered some very astute observation....

...I am not aware if the character uttered anything prophetic, although we might be touching on something here in the way of the Elementary.

Now, I am happy to suppose that Jesus is a fictional character presented as real.

Therefore someone hid behind this character in order to utter prophesy (assuming that the tread topic is correct)

Who uttered this is not as important and the fact that it was recorded.
Another fact is that people believe Jesus is real, and thus the words uttered may well be about them.
Certainly because the character is real as far as those who claim to follow after him or represent him goes, gives wieght to the claim that it might be a prophetic utterance

So real or not, the words are recorded and they are real. My question therefore respects this fact and gets about wondering if there is any evidence around to support that the quote is prophetic in nature.

[evildave]

Huitzilopochtli wanted blood sacrifices.

It was recorded. People believed it. It must be "so" that Huitzilopochtli said it. The Azrecs killed tens of thousands of people based on these beliefs, which shows that they were at least quite earnest about their belief.

Therefore, the sun/war god really existed, and has been doing without for centuries. Sooner or later, he's bound to get miffed and destroy the world for the fifth and final time.

[Benguin]

Sounds like an attempt to give the future followers of Matthew's writings the opportunity to play the "No True Scotsman" card every time others review the supposed utterings of Jesus.

It could also be viewed as a truism, I mean Marx or Hitler could have said the same things about themselves and they would have been equally true.

The only possible prophecy is that people would still be talking about the controversy he stirred up after he passed (no mention of how much controversy, how widespread or for how long).

a) His whole life story was based around his belief he was son of the one true god, so that he should believe he'd be remembered and talked about is not an exceptional frame of mind.

b) Matthew was written 70 years later by someone trying drum up support for his political/religious agenda and get control of a movement with this guy as an unimpeachable diety at the top. The statement is not prophetic as at the time it was written the behaviour it talks about was actually happening, furthermore it's exactly the kind of thing Matthew would need to assert to keep people looking to him for guidance about Jesus.

[epepke]

It doesn't sound particularly prophetic, as there were plenty of people claiming to be the Messiah around the time that Jesus is supposed to have been doing his stuff, which was many years before Matthew was written down.

[Navigator]

Right so it gets down to 'it's elementary, my dear Matthew'

It is the ability to put 1 and 1 together and utter the expected result.

They will say they follow Jesus and they will be lying...whoever wrote those words, knew Human Beings.


Nothing greatly prophetic about the predictable.

[Benguin]

Well, either a prediction after the "fact" or a statement of the obvious.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Navigator
Beleth said:
It depends on two things:
1) Whether it's happened or not

Since it is recorded, it must have been uttered. It is attributed to Jesus, so then this gives the focus of the utterance to those who claim to be Jesus connected.No, you misunderstand. I am not questioning whether the statement was said; I am questioning whether the statement describes something which came to be later. In other words, have many come in Jesus' name, saying Jesus was Christ, and did they deceive many?

Or... hmmm. Is that quote saying that many will come in Jesus' name, saying that they, not Jesus, are Christ? Hmmm. Well, for this discussion it's irrelevant.


2) Assuming that it has happened, whether the "many" in the statement were aware of the statement.

Well the statement is found in the Bible, so the assumption must be that they have read it...Then all bets are off. It's no longer a prophecy; it's a statement of control.

However, those who can make the connections through observation may be able to verify that indeed, it does appear to be something resembling strong future foretelling.Not if the many described in the quote were aware of the quote. This can be a confusing concept, and if I had more time I'd give an example, but I have to go help a friend of mine move right now.

[Navigator]

Not if the many described in the quote were aware of the quote. This can be a confusing concept, and if I had more time I'd give an example, but I have to go help a friend of mine move right now.


Being aware of the quote is one thing....consigning it to another section of Christendom is another.

I think there is no argument in favor of the quote being prophetic utterance...the statement is one made(by an intelligent individual or group of indiduals) from their observations of Humans and how they behave....I will bring in another example later....I have friends to help too.

:)

[evildave]

http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/sylvia2100.htm

Julia Browne: 37


"37. There will be many false prophets that rise up proclaiming to be Jesus on Earth, and try to lead people astray. We are already seeing this in the big rise of occultism."


Prophetic, indeed! Why, if it's recorded that Julia Browne said it, then it MUST be true!

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/proph4dums/

[Navigator]

Originally posted by evildave
http://www.skepticreport.com/psychics/sylvia2100.htm

Julia Browne: 37



Prophetic, indeed! Why, if it's recorded that Julia Browne said it, then it MUST be true!

http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/proph4dums/


Simply put - it matters not who said it.

It was said.

[evildave]

Ooh, deep.

OK, so are we now equating the words of Julia Browne with Jesus?

All manner of words are placed into the mouths of celebrities, alive and dead. It "matters not" that junk emails containing misrepresented celebrity/authority authorship happens, the only 'important' part is the message? Even when the very credibility of the message is based on the authority of the person represented to have said it?

So, if a story teller in AD 80 decided to throw some little twists into the Jesus fables he was telling, and they got picked up by the "holy" book, it doesn't matter that this joker said it, now that it's been falsely attributed to a particular demigod, because the origins of the actual quote have been lost to obscurity?

I know, it just HAS to be "true" because people believe in this rubbish, and like demons and a flat earth, if enough people believe in it, it must be "true".

[Navigator]

Originally posted by Navigator



Simply put - it matters not who said it.

It was said.


I am not debating who said what = I am asking and am satisfied that the thing said was not prophetic, but rather an accurate observation of how humans are and what they do with what is said.

Jesus like Santa - can be reagarded as a myth. This is okay.

Someone wrote "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

Who these words are attributed to are not the issue.

The issue is that they are written and therefor have entered into the mindset of human genetic imprinting.

Most can tell you they have heard this saying and that they understand its significance.

If I spit in your face I am telling you that I want you to react the same towards me. You May still choose not to.

If I offer you support for your contributions then I am also asking for your support in return...not expecting, just treating you the way I like to be treated.

I acknowledge that you may not wish to treat my likewise.

You see. It does not matter who said what in terms of 'what is written'

What matters or not - is that it was written. if it wasn't written then it would not enter into any discussion.

That it has entered a discussion, wqs merely to enquire as to whether it was written as a prophetic utterance or as a rather clever commentary based upon a deeper understanding of human behaviours garnered through careful thoughtful observation.

[Benguin]

But for something to be a prophecy, there needs to be an exceptional or unexpected outcome, or at least on that could not be easily predicted.

If I hit someone and he hits me back that is not unexpected, so predicting is not prophetic.

If I hit someone and he refuses to hit me back that is not unexpected, so predicting is not prophetic.

If I hit someone and he runs away, etc

If I hit someone and he falls down and dies, etc.

If someone predicts that I can walk into a room and hit 20 people in they will uniformly do the same single thing (assuming no prior arrangement or foreknowledge of who is in the room) then we start to get to prophecy. And sore knuckles.

If someone predicts I will hit an individual on May 1 2004 outside the door to my property and his response will be to smile and give me a bunch of chrysanthemums then, again assuming no prior arrangement, we are looking close to prophecy.

Do unto others is common in any civilisation and the basis of any form of ethics (secular or theistic). This is an interesting list of quotes (http://www.newwartimes.com/reciprocity.html)

The observation made in Matthew seems neither deep nor clever, for it to be so you would have to demonstrate that it would have taken an exceptional divergence from normal human behaviour seen at that time for the statement to be valid. Otherwise, it's a statement of the obvious.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Benguin
The observation made in Matthew seems neither deep nor cleverI have to respectfully disagree with you here.

Having many people come in your name and say that they are you is indeed a very unexpected event. I certainly don't ever expect this to happen to me, and indeed, I don't expect this to happen to even the greatest leaders throughout history.

Can you imagine George Washington saying that? Or Ghandi? Or Alexander the Great? Or Donald Trump? I can't. It takes an unexpected amount of hubris to say "many people will claim to be me."

[Beleth]

Originally posted by evildave
OK, so are we now equating the words of Julia Browne with Jesus?My guess is that Julia Browne was quoting Mat 24:5 when she said the quote above. Her reaction to it - that this is why there is a big rise in occultism - is pure misunderstanding on her part. Hint to Julia: Occultism doesn't involve people saying that they're Jesus.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Navigator



Simply put - it matters not who said it.

It was said.

But it does matter. Going back to Hexxenhammers Sherlock Holmes example, if Jesus was a fictional character, then his words have no more weight than those of Sherlock Holmes. If the writer of Sherlock Holmes had Holmes say soething that later turned out to be true, would you then accept Arthur Conan Doyle as a prophet?

Now I have no idea whether Anything that Holmes ever said predicted the future but I know Jules Verne predicted manythings in his stories. Does that make Verne a prophet?

Lastly, the statement itself is rather vague and lends itself to a lot of intepretation. So having it fulfilled means very little anyway.

[Benguin]

Having many people come in your name and say that they are you is indeed a very unexpected event. I certainly don't ever expect this to happen to me, and indeed, I don't expect this to happen to even the greatest leaders throughout history.

Yes, but those examples did not believe they were the "Son of God". Also, don't forget, the actual writing was done by Matthew some years later while he was trying organise followers of christ, we don't know if someone called Jesus actually said that.

Can you imagine George Washington saying that? Or Ghandi? Or Alexander the Great? Or Donald Trump? I can't. It takes an unexpected amount of hubris to say "many people will claim to be me."

I do accept your point, but I don't think the claims any of those people made about themselves equate. We are talking about someone with a (the?) Messiah complex, these guys (Matthew and/or Jesus) were trying to set up a new religion to supplant Judaism. My Encarta defines hubris thus;
2. Excessive ambition: the excessive pride and ambition that usually leads to the downfall of a hero in a classical tragedy.
I think that's close enough!

[evildave]

So, what of Muad Dib (Paul Atredes) in Dune? He thought he was the messiah, so whatever he said about golden paths and robotic doomsdays must be true? Heck, his kid even went on to be God Emperor of Dune.

Does that make all the reincarnation/spiritual gobbledygook in the novel true?

[Navigator]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


But it does matter. Going back to Hexxenhammers Sherlock Holmes example, if Jesus was a fictional character, then his words have no more weight than those of Sherlock Holmes. If the writer of Sherlock Holmes had Holmes say soething that later turned out to be true, would you then accept Arthur Conan Doyle as a prophet?

Now I have no idea whether Anything that Holmes ever said predicted the future but I know Jules Verne predicted manythings in his stories. Does that make Verne a prophet?

Lastly, the statement itself is rather vague and lends itself to a lot of intepretation. So having it fulfilled means very little anyway.

But it does matter? To whom does it matter who worte the words and who is attributed in having uttered them?

If the answer is "To The Christians, then yes I agree - to the Christians it does matter.

However, in the light that I am speaking, what is important is not who said them, but that they are recorded, and wheather the words themselves constitue prophesy.

It has already been established that they do not.

[Benguin]

So, what of Muad Dib (Paul Atredes) in Dune? He thought he was the messiah, so whatever he said about golden paths and robotic doomsdays must be true? Heck, his kid even went on to be God Emperor of Dune.

Does that make all the reincarnation/spiritual gobbledygook in the novel true?

Yes ... maybe I needed to qualify the statement more. The fact these people think they are messiahs mean it is highly likely they will say those things. It doesn't necessarily mean they will transpire, just that they will say them.

It's a bit of a win-win, if no-one remembers them and their statements, then the failed prophecy will never be remembered. Bringing us neatly back to sylvia browne ....

Apparently Sun Moon Mon says very similar things about himself. Should his followers still be carrying on in a thousand years and arguying over who knows "the true path" I still don't think that is prophecy or exceptionally intuitive.