Burden of Proof

Ron,

I�d like to suggest another type of Bible prophecy for you to consider and comment on. Instead of quoting a specific verse - that you think can be interpreted many ways � I am taking the macro approach which hopefully might find something you and I can agree on. Here�s how my thinking goes:

I�ve chosen one Prophet and his book � Ezekiel. I could have chosen others but he seemed like a good choice for the following reasons:

1.      He is a good representative of the prophets of YHWH. Ezekiel�s life intersected Jeremiah and Daniel. Their messages are all compatible with each other and they all attribute their messages to the same God (YHWH). Ezekiel refers to Daniel and Daniel quotes Jeremiah. The Chronicles of the Old Testament refer to Jeremiah and the historical events of Ezekiel and Jeremiah are described in Chronicles and Kings of the Old Testament.

2.      Ezekiel, like Jeremiah provides many specific details but has an over-arching message that does not rest on any one statement.  Ezekiel includes three basic prophecies. The first was the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of the Jews throughout the world. The second basic prophecy predicted destruction of various nations that had harmed Israel in the past. The third basic prediction concerned the re-gathering and restoration of the Jews who would be scattered throughout the world. If one wants to look at the history related to the first two prophecies we can but someone might object that it was written after the events or somehow the history had been altered to �fulfill� Ezekiel�s prophecies. It is amazingly accurate but the purpose was to warn the remnant Jews what was coming and it is rather a moot point for us to debate it now. It is the third basic prophecy that I think is useful for us as it looks ahead to a time when Israel would be re-gathered and restored in the land God originally gave them. Like the first part of Ezekiel�s book, there are many details and specifics described but one doesn�t have to understand it all to comprehend the basic prediction: Jews will be re-gathered from the entire world and re-born in the land of Israel.

I will summarize the book below to minimize the reading time but I am just stating the obvious, not trying to convince you of what it says. I encourage you to read as much of it as you like to confirm what I am saying. Without appealing to a specific verse or passage I am sure you will agree with the basics I have described.

These basics things are clear and they provide evidence that Ezekiel knew things that humans could not know 2,500 years in advance. He could not have known the Jews would still exist, that they would still have a separate identity, that they would be spread across the world, or that they would be re-gathered as a nation again in Israel. He could not have known that their enemies would be the Islamic countries that exist today. Yet he said these things would occur and they have come to be during the last 60 years.

Added to this �speculation� is how incredible it is that the Jews have even survived as a distinct ethnic group in the face of their history. No land since 70 A.D., persecutions by many throughout the centuries, the pressure and opportunity to assimilate into other groups and, ultimately the Holocaust. Their identity, language, traditions, religion, etc. should have disappeared long ago but they did not.

So I ask, do you think this is just coincidence? Can you point to other such coincidences in any other prophetic writing?

A Summary of Ezekiel:

PROPHECIES OF JUDGEMENT ON JUDAH Ch. 1-24

Ezekiel's First Vision - 5th year (Ch. 1-3)

Symbols of the Fall of Jerusalem - 5th year (Ch. 4-5)

Statements of Judgment - 5th year (Ch. 6-7)

Vision of the Temple - 6th year (Ch. 8-11)

Symbol's of the Exile - 6th year (Ch. 12)

Statements of Judgment 6-9th year (Ch. 13-24)

PROPHECIES OF JUDGMENT ON OTHER NATIONS Ch. 25-32

PROPHECIES OF RESTORATION Ch. 33-34; 36-48

The Watchman (Ch. 33)

The Good Shepherd (Ch. 34)

Hope for the Mountains (Ch. 36)

Valley of Dry Bones � the nation reborn (Ch. 37)

Battle of Armageddon - after Jews are back in their land (Ch. 38-39)  

Vision of a new Temple � the old one was destroyed as part of Ezekiel�s first prophecy (Ch. 40-48)

Apollos

Servetus wrote: Ron, You wrote:  �Of course!  Another miracle! As far as I am concerned, you may freely dismiss and even ridicule the account of St. Stephen�s martyrdom in Acts, if that is what your emoticon means, but I had not posted it in hopes that you would necessarily accept it as true, which is why I was careful to qualify my statement, but rather as a counterpoise to your having cited Matthew 16:28 as �Jesus� [having] �already been falsified by his own statement.�

This has nothing to do with his martyrdom.  What I'm ridiculing is that every time you folks run into some logical difficulty you seem to pull another miracle out of your hat.  Jesus said that some of those present with him would live to see him coming into his kingdom.  Surely everyone listening would have assumed that it would occur within their lifetimes; but since it still hasn't happened, you simply switch from the event itself to a miraculous vision of the event.  Sorry, but I think that's pretty funny!

Ron,

You wrote:  �This has nothing to do with his martyrdom.�

The scripture you quoted has everything to do with St. Stephen�s martyrdom.  It was quite logical for me therefore to conclude that it did.

You wrote:  �What I'm ridiculing is that every time you folks run into some logical difficulty you seem to pull another miracle out of your hat.�

As far as I know, I have not run into any logical difficulties and neither have I pulled any rabbits, or miracles, out of my hat.  Let me remind you: you quoted Jesus (St. Matthew) against himself.  It was clearly a provocation on your part.  I countered.

You wrote:  �Jesus said that some of those present with him would live to see him coming into his kingdom.�

And some of them reportedly did.  St. Stephen is a case in point.

You wrote:  �Surely everyone listening would have assumed that it would occur within their lifetimes;

I don�t doubt that the parousia was (and is) an expected event for the whole of Christendom.  That is obvious enough.  What is perhaps less obvious is that I happen to consider it possible that it might not happen to everyone at the same time.  St. Stephen, at the time of his martyrdom, under extreme duress, was probably well into the process of shuffling off his corruptible, mortal coil, in favor of the incorruptible, and was thus becoming �like Him� (Christ).   And after all, to become �like Him,� as I read it, is one of the necessary preconditions for �seeing Him,� according to St. John�s first epistle (1 John 3:23).

You wrote:  �but since it still hasn't happened, you simply switch from the event itself to a miraculous vision [sic] of the event.�

You quoted:  �I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see [sic] the Son of Man coming in his kingdom." (Matthew 16:28)

Who�s doing the switch?  It has reportedly happened; at least it did for St. Stephen.  To my mind, there is no significant difference in this case between �seeing� the Son of Man coming in his kingdom and having a so-called (in your word) �vision� of the event.  Jesus everywhere and throughout the New Testament refers to spiritual, in contrast to physical, eyes with which to see.  I contend that St. Stephen had those spiritual eyes and that he saw.  And I do further contend that, when the rest of Christendom becomes like Him (Christ), so too will they see Him (and not until). 

You wrote:  "Sorry, but I think that's pretty funny! "

There is no need to apologize.  As I said, I don�t mind you being amused.  After all, I cut my first set of teeth in the company of academic, largely atheistic rationalists, and my second on Wall Street.  With reference to the former, I usually prefer the ones with good humor.  In fact, I hope that you get your cell phone call from God, or get a sidereal broadcast, or whatever it is that you require, and thus become as idiosyncratic as, say, John Denver in what I thought was a very funny and well-written �70�s movie, �Oh God.�  I think you would make a good, if obviously reluctant, preacher.

Serv