Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The Worldnutdaily has an amusing column about how the possible collapse of the European Union could be a problem for many end-times theologians and their predictions of Biblical prophecy. He starts by pointing out that many eschatologists have long claimed that the formation of the EU was a fulfillment of prophecy:
According to this teacher, the creation of the European Union represented a biblically prophesied revived Roman Empire. Because the last-days empire of the Antichrist, as described in the books of Daniel and Revelation, is portrayed as a 10-nation alliance, this teacher confidently declared that when the number of EU member states reached 10, this would signal the imminent return of Jesus Christ.Soon, the number of EU member states reached the magic number 10, just as this teacher had predicted. Then the number reached 11, and then 12. Soon there were 20. Today there are 27 member states. The teacher's very confident predictions failed.
The Jehovah's Witnesses made similar predictions, as did many pre-millenialist "the end is near" preachers like Jack Van Impe. The EU was the reestablishment of the Roman Empire! The End is Near! But Joel Richardson, the author of the column, wonders if they will continue to believe that if the EU collapses:
As the world watches, the European Union seems to be teetering ever closer toward the brink of collapse with its massive debt crisis. Member nations are fighting to prop up the euro and maintain European unity through, you guessed it, a mega-billion dollar bailout. Meanwhile, Greece's economic failure continues to metastasize across its borders. Numerous headlines across the globe are asking if the EU can survive.Many staunch adherents to the Euro-centric end-time theory are slowly awakening to the possibility that soon there may not even be a European Union at all. How this will affect the landscape of popular Christian Bible prophecy interpretation is actually quite a significant issue. How will prophecy teachers and students alike respond if the EU does collapse? Could it be that what the Bible actually teaches is that the Roman Empire would revive, then collapse and then revive again? Not likely.
And of course, he says that this is not a problem for Biblical prophecy, it's only a problem for one school of end-times theology:
While such a scenario will surely invite mockery from the new atheists, what is important to remember is that if the EU does collapse, this does not represent a failure on the prophetic accuracy of the Bible, but simply of a particular school of interpretation. Atheists come and go, but the Word of the Lord stands forever, baby.Despite its popularity, the Euro-centric end-time perspective has never represented anything akin to Christian orthodoxy or dogma. Throughout the history of the church, many great Christian leaders have looked not to Europe, but to the Middle East for the emergence of an end-time empire. In fact, going back to the first few centuries of the church, the consistent testimony of the early believers is that the Antichrist, his empire and his religion would arise from out of the Middle East, and not Europe. As such, rather than tacking in the wind yet again, what many teachers and students of Bible prophecy are awakening to is the reality that the Biblical prophecies about the last days are thoroughly Jerusalem, Israel and Middle-Eastern centric.
What he fails to mention, of course, is that those great Christian leaders have almost always been convinced that the end times were imminent during their lifetime. The "prophecies" -- more accurately called hallucinations -- found in Daniel and Revelation have been interpreted and reinterpreted over and over again, always to match the current reality.
If the EU does collapse, all those pre-mil prognosticators will simply incorporation that information into their narratives, discover some new "insight" that explains it all -- probably while declaring that God himself, or his triune companion the Holy Spirit, gave them this insight directly -- and continue to spout their nonsense as though nothing happened. And their followers will continue to follow, as lemmings always do.
Epistemic closure? A textbook example.
Politics
Comments
That's correct. It's the universal, 2000-year long, 100% perfect record of the failure of every Biblical end-times prophecy to date that represents a failure of the prophetic accuracy of the Bible.
Posted by: DaveL | June 3, 2010 9:16 AM
While such a scenario will surely invite mockery from the new atheists....
Thanks for having us over, Joel! How's that "end of days within the lifetime of you listening" crap workin' out for ya?
Posted by: Coragyps | June 3, 2010 9:19 AM
Coragyps:
Unfortunately the answer is that business is booming. They had a VP candidate promoting their marketing efforts in 2008 (Sarah Palin) and their most influential leader became much more well-known during that electoral season (John Hagee).
I wouldn't be surprised if a GOP presidential primary candidate in '14 or later ran on a platform that best mitigates the predictions of the end-times, especially if global warming becomes more self-evident to social conservatives. "Rapture ready in 2014!" bumper stickers might abound.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 3, 2010 9:29 AM
Fortunately, this Left-Behind dispensational pre-millennialism is on the decline. The big seminaries who were its champion, especially the Dallas Theological Seminary, no longer support it. Not only is it the most friggin' complicated eschatology ever devised, the contortions one must go through to fit it into a systematic theology are mind boggling.
Alas it will take a generation of pastor-replacements before its decline in the seminaries has a noticeable effect in the pews.
This modern monstrosity was, in my opinion, one of the worst theological fads ever to hit the church and produced such chowder-heads as John Hagee, Hal Lindsey, and Tim LeHaye. It would have died out much sooner but the creation of the Israel was seen as a major fulfilled prophecy which then fueled its dramatic rise.
Posted by: heddle | June 3, 2010 10:02 AM
Immediate reward totally trumps possible punishment.
The Faithful get a huge rush from contemplating the downfall of the Unrighteous, and the rush lasts a long time. By the time it's clear that the current high is wearing off, there's another pusher along to provide them a new hit.
Most of them that I've known don't even get to the withdrawal stage.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | June 3, 2010 10:12 AM
If the EU does collapse, all those pre-mil prognosticators will simply incorporation that information into their narratives...
I'm going to make a prognostication of my own. Rapture heads will redefine the Antichrist (who was "prophesied" to be mortally wounded and resurrected in the process of becoming the Big Bad of the end times) as the European Union. This collapse will be declared the wound and whatever economic rebound will be the resurrection. Whatever new currency is enacted (assuming the Euro falls out of favor) will be called the Mark of the Beast.
They will, naturally, continue claiming that this represents a clear and literal reading of the Bible and that metaphors are liberal corruption.
Heh, that was pretty fun. I can see why Christians have been doing this for so long.
Posted by: schism | June 3, 2010 10:13 AM
Atheists come and go, but the Word of the Lord stands forever, baby.
I love the use of "baby" at the end of this sentence. It's also strange to me that the predictions of Atheists have not changed much over time, but that those seeking to explain the Word of the Lord seem to change their predictions continuously. And of course while claiming that they have had it correct all along (if only temporarily led astray).
Posted by: Odie | June 3, 2010 10:24 AM
Maybe the History Channel can do another show about the end times based on the EU!
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | June 3, 2010 10:24 AM
Heddle,
Your claim it's on the decline, if true, relates mostly to theologians and their institutions. Christiansists that operate within our public square politically are mostly theologically illiterate beyond a very shallow perspective and apathetic to the veracity of such debates as long as biblical inerrancy is not challenged. In fact it's been well documented that the Bush Administration somewhat inadvertently hired people with strong rapture beliefs that influenced policy. In addition Ms. Palin's appeal is amplified within social conservatism given she shared the same insane fantasies most of these people believe as a badge of her fierce anti-intellectualism they all share.
So while you might be prescient that generations from now such rapture fantasies might die-out, currently it's booming in the public square in terms of influencing policy and policy debates.
I'm also not even sure your observation if kept narrow is even valid. That's because it appears to me that the more a particular religious denomination adopts more realistic policies, the more membership drops in those movements given that conservatives who are also religious seek out certain black-and-white dogmas rather than more realistic nuanced ones. We encounter this reality within Catholicism and Episcopalianism where their membership declines in better-educated better-developed countries while growing in areas where people are more primitive.
America of course is the biggest exception in terms of the rise of fundamentalism where sociologists describe our anomaly as caused by the economic uncertainty Americans deal with given our less robust social safety nets relative to other developed countries also possibly coupled to declining educational outcomes.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 3, 2010 10:28 AM
And since Mr. Heath didn't beat anyone over the head with the connection, I will: this forms a nice feedback loop with the Religious Right's hatred of social safety nets and education.
We could discuss whether this represents evolution or Intelligent Design, but the effect is the same either way.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | June 3, 2010 10:41 AM
Michael Heath,
It is valid and documented. Calvinism is increasing among evangelicals and dispensationalism is decreasing (though they are not mutually exclusive). I'm sensing you may not want it to be valid because the Left Behinders are such low hanging fruit.
You can easily find books like that report research on the decline.
The reason there are so many dispensationalist pre-mills is that there are, currently, so many pastors teaching theology. If the pastors, when in seminary, are no longer taught that view, then they will generally stop passing it along to the people in the pews.
It is not a decline in biblical innerancy--the more or less litmus test of Christian conservatism, but a decline in one particular theological school.
Posted by: heddle | June 3, 2010 10:54 AM
The goal posts are constantly in motion. Just last week I happened across this conversation on one of the religious networks. They were claiming that the collapse of the EU was what would bring on the Anti-Christ and therefore the end times. So if I read my scorecard correctly: EU=end times. Collapse of EU=end times.
Posted by: Ted H. | June 3, 2010 10:54 AM
IT'S SKY CAKE MOTERFUCKERS! CAKE! NOT PIE, CAKE!!!!!!!
Posted by: Ian | June 3, 2010 11:27 AM
Sky pie. (Apple).1
1. Granny Smith
Posted by: 386sx | June 3, 2010 11:35 AM
The goal posts are constantly in motion.
Since when are they not. Jesus was preaching it way back in Matthew. Any day now...
Posted by: 386sx | June 3, 2010 11:40 AM
386sx,
Yes, and it happened just as he prophesied. (Well, I think so.)
Posted by: heddle | June 3, 2010 11:53 AM
Which has nothing to do with the fact that the gospels were written during or after the time of the fall of the temple. It has to be a prediction, not a postscript.
Posted by: dogmeat | June 3, 2010 11:57 AM
[i]Atheists come and go, but the Word of the Lord stands forever, baby.[/i]
Nope. Entirely backwards. The word of the lord comes and goes, but atheists are forever. Since the first primitive tribesman invented the first of the fictional gods/spirits to explain what he didn't understand, there have always been people on the sidelines saying they didn't believe or accept that. Religions come, religions go, but atheists have always been here, baby.
Posted by: Coriolis | June 3, 2010 11:59 AM
SKY STRUDEL, DAMNIT!
Sooo... Crazy Brand X is being replaced by Crazy Brand Y. How comforting.
Posted by: Ivan | June 3, 2010 12:03 PM
dogmeat,
There is no proof of that, especially for the synoptic gospels of which Mark and Matthew are particularly relevant. You may believe it to be so, but you should not, if you have an interest in accuracy, state it as fact. In the absence of more finds, it is in fact impossible to prove.
Posted by: hedle | June 3, 2010 12:03 PM
Ahem - might I point out:
As American as Apple pie... :) Dingo
----
* from Wiki "Granny Smith"
Posted by: DingoJack | June 3, 2010 12:06 PM
The column's by Joel Richardson, an associate of Walid Shoebat.
Like other self-styled “prophecy experts” (as opposed to actual Biblical scholars), Richardson believes in an Islamic Anti-Christ because he’s reading into the text what he wants to be there. On the one hand, he tells us that “the Bible was not written primarily for Americans”, but what he gives us an interpretation which obviously emerges out of early twenty-first century America. Just a few years after invading Iraq, and with increasing tension with Iran, American Christians suddenly discover that their holy book teaches that their nation’s current conflicts are central to a supernatural struggle between God and Satan. Who would have thought it?
I blogged this here:
http://barthsnotes.wordpress.com/2010/05/31/worldnetdaily-and-the-muslim-anti-christ-yet-again/
Posted by: Bartholomew | June 3, 2010 12:12 PM
Actually the consensus is that Matthew was written in the late first century. Christians (of course) want to push for an earlier date (55-60) but the evidence suggests a younger document/later date. That is based on document analysis, writing style, etc.
If you want to posit a supernatural explanation, you're the one who is going to have to come up with supernatural proof. You're the one who bases your position on belief, I'm basing mine on historical and archaeological analysis, evidence, and data. I don't believe any of it, so I really don't care when the Bible was written.
For me, *IF* it was written prior to 70 and it was actually a statement made by Jesus, then I would wouldn't assume this was a magical wonderful proclamation of omniscience but instead an observation of the time. I would be far more interested in his (as a human) pondering of the instability of the Judeo-Roman culture. Given that the Jews were not happy members of the Roman Empire and the Romans were not known for their patience, a conflict was likely. Given the Roman tendency towards Draconian punishment and the likelihood that the Jews would lose in the event of a revolt, such a proclamation does not require divine inspiration.
So for you, belief is a huge part of your position and your need for this to be true. For me? It's irrelevant. Even if it is a direct quote from its attributed source prior to the events, it still has a logical, non-religious explanation. I don't really doubt that a Jesus existed. I don't really doubt that he was a spiritual man who taught his followers a new philosophy. From what I've been able to glean from the contradictory hodgepodge that is the Bible, Jesus was likely an intelligent man who had a great understanding of people and human nature. Such a statement would be no more supernatural than Ben Franklin lamenting slavery in the Constitution and the war that would come, or Billy Mitchell standing on the deck of the Arizona and predicting that the ship would be destroyed from the air within twenty years.
Posted by: dogmeat | June 3, 2010 12:30 PM
That's true for Matthew, but Mark is more problematic. Its range of possible dates of composition overlap the fall of Jerusalem in 70, so (save for the other reasons you might have) I'm not sure you can so clearly dismiss Heddle's argument.
For the record, I don't find either argument to be persuasive: the argument by some non-Christians (generally) that Mark was written after AD70 because of the obtuse reference to the fall of the temple (under the presumption that such an obvious reference had to have been made after the fact) or the argument by some Christians that this seemingly prescient statement is evidence of anything at all (since we don't have a clear idea of when the work was written).
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | June 3, 2010 12:39 PM
dogmeat
?? What supernatural explanation did I posit? What am I compelled to prove?
This has to do only with whether, in a scholarly sense, or not you can prove whether Matthew and/or Mark were written after AD 70. You can't. The best we could do is play "dueling scholars." (See The Law of Biblical Scholars.)
SO you say. But I can imagine a motive that would bias you and others toward a post AD 70 date-- simply because it poses a difficulty for Christianity.
Posted by: heddle | June 3, 2010 12:45 PM
*chuckle*
As if I need something so readily debatable to create a difficulty for Christianity? Christianity and the Bible create ample problems for the faith that I don't need to go out and manufacture any.
Also Christians have shown themselves to be oblivious to facts when they don't correspond to their belief. The Earth as a sphere? Heliocentrism? Evolution? The Big Bang? Climate Change? The list of scientific realities that the Church or members of the church(es) have railed against as false because they didn't fit within their doctrinal beliefs of how the earth/universe functions goes on and on. If Christianity lasts long enough I'd wager that the list would do a nice job of approaching infinity, and I'd only be half joking.
You're the one who posted that link as (what you believe) was evidence of prophecy come true. That prophecy was part of your belief that Jesus was the embodiment of God on earth, correct? All of that is supernatural which requires evidence far beyond the idea that there was this Jewish dude named Jesus and he was nailed to a couple of boards for telling people to be nice to each other.
I don't need the Bible to be a certain age, and I don't need things to be more difficult for Christians than they and their ancestors already have accomplished.
Add to that, it is already difficult enough for Christians who want to point to old manuscripts from the New Testament. There aren't any full copies prior to mid 4th century, the remainder amounts to scraps that wouldn't fill an instruction manual for a DVD player. Add to that their contradictory nature and internal conflicts and Christians have a hard enough time claiming the Bible is anything but a collection of stories written by people years after the events they claim to portray.
I don't really care if the documents were written in 50 AD, the 19th century, or were sandwiched between Battlefield Earth and Buckskin Brigades. I really don't care if the gospels were written at the foot of the cross in Christ's own blood, they don't prove the supernatural nature of Jesus any more than the Koran proves Islam, the Vedas prove Hinduism, or the Eddas prove Norse beliefs are true.
----------
cynic,
I can quite easily dismiss heddle's claim that "There is no proof of that..."
There is evidence that the Gospels are younger and, in fact, a dearth of evidence to prove the Gospels are older. Christians generally argue for the older dates, others, both non-Christians and Christians, argue for the younger dates. As I stated earlier, it's irrelevant to me, but to claim that there is "no evidence" is patently false wishful thinking. In fact we could come up with dating techniques that could prove 100% beyond a shadow of a doubt that the earliest scraps of parchment and velum that are the oldest elements of the New Testament were written in the early second century and you would still have Christians who would argue that these were just copies of older texts that we just haven't found yet. We could dig up the entire Roman empire to the bedrock, sift it all through the finest screens, discover, analyze, and document every single scrap of parchment all the way back to the 3rd or 4th millennium, find hundreds of thousands of scraps of New Testament, date them all to the 2nd century or later and still some Christians would argue that we simply haven't found the earliest writings.
That's why it is really irrelevant to me how old the documents are (aside from historical interest). I'm not going to believe them divine because, to me, they're just documents and, on the other hand, Christians are going to believe them older and evidence of the divine, because of their faith.
Posted by: dogmeat | June 3, 2010 1:24 PM
dogmeat,
I don't need to prove that. First of all I don't care whether you believe it or not. Secondly it was an alternate interpretation of Matthew 24 that is independent of whether or not the manuscripts were written after AD 70--the latter question being archeological and not theological, like the former.
In this case the burden of proof, which you won't be able to meet, is on you--for you claim the gospels were written after AD 70. I am making no claim other than you cannot prove your claim.
No there is not. There are no anachronisms in the text, unless you beg the question and assume the prophesy of the temple destruction had to have been added.
Contrary to your claim, there is no hard evidence, at all, none, zero, zilch-point-oh, that the synoptic gospels were written after AD 70. Some scholars might argue on stylistic grounds--but if you think they can, with any degree of accuracy, pinpoint, from style, to the accuracy of a decade or so, when a first century Greek manuscript was written, then you are just believing what you want to believe. On top of that they do even have the manuscripts but later copies thereof.
Sho' me the evidence. You keep repeating it exists. That don't count. Sure, the existence of a pre-AD70 manuscript would prove my case but the lack of one is not evidence for your case--there are many (virtually all) ancient works for which the oldest extant copy was created centuries after the original was believed to have been written--does that prove that claims for ancient authoring are bogus?
Posted by: heddle | June 3, 2010 2:43 PM
It's both safe to conclude, and I think to be intellectually honest we must conclude, that a description of an event that occurred was written about and published after the event unless the description is either very vague, transferrable to other events, or easily predictable without the need for a supernatural explanation. That doesn't mean the original version of Mark was published after an event described therein; an equally parsimonious explanation would be that editors/copyists edited earlier drafts by incorporating such event into their publications of Mark.
If a person wants to argue a writing predates an event and is a prophecy, than that person obviously has the obligation to provide overwhelming empirical evidence of such a supernatural event. Since we can't validate any supernatural events ever occurring, it's both irrational and I think dishonest to argue for a supernatural event.
I'm increasingly viewing faith as a character defect; especially since I'm increasingly convinced it's merely another mechanism to both excuse and promote dishonest assertions. Only in religion do we allow such boundaries when claiming our assertions are valid.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 3, 2010 2:59 PM
Christian Cynic, case in point:
The evidence Heddle? How about this, the oldest physical copy is a minute scrap from c125. The other half dozen pieces of early evidence are from the later second, through the third, and into the early fourth century.
But, again, why should I try to prove to you the unprovable? You wont accept any evidence as I mentioned in my earlier comment to 'Cynic. You are a True Believer™, no evidence will be enough for you.
The fact is though, yours is a nice reversal. You put the onus upon others to disprove what you, without any evidence whatsoever, consider to be the Truth™. But again, the task is yours to prove your exceptional claims. I argue that the Bible is a 4th century book cobbled together from earlier manuscripts. Being a product of multiple sources, it has numerous flaws and contradictions and is, in the end, unreliable. You, on the other hand, claim that the Bible represents what? The word of God, isn't it? The True™ stories of Jesus, His™ word, etc. etc. Again, the exceptional claim is yours, provide the evidence, show me the nails from the cross, the wood from the true cross, a nice 8x10 glossy of Jesus walking on water, one of the original fishes from the loaves and fishes. Provide some evidence that the Bible is anything but a collection of fairy tales.
Here is your problem, unlike your belief that the Bible is anything but an old book, few assume that the other ancient tomes are anything but "old books." It is irrelevant whether the edition of Homer's Illiad is from 10th century (oldest full copy) or the 5th century (scraps) because no one is claiming that Homer was there and saw the battle and wrote about it himself. In fact, for most of these old books, the assumption is that they were written well after the events and that the events in question are likely to be dramaticized, much like few with any common sense assume that the latest version of Robin Hood bears much resemblance to the historical Robin of Loxley. You, on the other hand, believe that the Bible is the True™ word, the representation of God on earth, etc. etc.
In the end you prove my point, to you a lack of proof to support your belief that the Bible is True™ is proof. Nothing will change that and you will argue against the fact that no evidence exists to support your claim by trying to reverse that argument and claim that no evidence exists to counter your claim. Again, to you, a lack of evidence is evidence. Much like your well documented claims to be able to speak for the beliefs of Christians despite the fact your positions are often quite contradictory of the majority of Christian positions, you claim to be the sole source of authority. In this case the fact that the entire Bible prior to a complete 4th century edition wouldn't amount to a roll of toilet paper is "proof" that the Bible is the True Word of God™ and accurately portrays the events of the Life of Jesus.™ Nothing will dissuade you of this position so it is an utter waste of time to even try. Your claim that no evidence exists remains false, you simply wont accept that evidence because it doesn't jibe with your faith.
Very quick commentary on the contradictions in the New Testament:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html
Don't worry, I'm quite prepared for much waving of hands, smoke and mirrors, and demands that we step away from the curtain.
Posted by: dogmeat | June 3, 2010 3:38 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again here, because it fits: The Bible containing a prophecy fulfilled later in the Bible is about as impressive as Harry Potter containing a prophecy fulfilled later in Harry Potter.
Posted by: ThatOtherGuy | June 3, 2010 3:56 PM
dogmeat*, I think you and Heddle are arguing past each other. Heddle's initial request was for proof that the text was authored after AD70 - a demand that I think is in fact unreasonable - and noting that the extant manuscripts we have are from the second century and later is not in fact proof or even evidence to that effect. Again, I think that arguing about the probable date of authorship for Mark isn't helpful for assessing the alleged prediction in question because it could land on either side of the AD70 divide. If all we had was Matthew or Luke, then I would probably be arguing that the "prediction" was in fact made after the fact.
And re:#29 - anachronisms are not equivalent to contradictions. What Heddle is asking for is a clear temporal indicator that the text was written after AD70, such as referring to a specific person, place, event, etc. that could not have been known about at the time of alleged authorship. I don't think the reference in question (stones being thrown down) is really unambiguous enough to count. Consequently, I have heard claims of anachronism directed at the Book of Daniel, in regards to the name of an instrument that (some say) was not used for a few centuries after the alleged date of authorship. (Actually, on further research, there are more points than that: see here.)
*Total aside: Why'd you drop the "ib"?
Posted by: The Christian Cynic | June 3, 2010 4:00 PM
The Christian Cynic @ 31:
I don't understand your point. Do you instead mean, "could only have been known about at the time of alleged authorship."?
If your list couldn't have been known about at the time of authorship than it couldn't have been written about.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 3, 2010 4:31 PM
No, I think his original wording is correct Michael. Heddle is asking for an anachronism in the text that proves it couldn't have been written at or before 70 AD. To prove that I suppose you'd have to point out a reference to something in the text that couldn't have been known to those living at or before 70 AD. If I tried to prove a book was written in 1950 but someone pointed out a reference to the Cuban Missile Crisis, that would disprove my assertion about the book's authorship.
As for the original post, this caught my eye: "Throughout the history of the church, many great Christian leaders have looked not to Europe, but to the Middle East for the emergence of an end-time empire." Shouldn't that mean that end-times Christians should be happy for the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and should actually support their efforts to bring down Western countries? Or should these people just admit they're full of shit.
Posted by: Ryan | June 3, 2010 4:46 PM
Isn't that just "dueling banjos" played on cellos?
Posted by: James Hanley | June 3, 2010 4:54 PM
...it's just what we claim it actually means that changes.
Posted by: Zmidponk | June 3, 2010 5:24 PM
If I tried to prove a book was written in 1950 but someone pointed out a reference to the Cuban Missile Crisis, that would disprove my assertion about the book's authorship.
Maybe for 1950, but not for the Bible. That only proves all the more how inspired and prophetic it is.
Posted by: Coragyps | June 3, 2010 8:17 PM
Just to make sure, you are being sarcastic, right?
Posted by: catgirl | June 4, 2010 8:22 AM
I don't think Coragyps was being sarcastic. For example, Zech 9, "9) Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass," predicted Jesus would ride into town on an ass and a colt in Matthew 21, "6) And the disciples went, and did as Jesus commanded them, 7) And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they set him thereon." You don't see that every day, so that was quite one heck of a prophecy.
Posted by: 386sx | June 4, 2010 9:08 AM
And don't forget the passage about how "...it will be jelly because jam doesn't jiggle like that."
Posted by: Modusoperandi | June 4, 2010 9:19 AM
Evidence abounds that Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain no longer have sovereign debt seigniorage, and are not viably obtaining and will not be viably obtaining revenue from sovereign debt sales; any upcoming bond sales are being done by banks which submit debt or have submitted debt to the ECB for funding of new debt issues. Such means of obtaining money is simply a Ponzi financing, it is monetization of debt, and cannot be sustained much longer.
Theyenguy believes the sovereign crisis will intensify, and that out of Götterdämmerung, an investment flameout, according to Bible Prophecy, a Sovereign, Revelation 13:5-10, and a Seignior Revelation 13:11-18, an Old English term for top dog banker who takes a cut, will emerge to establish fiscal sovereignty and credit seigniorage for both Europe’s financial institutions and residents. And that those living in the Eurozone, as well as all the world, will live see a loss of national sovereignty, and live in debt servitude to the beast system of global corporatism as held forth in Revelation 13:1-4
Posted by: theyenguy | November 30, 2010 6:21 AM
"The shape of things to come" by H.G. Wells described tanks so it must have been written after 1917.
Johnaton Swift described Mars as having two moons so he must have lived after Hall's discovery of Demos and Phobos in 1870.
Roger Bacon described 'great metal birds flying in the sky' so he must have lived in the late 20th century.
Weeeee this is fun!! - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | November 30, 2010 7:22 AM