"The days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you. They will dash you to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on top of another because you did not recognize the time of God's commimg to you." Jesus, 33 AD (Luke 19: 43-44 )
"One day the great European war will come out of a damned foolish thing in the Balkans." Otto Von Bismarck. (1888).
In 70th AD, Jerusalem was destroyed and it marked the end of temple-bases Judaism, together with the 'Pharisees' and 'saducees' and other 'enemies of Jesus' . So accurate is Jesus's foretellings in several places in the gospels that it reads like history written to make it look like a prophecy. With no surprise then, the modern scholars (who of course reject anything they cannot understand alongside as 'miracles' ) insist that such verses like above were vaticinium ex-eventu.
But is it necesarry to say that the gospel accounts were vaticinium ex-eventu, or to look for cases of 'fulfilled prophecies' only in distant, often obscure past when we have indisputable and clear examples in our time? No one can disagree that a mere gun shot on a single person is a truely 'damn foolish thing' to initiate a world-wide war! So Bismarck's 'prophecy' of WW1 is fully on the same par with that of Jesus foretelling of the Jewish-Roman war!
Take note that if we subtract 70-33=37. Then note that one year latter, Jesus 'dies'. Subtract 1914-1888=36 and Bismarck dies two years latter! This is remarkably similar! But it also shows that 40 years is within the range of the 'foresight' of some people.
Also note that no one believes that Bismarck was a 'prophet' despite this remarkable foretelling, indicating how ill-defined such concepts are. It also shows that perhaps there is realy no evidence that can convince the devoted sceptics that 'foretelling' or other 'miracles' are possible. That they debate on when the gospels were written is disingenuous since they thus insinuate that if they can prove that Jesus indead said such in 33 AD, they will have 'found evidence' that Jesus indeed could foresee the future. Ask them why don't they believe Bismarck could do it? Similarly when they say 'there is no evidence', it is as if it is clear what it is that they will accept it as 'evidence'. It isn't!!
Replies
If Bismarck was a Christian evangelist claiming to have a special gift of premonition, then to make it worse, the 'prophesy' was subject to the 'this is a coincidence' type explanation, the battle ground would be waged on whether Bismarck truely foretold www2 as if such a foretelling would indeed prove that Bismarck had a special psychic ability! You see how both skepicism and believe requires more of a psychologist than a natural scientist to explain?
But you can see that it is always easy to find a 'scientific explanation' of anything! We can simply say that Bismarck had just 'studied the situation well' or infact 'he was among the planners of ww1!'. Even if a child fore told such, we can still concoct 'scientific explanations'. We can even say 'he was contacted by knowledgeable beings from a 'parallel universe' made of 'dark matter' or 'neutrinos'. (A physicists termed 'Lisa Randall' is already theorizing living beings made of dark matter). So we can form 'scientific explanations' that are completely equivalent to 'supernatural explanations' in terms of how 'miraculous' they seem! Ergo the 'inexplicable by science' is meaningless and we should abandon it!
Science is just 'verified knowledge'. If we veryfy 'miracles', they become science! So this means 'the inexplicable by science' is an oxymoron!!