Prophecy.

Indeed; and even regardless of what jesus said, what value or worth has 'prophecy' at all?

Yea, I've never held much value in someone's postulations of the future. Make enough predictions - dire or otherwise - and some are likely to be 'come true' (read: loosely connected to future, vastly-divergent events). Then watch the people gasp, chills running up their spine declaring, "Look! It came true!". ugh

Predictions, based on cause-and-effect scenarios, can have some worth I suppose. But "fact based prediction" and "prophecy" have much in common. In the end equation, the worth of either would necessarily depend on the circumstances, utility, time line involved and other factors.

... but for the conventional definition of "prophecy", I'd say no; virtually no worth.

Thanks

I in my infinite wisdom prophesy this subject will come up again.

Jesus, according to the 'story', said such, but isn't it interesting that the bible is chock-full of alleged 'prophecy', nevertheless? That Xtians depend on 'prophecy' that supposedly prophesies their 'Jesus' is but one more contradiction in the book.

What is 'prophecy', is the mere seeing of another (synchronous) Now! No big trick.
It certainly is useful when I 'see' me pulling the car into the only parking space (right in front of the restaurant!) within a half mile of the restaurant (from ten miles away), before having to look for a spot a half-mile away and walking (and pushing a wheelchair!).
Little instances like that are quite useful!

(You should see the world in about 240 years! *__-)

Why does this topic keep coming up? Because humans have always had an interest in seeing the future, only now what would have been called "prophecy" in ancient times would be called "futurism" or (at its most literary) "sci-fi". But this only concerns one branch of prophecy, namely seeing into the future.

The other branch is communion with God. Futurists and (most) sci-fi writers (except Phillip Dick, who claimed such a theophany) can claim no such communion; this sort of state of being was what the Bible considered the prophets as being--in fact, I would argue that Biblical prophets and Indian gurus are not so different; not only that, but since this kind of prophecy articulates a closeness with God (not a foretelling of the future) the Muslim assertion that Muhammad was the "cream of the prophets"* can be shown to be false; anytime a guru or boddhisattva, anytime a monk cloistered in his monastery achieved communion with God, another prophet would be created. This view, of course, assumes the existence of God in some form or another, but that view can never be (according to Kant, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics) satisfactorarily proved or disproved.

Note: It is also possible that there are others, such as Baruch Spinoza or William Blake, who felt God without achieving communion with Him: could or would they be considered prophets?, I wonder.

-------------
*I.e., the last prophet. There are two meanings in this statement; the idea that Muhammad was the cream (best) of the prophets would still be true to Muslims.