Saint Constantine established the Kingdom of G-d c. 315.
What specific prophecy did that fulfill?
uh - what?
This has to be an attempt at a woosh - but is this what you are talking about ?
[QUOTE=Donation of Constantine - Wikipedia]
The Donation of Constantine (Latin, Donatio Constantini) is a forged Roman imperial decree by which the emperor Constantine I supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope. Composed probably in the 8th century, it was used, especially in the 13th century, in support of claims of political authority by the papacy.[1] Lorenzo Valla, an Italian Catholic priest and Renaissance humanist, is credited with first exposing the forgery with solid philological arguments in 1439–1440,[2] although the document’s authenticity had been repeatedly contested since 1001.[1]
The text, purportedly a decree of Roman Emperor Constantine I dated 30 March, in a year mistakenly said to be both that of his fourth consulate (315) and that of the consulate of Gallicanus (317), contains a detailed profession of Christian faith and a recounting of how the emperor, seeking a cure of his leprosy, was converted and baptized by Pope Sylvester I. In gratitude, he determined to bestow on the see of Peter “power, and dignity of glory, and vigour, and honour imperial”, and “supremacy as well over the four principal sees, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, as also over all the churches of God in the whole earth”. For the upkeep of the church of Saint Peter and that of Saint Paul, he gave landed estates “in Judea, Greece, Asia, Thrace, Africa, Italy and the various islands”. To Sylvester and his successors he also granted imperial insignia, the tiara, and "the city of Rome, and all the provinces, places and cities of Italy and the western regions
[/QUOTE]
Mark 1:15
“The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!”
This prediction came true some 300 years later, after a monotheistic faith became the official religion of the Roman kingdom. I understand that contemporaries indeed believed that Constantine was establishing God’s Kingdom, and in a literal sense that was indeed the case. (Cite: A Frontline episode from the 3 parter From Jesus to Christ.)
This interpretation won’t apply to the KoG referenced in Matthew 12:28 or Mark 4:30 for that matter. Also the Jesus seminar gave Mark 1:15 a black designation. And the above interpretation of Mark 1:15 is -er- unconventional.
unconventional would be one word for it - the context of the scripture has Jesus proclaiming it for that time and his arrival - not some future event.
Secondly - your timing is ‘off’ a little - 313 is when constantine ‘legalized’ christianity - it wasn’t until much later - 380 - that it became the ‘state religion’. Contemporaries believing it does not make it a ‘fullfilled prophecy’ either, since Jesus seemed to be talking about either a ‘hevenly’ kingdom OR a worldwide one - not just a ‘state sanctioned religion’.
Ok, let me grab some quotes from the website, before I dig myself in deeper to this admittedly dubious and malformed position. I’ll add emphasis.
[QUOTE=Holland Lee Hendrix]
But what’s important to understand and appreciate about Constantine is that Constantine was a remarkable supporter of Christianity. He legitimized it as a protected religion of the empire. He patronized it in lavish ways. … And that really is the important point. With Constantine, in effect the kingdom has come. The rule of Caesar now has become legitimized and undergirded by the rule of God, and that is a momentous turning point in the history of Christianity. …
[/QUOTE]
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/legitimization.html
Ah and here’s the transcript of what I recalled: NARRATOR: The cross, the hated symbol of death and defeat, now emerged as the symbol of triumph. **In the eyes of some, the apocalyptic prophecy of Revelation had at last been fulfilled. **
READER: [The Book of Revelations 11:15] “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ.”
NARRATOR: The Kingdom of God and the Roman empire had now become one and the same. Jesus of Nazareth had become Jesus Christ and his church had become a power on Earth. A new chapter in history was about to begin. Tapes, Transcripts & Events | From Jesus To Christ - The First Christians | FRONTLINE | PBS
The Revelations version is more credible than my cherry picking from the gospels.
That’s interesting to say the least - I don’t disagree that a ‘new chapter in history’ had begun - but - would also think that to fulfill the prophecy
- more than “some” people would recognize it (clearly not a requirment)
- that other elements of that set of scriptures would also be ‘fullfilled’
- that the kingdom itself (not the church) but ‘Rome’ as that kingdom (as implied above) would have lasted, well - forever.
- and while I’m sure the romans felt they ‘ruled the world’ - clearly there were parts of the world they did not.
- I also find that wording in that final quote a bit ‘odd’ - that Jesus wasn’t the ‘Christ’ until Constantine declared Christianity the state religion…
After all - the full context of the verse is -
and of course - there are some very specific elements in 16 thru the rest of the chapter -
So - if that truly fullfilled the prophecy - seems that the whole thing would be over - the second coming has happened, etc and so on.
In my mind - it shows that people want to believe the prophecies have been fullfilled - and will fit what they can to do so - and others will say tht they are ‘yet to be fullfilled’ because they aren’t complete (more or less my rebuttal here, except I don’t add ‘yet’) - when in reality, its simply someone ‘waxing poetic’ about what he has faith might happen - based on the previous words from Christ that ‘his kingdom will come in their lifetime’ and the author was ‘really old and really faithful’.
addendum - (missed the edit window) - did that claim include any of the verses prior to 15 as having happened? seems that also neccesary -
Pretty much my take.
It seems to me that you’re denying that this is a prophesy FedExed from YHWH and stated with pinpoint accuracy. I’m just scanning the material for predictions with a reasonable track record. In this case, a state religion was established and has endured pretty much continuously since at various geographic locations. Close enough! The stuff in subsequent verses is presumably celestial commentary on the mundane. 
I’ll note again that mainstream Christian belief interprets the Kingdom as a spiritual one and therefore won’t go along with my eccentric and offhand interpretation.
That wasn’t a bad question really. The gospel has plenty of fulfilled prophesies of the collapse of the 2nd temple (presumably penned after the event). But I’m thinking that there have to be some better ones if one is willing to apply Nostadamous criteria or narrow selection from a wide set.
That’s an opinion you’re entirely entitled to. And, to add, one that was entirely shared by the elite Jews - Sadducees, Pharisees and politically connected - of Jesus day. Moreover, it’s perfectly fitted to what Jesus prophesied the prevailing responses and opinions would be by unbelievers down through the ages.
Do you believe here are 2,000 year old people still living? And the Sun stopped giving it’s light, the moon turned to blood, and the stars fell etc. The generation has long past, Just as some Jewish people are still (after thousands of years) Still waiting for the Messiah and not one to save their souls.
Why would Jesus tell his followers about the end of time in that generation,? It seems people are still making unfulfilled prophesies.
“…and they laughed at Bozo The Clown”
The facts that Jews do not believe that he was the “messiah” is evidence that he is the “messiah”? That is absolutely pathetic.
To late to edit: That is a sweet little scam, though. “They accept him as a messiah, so he must be a messiah!”/“They don’t accept him as a messiah, just like he predicted, so he must be a messiah!”
Well, if we’re going to use Nostadamian Logic as it applies to biblical prophecy, I’m pretty sure I’ll be able to prove anything I want - so its’ not very helpful.
As for my ‘denying’ that revelations is ‘prophetic’ - my personal views aside, it is regarded as ‘prophetic’ text - but I still don’t believe that cherry picking ‘part’ of a verse and then going Nostadamous on it is a way to validate that the item was fulfilled.
Mark 13 v 29 makes it clear the world would end in that generation, Jesus isn’t speaking for people 2,000 +years later.
It doesn’t make sense that he would warn people of that generation the world would end, or He would logically say in some later generation these things will happen. Stating the people that were standing there listening to him have died shows the world didn’t end, nor did Jesus come in his father’s glory with his angels. One can believe differently but if I told my children I will come back in person after I had died I will come again in human form and advise you more, would not be possible that I was talking to my great grand children.
Mark 13 v 29 makes it clear the world would end in that generation, Jesus isn’t speaking for people 2,000 +years later.
It doesn’t make sense that he would warn people of that generation the world would end, or He would logically say in some later generation these things will happen. Stating the people that were standing there listening to him have died shows the world didn’t end, nor did Jesus come in his father’s glory with his angels. One can believe differently but if I told my children I will come back in person after I had died I will come again in human form and advise you more, would not be possible that I was talking to my great grand children.
There have all through human history wars and rumors of war, there have been Earth QUAKES EVEN BEFORE HUMANS LIVED ON EARTH.
And here you are defining Jews as - only those who subscribe to Judaism - so as to fit your personal narrative. My only “claim” throughout has been what Biblical History itself teaches, not the opinions of certain religious sects
Essentially the biblical account of what occurred in The Book of Acts is as follows:
At Pentecost, when the Apostles were first anointed with The Holy Spirit, guess what Peter did? He stood up and preached to a crowd of thousands of Jews - quoting the OT prophets and proclaiming that Jesus was The Christ. Moreover, throughout The Book of Acts, the Apostles continue to preach the message of Christ by way ofT Prophets - what they prophesied was now being fulfilled. As a result, thousands of Jews were saved - forming the first Christian Church.
So, in other words, Hebrews chosen by Yahweh were anointed with The Holy Spirt, and preaching to thousands of Hebrews by citing the OT Prophets about how Yeshua was/is, Messiah.
Again, If you understand what the biblical account reveals, it wasn’t until the Apostles and other ‘believers’ were anointed with Jesus’ promise of "The Holy Spirit that OT prophecies of Him (1st & 2nd coming) were even understood.
The power brokers within the Jewish community - Pharisees/Sadducees/High Priest - consorted to withstand and destroy Jesus through deceitful manipulation of ‘the letter of the law.’ (Political corruption at its best)
“Uneducated” Yep, the Pharisees said the same about Jewish Christians in the NT, especially that fisherman. Funny, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
What I believe is you’re making the obvious case for why Christ was referring to His 2nd coming.
Now who would laugh at a clown? Go figure.
Hmm. Someone should have told Zola Levitt about that “fact.”
Maybe, just maybe “this generation” applied to the time-line of the prophetic events Jesus was referring to?
don’t you mean his third coming? or maybe his second second coming? or was his first coming after his physical presence left?
You accuse others of ‘bending’ the scriptures and words to fit thier agenda - yet here you do the same thing.
Do you think the audience he was speaking to thought that? Would there have been better words to use if he meant ‘some other nebulous future’ generation? Do you think the authors of the work in question thought it meant ‘thousands of years in the future’ ?
What you are doing is the obvious - "clearly it didn’t happen then, he said it would happen then - he must have meant some other ‘then’.
It doesn’t work.
Piffle. You have made several appeals to messianic Judaism in your posdts while denying the reality thast messianic Judaism is not Judaism, at all–it is Christianity. Dodging around claiming that you are “only” referring to “biblical history” is contradicted by what you have posted. (To say nothing of the way that you clearly do not understand the actual history when you treat the “Pharisees/Sadducees/High Priest” as if they were a monolithic bloc that acted in concert, ignoring the fact that the two political factions did not agree with each other and also ignoring the fact that the Pharisees were not some group united in opposition to Jesus.)
Your arguments are not based on scripture, but are based on the simplistic misreading of scripture (and the deliberate ignoring of all other history) that you accepted in an unconsidered fashion from a particular sect.
Nope. The apostles were not routinely criticized for being uneducated. And if you are referring to Acts 4, the Pharisees were not even involved. It was the opponents of the Pharisees, the Sadducees–who rejected the idea of resurrection–who detained Peter, (still without calling him “uneducated”). In fact, in Acts 4 and 5, it is stated, (against your earlier claim that the High Priest was Pharisee), that the High Priest was a Sadducee. It is further noted that it was a Pharisee who stood up in the council and defended Peter. So your persistent demonization of the Pharisees, while getting your facts wrong, demonstrates a need on your part to ignore Scripture to attack what you believe about the Pharisees in contradiction to scripture. When you simply create your own version of scripture, demonstrating a serious ignorance of the situation you are discussing, you are not persuasive.