Discussion Questions

The speaker claims that “fulfilled Bible prophecies are strong evidence that the Bible is God’s word” because humans “can’t predict the future”; what does this argument assume about God’s relationship to history, and what kind of God would be able to make—and guarantee—centuries-long predictions? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When the speaker says fulfilled prophecies prove the Bible is from God because people can’t predict the future, what is he assuming about how God controls history? What kind of God could make sure predictions come true hundreds of years later?

The speaker challenges “seekers of truth” who haven’t read the Bible as not “really…sincere”; what standard of honesty and diligence is he putting on people, and how would early Christians have expected outsiders to investigate the gospel claims? JumpstartAnother way to ask: When the speaker says someone isn’t “sincere” if they haven’t read the Bible, what level of honesty and effort is he demanding? How would early Christians expect outsiders to check whether the gospel claims were true?

The teacher chooses six prophecies specifically to avoid the objection, “history written in the form of prophecy”; how persuasive is his appeal to manuscript dating (e.g., Isaiah copies around 200 BC) and the “centuries after” fulfillment, and where do you feel the tension between faith and historical argumentation? JumpstartAnother way to ask: How convincing is his argument that the prophecies were written before the events, based on manuscript dates like Isaiah around 200 BC? Where do you feel the pull between trusting by faith and relying on historical proof?

Isaiah 13 says Babylon “will never be inhabited,” while Jeremiah says Jerusalem “shall not fail” and “shall not be destroyed again”; what picture of God’s sovereignty is the speaker drawing by contrasting a “glory of kingdoms” city becoming ruins while an “insignificant” city survives, and what does that do to our instinct to trust worldly power? JumpstartAnother way to ask: By saying Babylon became ruins while Jerusalem kept going, what is the speaker saying about God’s control over nations? How does that affect how much we trust powerful empires and worldly success?

The speaker argues skeptics “can’t get around these dual prophecies” and even uses a “one chance in three” idea (Nineveh/Babylon/Susa); what do you think he’s trying to prove by stacking probabilities and comparisons, and how might this confront the way modern Christians talk about “faith” as if it doesn’t need evidence? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why does the speaker pile up odds and examples (like Nineveh, Babylon, and Susa) to support “dual prophecies”? How might that challenge the way some Christians talk about faith as if it needs no evidence?

The story about Alexander the Great planning to make Babylon his capital but dying is used to illustrate, “It doesn’t pay to be trying to do the opposite of what God has prophesied”; what view of human ambition and divine constraint is being taught here, and how does it challenge modern assumptions that “smart planning” can override God’s purposes? JumpstartAnother way to ask: In the story about Alexander planning to rebuild Babylon but dying, what is being taught about human ambition versus God’s plans? How does that push back on the idea that good planning can beat what God has decided?

On Jesus’ words “not one stone shall be left…upon another,” the speaker stresses how unusual it is for a temple to leave “no stones at all,” and he resolves the “Wailing Wall” objection by calling it Herod’s retaining wall, “not…part of the temple”; how does this detail change how you read Jesus’ prophecy, and what does it suggest about how early Christians might have handled apparent counterexamples? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If the “Wailing Wall” is called a retaining wall and not part of the temple, how does that affect how you read Jesus’ “not one stone” prophecy? What does this suggest about how early Christians dealt with things that looked like objections?

Ezekiel’s prophecy says Egypt would remain a nation but “never again…rule over the nations”; what does the speaker’s emphasis on Egypt being “a strong country” yet politically subordinate teach about God’s ability to humble without annihilating, and how does that challenge Christian expectations that God’s judgment always looks like total destruction? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Egypt stayed a nation but never ruled other nations again, what does that say about God’s power to humble without wiping out? How does that challenge the idea that God’s judgment always means total destruction?

Isaiah 42’s line “in his name the Gentiles will trust” is treated as astonishing because Jewish expectation would seem to say “the Jews will put their trust in him,” and the speaker notes Jesus never left Palestine; how would first-century Jewish and early Christian assumptions about Messiah, mission, and Gentiles make this prophecy feel either scandalous or validating? JumpstartAnother way to ask: Why would “the Gentiles will trust in his name” feel shocking to many Jews if they expected the Messiah mainly for Jews? Since Jesus stayed in Palestine, how might early Christians see this as either offensive or as proof God had a bigger plan?

Jesus’ prophecy that his followers would be “hated by all nations” is connected to a continuous history of persecution (Rome’s unusual intolerance of Christianity, modern statistics like “12 churches…burned or destroyed” daily); how does this confront modern evangelical expectations of comfort, cultural acceptance, or “best life now,” and what concrete changes would it require in how your group thinks about obedience, witness, and risk? JumpstartAnother way to ask: If Jesus said his followers would be hated by all nations, how does that challenge modern ideas of comfort, cultural approval, or a “best life now”? What practical changes would it mean for how your group thinks about obeying Jesus, speaking about him, and taking risks?