Like almost all arguments that are presented in dialogue form, the one here isn't very good. As these things almost always fall prey to, the "opposing person" (in this case Jesus) in the dialogue is given bad arguments or made to say dumb things so that the writer can more easily refute them through their mouthpiece (in this case Socrates), a process called strawmanning. A decent number of the things that it has Jesus say are not said or even implied in the Bible anyway.

But one thing I wanted to note that people should be aware of is who actually wrote that whole "Socrates Meets Jesus" article that was posted. Although it says "by Prometheus" at the start, at the end it clarifies it was written by "James L. Hart". But who was he? He was a guy who ran for the US congress quite a while ago (he managed to get the Republican nomination because the district he ran in was so inclined towards the Democrats no one else bothered to try to run for the Republicans--the Republicans very quickly disavowed his campaign, and never let him run as a Republican again). Let's take a look at an archive of his old website:
https://web.archive.org/web/20040806021801/http://www.jameshartforcongress.com/
And yes, you'll see a link to the "Socrates Meets Jesus" right on that page, confirming that the author of the work is the same James L. Hart.

So who was this James L. Hart guy whose writing is being promoted? What policy ideas did he have? Here's an excerpt from his site (bolding added):

Our cities are being destroyed by dysgenic welfare and immigration. Why does Detroit look like it was hit by a nuclear bomb and Hiroshima look like it was on the side that won the war? Everyone knows the answer but is afraid to say. Because genes have a more devastating effect on civilization than nuclear bombs, and the reason for Detroit's decline is that there are less 'favored races' in Detroit with an average IQ of 85 and more 'favored races' in Japan with an average IQ of 104. (It is noted there are less 'favored races'* in Africa south of the Sahara with an average IQ of 70-75, which accounts for the extreme poverty there.) Richard Lynn's book, 'IQ and the Wealth of Nations' has clearly shown that the prosperity of a nation is determined in large measure by the average IQ of the population. The poverty genes of less 'favored races'*, which are spread by welfare and immigration, are destroying our cities no less than if they were hit by a nuclear bomb. Massive uncontrolled and illegal immigration portends not just the destruction of a few cities but of our whole civilization itself. If we had integrated with less 'favored races'* centuries ago, there would have never been an electric light. There would never have been an airplane. Unless we stop dysgenic welfare and immigration policies, the US will look like one big Detroit.

So as we can see, he's quite clearly asserting that blacks are a "less favored race" than white people, that poverty in Africa is the result of it having "less favored races" than whites, and goes so far as to assert that it's only because whites didn't integrate with those "less favored races" that things like light bulbs or airplanes were invented.

While I doubt the original poster was aware of this information about James L. Hart, it still is amusing to see them promoting on an African message board the writings of someone who made the above statements.

Datikwerreboi:

See ignorance ,little browsing would have saved you this public display of shame . The so called Russian orthodox church are the Catholics

The Russian Orthodox Church aren't Roman Catholics. They're part of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Church split from each other about a thousand years ago.

Datikwerreboi:

Russia is a Roman Catholic country

Not even 1% of Russians are Catholic. The most popular religion in Russia is the Russian Orthodox Church.

From http://www.tektonics.org/af/callahanproph.php#2kin327

There is one big thing that speaks against this "wrath" being from Chemosh - in this war against Moab, Israel was not alone: They were accompanied by the Edomites and by the armies of Judah, and there is no indication that either of these armies had to take a break from the field.

However, Herzog and Gichon in Battles of the Bible [171] provide the answer: Child sacrifice was often performed in the ANE because of imminent plague. The Israelites would have interpreted the sacrifice as an indication that plague was already in the city, and therefore would have made haste to leave as soon as possible.

The word for "wrath" means indignation or strife, and "against" is a preposition that can mean among, between, concerning, or through.

So I might as well explain a little as to why this was done.

So, the President of the United States, obviously, has considerable power. Since there are actions that only the President can take (or that only the President is able to take quickly), it means that in the event of some kind of major disaster happening that requires immediate response from the President, it's important to have the President available to give any necessary orders or actions.

However, anesthesia makes you unconscious and it takes time to wake up from it. Thus, if a catastrophe happens and they need the president to take action right away, they can't. Now, a section of the 25th Amendment does allow a president to be removed from office and replaced with the Vice President if the Vice President and a majority of the Cabinet all agree that he is "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." So, for example, if the president falls into a coma, they obviously can't discharge the powers and duties of his office. Note there is a mechanism to prevent them from just getting rid of a president because they don't like them: If the President disagrees with this, it then requires 2/3 of both houses of congress to keep them removed from office.

The problem, of course, is it means that even in our world of fast communications, it takes a little bit of time to contact all of the necessary people and get their agreement in order to make the Vice President the President. And in this hypothetical situation, time is of the essence. Now, there is a separate section of the 25th Amendment that allows the President to grant presidential power to the Vice President temporarily. Thus, several presidents have, when undergoing anesthesia, have done that, which is exactly what Biden did here. That way, if something happens that requires immediate action from the president while they are unconscious, it can be done by the Vice President.

As for the procedure itself, and as others have noted, colonoscopies are fairly standard procedures for people in the US to check for colon diseases, the big one to look out for being colon cancer. They're usually done without anesthesia (pain relief is used, but not outright anesthesia), but older people more frequently have it done with anesthesia. I think that so far, all of the times presidents have granted this temporary power to the vice president (Reagan, Bush, and now Biden) were during colonoscopies with anesthesia.

But the surgery went fine and he came out of anesthesia, so he's back to being president again. Harris had the powers of the president for about an hour.

Basically none of my points are actually addressed in the rant about Constantine (who I didn't even mention in my post). The only part of it that relates in any way is it asking the question of "So how can the institution of this so-called “Easter” celebration have any significance before God if the Constantine in question was not acting according to the principles found in the Scriptures?" The problem is, Easter predates Constantine by quite a bit, so this question is moot.

As for complaints about my usage of "even if," my point by using that phrase is that even if one accepts the initial assertions, they don't logically lead into the conclusions. So, for example, when I say "But even if they [rabbits] were symbols of fertility, it means nothing for their usage in Easter, because the Easter rabbit is a relatively recent invention." And this is very true. The first mention I can find of the Easter Bunny is a 17th century book named "Disputatione ordinaria disquirens de ovis paschalibus" (in my original post, I incorrectly wrote 16th century--though 17th century just makes my point stronger). If the Easter Bunny is of some kind of ancient pagan origin, then why is it that it's completely unknown in Easter celebrations prior to the 17th century? I mean, heck, even in today's world there are many countries where the Easter Bunny is basically a nonentity in Easter celebrations.

For the record, I actually dislike usage of the Easter bunny, as I believe it detracts from the actual purpose of the Easter celebration (the Resurrection). However, it provides no proof of any kind of pagan origin of Easter.

Unfortunately, the article linked has a number of inaccuracies. It's not the worst in this area as it at least qualifies some of its errors as being possibilities, but nevertheless it's misleading. Let's look at some of its claims.

First, it tries to suggest a link between pagan spring equinox celebrations and Easter. This makes little sense. Not only is Easter not ever on the spring equinox, Easter a Christian continuance of the Jewish Passover (the words for Easter and Passover are even the same in some languages!). Trying to find some connection between its timing and pagan celebrations simply makes little sense when the obvious answer is that its timing comes from Passover.

I am glad the article correctly notes that in most countries, the name for Easter comes from Passover (e.g. Pascha, Pasqua, Paaske, Paques). Now, it mentions that the English word Easter, at least according to an 8th century writer named Bede, comes from a pagan goddess named Eostre. This is certainly a possibility, though I should note that the name, more properly, appears to come from the month of Eosturmonab (April in their calendar), which was named after Eostre, giving even less of a connection. And that's even assuming it's correct. Outside of Bede's mention here, there's no direct proof that this Eostre ever existed to begin with. And even if it is true, this is a name that emerged well after the celebration was already being done in other countries under the name of pascha.

More problematic is its statement that "In Germany the festival is called Ostern, and the goddess is called Ostara." As far as I can tell, there is no mention of Ostara in the historical record at all, and Ostara being an alternate name for Eostre was a speculation by Jacob Grimm in the 19th century.

Despite its implication of Easter eggs being traced back to paganism, Easter eggs emerged later on in the middle ages, too late for there to be a plausible pagan connection.

On the rabbits, the article talks somewhat out of both sides of its mouth. It claims "Rabbits and hares are also associated with fertility and were symbols linked to the goddess Eostre" (which is naught more than a speculation--as noted, we have only one source for the existence of Eostre, which says nothing about her being associated with rabbits). But then it admits that the first mention of the Easter rabbit is in a book from 1722! Even if Eostre did have a connection to rabbits, it would be simple coincidence that they became associated with Easter because the Easter rabbit first appeared so late in history.

So the article really doesn't back up its promise of linking Easter to earlier pagan ceremonies.

The link goes to the Jehovah's Witness website. So let's take a look at some of the claims in that link...

Name: The Encyclopædia Britannica says: “The English name Easter is of uncertain origin; the Anglo-Saxon priest Venerable Bede in the 8th century derived it from the Anglo-Saxon spring goddess Eostre.” Others link it to Astarte, the Phoenician fertility goddess who had the Babylonian counterpart Ishtar.

Those who link it to Astarte are doing so on nothing more than their imaginations. It being named after the goddess Eostre may be possible, given Bede's reference, but Bede appears to actually be saying that Easter was named after the Anglo-Saxon name for April (Eosturmonab), which was named after Eostre. However, there's a problem in that outside of Bede, there is no mention of this goddess anywhere; this has led some to wonder if Bede's information may have been mistaken.

But even if Bede was correct, the word for Easter in most languages it not Easter or anything like it. Before the word "Easter" ever existed, it was referred to as pascha in Greek and Latin, and most languages take their name for the holiday from that. For example, in Spanish the word is Pascua. To try to find some pagan connection for a holiday because one language may have named it after a pagan deity centuries after the holiday was already celebrated is obviously absurd.

Hares, rabbits: These are symbols of fertility “handed down from the ancient ceremonial and symbolism of European and Middle Eastern pagan spring festivals.”​—Encyclopædia Britannica.

Even this quote they provide doesn't actually say there is a link between pagan usage of rabbits and the Easter bunny.

But even if they were symbols of fertility, it means nothing for their usage in Easter, because the Easter rabbit is a relatively recent invention. It was first invented in the 16th century by German Protestants (the first written reference have to is . The idea that an innovation that late somehow proves an ancient pagan connection when prior to that there was no rabbit association with Easter is obviously incorrect, even if the false idea it is linked to paganism is unfortunately frequently repeated.

Eggs: According to Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of Folklore, Mythology and Legend, the hunt for Easter eggs, supposedly brought by the Easter rabbit, “is not mere child’s play, but the vestige of a fertility rite.” Some cultures believed that the decorated Easter egg “could magically bring happiness, prosperity, health, and protection.”—Traditional Festivals.

Eggs appear to have been first associated with Easter around the 11th century. While earlier than the Easter rabbit, this is nevertheless too late to be a vestige of a fertility rite. Their popularity seems to have come about because during Lent (the fast prior to Easter) people weren't supposed to eat eggs, but hens kept laying them so people took to doing stuff with the eggs.

New Easter outfit: “It was considered discourteous and therefore bad luck to greet the Scandinavian goddess of Spring, or Eastre, in anything but fresh garb.”—The Giant Book of Superstitions.

There is no Scandinavian goddess named Eastre. Maybe this is referring to the Eostre mentioned above, but Eostre (if she was even real at all) wasn't Scandinavian and there is no proof that the above claim was true for her.

Sunrise services: These have been linked to rites of ancient sun worshippers “performed at the vernal equinox welcoming the sun and its great power to bring new life to all growing things.”—Celebrations—The Complete Book of American Holidays.

So I actually looked at this work. This is what it says on page 105:

"Sunrise services are not unrelated to the Easter fires held on the tops of mountains in continuation of the New Year fires, a worldwide observance in antiquity. Rites were performed at the vernal equinox welcoming the sun and its great power to bring new life to all growing things."

No source is cited for this claim in the work. But accepting it as true regardless, it falls short of the claim made, as no mention is made of "sun worshippers."

So the article appears to be, as they say, fake news.

Well, this is an older topic that got bumped (meaning the question was asked months ago), but since it was bumped I might as well post what I think is a fairly good study on the issue:
https://www.tektonics.org/gk/jepthah.php

GreyLaw:
3. Trump would still be president of the US for the next four years. And I know that sounds crazy. No, not in 2024. He will start his 4 year term this same year 2020. How that is going to play out I do not know. I have checked with my Source, even this morning 21/01/2021 and still got the same answer to wait and see things play out.

In my post on page 8 I stated that if God even wanted he could ignore all of our dates and do His thing, which he WOULD DO, and get Trump inaugurated on March 4. I sincerely DID NOT want this scenario; I really didn't want it at all, but I am human and don't decide how the details of such issues play out.

So, please feel free to throw all the stones you can throw but don't break my head just yet. Please give it some time, at least till March 4. That was US inauguration date before 1937. However, if something comes up before then I will let us know.

So what exactly is this "source" telling you now? It's been more than two weeks since March 4. And for that matter, what exactly is this mysterious "source" you referred to?

Ajibaba101:
I am sure it is not the same vaccine as the one here

Actually, I think it is the same as in Nigeria. He got the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, isn't that what Nigeria is also getting?

theTranslator:
that's obviously never possible
Where did you ever hear of peaceful secession??

Does the splitting of Czechoslovakia into two countries (the Czech Republic and Slovakia) count?

How was his death fulfillment of this prophecy? The prophecy claimed that he was in danger from his enemies, but did not predict his death. Further, his death was not the work of his enemies, but apparently from the natural cause of heart problems.

panafrican:
The United Kingdom has been quite honest over centuries, it is a Kingdom, not a republic not a Democracy.
And a kingdom is not meant to please but to survive with the complete genes of the original monarchs.
It is as simple as that.

The United Kingdom, despite its name, is a republic/democracy. The people elect their representatives who vote on and make laws.

It does technically have a king and queen, but they have virtually no political power.

donnie:
Away with your lies. Who doesn't know it's apochrypha? Apochrypha means hidden. And who cares about their Canon? There's nothing Jew-ISH about the book. Did the original scrolls belong to them fake jews? Many of our ancient books were stolen and hidden by Rome.

The so-called Jew-ISH are not the people of the book but converts. That's why you have ISH attached to their name. They are impostors... the synagogue of Satan. (Revelation 2:9; 3:9)

"Apocrypha" is normally used to refer to religious texts that were left out of the Bible, though it can be used in a more general sense. In the text you showed discussing the Sefer haYashar, it said it was "one of the apocryphal books of Jasher." In this context, it is saying it wasn't the original Book of Jasher referred to in Joshua or Samuel, but was a much later creation. The very text you are showing says that it was printed in 1613.

As for the claim that there's nothing "Jew-ISH" (even by the definition of "Jew-ISH" you seem to suggest) about it, the fact it was written in Hebrew for Jews does indicate that yes, it was "Jew-ISH."

The Book of Yasher is referenced in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18.

Whatever it's referring to (it is variously interpreted as either referring to a lost work or being a term for other books in the Old Testament), it isn't referring to the book you were citing, which came long after Joshua and Samuel were written.

donnie:
Ethiopian Bible is the oldest and complete bible on earth. Written in Ge’ez an ancient language of Ethiopia it’s nearly 800 years older than the King James Version and contains 81-88 books compared to 66.

It may be 800 years older than the King James Version but it's still centuries younger than the original texts. It isn't the oldest bible.

The Ge'ez "Garima Gospels" do seem to be the oldest complete illuminated (i.e. with decorations and illustrations) manuscript of any biblical text, though!

donnie:


Jasher 10:16
And the children of Chittim are the Romans who dwell in the valley of Canopia by the river Tibreu.

Jasher, Chapter 90
1 At that time in the fifth year after the children of Israel had passed over Jordan, after the children of Israel had rested from their war with the Canaanites, at that time great and severe battles arose between Edom and the children of Chittim, and the children of Chittim fought against Edom.
7 And the children of Chittim continued their pursuit of Edom, and they smote them with a great slaughter and Edom became subject to the children of Chittim.
8 And the children of Chittim [Rome] ruled over Edom, and Edom became under the hand of the children of Chittim and became one kingdom from that day.

Looking into it, the "Book of Jasher" you are quoting from is not an apocrypha excluded from the canon. It's a medieval Jewish text called the Sefer haYashar.

donnie:
Y'all should quit trying to paint ancient pagan practices with bible. You Christians are all children of ROME and as such follow her in her pagan practices. Like Christmas, Easter, valentine, Thanksgiving, mother's day etc. All pagan holidays dedicated to various deities.

Thanksgiving and Mother's Day aren't even religious holidays, how did the Roman Catholic Church come up with them? Heck, Mother's Day was made by an American woman (Anna Jarvis) in the early 20th century and she wasn't even Catholic.

This reminds me of when I saw someone try to claim that the American Fourth of July holiday was based on some ancient pagan holiday.

Ash Wednesday begins the 40 day lent. An ancient practice instituted by Semiramis, the mother of Nimrod the sun god, who was also his wife. Semiramis became known as Ishtar, pronounced Easter.

She mourned the death of her son Tammuz who was eaten by pigs for 40days. In mourning for Tammuz, the people were to eat no meat for 40 days.

Ishtar is not pronounced Easter, as any dictionary's provided pronunciation will demonstrate. Even if it was, "Easter" was originally written in English as Estre (see the Oxford English Dictionary's early examples of it) which sounds quite different; it only became written and pronounced as Easter much later, so any similarity would be coincidence. Not to mention that English is, I believe, the only language where the word for Easter bears even a passing resemblance to Ishtar. In French, the word is Pâques. In Portuguese, it's Páscoa. In Swahili it's "Pasaka ya Kikristo". Most languages take their name for the holiday from pascha, the original Greek term. German comes closest, with the name being Ostern, but that's still rather different from Ishtar. English's usage of Easter for the holiday is an anomaly among languages.

As for your claims that there was a 40-day period of eating no meat for Tammuz, could you provide any proof of this? Claims like this are common on the Internet, but they are never backed up by any proof. No one points to any ancient document that records this custom. As far as I can tell, they're just made up and spread around by people who don't check to see if it's true or not.

edi287:
I just found out that biatch Marjorie Taylor Greene only got 44k votes out of 400k voters. Unbelievable!!
I've been wondering what kind of district would vote that clown.

That's not accurate. She received 229,827 votes in the general election. I'm not sure how many voters there were total, but there were a total of 307,625 votes.

The 44k figure you cite probably refers the number of votes she got in the Republican primary, but that's not the general election.

sunboy:
Is he not the one who promise to leave nairaland if Biden wins, I bet he opened a new account

I believe you're thinking of ImadeUReadThis, who said he would do that if Biden was sworn in (see here).

basilico:

A rather infamous French elitist queen Marie Antoinette heard people rioting over bread. She asked Why can't they eat cake. Guillotine she ended up under.

While the phrase is frequently attributed to Marie Antoinette, as far as I can tell there is no real evidence she ever said it.

ImadeUReadThis:
I am going to extend a bet I made with another NL member to all of you and Seun that I will delete every post and threads and deactivate all my accounts here if Biden is sworn in .

If however I am proven right , I demand that Seun gives me the God mode ban hammer to use as I please on any and all of you Biden Negroes.

Deal?

That just lets you cover up all of the mistakes you made by removing them and avoid anyone getting to say "told you so" after all. If you want to make some kind of bet like this, what you should be betting is that you will go to every single post you've made and edit it to include an admission you were wrong.

Or just don't bet at all, but repeatedly admit fault if you're wrong.

AZeD1:

And three of the swing states have laws to replace the votes cast by faithless electors.

True. However, the argument made was that due to the supposed electoral fraud going on (the supposed fraud that it seems no judge, whether appointed by a Democrat or Republican, has taken seriously), you would have a bunch of faithless electors, so this could be extended to other states. However, as noted, faithless electors are quite rare because the electors are specifically chosen to be people who are extremely likely to vote for the candidate. The electors that would be given to Trump are strong Republicans and the electors that would go to Biden are strong Democrats.

So when electors do go faithless, it's not to try to change the outcome of the election but to make some kind of rhetorical point. Indeed, I believe various faithless electors have said that they only voted for someone else because they knew it wouldn't change the outcome of the election.

So I do agree with you that the idea of faithless electors changing the outcome of the election is basically a pipe dream. I just wanted to clarify that the Supreme Court didn't say it was illegal to be a faithless elector, merely that states could make it so, and that a lot of states have.

AZeD1:

1) The Supreme Court has ruled against faithless electors. It's illegal for an elector to be faithless. In Arizona, Michigan and Nevada, failure to vote as pledged cancels the vote and replaces the elector. So forget that idea of swing states helping Trump via faithless electors.

It's a little more complicated than that. The Supreme Court did not say it's illegal for an elector to be faithless. What they said was that states have the ability to make it so that it's illegal for an elector to be faithless. A lot of states have such laws but not all of them.

However, faithless electors are quite rare. After all, the electors are chosen to be people who will want to vote for their pledged candidate anyway. People who are faithless electors do so not to try to change the outcome of the election, but just to make some kind of political statement without actually changing the outcome. An election outcome actually being changed by faithless electors is extraordinarily unlikely.

Luckytechtv:
So candidates have to pay money for a recount?

I think the rules vary from state to state, but in regards to Wisconsin, from what I can from a little research the rules are this:

If a winning candidate in Wisconsin won by 1% or less, then the losing candidate can request a recount. However, unless the winning candidate won by 0.25% or less, the recount has to be paid for by the person requesting it. Since Biden won by 0.7%, Trump can request a recount (as it is less than 1%), but he has to pay for it (as it is more than 0.25%).

GreyLaw:


Be my guest, sir. A lot of people commenting don't even have an idea of the US constitution. Why do you think the mainstream media are trying so hard to force Mr. Trump to concede? At the supreme court, Trump has the upper hand, as he had his candidates confirmed before the election.

And what is the Supreme Court expected to do? The holding of elections and choosing of electors is a matter for the states, not the Supreme Court. The accusations of "rigging" that people make claims about aren't really something for them to handle, even if those accusations are true.

The limited kinds of interventions that the Supreme Court has in elections aren't the sort of things that could change things here. If someone wants to bring up the 2000 election, that was as I understand it only due to a very specific (and quite frankly, bizarre) set of circumstances lining up that allowed for it, and those sets of circumstances are not present in this election.

If the supreme court decides not to rule, the constitution says it goes to the House and at that stage each state gets just one representative to vote from among the reps. Last time I checked the republicans control about 30 states. The DNC has more reps, but the republicans hold more states.

The only way, according to the Constitution, that the election "goes to the House" is if no candidate wins a majority of the electors. Barring a lot of them going rogue and voting for some other candidate when they meet for the electoral college, that is not going to happen.

I should point out that technically speaking, no one is actually president-elect until the electoral college meets in December.

armyofone:
Will it be postponed to a later date? Virtual debate wouldn't have been bad.

It seems to be cancelled. They may still hold the third debate, though, depending on whether they can work something out.

DrLiveLogic:

C'mon man, really? Your view is laden with bias. Fairly obvious? Not even close. Trump happened to release a list of 20 possible picks that all had a high chance. So why didn't he just call any of the 19 other Justices in Trump's list and even the others that didn't make the list? No, with all the precision you get, just Amy he mentioned, 2 years ago, too.

It was obvious she was a serious contender back in 2018. Before Trump made his pick, Barrett was getting a ton of attention in the media as a potential pick and was actually regarded as the favorite for a while. See here, for example, which says she was around the time he gave the prediction, the one with the highest betting odds:
https://www.actionnetwork.com/politics/next-supreme-court-justice-odds-anthony-kennedy

So yes, it was fairly obvious she had a very high chance.

Again, man, play fair. Seriously, this is just trying too hard to not give credit.
Kamala is one woman out of thousands in her rank. How could anyone have possibly thought she would be THE queen picked to trump Trump in 2017, Trump's first year. How would anyone have even guessed there would be a "queen" i.e. female vice. Don't you see there's too much in it.
Again as you said, the rest is still underway. So let's wait and see.

If it is "still underway" then is it not presumptive to cite it as an accurate prophecy?

Also, the prophecy didn't claim she would be the vice presidential candidate or on the Democratic ticket at all. It was vaguer than that. It said "she has been hand picked by some in power as a queen to trump President Trump in 2020" and that "in the end this plan will fail." One could claim this as true even if she didn't end up as the vice presidential or presidential candidate, or even run at all, because that would qualify as a failure of the plan! When your prophecies are vague, it's much easier to claim fulfillment of them.

Even a vague prediction she would figure into the 2020 presidential election in some way wasn't unreasonable in 2017, as even back then there were expectations of her trying to go for it:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/article149309469.html
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/11/democrats-defeat-trump-president-2020/

Not again. You realise how rainbows are cast, don't you? And that should give an idea of on just how much probability you'd be staking to predict a rainbow over your house rather than all the many others or the WH, for that matter and PUBLICLY too.
Ok, so how many times in history has that been observed over WH? My search says just once on record. So make this just a second and only months after he prophesied. Cut the guy some slack man.

It's ironic you make this claim of the rareness of it being observed over the White House when, as it turns out, another happened on the day of your post:
https://twitter.com/tombrennerphoto/status/1310708661774430210
https://twitter.com/pwidakuswara/status/1310703729591693314

In fact, it doesn't seem to be a rare occurrence at all. Look at these examples from the last few years:
https://twitter.com/TeaBoots/status/1236632332767039488 (March 2020)
https://twitter.com/RobertMaguire_/status/1211713071741313024 (December 2019)
https://twitter.com/jeffmason1/status/1186768722381496321 (October 2019)
https://twitter.com/AnnNyberg/status/1059947790623760384 (November 2018)
https://twitter.com/VPPressSec/status/1049771792351617029 (October 2018)
https://twitter.com/photowhitehouse/status/994739892260352000 (May 2018)

As we can see, rainbows above the White House are clearly not a rare event! One wouldn't expect something like this to make it into the newspapers unless there's something special about the timing. But people still take photos of them when they happen and put them on Twitter or Facebook, demonstrating they occurred, and occurred multiple times per year at that.

Most likely, the one you referred to as the only one you could find is the rainbow in August of 2017, which as noted above got some attention because of the timing, namely the fact that it happened just after Trump left the White House:
https://www.newsweek.com/double-rainbow-trump-white-house-646460

But even that one wasn't the only one that got reported in the news; here's one from 2015:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/26/a-double-rainbow-just-appeared-above-the-white-house/

But in any event, we can see rainbows at the White House multiple times in a year for several years in a row (there may have also been cases I didn't see because I didn't look hard enough). One gets no points for predicting something that happens multiple times a year.

So these are already questionable things to use to try to prove someone as being a prophet. But then, as noted, we get into the failed predictions (the attempt to compare this to someone only magically disappearing 5 out of 10 attempts means nothing; someone can get lucky with a prediction, whereas someone can't just get lucky with an attempt at disappearing). I already mentioned how his predictions of the 2018 election were dead wrong, but here is another failed prophecy he gave:
https://heterodoxresearchinitiative./2018/10/17/charlie-shamp-2017-maine-fishing-industry-prophecy-failed-fishing-industry-declined-despite-word-saying-it-would-break-records/

He claimed Maine would be hugely successful and break records in the fishing industry in 2017, but it was actually a bad year for them.

Firstly, I notice that the prophecies that were true were fairly obvious things. Back in 2018, it was obvious that Barrett had a high chance of joining the Supreme Court, either back then or in some future year. Kamala Harris was less obvious but his prophecy about her is more vague... note he doesn't say she would become vice president or anything specific, just the vague that she would somehow be important. It should also be noted that other portions of that prophecy have yet to pass. And the rainbow one doesn't mean anything... rainbows can happen after rain and rain occurs at the White House. A rainbow was eventually going to show up.

But the mark of a true prophet isn't that they manage to get prophecies right. It's that they don't get prophecies wrong. If you make a lot of prophecies, some are, by simple statistics, going to come true. So, has Charlie Shamp made prophecies that turned out to be false? I did a search online and found that yes, some were false! Let's take this prediction from him, given a few months before the 2018 election:

"I saw the House of Representatives stay in the hands of the Republicans and will move much more to a conservative position. I could see into the Senate and saw the Republicans gain 9 seats, those that took their place were considerably more conservative then those who had previously been there. I heard the Lord say, “Yes, nine will be a sign; a sign that righteousness has been birthed in the nation and earth.” I saw three constitutional conservatives were appointed to the Supreme Court by President before 2020. "

Obviously, this was completely false! The House of Representatives did not stay in the hands of Republicans, the Republicans did not gain 9 seats in the Senate, and there was only one new appointment to the Supreme Court between 2018 and 2020, not three!

This prophecy conveniently does not seem to be found on his site anymore, but you can find verification that it was there here in this archived version of it:
https://web.archive.org/web/20181013001527/https://www.destinyencounters.com/news/2018/6/7/i-saw-a-tsunami-hit-the-united-states-prophet-charlie-shamp

salford1:
Lastly.

Worst PoTUS ever. No other President even comes close.

I don't like Trump, but I think to claim he's worse than Buchanan, let alone saying Buchanan doesn't even come close to being as bad, is pretty silly.

salford1:
Another denial. He is very desperate. What is he hiding?
Don the Con.

I remember back when Trump said he totally would release his tax forms, there were just weird legal stuff with a supposed IRS audit preventing him from doing it right away but once that got sorted out it, he'd release them. Here we are, about 4 years later, with him not only not having released them, but fighting tooth and nail to conceal them.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if the big scoop isn't that Trump did anything criminal or shady, but that it would show he's not as rich as he claims he is.