I’ll go over it, thanks.

Why can’t we compare faith, for example, to empirical science with regard to prophecies that came true? If the prophecy is not fulfilled, then it becomes clear that he is a false prophet and the prophet is executed; and if it is fulfilled, that is proof that he is a true prophet, and from that point on people rely on him also regarding what he says will happen in the future.

Because prophecies are really not unambiguous. And there are other reasons why they are not fulfilled.

So how, according to you, can one execute a prophet who prophesied and some detail of what he said did not come to pass? (See Maimonides.) A. It wasn’t unambiguous, and if so he did not prophesy falsely. B. He will always explain it away with what you just wrote now, “that there are other reasons why they are not fulfilled.”

That is only at the testing stage. You and I were talking about the prophecies in Scripture.

“That is only at the testing stage”?
Meaning: only before the prophet is officially recognized do we check whether his prophecies come true.
But how can his prophecy be tested at all if, according to you, “the prophecies in Scripture are not unambiguous” and “there are always excuses for why they were not fulfilled”?
If there is no objective criterion for checking fulfillment, then the “testing stage” also collapses.

Maimonides is not speaking only about a “technical stage,” but about the truth of the prophetic test:
Unambiguous fulfillment = truth.
Non-fulfillment = falsehood.
Without that, the entire concept of prophecy is emptied of content.

What isn’t clear? I explained it. When a prophet is tested, he is supposed to produce prophecies that can be tested empirically. For example: tomorrow at ten in the morning, 12 mm of rain will fall. The prophecies in Scripture are not like that. Therefore faith is not a scientific test.

Sorry for barging in—I’m relatively new here on the blog, but every time I’m amazed all over again by the verbal gymnastics and the ease with which you hide and manage to slip away behind rhetorical slickness down the slope of pilpul, and by the wonder that the rhetoric slips through the fingers of the readers and commenters here like public soap.
Because this time, with all due respect—it simply crossed the line of good taste. Listen, this is no longer an argument, but a dense smoke screen of vague pilpul,
and it’s an excellent opportunity to show Nadav and the other readers here how you can turn a philosophical tangle into a classic performance of brilliant rhetorical acrobatics—one that makes the audience forget the simple question:
What, exactly, did we ask? And what did the Rabbi answer? So it quite clearly seems that there is a pretty transparent attempt here to evade the central question!
It’s also not at all clear what exactly you gained from this ridiculous claim that it is “only at the testing stage.”
Your argument is trying to hold the rope at both ends: on the one hand you claim that prophets were indeed tested empirically—and then, as if “after the kindergarten teacher went out for the ten o’clock snack break”—you claim that actually afterward the prophecies suddenly are no longer unambiguous, and that there are “good reasons” why they are not fulfilled. Hello? Is this radio??
Your own mouth has testified against you: every prophet in the Hebrew Bible who made it into the canon already passed the “credit check” you set up, and did so empirically. And if according to your view, from the moment the prophet passed the test he is absurdly allowed to fire off vague, slippery, ambiguous pronouncements, and all of it still counts for him as “prophecy”?
What kind of insurance certificate is that? With a Bible like that, I too (like you) would lose interest in it.
And then you still ask, “What isn’t clear??” Maybe what isn’t clear is which filtered edition of the Hebrew Bible you have at home?
Mine, for example, includes Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jonah, Malachi, and a few other old friends—and there, contrary to what you say, there are lots of concrete, measurable, and completely empirical predictions. Some of them with a clear time frame, some with detailed descriptions of specific events—which allow empirical testing, such as the destruction of the Temple within 70 years, the sudden death of a certain ruler, war, famine—and all of it is tested and checked in reality.
So with your permission, I’ll give, very briefly, a light overview of predictions that are completely measurable and precise.

Jeremiah: “When Babylon’s seventy years are completed, I will attend to you.”
Bingo. Measured, dated, and carried out (Ezra 1).

Isaiah 44–45:
“Who says of Cyrus, ‘He is My shepherd, and he shall fulfill all My purpose.’”
The prophet Isaiah calls Cyrus by name—about two hundred years before his time—and prophesies that he will restore the people of Israel to its land and build the Temple.
Measurable? Certainly. Clear history. The Return to Zion. The declaration of Cyrus.

Elisha tells the Shunammite woman:
“Arise and go… for the Lord has called for a famine, and it will also come upon the land for seven years.”
And indeed the Shunammite woman packs her suitcase.
A prophecy about drought—with precise timing and a duration declared in advance,
and not just some weather forecast.

Jonah: “Forty more days and Nineveh shall be overturned”—with a stopwatch.
True, they repented—but the prediction was measurable.

Jeremiah 28 – Hananiah son of Azzur dies within a year.
Hananiah prophesies that the kingdom of Judah will return to prosperity within two years. Jeremiah responds:
“Behold, I am sending you off the face of the earth; this year you shall die.” Hananiah son of Azzur dies within the year, exactly according to the prediction, in black and white in the Bible.
And very empirical. Either he died that year, or he didn’t. No excuses.

I Kings 13 – the death of the false prophet.
The prophet prophesies that Josiah will sacrifice bones on the altar at Bethel. And he adds an immediate sign—the altar will split and the ashes will be poured out.
A prophecy with a “double sign”: both a future sign (Josiah), and an immediate sign (the altar split and the ashes spilled).
With two conditions that were fulfilled, and precise details both for the present and for the future.
All these are not just prophecies—they are empirical tests in every sense. The prophets were definitely tested, and sometimes publicly too!

…So what remains of your sweeping claim—“the prophecies are really not unambiguous and there are other reasons why they are not fulfilled”—other than an attempt to bypass the heart of the discussion? Even if this was said for some reason with certainty, one still cannot ignore the fact that many of the prophecies in the Hebrew Bible meet (and met) measurable standards.

P.S.
Even if we accept your position that this applies only to the testing stage—
the very fact that you require an empirical test in order to grant a prophet credibility
shows that, even according to your own view, the Hebrew Bible includes content that can be tested scientifically.
And sometimes—even more sharply than contemporary scientists are willing to commit themselves.

Thanks, Scientist, you really took the words right out of my mouth. Please don’t flush until the discussion has been exhausted.

In honor of the Scientist, you can flush now. If no response has come by now, I assume it already won’t come. I’ll try to get answers on another blog.