Have Julie Green's past prophecies about public figures been accurate or documented?
Executive summary
Julie Green publishes many public prophecies on her ministry sites and social channels, but independent documentation of their accuracy is mixed: supporters and her own archives point to fulfilled words, while critics identify several unfulfilled or vague predictions and question political bias [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Public commentary and analysis note disputes over failed fulfillments and the interpretive standards for “fulfilled” prophecy [4] [5].
1. Who documents Julie Green’s prophecies — and where they appear
Julie Green’s ministry maintains a public archive of prophecies and media, hosting written words and videos on the Julie Green Ministries website, Rumble playlists and other social channels; those repositories are the primary source for her claimed prophecies [1] [2] [3]. These materials are presented as dated revelations and daily videos; the ministry frames them as current prophetic warnings and encouragements [1] [3].
2. Supporters’ view: fulfilled words and long timelines
Followers and some commentators defend Green by saying she has “numerous prophecies that have come to pass,” and they argue that prophetic timing can be long or conditional — a standard used to explain delayed fulfillments [4]. Her supporters on ministry pages and allied sites treat the ministry’s archive as documentation and point to past items they consider fulfilled, relying on the original dated postings as evidence [1] [3] [4].
3. Critics’ view: failed fulfillments, vagueness and political alignment
Critics highlight specific instances they say did not occur and therefore classify her work as inaccurate, citing the biblical test for prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:21–22 as the benchmark [4]. Independent reviewers and commentators have criticized Green’s pronouncements for vagueness and for echoing partisan talking points, arguing that many of her 2025 words align with contemporary Republican narratives rather than offering verifiable, specific predictions [5] [4].
4. The standards dispute: what counts as “accurate” prophecy
The disagreement in available sources centers on standards: supporters accept broad or delayed fulfilments and spiritual interpretation; detractors insist on concrete, time-bound outcomes to declare a prophecy true. MarketFaith’s critique and comment threads register precisely this tension — whether missed expectations mean false prophecy or divine timing/waiting explains apparent failures [4]. The Remnant Radio review explicitly recommends testing prophecies and warns against equating political forecasting with supernatural insight [5].
5. Transparency and independent verification are limited
Available sources show Julie Green’s own postings but do not present an independent compendium verifying which specific prophecies were later fulfilled or disproven by objective timelines; instead, third-party sites and commentators debate outcomes and intent [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. That means outside researchers seeking a definitive “hit/miss” record will find promoters’ archives and critics’ commentaries, but not a neutral, item-by-item verification in the provided reporting [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
6. Political angle and motive: critics flag an agenda
Analysts cited in the reporting argue that some of Green’s pronouncements possess a political slant that maps onto Republican talking points, raising questions about whether the words function more as political messaging than as neutral prophetic utterances [5]. MarketFaith’s post and public comment threads frame part of the backlash as theological testing — accusing Green of making pronouncements that failed scriptural tests for prophecy [4].
7. What a reader should conclude from current reporting
Current reporting documents that Julie Green actively publishes prophecies and that both supporters and detractors exist; it also records critiques alleging inaccuracies and political motivations [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. The sources do not provide a definitive, independently verified ledger showing which named public-figure prophecies were clearly and unambiguously fulfilled or falsified; they instead show contested claims and differing interpretive frameworks [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
Limitations: this analysis is limited to the provided sources. For a definitive fulfillment audit you would need a neutral, date-stamped index of specific prophecies compared with independently verifiable events; that is not present in the current reporting [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].