Is Julie green a false prophet

1. A pattern of specific, falsifiable claims that did not come true

Journalistic reporting documents several high-profile, specific predictions Green made that were demonstrably incorrect: she publicly predicted Donald Trump would be found "not guilty" in his Manhattan trial and then offered explanations after the guilty verdict ^[1], she asserted that President Joe Biden was dead and being impersonated ^{[2] [6]}, and she forecast a scandal in which Prince Charles would have his mother murdered—an assertion widely reported and ridiculed after it failed to materialize ^[7]. Media outlets and watchdogs have catalogued these and other dramatic assertions as evidence of failed prophecy ^{[2] [7] [1]}.

2. How religious authorities and critics apply the "false prophet" label

Christian critics and watchdog organizations apply biblical and doctrinal tests to Green’s ministry: some cite Deuteronomy and New Testament passages that say a prophet whose predictions fail is to be rejected, and explicitly label Green a false prophet for prophecies that proved false or for speech that aligns with conspiracy theories ^{[4] [8]}. Faith-based critics in local and national outlets have also argued her rhetoric and political entanglements—such as praying over political candidates and participating in partisan events—violate traditional prophetic ethics and lend weight to the "false prophet" judgment ^{[8] [6]}.

3. Political activism, conspiracism, and practical harms

Reporting shows Green has mixed prophecy with political advocacy, appearing at events tied to partisan figures and movements and making claims that echo QAnon-style conspiracies—accusations that public figures drink children’s blood, that elites perform human sacrifices, and that God will execute political leaders—claims documented by media watchdogs and mainstream outlets ^{[2] [8]}. Critics argue this blend amplifies misinformation, undermines democratic norms, and can inflame followers, making the "false prophet" label not merely theological but civic in consequence ^{[2] [8]}.

4. Defenders, alternate theological readings, and nuance

Not everyone accepts the literal-falsity framing: some religious commentators and supporters defend Green, arguing she has had prophecies that yielded fruit or that prophecy is not reducible to predictive forecasting but is a form of visionary, pastoral speech meant to exhort communities ^{[5] [3]}. Columnists like Diana Butler Bass emphasize that “prophecy” can function as socially situated rhetoric—giving voice to grievances and visions of justice—so a prophet’s role may be judged by communal effect rather than hit-or-miss predictions ^[3]. MarketFaith-style supporters explicitly dispute the false-prophet label, insisting some prophecies have come to pass and urging discernment ^[5].

5. Conclusion — direct answer

On the literal, testable standard used by journalists, critics, and the biblical passages commonly cited to define a false prophet, the public record of specific failed predictions and conspiratorial claims supports labeling Julie Green a false prophet ^{[1] [2] [7] [8]}. However, a narrower or more charitable interpretive frame—one that treats prophecy as social critique or as spiritual exhortation rather than literal forecasting—provides an alternate claim that she serves a prophetic role for a particular movement, a view advanced by some defenders and commentators ^{[3] [5]}. The answer therefore is: by the conventional, predictive test commonly invoked in both scripture and secular critique, she qualifies as a false prophet; by broader interpretive definitions of prophecy, followers and some analysts dispute that judgment ^{[4] [3]}.