Is Julie green a false prophetess
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Julie Green is a self-described prophet who has attracted both supporters and critics for a string of high-profile political prophecies and conspiracy claims; reporting documents specific false or widely disputed predictions (for example, claims that Joe Biden was dead and that a "not guilty" verdict for Trump would occur) and shows she has spoken at partisan events [1] [2]. Her ministry warns followers about impersonators and says it does not sell prophecy [3]. Commentary on her status ranges from defenders asserting fulfilled prophecies to critics labeling her a false prophet [4] [5].
1. Who Julie Green says she is—and where she operates
Julie Green presents herself as a prophet and runs Julie Green Ministries International, which posts prophetic messages and livestreams; the ministry site warns of impersonators and states it does not conduct ministry in exchange for money [3]. Rolling Stone and other outlets describe her as having “received the gift of divine prophecy” and producing recorded messages and overnight notes she attributes to God [1].
2. High-profile political prophecies and public platform
Green has been publicly visible inside conservative political circles: she spoke at a rally for Doug Mastriano and has made politically charged claims that attracted national coverage [1]. Reporting highlights some of her clearest, most consequential prophecies: assertions that the “real Joe Biden is dead” and that Barack Obama controls a Biden body double, and other dramatic political predictions [1].
3. Documented false predictions and media fact-checking
Mainstream outlets reported at least one explicit false prediction: Green forecast a "not guilty" verdict for Donald Trump in his Manhattan criminal trial, a prediction later shown to be incorrect after a jury convicted Trump; Newsweek describes her explaining that mistaken forecast to followers [2]. Rolling Stone and Newsweek both present these claims as part of a pattern of disputed or false public statements [1] [2].
4. Supporters’ defenses and competing claims of accuracy
Some commenters and religious writers defend Green, arguing that prophets can have unfulfilled or long-timed prophecies and pointing to prophecies they say came to pass; MarketFaith posts a defense disputing blanket labels of “false prophet” and arguing not-yet-fulfilled prophecies do not prove falsehood [4]. That defense frames criticism as an attack on divine calling and urges caution about dismissing prophecies before their time [4].
5. Critics’ theological and rhetorical pushback
Other voices label Green a false prophet and use scriptural standards to argue her claims are blasphemous or deceptive; a polemical blog piece flatly calls her “unhinged” and says such figures do not speak for God, invoking Deuteronomy and other tests of prophecy [5]. Rolling Stone and Newsweek highlight how political misinformation and sensational claims have amplified skepticism and real-world consequences [1] [2].
6. What the available reporting does and does not prove
Available reporting documents specific false predictions (e.g., the Trump verdict forecast) and widely disputed conspiracy claims (e.g., Biden body-double), and it shows she has public political ties [1] [2]. Sources also show defenders asserting prophetic legitimacy and noting alleged fulfilled prophecies, but independent, comprehensive verification of all her prophecies—fulfilled or unfulfilled—is not in the cited sources [4] [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention a catalogued, neutral tally of every prophecy she’s made and whether each came true.
7. How to evaluate “false prophet” claims in public discourse
Different communities use different standards: some insist a prophet must be entirely accurate to be genuine; others allow for long-timing or partiality [4] [5]. Journalistic sources treat specific factual claims (e.g., verdict predictions, death of a public figure) as testable and report failures when they occur [2]. For readers deciding, the key is separating verifiable, time-bound claims (which can be confirmed or refuted) from theological interpretations that depend on belief and long time horizons [4] [5].
8. Bottom line for readers seeking a verdict
If your standard is empirical and time-bound—did specific public predictions occur?—reporting shows at least some high-profile predictions were false or widely disputed [2] [1]. If your standard is theological and long-term, defenders say some prophecies may yet be fulfilled and view accusations as spiritually motivated [4]. The sources available document controversy and concrete false forecasts but do not provide a definitive, comprehensive adjudication of every prophetic claim she has made [4] [1] [2].