|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Jesus; the Torah, Nevi'im, and Psalms (Part 2) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
continuation of Did They Write About Jesus in the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms?.
in this thread, i would like to discuss ONLY the following list of prophesies, in regards to their context, subject, and whether or not they can (or do) apply to jesus. i would also like to mention that i am open minded about this set, and have not made up my mind yet. i will bring up the next set at moderator discretion.
faith writes: The Messiah will be born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2 Matthew 2:1 and Luke 2:4-7 The Messiah will enter the Temple with authority Malachi 3:1 Matthew 21:12 and Luke 19:45 in the last thread we already covered every other prophesy and non-prophesy on faith's list to my total satisfaction, save for the ones in isaiah. but there is to be NO discussion whatsoever about isaiah 7:14, from either side. i'd like to get the stuff we missed arguing over virginity. according to jar's suggestion, we're just gonna start with these two (micah and malachi), and then we'll move on to the isaiah verses, which i'm confident may actually apply. we'll probably take those one at a time. new testament fulfillment is not to be discussed unless we establish the plausibility of the application to jesus beforehand. we are analyzing strictly the old testament texts, and what they are referring to first and foremost, and then seeing if they can apply to jesus, or if they really apply to something else, and were used as later influences on the nt authors. if we exhaust each of these specific prophesies, continuation of the thread with others is up to moderator discussion. (bible, accuracy/inerrancy please. just like the last one, this is not a debate of faith but scholarship) This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-02-2005 11:49 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
alright, i cut it down to just two. i'd really like to get those other isaiah verses, however. how about i bring them back in, a few at a time, when the thread stalls on these two?
This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-02-2005 11:47 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
well, i can dream can't i?
let me know when you think it's appropriate (if ever) to bring up the isaiah verses. cause i honestly don't want 300 posts on this little bethlehem verse...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
we can add it in, if you want.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
well that is sort of where we're going with this thread. at least these two verses. so, uh, feel free to present your argument in full. and hopefully, others will join in here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
any opposition so far?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
i think we should give the fundamentalists a little more chance to answer. i'm SURE they object this reading of the verse regarding bethlehem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
hey jar, if you're paying attention, shall we move on to isaiah then?
(last chance for replies to the micah and malachi verses. i'm sure some fundamentalist here wants to debate bethlehem)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
heh, nevermind.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
What would this require? How would one show this? If a verse can't stand alone as prophecy, then you can dismantle the New Testament writings and throw them away, because they're almost exclusively based on verses standing alone. kind of a problem, isn't it? but your analysis is probably correct. this seems like something changed and taken out of context after both facts to make them fit, not one thing predicting the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
They did their homework in the sense of putting verses in context when they used them as prophecy? Can you show me any examples of that? Is there something in Micah to provide a context for Micah 5:2 to explain why the Gospel writer would apply it to a Jewish prophet who had been dead for at least 30 years and lived while Israel was under foreign rule? i'l go a step further -- not only did they not do their homework, but they did't understand the material either. so many of these are taken so far out of context we can only assume one of two things: either they're being purposefully deceptive in misrepresenting the meanings of these texts, or they just don't know any better. i'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
I don't know that it has to be a problem. If you believe that God works in mysterious ways, then why shouldn't he drop prophecies into the midst of paragraphs that don't seem to be prophecies? Why shouldn't they be found as encouragement to later generations that are experiencing his guidance that they have not lost the way, but are on the same ancient path of the prophets before them? well, because then anything can mean whatever you want. this is sort of another example of that pre-hoc propter-hoc fallacy. you're transposing a later meaning onto an earlier text, where it just was never there to begin with. that's not prophesy, that's allusion to a theme. prophesy would be one text clearly predicting something that happened after it's publication.
Now, if prophecy is supposed to be given so that unbelievers will be converted by the amazing fulfillments they see, then, yes, this is a problem. But if prophecy is given for the purpose stated above, then it's no problem at all. well, that's not why it's a problem, actually. the problem is that if we know the nt authors just misread thematic elements, and alluded to texts that don't agree with them -- how accurate is the nt? now, in this micah verse, we have several nt authors going out of their way to "fulfill." they have jesus OF NAZARETH being born in another city -- bethlehem. so was he born in bethlehem, or nazareth? if the prophesy is not referring to jesus at all, or the city of bethlehem, well, it's starting to look like the nt authors just made up some stuff. which is a BIG problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Didn't I answer that in message 27? no, not exactly. you said:
quote: to which ramoss writes:
quote: it's like claiming aragorn in lotr is really the second coming of jesus. it's great, and sure the theme is there... but one really has very little to do with the other. what ramoss wants to know, and it's a very valid question, is what the heck is the purpose of prophesy, if it can't be interpretted at the time it's given? or even at the time of the supposed fulfillment? forced-fits aren't really god's style, i think. it should take a write a hundred years later to say "oh, i guess this and this share some thematic elements. maybe if i take it way out of context, one is really prophesying the other." prophesies are usually straightforward, and to the point, and don't require mystics, interpretation, or for the reader to ignore the rest of the book. i mean, heck, if we wanna take things flagrantly out of context, the bible says "there is no god" at least a dozen time...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
In his letters, I don't see that Paul really claimed that Jesus fulfilled any prophecy. He did however pull quotes from the OT and various writings to lend authority to what he was saying. no no, i mean matthew.
I've seen suggestions that the book of Matthew was actually written as a satire. If the book was truly written as a satire, then the author knew exactly what he was doing and didn't intend to use the verses in context. i dunno about that one. but good points about everything else.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1373 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
interesting. not sure i agree with the first bit of the genealogy argument, but the second half has a very good point...
quote: yeah, that could explain it.
quote: maybe he's playing on "nazarite," which jesus is clearly not one of. he didn't shave his head, avoid dead people, and stay away from wine -- in fact he did the opposite.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024