Summations Only

The people that wrote about Jesus' life specifics did so after he was alive. Jesus was said to be alive after the OT 'messianic prophecies'.

Yet nobody else in the world bothers to mention this except for one person trying to sell Jesus decades upon decades after the fact. Does this not strike you as a tad unusual?

In order for them persuade people of this, it would be trivial to read through the Old Testament and try to include in the account of Jesus, as many things as they could get away with.

Yes, we're talking about scripture... a series of writings by various authors.

I'm happy to consider all of scripture, even non-canonical scripture in this discussion. You presume too much of your opponents.

The thread here seems to be to compare what the Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah with the life of Jesus portrayed in the New Testament to see if there is a match and perhaps additionally, what these matches might mean.

I don't care who actually wrote any given prophecy all that much.

It would be closed minded of us if we refused to consider the possibility that false things were said about Jesus to make it appear as if he had fulfilled some prophecy or another.

I don't claim to state that I know the OT writer is correct. Why would I do that?

If it puts you at ease, I treat them with the same confidence.

Mod could you provide us with a list of writers/historians besides those in the Gospels, that gave such detail, description and application to the old test prophecies like those mentioned in the NT concerning Christ?

For what purpose would I do this?

It's not unusual at all, that a character that was written after some prophecies is described as having fulfilled those prophecies. Especially when the authors are clearly trying to persuade us that a certain person fulfilled certain prophecies.

The question at primarily hand is: Does Jesus actually fit the prophecies for what the Messiah would be like? I'm adding my own interpretation by discussing what this fulfillment, should it exist, really means.
For instance, I find it is very unusual that nobody thought that it was noteworthy that Herod ordered mass infanticide at the time that it happened. If this was prophecied, which I don't think it was, there is significant reason to suppose it was invented so as to be a fulfillment rather than being an actual fulfillment by any real individual.

I don't understand what you are waiting for and why you think its relevant.

Er, according the the Gospels, the Jewish people most learned in the scriptures wanted Jesus crucified for claiming to be the Messiah. If he had been an obvious fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies, then they would have recognized him as being the Messiah.You want an "outcry"? Here's your outcry:Again the high priest asked him, and saith unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.And the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What further need have we of witnesses?Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be worthy of death.And some began to spit on him, and to cover his face, and to buffet him, and to say unto him, Prophesy: and the officers received him with blows of their hands.Got that? If the gospels are true, then the people who were, as you say, "closer to all the facts", did indeed take Jesus to be a "false messiah" and a "fraud".If, on the other hand, the gospels are false ...

Please provide the evidence that killing newborns was a daily act by ancient rulers. I am highly confident you are wrong.

If someone lies about Tony Blair I can still reasonably conclude that they are not talking about George Bush.

Why would there be an outcry about a character whose life was being written decades after his death? Of course there the naysayers such as most of the Jews, who denied that he was the Messiah. But who was alive while the NT was being composed and also as a witness to the events in question, to be able to say 'That didn't happen?' and create any outcry?

Not every culture. And their floods were not all global. I don't deny that ancient cultures may have suffered from floods. I do deny that any such flood killed almost all life on earth. Even moreso than the Herod story, that would have left independent evidence lying around.

It only appears in one source. A biased source. An anonymous source. How are we concluding it is reliable?

That would be interesting, of course. Again, I don't think such reports would have survived the Catholic Church though. There were other Messiah contenders, of course, but if anyone bothered to write stories about them, few of them survived.

It's not my first inclination. My first inclination is however, skepticism. The Massacre of the Innocents is just one reason to suppose that false things were being written to shoehorn the Jesus character into a Messiah role.

I was asking for evidence, independent of the single biased anonymous account we have, that confirms that Herod ordered systematic infanticide. That is the kind of thing historians would mention. They mention much less interesting facts about Herod that the Massacre of the Innocents.

Evidence that the Massacre of the Innocents was a daily or hourly act of the Roman Government, please.

If it did happen all the time, why did Matthew bother mentioning it? And how does something that occurs hourly really qualify as a fulfilled prophecy?

But killing all the firstborn children under your power is not common daily violence is it? Its a systematic extermination. Josephus wasn't a big fan of Herod if memory serves. He mentioned several moral crimes that Herod committed. He neglected to mention murdering hundreds to thousands of babies.

Of course! That's what this thread is here to explore! In fact, it is my position that several passages in the OT are in fact talking about the messiah. I don't think these passages connect well with Jesus though.

I can study the Three Witches prophecy in Macbeth without the need to believe the Witches were inspired by Hecate...in reality.

I am saying that Matthew was written as best as we can tell at a time when few to zero contemporaries with Jesus were around.

I'm not proposing one provides evidence for any Biblical miracles. I was asking for evidence of a mundane event that would have left evidence behind: The Massacre of the Innocents.

The book of Matthew clearly has the agenda of trying to convince the readers that Jesus was the Messiah prophecied by the Jews. It is biased to that end.

The early churches had many more Gospels than we have now. They were quite different than any church we have now. A lot of those works have since been destroyed. I see no reason to suppose that texts detailing Messiahs other than Jesus would have met a different fate.

I wasn't making a moral point. The only point of interest here is that those abortions are often documented by sources whose only detectable agenda is to document abortions. The Massacre of Innocents was only documented by one source who clearly had an agenda above and beyond recording historical facts.

Romans were not the only people capable of writing about the Massacre of the Innocents. Josephus wrote about Herod. Did he mention Herod's massacre? If not, can you think of a good reason why he didn't?

I doubt that.

If you have any other prophecies you'd like to discuss then present them. Do you have any scriptural evidence that Jesus fulfilled the requirements of being considered a messiah?

I don’t think the onus should be on me to disprove the reliability of Matthew, it should be up to you to prove its reliability.
But sure, I’ll play along. What about the ‘tradition’ of releasing a prisoner of the crowd’s choice? There’s no evidence that such a tradition actually existed outside of the Gospels.

I claim that Matthew believes that Massacre of the Innocents was an almost unique event that heralded the coming of Christ, drawing a paralell with Pharoah and Moses

This is of course, an excuse. And a particularly stupid one. Josephus was a writer. He wrote a lot of things about a lot of people. But you are trying to have me believe he grew so weary of discussing Herod he couldn’t be bothered to mention one of the most astounding ‘facts’ about his life.

So let me get this straight , when Josephus mentions, Jesus, James and John the Baptist you say its an interpolation. But when Josephus doesnt mention a single event, your dissatisfied?

When Josephus does not mention an event he would have known about, that was very very noteworthy and regarding a subject he did write aboutthat’s unusual. Coupled with the information that No other human being bothered to record it until decades afterwards when someone that may well have not even been local and certainly wasn’t a witness.

- When Tobin and other critics say that there's no reference to the slaughter in other ancient sources, they're excluding early Christian affirmations outside of Matthew. Justin Martyr (Dialogue With Trypho, 78), Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 3:16:4), and many other Christian sources of the patristic era refer to the event in a way that suggests its historicity. Even earlier, we have sources referring to Matthew's gospel as scripture (e.g., The Epistle Of Barnabas, 4), which suggests their acceptance of the historicity of Matthew's account of the slaughter. We know that the gospel of Matthew was widely distributed and highly regarded during the earliest patristic decades (Clayton Jefford, The Apostolic Fathers And The New Testament [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2006], pp. 110, 140-143).While such sources may have accepted Matthew's account for no good reason, we shouldn't assume without argument that they did so. Some of them, like Justin Martyr, were in contact with critics of Christianity, including Jewish critics, and were studying and responding to their arguments. Despite his tendency toward allegorizing, Origen treated the slaughter as historical (Against Celsus, 1:61). Earlier, I cited a Jewish source used by Celsus who doubted at least Herod's involvement in the slaughter, perhaps even the slaughter itself and its surrounding events. But Origen doesn't mention any evidence that Celsus cites, and Origen doesn't seem to think that any significant objection has been raised. I'm not aware of any other source in the earliest generations who denies the historicity of the event. With that one possible exception in Celsus' treatise against Christianity, it doesn't seem that the historicity of the slaughter was questioned much by the early Christians or their enemies.- An early Jewish source, the Assumption Of Moses, refers to Herod as a murderer of the young in a context in which he's compared to the Pharaoh who ordered the execution of the Jewish children in Exodus 1. The most natural implication is that the author thought Herod was involved in killing children in a way similar to what Pharaoh had done. Geza Vermes, a non-Christian scholar who's highly critical of the infancy narratives, even cites this passage as evidence of an atmosphere in which Matthew's account might have arisen:"Already, the work known as the Assumption of Moses, which probably originated at the turn of the era, depicts Herod as the king who 'shall slay the old and the young, and shall not spare...And he shall execute judgments on them as the Egyptians executed upon them' (Assumption of Moses, 6)." (The Nativity [New York: Doubleday, 2006], p. 110)But where did the author of the Assumption Of Moses get the idea that Herod was involved in such activity? Matthew's account provides an explanation. But even if we assume that the author of the Assumption Of Moses had some other incident or series of incidents in mind, it doesn't seem that he's referring to anything recorded by Josephus. If the Assumption Of Moses could be aware of one or more such misdeeds of Herod not mentioned by Josephus, then why couldn't the same be true of Matthew?- A few hundred years after Matthew's gospel was written, another non-Christian source, Macrobius, gives us a garbled account that seems to partially corroborate what Matthew reported. But Macrobius is a late source, and some of his information is inconsistent with what we find in Matthew. His testimony isn't as significant as what we find in Matthew or the Assumption Of Moses. It's possible that he's not even referring to Matthew's event. But, as with the Assumption Of Moses, we would then have further evidence of a misdeed of Herod not recorded by Josephus. Or Macrobius may have just been confusing one historical event with one or more others. He doesn't seem to have been dependent on Matthew for his information. See here. At the least, it seems that Macrobius offers non-Christian corroboration of the plausibility of such a misdeed of Herod that wasn't recorded by Josephus.- Craig Keener cites an incident that Josephus doesn't mention:"It is possible that he [Herod] also engaged in persecutions outside the scope of Josephus’s sources, as in the repression of the wilderness Essenes (Fritsch 1956: 23-24). In an era of many, highly placed political murders, the execution of perhaps twenty children in a small town would warrant little attention (see France 1979: 114-19). Although Josephus readily lists Herod’s atrocities, most of his reports surround the royal house or events known on a national scale; it is not improbable that Herod was no less brutal when acting out of range of Josephus’s sources" (A Commentary On The Gospel Of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1999], pp. 110-111)- An indirect line of evidence for the slaughter is the evidence we have for the Divine inspiration of scripture. See the many posts on that subject in this blog's archives.- Notice that an Evangelical (or another type of defender of Matthew's account in some cases) has multiple reasons for trusting what Matthew wrote. It's not as though an Evangelical must assume Biblical inerrancy without any concern for evidence, then assume Matthew's reliability as a result. Rather, Evangelicals have argued for their conclusion that the Bible is inerrant, and there are other lines of evidence for Matthew's account independent of inerrancy.- The heart of the objection to Matthew's account is the silence of Josephus. (That tells you something about the weakness of the objection.) Tobin tells us that Josephus' silence about the slaughter "speaks volumes" and that "he would have had every reason to tell the story if he had known about it" (in John Loftus, ed., The Christian Delusion [Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 2010], p. 159) He writes:"Did Josephus have any reason to suppress the information? None at all, indeed if anything, it was the opposite. As has been pointed out, Josephus was writing for Emperor Titus, whose mistress, Berenice, was herself a Hasmonean. So It was in the interest of the Jewish historian to blacken Herod’s name as much as possible. We note, furthermore, that Josephus himself was a Pharisee, Herod was not too kind to them as well."Josephus' negative portrayal of Herod in Antiquities Of The Jews is different than his earlier, more positive portrayal in Jewish War (Steve Mason, Josephus And The New Testament [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005], p. 160). The former, which is the work Tobin has primarily been citing, wasn't written for Titus. And even the writing of Jewish War was started several years before Titus became emperor (ibid., p. 64). Steve Mason has argued that Josephus issued veiled criticisms of Titus and other high-ranking Romans by his use of irony (ibid., pp. 81-88; Josephus, Judea, And Christian Origins [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009], pp. 80-86). If Tobin wants us to believe that Josephus "was writing for Emperor Titus" in some way that suggests that he should have mentioned the Slaughter of the Innocents, then he'll need to produce more of an argument to establish that conclusion.And he'll have to argue for his conclusion that Josephus was a Pharisee. It's a disputed point. See the first book by Steve Mason that I cited in my last paragraph (pp. 203-206), which is one of the sources Tobin himself has cited.I've already mentioned some evidence that Josephus wasn't giving an exhaustive account of the misdeeds of Herod. He could "blacken Herod's name" by giving representative examples. He didn't need to be exhaustive. Josephus wrote:"And since Herod had now the government of all Judea put into his hands, he promoted such of the private men in the city as had been of his party, but never left off avenging and punishing every day those that had chosen to be of the party of his enemies." (Antiquities Of The Jews, 15:1)Since Josephus says that Herod "never left off" doing such things "every day", will Tobin argue that Josephus mentions every one of those activities done each day? After all, Josephus wanted to "darken Herod's name as much as possible", according to Tobin.Does Josephus claim to be giving an exhaustive account anywhere? Not that I'm aware of. I've never seen any critic of Matthew cite such a claim by Josephus. Why are we supposed to believe that he was being exhaustive?I emailed Shaye Cohen, a scholar who's studied Josephus, on this issue. He told me that he doesn't recall any passage in which Josephus states or suggests that he's going to be exhaustive. The New Testament scholar Craig Keener wrote back to me, "That Josephus includes some events in either the War or the Antiquities that he doesn’t include in the other one suggests that he doesn’t try to be exhaustive."Tobin's inability to think of any potential reason for Josephus to not mention the slaughter doesn't reflect well on Tobin. Why might Josephus not mention Herod's execution of the children? Aside from the factors I've already discussed, there are the pro-Christian aspects of the event. Matthew's gospel probably was circulating before Josephus published his material on Herod, and the traditions behind Matthew's gospel would have been circulating even earlier. Christians were already using the account of the slaughter for their own purposes. The Slaughter of the Innocents elicits sympathy for Christianity, it suggests that Jesus was under God's protection, and it involves Jesus' fulfillment of a commonly accepted Messianic prophecy (Micah 5:2). What would Josephus' readers have thought of his Judaism in light of such an event? Josephus had enough material on Herod to avoid utilizing an account that had such pro-Christian implications, an account that was being utilized by the Christians of his day. Similarly, Josephus makes vague reference to the miracles of Jesus, demonstrating that he was aware of them, without going into detail. He knew more than he wrote.A desire on the part of Jews to avoid corroborating Christianity on such issues isn't just likely in principle. We have evidence that it did occur. Origen accuses post-Christian Jews of trying to avoid discussion of Micah's Bethlehem prophecy, and he notes that Jesus' birth in that city is acknowledged by both Christians and their enemies (Against Celsus, 1:51). Raymond Brown recognized the significance of Origen's comments:"Later Jewish polemic did not feature a denial that Jesus was born at Bethlehem, even when his legitimacy was attacked. If there is any truth in Origen's charge of suppressed references to the Messiah's birth at Bethlehem (footnote 2), such suppression would represent a tacit acknowledgment of Christian tradition concerning the birthplace of Jesus." (The Birth Of The Messiah [New York, New York: Doubleday, 1999], p. 514)Was Origen in a good position to judge the issue? Yes, he was. He read and traveled widely. John McGuckin notes that Origen "consulted on several occasions with famous rabbis...Talmudic texts also have Origen in discussion with the Caesarean Jewish scholar Hoschaia Rabba." (The Westminster Handbook To Origen [Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004], n. 62 on p. 11) Elsewhere, McGuckin refers to "the apologetic exchanges between the Christian and Jewish scholars of the respective Caesarean schools" (p. 27). Steve Mason notes that Origen "lived in Caesarea and knows the reality well [of what was happening in Israel]" (Josephus, Judea, And Christian Origins [Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2009], p. 178).While Origen makes much of Jesus' fulfillment of the Bethlehem prophecy, Celsus and his Jewish sources avoid the subject. Similarly, Justin Martyr made much of the prophecy and its fulfillment in his writings, whereas his Jewish opponents didn't, though they did raise objections to the infancy narratives on other grounds. It seems that ancient Jews acknowledged Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, but preferred to largely avoid discussing the subject. Josephus' silence about the Slaughter of the Innocents, an event that corroborates the Bethlehem birthplace and reflects well on Christianity in other ways, isn't much of an objection to the historicity of the event.Without the argument from Josephus' silence, Tobin's objection to the Slaughter of the Innocents collapses. And recall how much emphasis Tobin placed on the alleged non-historicity of the slaughter:

I have good reason: Matthew is clearly biased towards the position that Jesus is a Messiah who worked miracles and he is clearly biased towards trying to persuade his readers to that. There is no better indication of bias as when the author wears the bias on his sleeve like Matthew does.

It really only matters in so far as we want to know if Jesus meets the OT requirements.

IOWs of what value is your belief that he talking about a messiah, if you dont allow or involve intervention. Without inspiration and divine understanding, would I be wrong in assuming you could be incorrect, that it is not refering to Jesus Christ

I’m going to have to ask you to reword this.

Since the evidence is stacked in favor of Jesus as indicated by the passages provided by the Old Test authors and the NT writers, yet you still firmly believe its not refering to jesus, perhaps you could provide an alternative that makes as much sense.

Sure: Some people believed Jesus was the Messiah. Some authors therefore attempted to persuade people that Jesus was the Messiah by attempting to show how Jesus’ life events were fulfilment of prophecy. They found a prophecy and tried to create something that was as close to a fulfilment as they could get away with.

Why should we assume that an author of book, the earliest manuscript of which we have is much later than the events described, is contemporary?
If you want to discuss dating of Matthew that might be a thread in its own right.

I've not said the earliest disciples had a conspiracy afoot. What I am saying is that we know that other Gospels were written because early authors quoted from them, referred to them etc. We have other clues such as the existence of the Gospel of Thomas.

No that was not my indirect implication. My direct explicit statement was that the Church destroyed documents that contradicted their view, that would include rival gospels and documents pertaining to rival messiahs.

This doesn't address the argument at all. My argument was that AT THE TIME the Massacre of the Innocents was unreported. You say it is because it is routine and common, and you cite abortions which are also routine and common. The problem is that abortions are both routine and documented by contemporary sources. The Massacre of Innocents was neither routine nor documented by contemporary sources.
So your analogy with abortion works against you, it does not support your position at all. I suggest dropping it.

So Herod suppressed Josephus but not the gospels? Is that your claim?

Can you provide any evidence that life was so valueless that nobody gave a fuck when a king went about killing all the young males of his subjects?
Don't worry, I know the answer ahead of time.

I'll get round to disagreeing when you present something for me to disagree with.

Did I? I might have implied it. You present something that you think is not a lie, and I'll tell you if I think its a lie or could be a lie.

Is a prophecy that was fulfilled by the Massacre of the Innocents. I hold that this verse has nothing to do with the Massacre of Innocents AND that it would have been recorded by an impartial source when it happened. As far as Messianic prophecy is concerned: It's a double fail.

Isaiah 7:14 doesn't appear to be a Messianic prophecy.
Genesis 12:1-3 is not a Messianic prophecy and neither is Genesis 22:18 nor Genesis 49:10
That's five of them addressed. You've responded to only one. Want to discuss these others? Do you have a favourite amongst the list?

Are you really, seriously doubting that the Catholic Church destroyed documents that were contradictory to their view? If you are, it probably deserves a thread in its own right.

I was using the existence of Gospel of Thomas as evidence that there were more Gospels in existence than we have in the canon. Do you doubt that the Catholic Church destroyed unorthodox documents?

I’m not claiming a contradiction. We have one anonymous source making a historical claim that is not backed up by any other source. This source is not primary, since it appears to be written some decades after the fact. The correct response to a claim being made by such a source is extreme scepticism. It calls into question the reliability of the source.

You are excusing Josephus’ silence with the sorry excuse that goes along the lines of ‘Josephus had grown weary of recording historical information about Herod’

I’m not disputing that life was of little value. But you have not supported your argument that it was so valueless that a king could kill all the young boys and only one anonymous person with a clear agenda bothered to say anything about it, decades after the fact.

How is a presumably documented Roman law about girls relevant to the undocumented systematic killing of all of the young males ordered by a client king of Judea?

Isaiah 7:14 doesn't appear to be a Messianic prophecy.
Genesis 12:1-3 is not a Messianic prophecy and neither is Genesis 22:18 nor Genesis 49:10

And I've never disputed this point. What they do mention are things about the person which are noteworthy. And my claim is the Massacre of Innocents was noteworthy.
You didn't simply point out that not everything is recorded or noted. You specifically said you were 'sure' that Josephus 'grew weary of mentioning anything about Heord after a while'

I'd even accept a single letter describing a child being killed on orders of Herod who had ordered the killing all the young males of the land.

I agree that parables and proverbs aren't. But I see no reason to think that about prophecies.

Saying that prophecies are ultimately about God doesn't fix any of my issues at all I'm afraid.

Take Genesis 12
quote:The LORD had said to Abram, Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.
2 I will make you into a great nation,
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.[a]
3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.That's not a prophecy. There is no prophet here. This is simply a promise from God to Abraham. It says nothing about Jesus. It says nothing about messiahs.

Furthermore, how do you know that girls were tossed on the heap? Because people presumably have documented this. If there was no documentation, then I would not simply believe that it happened. So which is it?

As seen in Pesouris v. Seraeus (P.Oxy. XXXVII and XXXVIII), if it could bedemonstrated that a male slave was born free, he would be loosed from the slavesystem.
10
The same cannot be said of female foundlings, for whom no such provision isordered in the law codes, the majority of these being relegated to the slave system.
11
Itcan also be established from available records that female infants were exposed at ahigher rate than male infants. Census declarations, for instance, declare a ratio of twofemale slaves to each male slave, interpreted by Bagnall as evidence for differentialrates of infant exposure and enslavement rather than to such a birth ratio among slaves.
12
This observation is supported, as well, in informal documents from the time. P.Oxy.DCCXLIV is a letter dated to the year 1 B.C.E. from a man called Hilarion to a pregnantwoman, Alis, probably his wife, though the text addresses her as sister.
13
In the letter,Hilarion instructs Alis to keep her child if it is male, but to throw it out (2
nd
person presentactive imperative of
ejkbavllw
) if it is female.
14
One reason may be that raising afemale child in the first century was more costly to a family than raising a male child.This was due primarily to the dowry requirement which attached to a marriageablefemale.
15
There is record, as well, of the emperor Claudius exposing a female child bornto his wife Urgulanilla, believing her to be have been sired through adultery,
16
which also
10
Grenfell and Hunt, op. cit., vol. I, 80.
11
Gnomon of the Idios Logos
, 381.
12
Roger S. Bagnall,
Egypt in Late Antiquity
(Princeton, 1993), 202.
13
See Appendix C for the full text and translation of this letter.
14
Grenfell and Hunt, op. cit., vol. IV, 243-4.
15
Theodore Mommsen and Paul Krueger, eds,.
Iustiniani Digestae
edition minor (Berlin, 1882), 23.2.45.6:
Si ab hostibus patronus captus esse proponatur, vereor ne possit ista conubium habere nubendo,quemadmodum haberet, si mortuus esset. et qui Iuliani sententiam probant, dicerent non habituramconubium: putat enim Iulianus durare eius libertae matrimonium etiam in captivitate propter patronireverentiam. certe si in aliam servitutem patronus sit deductus, procul dubio dissolutum esset matrimonium
.
16
C. Suetonius Tranquillus,
Divus Augustus
(ca. 121 C.E.), XXXII.
4Ticeseems to be a popular motive for infant exposure. It would stand to reason that a manwould not want to provide a dowry for a child he suspected was not his own.

It's not really fair to describe the Church Fathers as being contemporary with, or 'just behind' the apostles - especially seeing as the Church Fathers mentioned in your previous big long quote were not amongst the earliest. The earliest you mentioned was Justin Martyr, who was born about a century after the Massacre of the Innocents was supposed to take place, and wrote the works we have decades after that.

Periodization. The first Ecumenical council, held in the city of Nicaea, (325) marked a momentous event for the Church. For this reason, the writers before these interrelated events are known as the Ante-Nicene Fathers ("ante" meaning before). They in turn are commonly divided into two groups. The Apostolic Fathers are those who wrote during the generation or two after the close of the New Testament era (from about 95-150AD). They are so-called because they are thought to have had living contact with the apostles and so are particularly precious witnesses to primitive apostolic Christianity. The few writings from this period that have survived are pastoral and practical rather than speculative. They include the anonymous "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles," otherwise known as the Didache, which is the earliest work describing Christian sacramental life. They also include letters from St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, St. Polycarp, who reportedly sat at the feet of the apostle John, and St. Clement, the bishop of Rome, who wrote to the Church in Corinth around 95 AD. It is fascinating that Clement’s letter, probably written around the same time as John’s Gospel, was regarded as so authoritative in the early church that it was copied and passed to churches all over the known world and considered by many as part of the New Testament scriptures.

But when there was conflict about the truly Catholic interpretation of the Scriptures, all sought backing for their position in the writings of "the Fathers." By this they meant teachers of an earlier era who demonstrated how the apostolic scriptures were understood and applied by the apostles themselves and those who followed them.

This would be like a forty-year old today discussing an event that happened during the Franco-Prussian war - except for the fact that the amount of documentary and photographic evidence that exists in today's world vastly exceeds anything that would have existed in second century Palestine. It's not a recent as you seem to be implying.
What's more, Justin was the earliest you mentioned, the other two (Origen and Irenaeus) were a century further removed from events.

In the context of corroborating Matthew, no - it does not serve the purposes.

That's fine, but it still doesn't help you as far as I can tell. Just because something is 'about God' that doesn't mean it is also about a messiah.

Because it is a covenant between Abraham and God, not prophecy. It is not a prophecy if I say, 'I'll give you $10'. It is not a prophecy if God says 'I will never destroy you in a flood again'.It's a promise, a covenant. Completely different than prophecy. Even if the promise is kept.

Not all prophecies are about Christ.

Not all statements about the future are prophecies. I do know what God is talking about here. He is talking about a covenant with Abraham.

So, am I to understand that the arugment is that, because people such as Polycarp and Clement, whose lives may have overlapped with the author of Matthew, had read Matthew, and didn't accuse him of being a liar, this lends support to the veracity of Matthew?

Polycarp's birth is generally dated about 35 years after Jesus' death, so what significance does it have for him not to doubt Matthew's word. It would be like me joining a new religion, and not doubting the word of the teachers about some fairly insignificant event that happened during the Frist World War.

Why should they?

I think it is a better policy to distrust a source until it is proven reliable. Anybody can write anything they please, there are no constraints.

Yes the scriptures are about God and his plans, as well as his relationship with humanity. But not every statement pertaining to future events described in the Bible is a messianic prophecy. If you want to claim it is, you need to provide justification for that.

What I am saying is that even if we accept the premise that all prophecies are ultimately something to do with God and therefore Jesus...that still doesn't mean that all prophecies are regarding the coming of Jesus/God in bodily form as the anticipated messiah.

Jesus said to them, ‘This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.’ Luke 24:44 (NIV)
The Old Testament verses are the prophecy; the New Testament verses proclaim the fulfillment. Check them all out for yourself!
Born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 1:21-23)
A descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 22:18; Matthew 1:1; Galatians 3:16)
Of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10; Luke 3:23, 33; Hebrews 7:14)
Of the house of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Matthew 1:1)
Born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:1; Luke 2:4-7)
Taken to Egypt (Hosea 11:1; Matthew 2:14-15)
Herods killing of the infants (Jeremiah 31:15; Matthew 2:16-18)
Anointed by the Holy Spirit (Isaiah 11:2; Matthew 3:16-17)
Heralded by the messenger of the Lord (John the Baptist) (Isaiah 40:3-5; Malachi 3:1; Matthew 3:1-3)
Would perform miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6; Matthew 9:35)
Would preach good news (Isaiah 61:1; Luke 4:14-21)
Would minister in Galilee (Isaiah 9:1; Matthew 4:12-16)
Would cleanse the Temple (Malachi 3:1; Matthew 21:12-13)
Would first present Himself as King 173,880 days from the decree to rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25; Matthew 21:4-11)
Would enter Jerusalem as a king on a donkey (Zechariah 9:9; Matthew 21:4-9)
Would be rejected by Jews (Psalm 118:22; I Peter 2:7)
Die a humiliating death (Psalm 22; Isaiah 53)
involving:
rejection (Isaiah 53:3; John 1:10-11; 7:5,48)
betrayal by a friend (Psalm 41:9; Luke 22:3-4; John 13:18)
sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zechariah 11:12; Matthew 26:14-15)
silence before His accusers (Isaiah 53:7; Matthew 27:12-14)
being mocked (Psalm 22: 7-8; Matthew 27:31)
beaten (Isaiah 52:14; Matthew 27:26)
spit upon (Isaiah 50:6; Matthew 27:30)
piercing His hands and feet (Psalm 22:16; Matthew 27:31)
being crucified with thieves (Isaiah 53:12; Matthew 27:38)
praying for His persecutors (Isaiah 53:12; Luke 23:34)
piercing His side (Zechariah 12:10; John 19:34)
given gall and vinegar to drink (Psalm 69:21, Matthew 27:34, Luke 23:36)
no broken bones (Psalm 34:20; John 19:32-36)
buried in a rich man’s tomb (Isaiah 53:9; Matthew 27:57-60)
casting lots for His garments (Psalm 22:18; John 19:23-24)
Would rise from the dead!! (Psalm 16:10; Mark 16:6; Acts 2:31)
Ascend into Heaven (Psalm 68:18; Acts 1:9)
Would sit down at the right hand of God (Psalm 110:1; Hebrews 1:3)

Sorry Dawn but you have presented absolutely nothing but examples of quote mining, taking phrases out of context and misrepresentation.
I have invited you in the past and will invite you yet again to come to the thread Are any of these prophecies fulfilled by Jesus? where such claims have been examined in context and shown to be false.

It's an ancient document.
It has a clear agenda.
It is anonymous.
The earliest copies we have are considerably later than the events that are described.
A human or humans wrote it.

There may well be such fulfillment within the Gospels. That's what we're here to discuss. Genesis 12 and Genesis 22 don't count as prophecies that are fulfilled by anything written in the gospels.
IF you have anything more substantial you are free to bring it up.

Jesus was never called Immanuel. And this prophecy does not appear to be about the Messiah or Jesus in any way. You are the one with the work here, to demonstrate that it is a messianic prophecy.
abe: Even if we suppose that this is a prophecy about Jesus, it says nothing about him being the messiah.

Isa 9 [a]Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the nations, by the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan
2 The people walking in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of deep darkness
a light has dawned.
3 You have enlarged the nation
and increased their joy;
they rejoice before you
as people rejoice at the harvest,
as warriors rejoice
when dividing the plunder.
4 For as in the day of Midian’s defeat,
you have shattered
the yoke that burdens them,
the bar across their shoulders,
the rod of their oppressor.
5 Every warrior’s boot used in battle
and every garment rolled in blood
will be destined for burning,
will be fuel for the fire.
6 For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the greatness of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the Lord Almighty
will accomplish this.

They could say something like : And there will be a boy born in Bethlehem who will be god and the coming messiah. He will turn water into wine, and will sacrifice himself to redeem original sin.
OR something...specific.

Genesis 12 does not say, for example, that the Messiah will be a descendant of Abraham. It simply doesn't. And even if it did: Every single Jewish person could claim to fulfill this prophecy.

to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the greatness of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the Lord Almighty
will accomplish this.