Summations Only

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?This seems like a strange argument to make. Regarding the specific case of the Massacre of the Innocents, remember that you were also claiming it wouldn't have been that significant an event at the time. These church fathers obviously accepted Matthew's word about things, that's why they became leaders of the church, but how would they have verified this insignificant event that Matthew claimed happened decades before? 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. Even with Ignatius we're talking about an event that is supposed to have happened during the Chinese Civil War. And these aren't people with internet, or TV, or exhaustive libraries.You can't simultaneously dismiss the silence of people like Josephus by arguing that the event wouldn't have been considered widely significant; and then cite as support the fact that early Christians don't question the story decades or centuries later. Why should they?

Again until you can provide exact evidence as to why Matthew should NOT be believed overall, the overall evidence for the reliabilty, that is, the surrounding evidence of Matthew supports his claims.That is unless you can provide some real evidence to the contrary. Wouldnt you agree Fortunately in the scriptures it does, since that is claerly what the scriptures is about, God and Gods plans throughout history. Even a casual reading of the Bible would make this known to even the simplest of readers. Thats odd. How did you come to the absolute conclusion that a prophecy cannnot involve a promise or a covenant? How in the world can they not be intermingled?How can the expression "and through thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed", not involve collectively, prophecy, promise and covenant.It seems your intimation is a strech, to avoid the argument I provided concerning the Biblical nature of prophecy They have to be, since he was God incarnate. He both gave all prophecies and was the fulfillment of all prophecies Great. Now, since those that claimed inspiration about what the covenant with Abraham didnt know what God meant, as you suggest, perhaps you could tell us what he meant concerning the statement, "all the nations shall be blessed"Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

No, you are inadvertantly transposing your comments with what i was responding to Mod about. He questioned the veracity and legitimacy of the the Gospels as we now have them, or as they have been handed down. He claimed not only colusion but outright destruction of otherwise relevant material This was one of his arguments against the veracity of MatthewI was demonstrating that by the earliest letters and contemporaries and even the spurious and so-called lost Gospels, that there is no reason to doubt that we have the truth communicated by the Apostles and NT writers in the originalsBesides this there is no need for me to argue against Josephus' silence, to defend the veracity of Matthew. From an argument standpoint, one has nothing to do with the other. He is assuming I need that for it to be true and Matthew unbiased. I dontFurther I have already demonstrated bias on Modulous' part, by pointing out that he claims forgery on some early NT Christians, (concerning Josephus) but then claims foul when it suits his purposes, regarding silence of some event Yours, is at best, a silly argument. Polycarp like anyone else could have had any occasion or reason to doubt it. Was he born a Christian? He was like anyone else, raised to believe anything he wished and he was in an incredible position not only to doubt that, but anything else concerning Christianity.The cooroborating evidence from John the Apostle to Polycarp, and the availabilty of the writings, already known to be from the Apostles themself, only makes your anaolgy, all the more sillyNow, you have given the conservative date of 35 years. This of course would mean as tradition suggests and as witnesses write, he was an student of John the Apostle, as we know. If that is the case the miraculous gifts of the Spirit would not have yet vanished as paul states in 1 Cor 12. If you believe such things as set out by the Gospel writers. IOWs Polycarp would have witnessed those miraculous gifts first handThat being the case, he would have been the best possible position, of those not far removed from such events, to doubt that that event actually happenedThink about it logically. Two thousand years later, scholars, teachers and very educated people hold in high regard the [qs]You can't simultaneously dismiss the silence of people like Josephus by arguing that the event wouldn't have been considered widely significant; and then cite as support the fact that early Christians don't question the story decades or centuries later.[qs] You do, and you are two thousand years removed. If anybody could or should have, certainly it should have been them, correct? Matthews gospel would have been widely circulated by the time Polycarp, was a young man, if it is given a conservative date. Even if it wasnt anybody could have contested this acusation about Herod after the publication of Matthew, correct?Usually, with a claim such as that, the people closest to the events have one of two choices. They know it is true,not to claim otherwise, or they will claim vehemently that was not the case that Heord did not do such a things. Since there is no outcry, in a written manner, it seems reasonble to believe such an event actually happenedAs it turns out andas I have already stated, your setting up a straw man just to knock it down. Your assuming I need to prove that Josephus needed to mention it for it to have actually happened. I dont. Then you are simultaneously applying this (strawman) to the veracity of Matthew, as if he needs it, to be unbiased. He doesntDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

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. I didn't say a prophecy cannot involve a promise/covenant. I'm saying that a covenant isn't the same thing as a prophecy, and Genesis 12 is not a prophecy that involves a covenant. Its just a covenant. A promise. 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. That's Genesis 22, just to point that out since we were originally discussing Genesis 12Anyway, I think it means that all the nations shall be blessed. This is a promise from God to Abraham in exchange for his faithfulness.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

To assist in demonstrating that no amount of corroborating physical or written evidence would convince you that Jesus was the Christ, he fulfilled prophecy or that prophecy is actually real, what is it about the Gospel of Matthew that you 'mistrust'IOWs, since he cannot be demonstrated to unreliable, what are the sources of your reservations concerning his lack of restraint? I wont prolong this point, but as you have agreed, its all about God essentially. It should be obvious from the life of Christ as described in the Gospels and those specific details of fulfillment, crossreferenced with the OT verbage, that justification is met.The best I think those in opposition could claim, is that the writers of the NT were making stuff up. That of course would be an assertion not an actual argument applied to a specific prophecy and fulfillment.If however you need textual proof, I have already provided that on one occassion."A voice of one calling: "In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God." Isa 40:3"This is he who was spoken of through the prophet Isaiah: "A voice of one calling in the desert, 'Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.'' Matt 3:3Matthew and John claim Jesus to be the ultimate fulfillment of this statement by Isa. In one sentence he claims Jesus to be prophectic, Messiah and GodI think what really amazes me, is that people would make an attempt to disprove that Jesus is the fulfillment of said prophecies, in a testament to testament comparison. How do you begin to attempt such a feat?Early on here, i issued the challenge from a practical standpoint, for anyone to provide evidence of another character in history, or writers like the NT writers that attempted such a feat of proving messiahship from the OT prophecies.Certainly in two thousand years and with all the potential contenders, someone could have been brought forward, whos life makes an attempt to fulfill those prophecies.Certaily another writer or set of writers could have provided an example of someones life that fell into that category. But when you look for it in history, history is as silent as the tomb, in offering up any characters that would make any sense in that connection From the OP,it should be obvious that these are prophecies and fulfillments of the anticipated Messiah. Ynless you are prepared to demonstrate otherwiseIsa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.Matthew 1:18-23 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. I dont see how these could be anymore specific. I think there is every good reason to believe the NT writers are not guilty of quote mining. No one else life even comes close, to even attempting such a featIf that were a possibility, it would have been atttempted in two thousand yearsDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

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. Yes Matthew may well make that claim. The question is, is it justified or is Matthew stretching things when he says Jesus was the fulfillment? I'm simply looking at some of the so-called prophecies and suggesting that they aren't even prophecies and even if they were they are not necessarily about the messiah. I attempt such a feat by using my learned ability at English Comprehension.I'm fairly sure there are messianic prophecies in the OT. But a good amount of the ones that Christians (and only Christians and maybe some Muslims) propose simply don't fit the bill. 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. 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.A prophecy which is fulfilled by millions is not specific enough, I'm afraid.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

And you will remember back when, when I was discussing prophecy in another thread, I invited you to bring anything out of your thread on prophecy, if you thought is was releveant and I would address it.So as usual, once again in another thread ,you have nothing of value to offer. So lets see, I believe Ill move on to Mods post, where there are actual arguments and points being madeYou really should try it sometime Jar, its called debatingDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

So nothing you can offer that would demonstrate Matthew was incorrect or outright wrong? I have but I will try again. Genesis 12 and 22 is a discussion of Abraham and God, God making promises to Abraham. Hence, only God would be able to make known what those promises are, through another inspired writerNow if you are prepared to say God wasnt actually talking to Abraham and some writer made all this up, then it doesnt matter what anyone thinks. The writer of Genesis could have been talking about something known only to him, in his timeDo you think God actually visited and spoke with Abraham? Since the name means "God with us", and jesus claimed and demonstrated to be God on several occasions, it would have reference to him. IOWs it would be a reference to him as the fulfillment of that prophecyAnd Im sure you already know this, but I will state it for the benifit of somone that may not. The writer could be using the name Immanuel as a title, or something referencing his character. Im pretty sure no one ever said "here comes Mr Wonderful or Mr prince of Peace,. refereing directly to Jesus, even though he was the embodiment of these characteristicsThe list the author gave in the OP demonstrates many specific details of Jesus life, as outlined in the NT. You attitude seems to be, if some thing is not mentioned specifically, this should disqualify him. However if something is mentioned specifically,as in those prophecies, you say they not about himIt seems my work only consists of figuring out from you why, those specifics and numerous details as they are , should not be applied to Christ The NT writers make it clear that Christ is the only logical choice, of the fulfillment of this prophecy,that could to this date be reigning on Davids throne. Who has upheld the throne and upheld it in justice and righteouness, from a specific time and forever?Only someone that lives forever and someone that was completely just and righteous, could reign forever.Since "God would accomplish it", it seems silly to assume some OT literal king, could be the fulfillment of Isa's prophecyIf there was a bigger plan than Israels success or failure, then it would take a bigger king. If this were the specific quote as you have postulated it. Your response would be thus:1.There is no mention of Jesus by name
2.Many boys were born in Bethlehem
3.Since jesus was just a man, this prophecy could only refer to God
4.Turning water into wine as stated by the by the OT prophet, could be seen as a metephor, not to be taken literallyHow much more specific could the prophecies be? Its not just the specifics, its the numerous detail of many specificsTrying to dismiss these seems to me to be utterly sillyYou could demonstrate me to be wrong by simply holding someone else up, that either lived at that time or presently, who could fit the bill, as you call it Hardly and there is more than just the Gen prophecy. If you think any jewish boy could fit the bill, then present him. Also, Its not necessary for God to explain in detail, in every situation his intentions. He gets the Job done over time I doubt every Jewish child could claim such things, eh. And this is not even mentioning Isa chapter 9Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

quote:

---

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.

---

Since this has not come to pass, it is not a prophecy.You seem to think that if you believe that something will eventually come true, then that is a fulfilled prophecy.
It is not.

"For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders." Uh, lets see. A Roman procurator named Pontius Pilate, judges, folds, then pronounces the death sentence on you, uh, yes I believe one could consider that fulfilled.The temple leaders were very much considered government leaders, in those days, especially for the Jewish people.He would not have been hounded continuously during his ministry by the Jewish leaders, then tossed back and forth between Herod and Pilate, were they not considered government leaders.Uh, yes the government was on his shoulder continuously and yes this was fulfilledDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

You claim that Isaiah 9 refers to Jesus.Here is the part you have quoted: Now let's look at it in detail. Where does that refer to Jesus? Start by showing when Jesus ruled on David's throne and over David's kingdom?

"On your shoulders" does not mean "persecuted".
In fact, I can't find any religious text that supports your new definition of "on his shoulders".

quote:

---

The sense of this passage is, that he shall rule, or that the government shall be vested in him. Various interpretations have, however, been given of the phrase 'upon his shoulder.' Some have supposed, that it means simply he shall sustain the government, as the shoulder is that by which we uphold any thing. Pliny and Cicero thus use the phrase; see Rosenmuller. Others, that it means that he should wear the royal purple from a child. - Grotius. Lowth supposes that it refers to the ensign of government - the scepter, the sword, the keys, or the like, that were borne upon the shoulder, or suspended from it; see the note at Isaiah 22:22. It is evident, from this latter place, that some ensign of office was usually borne upon the shoulder. The sense is, that he should be a king, and under this character the Messiah is often predicted. Bible.cc

---

And if we read the text that follows:

quote:

---

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.

---

This also doesn't support your innovative use of the English language.If you are having to change the actual meaning of words when supporting your position, then it should be patently obvious that you are wrong.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

quote:

---

[Jar]
You claim that Isaiah 9 refers to Jesus.
Here is the part you have quoted:

​

DB writes:

​

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.

​

Now let's look at it in detail. Where does that refer to Jesus? Start by showing when Jesus ruled on David's throne and over David's kingdom?

---

This is why debating the scriptures with unbelievers is such a massive waste of time. Because you have absolutely no spiritual insight at all. If you did, you would understand how Jesus fulfilled or will fulfill every single aspect of this prophecy. For example, Isaiah wrote: 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.This aspect of the prophecy has not yet occurred since we haven't come to the end of this Age and entered the new Age. Your ignorance is so epic and your perspective so weak that you demand that God make every passage all inclusive in its completeness as a thought process. You don't understand that Prophets like Isaiah didn't understand, themselves exactly what they were saying when they wrote these prophecies. They wrote what the Holy Spirit inspired them to write. In Isaiah's lifetime, 900 years before Christ lived, he himself never understood the wholeness of what he prophesied. He only knew that it was from Yahweh/El-Shedai and that he had to record it for posterity and trust God to preserve it for future generations to see and know of.God has been very faithful in doing this since we are here in the 21st century, approximately 2900 years after Isaiah hand wrote this prophecy, and no power on Earth has ever been able to destroy Gods Word. In spite of the attempts at doing just that. In my first post I offered solid evidence that Jesus is Messiah. That you atheists and unbelievers can waste page after page promoting ignorant and uninformed arguments that are based on nothing more than uninformed misinterpretations of what is written in Gods word, changes nothing regarding the eternal truths which you so arrogantly deny.

Hi Archangel, Then it's not a fulfilled prophecy.Simple really.Mutate and Survive