Jesus; the Torah, Nevi'im, and Psalms (Part 2)

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. 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

---

אָרַח

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

---

אָרַח

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...

---

אָרַח

we can add it in, if you want.

---

אָרַח

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.

---

אָרַח

any opposition so far?

---

אָרַח

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.

---

אָרַח

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)

---

אָרַח

heh, nevermind.

---

אָרַח

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.

---

אָרַח

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.

---

אָרַח

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. 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.

---

אָרַח

no, not exactly. you said:

quote:

---

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.

---

to which ramoss writes:

quote:

---

Except of course, when you read the passage in context, the 'prophecy' as quoted by those hundreds of years later is not there to be found.

​

What good is a dual prophecy is you have to take things out of context, and it can't be known to be a sign until hundreds of years after it happens?

---

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...

---

אָרַח

no no, i mean matthew. i dunno about that one. but good points about everything else.

---

אָרַח

interesting. not sure i agree with the first bit of the genealogy argument, but the second half has a very good point...

quote:

---

It is generally conceded that Matthew addressed his gospel to a Jewish audience. The Jews, being familiar with the Old Testament scriptures, would have recognized Matthew's phony fulfillments as signals that the book should not be taken seriously.

---

yeah, that could explain it.

quote:

---

So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene." (Matthew 2:23)

​

Which prophets? Although Matthew uses the plural, no such prophecy has ever been located. This is another clear mark of satire.

---

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.

---

אָרַח