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

This is actually the most obvious use for a prophet. Several hundred years later, after the prophet is dead, it is also the most obvious use for his writings. However, the prophet, when alive, can see what's going on around him and address things directly.His writings, obviously, cannot. If it is possible for them to be breathed into by God, as 2 Timothy claims, then it is also possible for God to have left messages in those writings, whether to encourage later believers, or hidden prophecies that the prophet could never have known about. Well, that's all I can see, too, because that's all it is. The point, however, is whether he is right about anything he says.

Well, yes, that's true. That still doesn't have to be a problem if God is real. If God is not real, and the goal is to be an excellent interpreter of writings that are centuries old, then we shouldn't approach the Scriptures the way I talked about.I think God's real. I also think people interpret writings any way they want all the way down to the constitution and Robert Frost's poems, not just the Hebrew Scriptures. However, if God is real, and if God has put hidden prophecies in the messages of the prophets, then it's a good thing for the followers of God to look for those prophecies and to be encouraged by them.In the end, I believe it is the event, not the interpretation that matters. If Jesus was born of a virgin, then Isaiah 7 was most likely a prophecy of that virgin birth, even if the prophecy only arose upon translation into Greek by Jews in Egypt several centuries later. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, then obviously Isaiah 7 is not a prophecy of anything. It's all the fanciful imaginations of 1st century Christians.If there's a real spiritual kingdom and a real Spirit that transforms those possessed by this Spirit, and Jesus either sends or is that Spirit, and if he was born in Bethlehem, then Micah 5:2 is almost surely a prophecy of him as king of that spiritual kingdom. ("If my kingdom were of this earth, then would my servants fight, but now my kingdom is not from here.")If that's all a fantasy, then surely the interpretations of Micah 5:2 are a fantasy as well.Because y'all are posting more often than me, let me give a quick reminder of why I wrote that. My point is simply that pulling one verse out of its context in the Hebrew Scriptures could have a valid purpose. Thus, your

quote:

---

"transposing a later meaning onto an earlier text, where it just was never there to begin with"

---

could indeed be prophecy. It would not be the kind of prophecy that would stunningly prove something to an unbeliever, but it could encourage, strengthen, and affirm a believer, especially if it happened repeatedly.But it can only happen repeatedly if there are events occurring that are turning out to be hinted at or directly described, but out of context, in the Scriptures. It is the events first, then the finding, not the finding first and then the creation of events.

Ok, I have to address one more thing: Um, is this true? Do you believe in prophecies? You've seen straightforward prophecies given, to the point, that were then fulfilled? This occurs regularly enough to say that this is what prophecies are like?Because if that's true, then you're right, everything I'm saying is hogwash.I think, however, that I caught that the underlying argument in the complaint that these prophecies are pulled out of context is that this is not how prophecy works. I'm trying to argue that maybe that is how prophecy works, at least sometimes. I don't think we're talking about force fits at the time of the "supposed" fulfillment. If God had a son on the earth, born of a virgin, then it would be amazing--and obvious, not at all a force fit--to read "A virgin will give birth to a son and call his name "God with us."Again, it's the event that matters. If the event didn't happen, then just making the event up based on the passage would be every bit as foolish as y'all are describing.

yes. although, occasionally some are worded slightly obscurely as to not get the prophet lynched by the people in power. but even the lucifer "prophesy" regarding nebuchadnezzar is pretty clear: god doesn't like him, and he's going down. but that's more of a taunt than a prophesy. occasionally. none spring to mind immediately that can be independently verified. although a lot seem to get rid of the point and take a line or two out of context and then claim fulfillment. however, most are quite to point. tyre will be destroyed. judah will return from exhile. judah will beat israel and aram in 13 years. a prophet will pick up were moses left off and take israel across the jordan.granted, sometimes the wording is a little elaborate, but only sometimes. prophesies like ezekiel's field of bones may be a bit metaphorical, but there's not a lot of these outside of ezekiel, and maybe revelation. people just get lost in the wording, because they think the bible is a tough read.i think it's called the "shakespeare syndrome." well, i didn't say "all." i said "usually." like i said, ezekiel is a little metaphorical. i don't agree.why would god only keep PART of his word, several hundred years too late? this basically makes god out to be dishonest and a cheat.i think a better way to look at it is to say "recurring theme" not "fulfilled prophesy." well, we don't KNOW that first bit, do we? we can believe it, but it's not a factually backed position. and the logic doesn't follow, either. if god had a son on earth born of a virgin, a verse that doesn't say virgin that's about something else entirely still has nothing to do with god's son. it's a forced fit, even if the first bit is true.but please, let's not get into isaiah 7:14 again. you're failing the see the direction i'm attacking this from. all we have is the text, not the events. so we have to attack it backwards, and backwards is the way we SHOULD attack it.if the nt authors are claiming these things as fulfillment of prophesies they really cannot apply to then they are either kidding around (as suggested above) or just plain dishonest. either way, we can't take their words as factual.so if a gospel has a man named jesus of nazareth going out of his way to be born in a town called bethlehem to fulfill a prophesy about the messiah coming from the family of bethlehem, then how can we trust this accurate? the motive in the writing is clearly to force-fit a misrepresentation of a prophesy. meaning it probably never happened.in other words, they seem to be making stuff up as they go along.(of course, all this makes sense if matthew is a satire designed to mock and defame christianity)

---

אָרַח

I think there is yet another option that needs to be considered. The writers of the NT don't have to be funning you, or dishonest. They can be absolutely honest, but mistaken just as folk today. They could honestly believe that the lines in question are prophecy and confirmation of their beliefs.They were quote mining, that's for certain, but they also had entirely different viewpoints on the place of historical writing. They viewed scripture as a living thing, an attitude that persisted up until very, very recently. It was not considered forgery to simply borrow from an earlier work, or to write something in the style of an earlier author and so attribute it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

no offense, but that's kind of a sheep mentality. just think what the church tells you.you know what, even if god is real, we should STILL endeavor to fully and CORRECTLY understand the bible, including and especially the places it goofs up. your position is basically the same as "let's not read it all." if god's real, and we can just make up stuff and have it backed by god, what does the bible matter at all?it terminally discredits the bible to abuse its text in that manner. if it says a little something, and we use that little something to back our positions and miss the big something it's trying to say that totally defeats our position, then we are abusing and quotemining our source, and showing no respect whatsoever for it.that's why i brought up the fact that the bible literally says "there is no god" more than a dozen times. one could, conceivably, quote the bible to defend athiesm. but it would be quotemining, and dishonest. and having no respect for the words before it: "the fool has said in his heart:" i think so to. i also think that the bible is somehow important, if only as a record of what people closer to him thought. quite true. i can think of two distinct ways to read the entire book of revelation, and have them both be correct. but that doesn't mean we can point out the ones that are so very obviously wrong or contradicted by the text itself. know what else is bunk? the bible codes. i've been to a lecture by the guy who's rather agressively disproven them as anything abnormal or supernatural. they appear in every sufficiently large text, and without uniform standards, anyone can read anything into it. could god be hiding messages in the bible? sure.but why would he? if he wants us to know something, why not just say it? especially something so important. i don't think god is hiding anything, really, in the bible. well, no. not at all. you say isaiah 7 like you mean the whole chapter. you don't, you mean verse 14 only. the whole chapter is quite clearly a prophesy that ahaz king of judah will win a war in 13 years.whether or not jesus was born of a virgin, this prophesy has nothing to do with him. similarly, whether or not jesus was born in bethlehem, the prophesy regarding the messiah coming from the family of bethlehem cannot apply to him.do i think it's a series of coincidence? no. i think it's either satire, dishonesty, or confusion. it's also a fallacy of positive instances: jesus fails to fulfill a number of messianic prophesies. especially the big one: sitting on the throne in jerusalem, and removing the foreign power. being born of a virgin doesn't make you the messiah. saving the people of israel from exile or roman conquest makes you the messiah. if there's a real spiritual kingdom, and jesus was born in bethlehem it means NOTHING regarding micah 5:2. micah five is about the messiah who would save israel from the assyrians -- ironically coming from the wrong country: judah. and the smallest family in judah. this sound like jesus to you?

quote:

---

Mic 5:5 And this [man] shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land: and when he shall tread in our palaces, then shall we raise against him seven shepherds, and eight principal men.
Mic 5:6 And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver [us] from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.

---

did jesus lay waste to assyria? this sound like one jesus's teachings?

quote:

---

Mic 5:9 Thine hand shall be lifted up upon thine adversaries, and all thine enemies shall be cut off.

---

the prophesy is about trashing assyria. it's not even the right bethlehem. at best, it's meaningful symbolism. at worst, it's deception and dishonesty. but it's not an interpretation. if we were to change "assyria" in micah 5 into "sin" maybe it'd fit. making it talk about the kingdom of heaven (good movie btw) and the enemy sin. that'd be an interpretation, and a metaphorical one at that. but no, the chapter is talking about laying waste to assyria, and it's not an interpretation to think that this bit, which follows from the first, is related, and actually means assyria.especially considering the text was written by a prophet who lived in assyrian exile, and was prophesying their salvation from that exile. alright, sure.

quote:

---

Psalm 53:1

​

There is no God.

---

context is important. sure. they do it in movies alot -- repitition of a theme. but that's not prophesy. and one is not predicting the other. then it's not prophecy, is it?

---

אָרַח

yeah, i left that bit out. it's in the post eblow yours somewhere though. that was my original position: that they just didn't know any better. yes, but i think to the jewish church at the time that would be heresy. they were all about preservation at the point. this is about the time of the masorites. earlier authors did it, sure, but they did it in inclusion process.they did it to PROVIDE context, not remove it. for instance, bits of kings was copied wholesale in isaiah and jeremiah. whole chapters. and i suspect many other books came about in much the way the whole bible did. one piece at a time, until they lost track of the which part was which. in the judaic faith we see a respect and reverence for the intactness of the text in everything but the very very earliest of stages of the books. in the christian faith, the show a disrespect for these same books. even today, people don't care much about the old testament. you can even buy bibles that are just the nt and psalms.[edit]some[/edit] christians don't care that they are essentially demolishing and raping the meaning of these texts they claim as important and the word of god.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 05-11-2005 08:41 AM

---

אָרַח

Please. Would you agree that should be "some Christians"?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

yes, editted to change it. i have a bad habit of using "christians" to refer to "wacko fundamentalist nutball christians" which do not, of course represent all christians.like you and me.

---

אָרַח

Your posts are full of if's and maybe's.The point of this discussion is to sort out the if's and maybe's, otherwise you have nothing better than Pascal's wager.Remember the pudding tastes a little off to us and we are testing the recipe. We have to discern whether the correct ingredients were added to the recipe or not.The OT is the recipe and God does not show that the words of the prophets would pertain to future generations in a modified form.The author of Matthew is the only early author to claim that the birth place was written of by a prophet. Look at the whole story. King Herod supposedly called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law and asked them where the Christ was to be born. They answered that he would be born in Bethlehem in Judea for that is what the propeht had written....This is a conversation that neither the author nor Jesus could have overheard. Even the Magi don't appear to be privy to this discussion. This is a fabricated conversation.The author of Mark doesn't mention Bethlehem (neither does Paul) and makes it known that Nazareth is the hometown of Jesus.IF you still wish to take the conversation as truth, then the rest of the prophecy of Micah should apply to Jesus. Herod only asked where the Christ would be born and since the thought of this birth disturbed Herod and ALL of Jerusalem, then what did they expect the Christ to do? Signs are supposed to let people know the prophecy is about to take place.What prophecy told them what the Christ would be doing after he was born?Since they found the source of his birth in Micah, wouldn't they expect the Christ to fulfill the rest of the prophecy in Micah? Longest labor pains on the books I would say.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

quote:

---

I believe the Jewish interpretation is that it is of the house of David.
Not a place, but a family line.

---

How that can be possible, as we read that according the biblical books of Ezra and Nehemiah, those who returned from Babylonia were led by two men named Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel. Both of these men were from the royal house of David. They were descendants of King Jehoiachin. Zerubbabel is also mentioned in the biblical books of the prophets Haggai and Zechariah, who prophesied in this period. But Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel cease to be mentioned after the fifth chapter of Ezra. There is no report of the disappearance of these men, no explanation of what happened to the royal family. Rather, as with the ark, the monarchy simply ceases to be mentioned. Neither the biblical nor the archeological sources indicate what happened to the family of messiah, the descendants of David.. Ezra 1:8, 11; 2:2; 3:8; 4:2, 3; 5:2, 14, 16; Neh 7:7; 12:1, 47.. Haggai 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 4, 21, 23; Zech 4:6, 7,9, 10.This message has been edited by Checkmate, 05-11-2005 09:30 AM

---

"An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart."

quote:

---

Jesus was supposedly born in Bethleham, but he didn't rule Israel.

---

To be born in Bethleham should not be a criteria, because Jesus wasn't only one who was born in Bethleham before him, and after him and even around the same time when Jesus was born. In my opinion birth place of Jesus becomes irrelevant especially after Jesus failed to meet all allaged signs of prophecies.Also, what about Jesus of Jerusalem? What if he was one right one and Christians got the wrong guy to worship? There was a Jesus in Jerusalem during the same time as of Jesus of Nazareth.

---

"An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart."

quote:

---

so if a gospel has a man named jesus of nazareth going out of his way to be born in a town called bethlehem to fulfill a prophesy about the messiah coming from the family of bethlehem, then how can we trust this accurate? the motive in the writing is clearly to force-fit a misrepresentation of a prophesy. meaning it probably never happened.

---

Let us not forget that the same gospel/s also tells the following:KJV/Matthew: 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets; He shall be called a Nazarene.The above statement is absolutely false, since we can’t find this statement in any of the books of the prophets. Jews also deny the validity of such prediction. According to the Jews it is simply a false claim. On the contrary they had a firm belief that no prophet would ever come from Galilee, not to say of Nazareth, as is expressly stated in the Gospel according to John:KJV/John: 7:52 They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.Christian Bible itself testifies against Jesus, proving his falsehood.

---

"An uninformed person cannot conceptualize the essence of knowledge nor its sublimity. One who fails to conceptualize something, its significance will never become rooted in the heart."

You are working from mistranslations from 2500 years later. YOu are also working from a different cultural/social mindset.

that's great. but what's a nazarene? i can't find that word at all in the rest of the bible. maybe matthew was making a play on nazarite? jesus certainly wasn't one of those -- he broke all three vows. "The above statement is absolutely false, since we can’t find this statement in any of the books of the prophets."

---

אָרַח