Fulfillments of Bible Prophecy

quote:

---

I would also like to be clear that this thread is not for debate on whether a prophecy was written after the event but whether the prophecy was fulfilled in the manner that the scripture said it would be fulfilled.

---

In order to avoid such debates, I would suggest looking at Isaiah, especially chapter 53.This chapter contains some fairly specific descriptions of Jesus' death. And there is no question that this was written before Christ, since the Dead Sea Scrolls included a complete copy of Isaiah.

quote:

---

When the Jews were sent into Babylonian exile, they were sent primarily to Babylon, not to "all nations" of the world.

---

Ezekiel's pre-Exile predictions say otherwise. Ezekiel 5:12 predicts that 2/3 of the Jews will die and the remainder will be "scattered to the winds" . And as Jeremiah tells us some Jews were living in other places, and some fled to EgyptBut it is also necessary to look at the context:Ezekiel 36:5 claims that Edom has taken the land of Israel. But Edom was conquered and converted to Judaism by the Hasmoneans and effectively destroyed by the Romans - vanishing from history after the Jewish Revolt ended in 70 AD.Certainly Edomites could have moved in following the Babylonian exile, and could still be there when the Exiles returned. But it would be difficult to find Edomites in the early 1900s - 1800 years after they vanished from the scene.

My first response would be that there is no evidence that Jesus lived and died in the first place.Second of all, how is Isaiah 53 a prophecy? It seems to me that christians are trying to insert something into writings that isn't there. It says nothing about Jesus. It talks of a servant. Could be anyone. Could be a reference to Israel itself. This prophecy is beyond vague. Do you believe Nostradamus' prophecies? How is this any different?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

quote:

---

Last year I found a post on another board that clearly laid out 3 points that must be met in order for something to truly be a prophecy. I agree with these and no bible policies fulfill these 3 points.

​

3 points

​

1) The prophecy must be proven to have been spoken before it was fulfilled. This is a major problem with Old Testament Prophecy. To prove that the prophecy wasn't written after the fact, one must find the earliest copy we have of a prophecy and carbon date it. That date must be sometime before the prophesied event occured. The Book of Daniel runs into this problem, as all evidence suggests it was written long after its alleged "predictions".
2) The prophecy must be specific. No vague, Nostradamus Style prophecy. The Book of Revelation runs into exactly this problem. The prophecies are so vague that they can have easily have many different "fulfillments". For instance, who is the beast of Revelation 13 (whose number is 666)? Some Fundamentalist Christians insist that it is the pope; Catholics believe it was Caesar Nero; and yet a few conpiracy theorists argue that it is Ronald Reagan! These symbloic prophecies are meaningless because they can be interpreted to fulfill anything that happens.

​

3) The prophecy must be of something that was not forseeable. For instance, a lot of people predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union, because they saw that it was a very unstable government. Yet we do not think of them as prophets. A prophecy must be something that few/none would have predicted when it was made.

---

Doesn't Isaiah 53 meet all of these 3 requirements? If not, where does it fail?

quote:

---

In order to avoid such debates, I would suggest looking at Isaiah, especially chapter 53.
This chapter contains some fairly specific descriptions of Jesus' death.

---

It seems to have more to do with Christian theology about Jesus death, rather than the actual events (which are, of course, doubtful, since the disciples were supposedly in hiding at the time).There are other doubts: The same Jesus who preached to huge gatherings, and was triumphantly welcomed into Jerusalem ? This is the Jesus who whipped the money-changers out of the Temple ?

quote:

---

There are other doubts:

​

53:3 He was despised and forsaken of men,
A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief;
And like one from whom men hide their face
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

The same Jesus who preached to huge gatherings, and was triumphantly welcomed into Jerusalem ?

---

Yes. The gospels paint the Jewish nation as fickle, first wanting Jesus to be king, and then rejecting him and wanting him to be killed. The religious leadership were against Jesus all along.So I don't see the problem. If Isaiah is describing the official reaction, or the final reaction of the people, he is correct.

quote:

---

53:9
...Because He had done no violence,

This is the Jesus who whipped the money-changers out of the Temple ?

---

Where does the Bible say that he whipped them or otherwise "did violence"?

If I walked into a commercial grocery store and began flipping over shelves and carts in a fit of rage, you wouldn't classify that as "violent"?

No.
Start with PaulK's response in response #20. If you feel a need for more I will gladly refute anything you have to say.Edited by Theodoric, : Post # correction

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

quote:

---

Yes. The gospels paint the Jewish nation as fickle, first wanting Jesus to be king, and then rejecting him and wanting him to be killed. The religious leadership were against Jesus all along.
So I don't see the problem. If Isaiah is describing the official reaction, or the final reaction of the people, he is correct.

---

In other words if you assume that Isaiah is simply ignoring the majority of Jesus' career or only talking about the religious leaders - a relatively small group of people - the problem goes away. But there's nothing in the text of Isaiah 53 to justify either assumption.Obviously the 'accuracy' here is a product of your assumptions - not the text.

quote:

---

Where does the Bible say that he whipped them or otherwise "did violence"?

---

Matthew 21:12 Mark 11:15-16 Luke 19:45 John 2:15 This sounds like a peaceful protest to you ?

quote:

---

In other words if you assume that Isaiah is simply ignoring the majority of Jesus' career or only talking about the religious leaders - a relatively small group of people - the problem goes away. But there's nothing in the text of Isaiah 53 to justify either assumption.
...
This sounds like a peaceful protest to you ?

---

I think you're missing the context of Is 53. It is focusing on Christ's death, not the rest of His career.

quote:

---

Obviously the 'accuracy' here is a product of your assumptions - not the text.

---

Really?? The prophecies in Is 53 are not a modern argument for Christianity. They were seen to speak of Christ since even before the founding of Christianity (Jewish rabbis saw this passage as speaking of Christ).The NT writers portray Jesus as fulfilling the prophecies in Is 53:
Re Is 53:1-- Re Is 53:3-- Re Is 53:4-- Re Is 53:5-- Re Is 53:5-6-- Re Is 53:7-- Re Is 53:9-- Re Is 53:10-- Re Is 53:12--Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given.

quote:

---

No.
Start with PaulK's response in response #20. If you feel a need for more I will gladly refute anything you have to say.

---

I asked: You haven't answered my second question. Which of your three requirements does Is 53 not meet?

quote:

---

I think you're missing the context of Is 53. It is focusing on Christ's death, not the rest of His career

---

Following the timeline of the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus' actions in the Temple happened only days before his death. The idea that there is no connection between Jesus violently disrupting Temple business and the religious authorities taking action against him shortly afterward (as the Synoptics claim) or in the charges against him is implausible to say the least.

quote:

---

Really?? The prophecies in Is 53 are not a modern argument for Christianity

---

That's a complete irrelevance. The question is what is in the text of Isaiah 53. The fact that other people have made similar arguments is no reason to misrepresent what Isaiah 53 says.

quote:

---

They were seen to speak of Christ since even before the founding of Christianity (Jewish rabbis saw this passage as speaking of Christ).

​

The NT writers portray Jesus as fulfilling the prophecies in Is 53:

---

Which leads to the distinct possibility that any matches with the Gospel stories are the Gospel authors taking those details from Isaiah. (It would hardly be the only example of the Gospel writers relying on OT texts to create their story).The reasonably certain details of Jesus' death are that he was crucified, by the Romans, around 30 AD. None of these can be found in Isaiah 53.

Yes good point, and yes there are.Daniel wrote another prophecy about the time that the Messiah would arrive. So even 'if' the book of Daniel was written in 161CE as mentioned in the previous post, the prophecy was written well before the event.the prophecy is known as the '70 Weeks' prophecy It reads, in part:

quote:

---

"There are seventy weeks that have been determined upon your people and upon your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, and to finish off sin, and to make atonement for error

​

... And you should know and have the insight that from the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Leader, there will be seven weeks, also sixty-two weeks [making 69 in all]. ...

​

And after the sixty-two weeks [that is, 7+62, or after the 69th week] Messiah will be cut off ... And he must keep the covenant in force for the many for one week [the 70th]; and at the half of the week he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease."

---

Daniel 9:24-27.If these 'weeks' were literally seven days each, then the prophecy either failed to be fulfilled or the Messiah came during the Persian Empire's rule and was not identified. So it is evident that the '70 weeks' were symbolic of a much longer time.It is counted as 70 x 7 = 490 YEARS from the rebuilding of the walls of jerusalem to the time of the messiahs arrival.The majority of Bible scholars agree that the "weeks" of the prophecy are weeks of years. Some translations read "seventy weeks of years" including the Tanakh by the Jewish Publication Society.The "70 Weeks of Years" began when the "word to restore jerusalem" went forth in the 20th year of the rule of Artaxerxes according to Nehemiah 2:1. This is 455BCEIt was the month of Nisan that Nehemiah asked the king: "...send me to Judah, to the city of the burial places of my forefathers, that I may rebuild it." (Ne 2:1,5)
The king gave his permission and Nehemiah traveled from Shushan to Jerusalem. On about the fourth of the jewish month of Ab (July-August) he gave the orders to rebuild the walls. Thus, "the going forth of the word" to rebuild Jerusalem, as authorized by Artaxerxes, was put into effect by Nehemiah in Jerusalem that same year.So the year 455BCE is the year from which the 490 years would begin to count.
History and the Bible give evidence that Jesus came to John and was baptized, thereby becoming "Messiah the Leader" in the early autumn of the year 29CEJust to recap on the number of years again
7 + 62= "69 weeks of years" converted to years = 69x7yrs = 483 years455BCE - 483yrs = 28CE Of course there is no year '0' so you must add 1yr which brings us to 29CE. The very year Jesus was baptized and began gathering disciples .Daniel further stated that "After the sixty-two weeks Messiah will be cut off, with nothing for himself." (Da 9:26) Remember that the 'week' is equivalent to 7 years, so 'half' a week equates to 3.5 years. This was the length of Jesus ministry. He was baptized in the autumn of 29CE and crucified at the passover of 33CE - 3 & 1/2 years in total.there are further aspects to the prophecy relating to other aspects of the role of the messiah, but i've stuck to the timing of his arrival in this instance.
_____________________________The book of Daniel was written while the Jews were being held captive in Babylon with the writing completed in about 536 B.C.E., and it covers the period from 618 to about 536 BCE. Daniel wrote Chapt 8 in the "third year of the kingship of Belshazzar" (c.553 BCE) Belshazzar - WikipediaAnother reason why Daniel was certainly written at this time was that he names Belshazzar as a King of Babylon...most of the information we have about this king is from the book of Daniel, and as i mentioned in my first post, no others ancient writers knew of him. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Daniel did not mention the wife of Belshazzar or Nabonidus...omission does not equate to an error. He did not need to mention Nabonidus because the ruler of the kingdom at the time was Belshazzar and it was that king who Daniel had direct dealings with.The prophecy did not end with the king of Greece, it ended with the 'prince of princes standing up in the time of the end' and therefore the prophecy covered a much longer period of time...that time is still future.

Hi Perdition, Jesus gave a reason for this very question you ask...

quote:

---

Matt 13:10So the disciples came up and said to him: "Why is it you speak to them by the use of illustrations?" 11In reply he said: "To YOU it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the kingdom of the heavens, but to those people it is not granted...This is why I speak to them by the use of illustrations, because, looking, they look in vain, and hearing, they hear in vain, neither do they get the sense of it;...15For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive."

---

Today we encrypt sensitive information online...its to keep our personal information away from those who are not entitled to it. We encyrpt our bank accounts for instance It conceal the meaning of the information.God uses symbolism for a similar purpose. The understanding of such symbolisms requires diligent study and belief in God. But many people are unwilling to take the time to understand, because they have no real love for God or truth. Hence, the "sacred secrets of the kingdom" remain hidden to them as Jesus explained. The purpose of prophecy was for mankind to identify who the true God is and who on earth were representing him. They served for the benefit of both those initially hearing it and those of all future periods who would put faith in God’s promises. The 'hairy he-goat' initially had 1 horn (the 1st king), but when that horn was broken (1st kings death), four horns came up in its place.... So the first horn represented Alexander, and the 4 horns represented the 4 generals who took over the empire after his death and the Goat stood for the Greek Empire itself.Re the Wiki link... are you looking at later rulers of the empire?
Initially the 4 generals took a section each and the kingdom was divided into 4 quarters.