|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Are any of these prophecies fulfilled by Jesus? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICDESIGN writes: 2 Peter 2:1 ....there will be false teachers among you,who will secretly bring in destructive heresies.... and bring upon themselves swift destruction. Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to thetradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. Hebrews 13:9 Do not be carried about with variousand strange doctrines. Ephesians 4:14 ...we are no longer to be children,tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of of doctrine, by the trickery of men by craftiness in deceitful scheming... 2Timothy 3:16 ALL SCRIPTURE IS INSPIRED BYGOD and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness... Matthew 24:35 Jesus said: Heaven and earth willpass away, but my words will not pass away. yes, the bible has quite a lot to say about false prophets. for instance, how to tell whether a prophet is false, and what the punishment is for pretending to be a prophet.
quote: and contrary to your point, it encourages viewing prophecy -- all prophecy -- with a high degree of skepticism. the test is not the fact that someone said something, or that it was written somewhere, but that the thing prophesied actually comes to pass. unfortunately, many of these claimed christ prophecies simply aren't. most have to do with other things. for instance, the cited one from isaiah 7 was indeed fulfilled: roughly six hundred years before the birth of christ. it simply can't have been about jesus in way, shape, or form. context doesn't fit, literal grammar doesn't fit, and jesus was named yehoshua, not imanuel. stretching prophecy in this way is highly dishonest, to the degree that it should fail that skeptical view encouraged by the old testament. if the prophet elijah said, "yahweh will send a holy fire down on mount carmel to consume the offering", and 2 years later, he rubbed some sticks together, none of the priests of baal would have taken him seriously. nor would anyone else. god does not weasel. his proof leaves no doubt.
ICDESIGN writes: The bible is by far the number one sellingbook in all of history and by far the most loved and the most read of any book ever written. and sadly, by far the least understood. but keep trying, one day you will get it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
jar writes: frako writes: How can they say a prophecy is furfilled if it is in both pars of the bible. Its like saying it was told that harry potter will slay that evil dude in book 1 and he slayed him in the last book (or so i think i did not read it or watch the movie yet). So the prophecy came true harry must be a real person and the best wizard ever. Yes, if that happened it would just be fiction, and unfortunately in the case of most claimed prophecy that is EXACTLY what happens. well, the thing is that it's possible for neatly tied prophetic story arcs in singular works of fiction. all (legitimate) harry potter books have a single author: jk rowling. so she can write that harry will defeat voldemort in the first book, have him do it in the 7th, and everything ties up nice and tightly. these books were all written by one person, and within a short period of time. but even if we extend the period of time, we start to run into problems. for instance, george lucas couldn't even keep historical data straight in the star wars series. of course, even the highest degree of internal consistency doesn't say much about the historical accuracy of the text, does it? fiction can be internally consistent. but it's not always. perfectly consistent might even be a hint that something is fiction -- but so would a certain degree of inconsistency. ...and stretching context beyond belief? well. who knows what to make of that.
jar writes: It was not always immediate, but the message was meant to be acted on right then.... The idea that God had to leave clues in obscure language with a people that have been dead for thousands and thousands of years for folk today or even in our future is just plain silly. God is perfectly capable of reaching folk today in our own media and those living in the future in theirs. and it's important to remember this. prophecy is meaningless outside of its historical context: the people it was given to. and reading that makes it nonsense to the person listening to the prophet speak is nonsense itself.
jar writes: Again, the problem is not the Bible or its contents, it is the readers misunderstanding. the problem is that some of the readers of the bible also added to it. clearly, matthew reads isaiah 7 as applying to christ, when clearly it should not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
(cavediver: thanks! i've very recently been un-banned)
jar writes: Exactly, as I tried to point out, a great example is the story of Joseph and the dreams. It's also though a pretty clear indication that the story is fiction. i don't think that's the only indication, but it helps, yes. however, i don't think we should take fulfilled prophecy as an indication of fiction, presuming me can find any that's not internally fulfilled.
jar writes: The idea that there is prophecy in the Bible that is still meant to come true has several serious flaws. well, the major flaw would be that prophecy is meant for the initial audience, not the reader thousands of years later. that said, i don't find the idea wholly out of the realm of possibility. for instance, you find several apocalyptic prophecies describing the end of the world, as well as several messianic prophecies that have yet to be fulfilled, which you have kindly listed in this thread already.
jar writes: First, it makes the god character look stupid. well, bits like the destruction of tyre do, yeah. the failed ones don't go over so well. but the deuteronomist (see above) places the blame for failed prophecy on the prophet -- a kind of football double standard if you ask me. make that touchdown, thank god. fumble, blame yourself.
jar writes: A great example was ICDESIGN trying to use Matthew 24:35 as support that the stories in the Bible are absolutely true. As I tried to point out in Message 41, if they use Matthew 24:35 as proof that all is hunky dory then they have to deal with Matthew 24:34, and that's a really big issue. Instead of just admitting that the author of Matthew got it wrong, they have spent almost 2000 years trying to tap dance around the definition of "generation". well, see, i have a problem with that. that reading can't possibly be right. matthew was written after that generation had already passed. either it means something else, or matthew is purposefully making christ out to be a false prophet.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
frako writes: And still one would have to define prophecy, one day a city will fall to the ground by an erthquake is not a prophecy to vague and can be fitted anywhere. A true prohecy should be like the one by that woman last month where she said that the 3d world ware would start in november 2010, she still could be right even though the month has passed if the ware starts in korea some time soon the actual start would be in november 2010 when they bombed that island. The prophecy is relativly straight forward, not vague, it gives a time line, and the event. Most of the biblical prophecies lack most or all of those things. admittedly, i'm no scholar of prophecy. but most that i'm familiar with are pretty seated in their direct audiences. the more interesting stuff -- the messianic and apocalyptic prophecies -- are frequently more open-ended, yes. but at least one extremely important example discussed in this thread has a definitive clock. actually, it is the clock. let's look at isaiah 7 again.
quote: i've bolded the parts that are the actual prophecy in the chapter. the cliff-notes versions goes like this: israel and aram are waging war against judah, and god tells the prophet isaiah to go talk to ahaz, kind of judah, and let him know that god's on judah's side and not to worry about israel and aram because they're going away. this btw actually happens. it's a real historical event. assyria conquers israel (and aram, and a lot of other small city-states). the tribes of israel never return. unmentioned by the prophecy is that very soon afterward, babylon conquers assyria and then judah, but whatever. but isaiah steps it up again:
quote: so the sign that this prophecy is coming to pass will be a specific child named "imanuel" or "god is with us" (ie: "on our side"). by the time he becomes a man, probably ritualistically at age 13 or so, the problem of israel will be dealt with. now, i can't find too much scholarly work to back this up, but there's some quirks of the grammar of the key verse in hebrew. first is that the woman is referred to as הָעַלְמָה, the woman, without being previously mentioned. this indicates that she was likely present to the conversation -- indeed, later context points to isaiah's own wife. second is that the verbs seem to me (i could be very wrong here) to switch tense. הָרָה looks like simple present tense to me, and וְיֹלֶדֶת implies a future tense. meaning, that i read it as saying "the woman is pregnant and will bear a son". this puts a clock of about 13 from the prophecy to the assyrian exile of israel, and about 85 until they cease being a distinct group of people. now, i don't have the exact dates for you, but ahaz stopped ruling around 715 BCE, and the assyrian exile of israel happened roughly 720-ish BCE, during his reign. so that's probably close enough to be reasonably accurate. does this prophecy have anything to do with jesus? no, most assuredly not. and i hope the reason why is now completely obvious: it completely breaks the clock on the prophecy. having a sign that occurs 700 years after the prophecy is foretells makes no sense. Edited by arachnophilia, : edit: SoRrY MoOsE, DiDn"t SeE YoUr MeSsAgE UnTiL AfTeR I HaD AlReAdY PoStEd.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
frako writes: And for this prophecy to be a true prophecy it would also haveto be written before the events took place. Actual evidence from someplace else then the bible say a letter or something mentioning the prophecy dating before the events. well, yes, but now we're shifting goal posts. isaiah was almost certainly written after the assyrian exile. however, nearest i can tell, this represents most of biblical prophecy: given a time-frame, but already "fulfilled" by the time the book was written, or internally fulfilled as part of the story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
frako writes: So all those prophecies would have to be cut from the list of furfilled prophecies in the bible. If not i can prophecise that A german will be borne around 1900 that will shake the world with his army. I must be a prophet if you look at the history Hitler fits the prophecy. sure, it'd just look silly coming so late. really, most of biblical prophecy fits this description because the books were last altered, or compiled, well after the subject matter they dealt with. it's possible that this has the affect of adding fictionalization to the accounts -- we really can't tell if isaiah, who lived before the assyrian exile, said what he's supposed to have said when he was supposed to have said it. the prophets themselves don't seem to have written the book, rather, their later disciples. sort of like with christ. but it's an easy mistake to think that the power of prophecy is in prediction. it's not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
frako writes: Tram law writes: You have one verse read by a hundred people, you'll get a hundred different interpretations. If the Bible was so immutable, why should there be this many interpretations and versions? Why do you think the first bibles where only in latin and only the priests could interpret them because they could say yust about anything and get their support from the bible. don't be silly. the first collections of biblical texts were in hebrew, and greek for the christian stuff. the jewish people actually have a quite rich tradition of heatedly debating interpretation. allowing the general population access was an important enough concern that when greek became the common language, the jewish scholars set to work translating the bible into greek. this is some 200 years before christ.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined:
|
ICDESIGN writes: A prophecy doesn't have to be in context with the entire paragraph it is encased in. That is one reason why so many like jar get it wrong. ...uh, sorry, but yes it does. you can't just bend an author's words to mean whatever you like. christians love to claim their adoration of the bible, but strangely have little issue with misrepresenting it. if you really have no problem understanding why context is important, i leave you with the following bible verses:
quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: i think the surrounding words are important. don't you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
jar writes: Some we have already dealt with. for example the mention of riding into town on an ass clearly is nothing but a created after the fact prophecy, a false prophecy. well, no. zechariah does say that messiah will enter jerusalem on a donkey (but not two donkeys as matthew has it, lol), and the point is that the coming messiah will be of humble origins. but, um, it's just not exactly prophetic, in that it doesn't make someone the messiah. how many people do you suppose rode into jerusalem on donkeys the same day that christ did? hypothetically? nevermind the question of that that year. that decade, that century... or ever? the important factor in zechariah 9 is what comes directly after that verse: the messiah will end all war and rule the world. ending all war would make someone the messiah. riding a donkey does not. matthew had to have done this on purpose -- how do you miss the big stuff for the sake of the insignificant?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
...uh, sorry but NO it doesn't. The author doesn't even know he is speaking a prophecy at the time. He is usually making a totally different point. ... Yes. When it isn't a prophecy, I totally agree with you. oh, of course. but you see, what i posted is prophecy. the authors just didn't know it at the time.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: Just goes to show how ridiculous quote mining can be. yup. but rarely do fundamentalists admit what they're doing as openly as ICDESIGN just did right there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ICDSIGN writes: Here we go with gospel according to jar again. The text does not say any of this. Again what the scripture clearly states in Mark 14:49 is ..."THIS HAS TAKEN PLACE TO FULFILL THE SCRIPTURES"! yes, it does clearly state that. however, we have the benefit of having said scriptures, with which we can compare such a statement. if i told you yesterday "i'll give you back that five dollars tomorrow", and today i gave you fifty cents and said "obligation fulfilled!" you'd look at me a little funny and demand your $4.50. just the fact that i said i have fulfilled something doesn't mean that i have. i understand that the bible gets a special pass with you, and most fundamentalist christians, but there's really no good reason why this should be the case. it is a simple logical disconnect -- $0.50 never equals $5.00. when you have the contract to compare the payment to, it's relatively easy to check. in this case, the "fulfilled" prophecy is zechariah 13. let's check it.
quote: since i know you didn't read that just now, i'll give you the cliffs notes.
because numbers 1 through 5 of those things actually happened in jewish history. josiah, king of judah and from the house of david, did in fact purify jerusalem, removed idols, and kill false prophets. after josiah's death, jehoahaz briefly reigns and then is succeeded by jehoiakim. babylon invades. jehoiakim is replaced by jeconiah, who is cursed by the prophet jeremiah. judah is carried off into babylonian exile, with about a 1/3rd of the population remaining under babylonian rule. considering that zechariah is writing at the time of the babylonian exile, it's quite silly to think he's talking about something else that just happens to be almost identical to the major political situation in his world. zechariah is primarily concerned with re-establishing the temple in jerusalem, and purifying judaism, and when persia -- darius the great -- takes over, he is one of the people that helps establish second temple judaism. but let's look at the shepherd again.
quote: note the rest of the verse which has obviously been omitted in the "fulfilled prophecy". if we are to suppose that the shepherd is christ (and not the cursed king jeconiah, and not the coming messiah as in jewish tradition), where is the part where god smites the christians? surely, i have missed that part of the gospel. oh, and lest you think the "wounded hands" bit above is another random christ reference, remember that zechariah is talking about false prophets. in closing this chapter just fits its historical context too well to even be prophecy (in the sense that you mean) in the first place. most of the part christ is claiming as fulfilled prophecy (by him) in mark had already been "fulfilled" well before zechariah even wrote. the only bit that zechariah is actually predicting is the return from exile, and the re-establishment of the jewish religion. this is a bit like me saying, "i'll give you back that five dollars tomorrow", giving you back five dollars the next day, and then 600 years later also giving you a nickel so that my obligation has been fulfilled. edit:
The Old Testament were the only scriptures there were at that time. it's worth noting that the old testament likely wasn't fully canonized during the time of christ. there was quite a lot of debate during that period about what should go in the third section of jewish scripture. christ refers repeatedly to "the law (torah) and the prophets (nevi'im)" which are two sections of jewish scripture. the law (torah) is the five "books of moses" and the prophets (nevi'im) are joshua, samuel/kings, isaiah, jeremiah, ezekiel, and the 12 minor prophets (including zechariah). the other books, like job, psalms, esther, ruth, etc, were likely not part of the official canon yet. jesus does refer to the psalms, however. it's also worth noting that there is a wealth of extra-canonical literature that simply never made the cut. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
i have officially given up trying to direct dawn to this thread. he wants to make claims regarding prophecy, but does not wish to participate in this thread where his claims and our arguments would be on-topic. at the same time, he wants to pretend like we don't have an argument, because we try to keep discussions in their appropriate tactics. this is a particularly devious debating technique, and one i suspect nearly everyone can see straight through.
however, in an effort to actually explain our argument in his thread, slightly off-topic though it may be, i have contributed a rather lengthy hand-holding reading comprehension analysis of isaiah 7 to his thread. it is complete with historical context showing how it was already fulfilled around the time it was given, and a demonstration regarding how it really cannot have anything to do with jesus. people may wish to hold a more enlightened discussion on the topic here, in the appropriate thread. i imagine this will totally derail dawn's thread, as it has dome many a prophecy thread. as if dawn's thread was really ever on any rails to begin with, right?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
okay, so thanks to iTanakh, i have found a particularly interesting doctoral thesis on the topic of isaiah 7:14.
it's about 300 pages, so i haven't by any means read all of it yet. but i've skimmed through some important sections of the first two chapters, and it largely confirms what i've been saying. it does, however, hint at an interesting take on matthew's reading of isaiah 7:14, but does not seem to elaborate. it quotes some scholarship (ch2, II, 1) that tries to affirm the nonsense that dawn has been spouting -- he doesn't get this stuff from nowhere. not scholarship, of course, but scholarship filtered through clergy, filtered through fundy pastors. of course, it goes on to rebut those claims in much the same way i have: i devalues the prophecy and turns it into nonsense, and prophets were not fortune-tellers. in any case, the text argues, on the whole, that imanuel was king hezekiah. this in part due to the context of the two assyrian invasions, the structure of proto-isaiah, and some of the textual details. for instance, it affirms my less than standard analysis that הָרָה "is pregnant" is essentially present tense, while קָרָאת שְׁמוֹ "will call his name" is essentially future tense. (biblical hebrew lacks actual time-related tenses, but it's not too hard to figure out, and generally works much the same way as modern hebrew) the author also points to the fact that the LXX translations "you will call his name" and not "she will call his name", indicating that the LXX translators understood that king ahaz was the father -- imanuel was his son. i would quote the pertinent sections, but copying is disabled. i don't particularly feel like finding a work-around, or re-typing it all myself. and if the author has copy-protected it, it's likely because he wants people to read it in its source.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
ScottyDouglas writes: Re: Isaiah 7KJV-R (Webster) Isaiah 7:14 "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." This is what was fulfilled. Mat 1:18-25 so my last contribution to this thread, almost two years ago, was this pair of posts: Message 101 and Message 102. the first post links to Message 385 in another thread, that rather thoroughly explains the translation and context of the verse. i suggest you read it, carefully, but the tl;dr version is that child is a clock for the prophecy, not the prophecy itself. the prophecy is that, roughly 13 years after israel and aram declared war on judah, israel would be destroyed by assyria. the war began in 732 BCE, and ended in 720 BCE when assyria destroyed israel. the child is inexorably linked to these two events, and thus cannot be jesus. in fact, there is every reason to think that the child is king hezekiah, as the link in my second post supports. Edited by arachnophilia, : link added for the lazy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024