Summations Only

The people that wrote about Jesus' life specifics did so after he was alive. Jesus was said to be alive after the OT 'messianic prophecies'.The writers of the Gospels were motivated to persuade people about facts about Jesus. Some of them wanted (especially Matthew if memory serves) to portray Jesus as a Messiah. In order for them persuade people of this, it would be trivial to read through the Old Testament and try to include in the account of Jesus, as many things as they could get away with.The only interesting fulfillment of prophecy are those that cannot be simply claimed by the Gospel Authors. Let us say that the coming Messiah would be heralded with

quote:

---

Herods killing of the infants

---

I don't think this is prophesied by Jerimiah 31, as you claim. But if it was, this is a definite historical claim that should be verifiable. Yet nobody else in the world bothers to mention this except for one person trying to sell Jesus decades upon decades after the fact. Does this not strike you as a tad unusual? On the other hand, even if Isaiah 53:12 claims this (which it does not, it simply says that he 'was numbered with the transgressors') this is something that can easily be invented so as to conform with the supposed prophecy. Whose to say otherwise of a man who was ignored by contemporary writers?

No problem. Yes, we're talking about scripture... a series of writings by various authors. I'm happy to consider all of scripture, even non-canonical scripture in this discussion. You presume too much of your opponents.The thread here seems to be to compare what the Old Testament prophecies regarding the Messiah with the life of Jesus portrayed in the New Testament to see if there is a match and perhaps additionally, what these matches might mean. I don't care who actually wrote any given prophecy all that much. It would be closed minded of us if we refused to consider the possibility that false things were said about Jesus to make it appear as if he had fulfilled some prophecy or another. I don't claim to state that I know the OT writer is correct. Why would I do that? If it puts you at ease, I treat them with the same confidence. For what purpose would I do this? It's not unusual at all, that a character that was written after some prophecies is described as having fulfilled those prophecies. Especially when the authors are clearly trying to persuade us that a certain person fulfilled certain prophecies.The question at primarily hand is: Does Jesus actually fit the prophecies for what the Messiah would be like? I'm adding my own interpretation by discussing what this fulfillment, should it exist, really means.For instance, I find it is very unusual that nobody thought that it was noteworthy that Herod ordered mass infanticide at the time that it happened. If this was prophecied, which I don't think it was, there is significant reason to suppose it was invented so as to be a fulfillment rather than being an actual fulfillment by any real individual. I don't understand what you are waiting for and why you think its relevant.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Oh yes, context is important. No, I don't see the relevance of knowing the prophecy author's name to deciding whether a prophecy was fulfilled. I don't think 'veracity' means what you think it means. I'm not dismissing anything 'outright', for what its worth. Why is it odd to suggest that I don't care about the identity of the people that made the OT prophecies when it comes to deciding if the New Testament writers were honestly showing that Jesus fulfilled them? I've already given one example: When the New Testament writer makes a claim that something happened that other people would have noticed and recorded independently...but did not. If someone lies about Tony Blair I can still reasonably conclude that they are not talking about George Bush. That I think the OT and NT are both wrong. I don't see that this necessarily follows. And even if it did, it isn't exactly expected that such documents would have survived the two thousand years that followed. Especially when we consider the Catholic Church's actions regarding 'heretical' texts and ideas. Mohammed did not claim to be the Messiah. He claimed that Jesus was the Messiah. As the Koran says:

quote:

---

When the angels said: O {Mary}, surely {God} gives you good news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the '. Messiah, {Jesus} son of {Mary} worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to {God}).

---

Why would there be an outcry about a character whose life was being written decades after his death? Of course there the naysayers such as most of the Jews, who denied that he was the Messiah. But who was alive while the NT was being composed and also as a witness to the events in question, to be able to say 'That didn't happen?' and create any outcry? Please provide the evidence that killing newborns was a daily act by ancient rulers. I am highly confident you are wrong. I'm sure a pissant like Herod did not have the power to make foreign historians neglect to record his tyrannical slaughter. Not every culture. And their floods were not all global. I don't deny that ancient cultures may have suffered from floods. I do deny that any such flood killed almost all life on earth. Even moreso than the Herod story, that would have left independent evidence lying around. It only appears in one source. A biased source. An anonymous source. How are we concluding it is reliable? That would be interesting, of course. Again, I don't think such reports would have survived the Catholic Church though. There were other Messiah contenders, of course, but if anyone bothered to write stories about them, few of them survived. It's not my first inclination. My first inclination is however, skepticism. The Massacre of the Innocents is just one reason to suppose that false things were being written to shoehorn the Jesus character into a Messiah role.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I was asking for evidence, independent of the single biased anonymous account we have, that confirms that Herod ordered systematic infanticide. That is the kind of thing historians would mention. They mention much less interesting facts about Herod that the Massacre of the Innocents. Evidence that the Massacre of the Innocents was a daily or hourly act of the Roman Government, please.If it did happen all the time, why did Matthew bother mentioning it? And how does something that occurs hourly really qualify as a fulfilled prophecy? But killing all the firstborn children under your power is not common daily violence is it? Its a systematic extermination. Josephus wasn't a big fan of Herod if memory serves. He mentioned several moral crimes that Herod committed. He neglected to mention murdering hundreds to thousands of babies. Of course! That's what this thread is here to explore! In fact, it is my position that several passages in the OT are in fact talking about the messiah. I don't think these passages connect well with Jesus though. I can study the Three Witches prophecy in Macbeth without the need to believe the Witches were inspired by Hecate...in reality. I am saying that Matthew was written as best as we can tell at a time when few to zero contemporaries with Jesus were around. I'm sure that as soon as most of the Jews heard about the Jesus story, whenever that was, they rejected it as untrue. I'm not proposing one provides evidence for any Biblical miracles. I was asking for evidence of a mundane event that would have left evidence behind: The Massacre of the Innocents. The book of Matthew clearly has the agenda of trying to convince the readers that Jesus was the Messiah prophecied by the Jews. It is biased to that end. I've already mentioned the Massacre of the Innocents a few times. We certainly shouldn't assume it is false from the outset. The premise 'it could be true' is too vague to work from, I feel. 'It might be false' is a useful thing to keep in mind, if we're interested in being open minded about things. The early churches had many more Gospels than we have now. They were quite different than any church we have now. A lot of those works have since been destroyed. I see no reason to suppose that texts detailing Messiahs other than Jesus would have met a different fate. I wasn't making a moral point. The only point of interest here is that those abortions are often documented by sources whose only detectable agenda is to document abortions. The Massacre of Innocents was only documented by one source who clearly had an agenda above and beyond recording historical facts. Romans were not the only people capable of writing about the Massacre of the Innocents. Josephus wrote about Herod. Did he mention Herod's massacre? If not, can you think of a good reason why he didn't? I doubt that. And the Holocaust is well documented. And even some Jews have talked about it, I hear. Unlike the Massacre of the Innocents which didn't seem to move them. If you have any other prophecies you'd like to discuss then present them. Do you have any scriptural evidence that Jesus fulfilled the requirements of being considered a messiah?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I don’t think the onus should be on me to disprove the reliability of Matthew, it should be up to you to prove its reliability.But sure, I’ll play along. What about the ‘tradition’ of releasing a prisoner of the crowd’s choice? There’s no evidence that such a tradition actually existed outside of the Gospels. No, I’m being perfectly serious. It’s hardly the fulfilment of prophecy worthy of note if every birth was heralded with infanticide, as you are more or less claiming.I claim that Matthew believes that Massacre of the Innocents was an almost unique event that heralded the coming of Christ, drawing a paralell with Pharoah and Moses This is of course, an excuse. And a particularly stupid one. Josephus was a writer. He wrote a lot of things about a lot of people. But you are trying to have me believe he grew so weary of discussing Herod he couldn’t be bothered to mention one of the most astounding ‘facts’ about his life. When Josephus does not mention an event he would have known about, that was very very noteworthy and regarding a subject he did write aboutthat’s unusual. Coupled with the information that No other human being bothered to record it until decades afterwards when someone that may well have not even been local and certainly wasn’t a witness. I have good reason: Matthew is clearly biased towards the position that Jesus is a Messiah who worked miracles and he is clearly biased towards trying to persuade his readers to that. There is no better indication of bias as when the author wears the bias on his sleeve like Matthew does. It really only matters in so far as we want to know if Jesus meets the OT requirements. I’m going to have to ask you to reword this. Sure: Some people believed Jesus was the Messiah. Some authors therefore attempted to persuade people that Jesus was the Messiah by attempting to show how Jesus’ life events were fulfilment of prophecy. They found a prophecy and tried to create something that was as close to a fulfilment as they could get away with. Consistent and illuminating. Why should we assume that an author of book, the earliest manuscript of which we have is much later than the events described, is contemporary?If you want to discuss dating of Matthew that might be a thread in its own right. If life was cheap and the Massacre was a commonplace occurrence why did Matthew mention the Massacre of the Innocents. Why did Mark not? You have not provided any evidence that the Massacre of the Innocents was so common so as to be unnoteworthy to every human being that lived at the time, other than one person for whom the Massacre suited his agenda some decades later. What? Just because something is biased, that doesn’t mean it is false. It just means we shouldn't take the document as...gospel. I've not said the earliest disciples had a conspiracy afoot. What I am saying is that we know that other Gospels were written because early authors quoted from them, referred to them etc. We have other clues such as the existence of the Gospel of Thomas. No that was not my indirect implication. My direct explicit statement was that the Church destroyed documents that contradicted their view, that would include rival gospels and documents pertaining to rival messiahs. This doesn't address the argument at all. My argument was that AT THE TIME the Massacre of the Innocents was unreported. You say it is because it is routine and common, and you cite abortions which are also routine and common. The problem is that abortions are both routine and documented by contemporary sources. The Massacre of Innocents was neither routine nor documented by contemporary sources.So your analogy with abortion works against you, it does not support your position at all. I suggest dropping it. My argument is that people such as Josephus were motivated and able to write about the Massacre of the Innocents. They managed to record minor details about these people and it is extremely odd that they didn't mention something as noteworthy as the Massacre of the Innocents. You have provided me with no reason to suppose that Massacre of the Innocents occurred so regularly that nobody literate cared about any of the times it happened. Except one anonymous author. Writing some time divorced from one of the supposed events. Who seems to imply that the Massacre of the Innocents was a noteworthy event. So Herod suppressed Josephus but not the gospels? Is that your claim? Can you provide any evidence that life was so valueless that nobody gave a fuck when a king went about killing all the young males of his subjects?Don't worry, I know the answer ahead of time. Because you gave no reason to suppose it was true. Sorry, that wasn't vague enough. Could you be less specific? I'll get round to disagreeing when you present something for me to disagree with. Did I? I might have implied it. You present something that you think is not a lie, and I'll tell you if I think its a lie or could be a lie.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

To PD: This subthread is about the claim that

quote:

---

A voice is heard in Ramah,
mourning and great weeping,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more.

---

Is a prophecy that was fulfilled by the Massacre of the Innocents. I hold that this verse has nothing to do with the Massacre of Innocents AND that it would have been recorded by an impartial source when it happened. As far as Messianic prophecy is concerned: It's a double fail. I’m not disputing that life was of little value. But you have not supported your argument that it was so valueless that a king could kill all the young boys and only one anonymous person with a clear agenda bothered to say anything about it, decades after the fact.Other people, talking about the same person never bother to mention it. Not Josephus, not Mark not anybody. Right - it serves some narrative purpose. Which should raise suspicion. You are excusing Josephus’ silence with the sorry excuse that goes along the lines of ‘Josephus had grown weary of recording historical information about Herod’ If he had mentioned it, I wouldn’t be holding it up as an example of a person clearly inventing narrative so as to present a persuasive case that a certain person is the Messiah. I’m not claiming a contradiction. We have one anonymous source making a historical claim that is not backed up by any other source. This source is not primary, since it appears to be written some decades after the fact. The correct response to a claim being made by such a source is extreme scepticism. It calls into question the reliability of the source. No.You then post a 2000 word long copy/paste. If you want to bring any arguments from that, please put it into your own words with supporting links. I am not ‘vehemently’ believing anything. I’m not sure what your problem is — he’s obviously biased in favour of Jesus as Messiah. First, I am not saying we can’t use the writers that claim fulfilment. Second, neither jar nor I are unbiased.What I am suggesting we do is examine the Messianic prophecies in the OT and compare those prophecies with the life of Jesus in the NT to see if he fulfils prophecies as the NT authors would have us believe. I doubt they were. I was using the existence of Gospel of Thomas as evidence that there were more Gospels in existence than we have in the canon. Do you doubt that the Catholic Church destroyed unorthodox documents? Are you really, seriously doubting that the Catholic Church destroyed documents that were contradictory to their view? If you are, it probably deserves a thread in its own right. Nobody is disputing that. I was just pointing out that your abortion analogy fails and I believe I explained why, well enough.Anyway, conspicuous silence is evidence that it did not happen. And that’s what we have here. Why would he mention some minor things, but neglect one of the most major acts of Herod’s career? You claimed that Herod might have supressed this, despite him being dead at the time of writing. How is a presumably documented Roman law about girls relevant to the undocumented systematic killing of all of the young males ordered by a client king of Judea? Look it up in the dictionary. A bias is

quote:

---

a particular tendency or inclination, especially one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question;

---

Isaiah 7:14 doesn't appear to be a Messianic prophecy.
Genesis 12:1-3 is not a Messianic prophecy and neither is Genesis 22:18 nor Genesis 49:10That's five of them addressed. You've responded to only one. Want to discuss these others? Do you have a favourite amongst the list? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

A messiah is an anointed king of Israel/Judea etc.A prophecy is a prediction, often regarding the immediate concerns of the intended audience. Catholic censorship and destruction of the unorthodox is probably another thread in its own right. This is besides the point I was raising, that even if there were other Messiah documents - the Catholic Church had the motivation and the means to see they got 'lost'. If you can name a single person that recorded the Massacre of the Innocents I urge you to do so. The Gospel of Matthew as far as I am aware is the earliest recording of the incident, and it is an anonymous document. All other mentions of it, rely on Matthew as far as I know. And I've never disputed this point. What they do mention are things about the person which are noteworthy. And my claim is the Massacre of Innocents was noteworthy.You didn't simply point out that not everything is recorded or noted. You specifically said you were 'sure' that Josephus 'grew weary of mentioning anything about Heord after a while' Why? That was not my claim. My claim, if you missed my meaning was that life may be worth less, but that it was not worth so little as to silently assent to the killing of every young male. I would believe that some of them would write about their experiences. And that's really my point. And unrest was never caused by a murderous spree a people's children, I'm sure. I'm not asking for the documentation of every child that was massacred. I'm asking documentation of the massacre itself taking place. At this point, I'd even accept a single letter describing a child being killed on orders of Herod who had ordered the killing all the young males of the land. Becausea) IT is a government action, not a series of personal choice (therefore nobody is responsible for ordering a massacre).
b) We are talking about boys here, not girls. Boys were believed to hold much higher value than girls.Furthermore, how do you know that girls were tossed on the heap? Because people presumably have documented this. If there was no documentation, then I would not simply believe that it happened. So which is it? I agree that parables and proverbs aren't. But I see no reason to think that about prophecies. I agree they can be metaphorical, but that doesn't give us the excuse to take any old bit of the OT that we can try and fit Jesus and call it a prophecy of the coming of Jesus. Saying that prophecies are ultimately about God doesn't fix any of my issues at all I'm afraid.Take Genesis 12

quote:

---

The LORD had said to Abram, Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.

​

2 I will make you into a great nation,
and I will bless you;
I will make your name great,
and you will be a blessing.[a]
3 I will bless those who bless you,
and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth
will be blessed through you.

---

That's not a prophecy. There is no prophet here. This is simply a promise from God to Abraham. It says nothing about Jesus. It says nothing about messiahs.

A good point, well made.

In the context of corroborating Matthew, no - it does not serve the purposes. That's fine, but it still doesn't help you as far as I can tell. Just because something is 'about God' that doesn't mean it is also about a messiah. Because it is a covenant between Abraham and God, not prophecy. It is not a prophecy if I say, 'I'll give you $10'. It is not a prophecy if God says 'I will never destroy you in a flood again'.It's a promise, a covenant. Completely different than prophecy. Even if the promise is kept. Not all prophecies are about Christ. Not all statements about the future are prophecies. I do know what God is talking about here. He is talking about a covenant with Abraham.

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.

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.

An interesting move of the goalposts there. I was giving reasons to mistrust Matthew's reliability. I was not giving reasons that demonstrate that Matthew was incorrect or outright wrong.For reasons to suppose he is outright wrong there is always the freeing of the prisoners tradition. Yep, it's God talking to Abraham. That does not make them prophecies. I don't believe it actually happened. But it is what happens in Genesis. My point was that nothing in Genesis 12 and 22 is really fulfilled in the Gospels. Basically, I see no reason why they should be applied to either Jesus or the messiah, let alone both. Are you giving up on the Genesis quotes as being a messianic prophecy that Jesus and only Jesus fulfills? According to the Old Testament all the ethnic Jews were in fact descended from Abraham. That is Isa Chapter 9. I was talking about Genesis 12. Are you saying that Isa 9 is your best messianic prophecy? We can move on that if you want.

Yes, exactly.

---

Unfortunately, you have extracted a portion of the debate which is tangential to this topic. If you want to, I'm happy to discuss Messianic prophecy with you. I'm happy to answer anything else you said, but doing so would be moving us offtopic so perhaps I can get back to it later if we are at least also discussing on topic matters as well.