Chris Weimer

montane,

Just because person A says that person B fulfilled prophecy C doesn't mean that it was an actual prophecy. Nothing divine had to happen...merely coincidence.

mountainman

How many scholars have put forward that the hypothetical
relationship between the Hebrew texts and the NT texts is
simply coincidence?

Chris Weimer

What? Is this in response to what I last said? Because if so, then you've misunderstood. If not, then I don't know of any scholar who said the relationshi[p between the Hebrew texts and the NT texts is "coincidence".

mountainman

Yes -- I have misunderstood what you mean.
Can you paraphrase what you said?

mountainman

Thanks for this response Amedo, I will respond to the bulk of the
post (which is trimmed here) later this week, but for now, just
this question.

Do we know (historically) which somebody this was?
Which NT editor/author/figure first called the two sets of
books the new and the old, and when?

Chris Weimer

What I originally said:

Just because person A says that person B fulfilled prophecy C doesn't mean that it was an actual prophecy. Nothing divine had to happen...merely coincidence.

What I was talking about:

Regarding how the authors of the Christian scriptures write that prophecies are fulfilled, I was saying that either certain actions happen, and the later writers make a connexion to the earlier prophecies, and say they are fulfilled. This is, via the materialistic viewpoint, merely coincidence. There's also another layer - people who purposefully try to fulfill scriptures. There's a human element added to the coincidence, one of purpose. However, because someone sets out to fulfill a prophecy doesn't mean the prophecy is actually "fulfilled" in the divine sense. Quite contrary, a scientific viewpoint would posit that no prophecies are actual prophecies, but either good guesses or educated guesses.

mountainman

What I was asking:

How do mainstream (and otherwise) BC&H researchers, professionals,
academics, scholars and students regard how the authors of the
Christian scriptures write that prophecies are fulfilled.

It may be inferred from your response, and others here, that the
mainstream "working hypothesis" is that "there exists a question
as to whether prophecy (for want of a better word) is able
to be --- identified, determined and evidenced --- in the relationship
between the (canonical!) NT texts and the Hebrew texts.

Is this inference fair?

Chris Weimer

Actually, I neither understand your question nor your inference. splain pleeze.

mountainman

OK, my question is assisted with Amedo's response:

Essentially my question is this. We have been delivered the NT writings
bound to the Hebrew Bible in the expectation (presumably by the newer
christian publishers) that some kind of correspondence between the two
sets of writings will become manifest to the readers thereof.

It seems that the inference to be drawn is that the editors of the
second set or writings wished them to be seen as "fulfilled prophecy",
such that the Hebrew writings might be in their turn be perceived as
"Oracles" of the new christian era.

Is this the main aspect of the presumed relationship between the
new testament, and the Hebrew Bible?

Chris Weimer

Ah, gotcha. and yes.