Chief594

Really? Show me some proven prophecies. List 5.

Some Scholars put the number of prophecies as high as 191. Here are 20.

Numbers 1-12 are from Isaiah 53:2-12

1. was rejected;
2. was a man of sorrow;
3. lived a life of suffering;
4. was despised by others;
5. carried our sorrow;
6. was smitten and afflicted by God;
7. was pierced for our transgressions;
8. was wounded for our sins;
9. suffered like a lamb;
10. died with the wicked;
11. was sinless; and
12. prayed for others.
13. the piercing of his hands and feet (Ps. 22:16; cf. Luke 23:33);
14. the piercing of his side (Zech. 12:10; cf. John 19:34); and
15. the casting of lots for his garments (Ps. 22:18; cf. John 19:23–24).
16. descendent of Abraham Genesis 12:1-3
17. He would perform miracles Isaiah 35:5-6
18. would come through the line of Judah Genesis 49:10
19. born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14
20. Born in a city named Bethlehem Micah 5:2

I answered your challenge. Now I challenge you to prove these didn't happen.

Opera Nut

Well actuallly there are a bunch of reasons why Jesus is not the Messiah.

The Messiah requirements are spelled out in detail in the OT.

Jesus did not meet ANY of those requirements. Simple. Christianity is a false religion and Jesus is a false Messiah.

You cannot accept the OT and its prophecies and then accept Jesus as the Messiah. Does Not Compute.

rostau

Oh dear. I suggest you start a thread devoted to the question of whether or not Jesus of Nazareth, as described in the NT, was an historical personage or not. The answer really isn't as clear cut as you seem to think.

Vorkosigan

That's really not a problem. Each of these suffer from serious problems of subjectivity, poor translation, famous errors, and direct contradiction with the New Testament, even assuming it presents history, which it does not.

Let's look at them at the shallowest level, the surface comparison between the OT and the NT. After that, we'll explore the deeper meaning of the passage, and then finally look at the way the authors of the NT used the OT to construct their stories about Jesus.

Here's the NIV:

Isaiah 53
1 Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? 2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground. He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him. 3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. 4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. 5 But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. 6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her hearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. 8 By oppression [1] and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [2] 9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. 10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes [3] his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. 11 After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life [4] and be satisfied [5] ; by his knowledge [6] my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. 12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [7] and he will divide the spoils with the strong, [8] because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

The first thing to do is check the translations, because Christian translators subtly or openly alter the texts to make them say what they want them to say. The NIV is a tenditious translation -- which is to say, doctrine rules the translation, rather than vice versa. At key points the NIV alters the text. Compare the NIV and the YLT in verse 8

NIV
8 By oppression [1] and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

YLT
8 By restraint and by judgment he hath been taken, And of his generation who doth meditate, That he hath been cut off from the land of the living? By the transgression of My people he is plagued,

Note that in the YLT, which is truer to the "original" text, the transgression is FROM the people, while in the NIV, it is FOR the people. In other words, prophecy #7 above:

CHIEF: 7. was pierced for our transgressions

...is incorrect on its face, the original does not say FOR our transgressions, but instead says the opposite.

Let us now dispose of the prophecies that suffer from the problem of being either incoherent, unspecific and subjective, or just plain stupid.

This one is plainly stupid, suffering from all three of the aforementioned problems. What does it mean to be "rejected?" How much "rejection" does it take to qualify as "rejected?" The subjectivity is inherent -- one man might feel rejected in a situation another might not even notice. Note that no conditions for fulfillment are given ("He shall be considered rejected when A,B, and C occur").

Finally, as the gospels show, it is plain nonsense. Looking only at Mark, we can see that people immediately followed him (calling of disciples in Mark 1:16-20 adn 2:14), his fame spread everywhere (1:28), the whole city came to see him (1:33), so many they couldn't get in the door (2:2), crowds gathered when he taught (2:13), a great multitude followed him (3:7) and so forth. Clearly Jesus was far from being rejected -- unless, of course, you have your own very special meaning of "rejected" which you read back into Isaiah, but isn't there to begin with.

This one is plainly stupid, suffering from all three of the aforementioned problems. What does it mean to be "sorrowed?" How much "sadness" does it take to qualify as "sorrow?" The subjectivity is inherent -- one man might feel that Jesus is sad in a situation another might not even notice. Note that no conditions for fulfillment are given ("He shall be considered a man of sorrow when A,B, and C occur").

Since the gospels rarely enter Jesus' head, and certainly not for any period of time, nor do they give any clues as to whether he was sad or not, this one has no textual support. This is another case of the reader reading back into the text specialized readings that aren't there to begin with.

This one is plainly stupid, suffering from all three of the aforementioned problems. What does it mean to be "suffering?" How much "suffering" does it take to qualify as "a life of suffering?" The subjectivity is inherent -- one man might feel that Jesus is suffering in a situation another might not even notice. Note that no conditions for fulfillment are given ("He shall be considered suffering when A,B, and C occur").

The gospels also record differently. Jesus is not said to suffer seriously at any time prior to his death, so that there is no support whatsoever for the notion that Jesus "lived a life of suffering." Indeed, the record indicates that Jesus was popular and acclaimed, went around Judea healing and blessing, and generally lived a fulfilling life. That it ended tragically is no evidence that his entire life was one of suffering. This is another case of the reader reading back into the text specialized readings that aren't there to begin with.

This one is plainly stupid, suffering from all three of the aforementioned problems. What does it mean to be "despised by others?" How much "despised by others" does it take to qualify as being "despised by others?" The subjectivity is inherent -- one man might feel that Jesus is despised by others in a situation another might not even notice. Note that no conditions for fulfillment are given ("He shall be considered despised by others when A,B, and C occur"). This is another case of the reader reading back into the text specialized readings that aren't there to begin with.

Of course, it conflicts with the gospel record, in which Jesus travels across Judea with crowds trailing him, ending by an entrance into Jerusalem with crowds cheering him. Until the whole thing soured at the end, evidence shows that only a small number of people depised Jesus, namely, the priests and scribes, and not even all of them.

This one is plainly stupid, suffering from all three of the aforementioned problems. It is totally incoherent. What does it mean to "carried our sorrow?" How much "carried our sorrow" does it take to qualify as being "carried our sorrow?" The subjectivity is inherent -- one man might feel that Jesus is carrying our sorrow by others in a situation another might not even notice. Note that no conditions for fulfillment are given ("He shall be considered carrying our sorrow when A,B, and C occur"). This is another case of the reader reading back into the text specialized readings that aren't there to begin with.

This one is plainly stupid, suffering from all three of the aforementioned problems. It is totally incoherent. What does it mean to "be smitten and afflicted by God?" How much "be smitten and afflicted by God" does it take to qualify as being "smitten and afflicted by God?" The subjectivity is inherent -- one man might feel that Jesus is being smitten and afflicted by God in a situation another might not even notice. Note that no conditions for fulfillment are given ("He shall be considered being smitten and afflicted by God when A,B, and C occur"). This is another case of the reader reading back into the text specialized readings that aren't there to begin with.

The text denies this. At no time in any Gospel does God ever "smite" Jesus, nor "afflict" him with any negative Godlike interventions.

Same problem as #7.

This one is plainly stupid, suffering from all three of the aforementioned problems. It is totally incoherent. What does it mean to "suffer like a lamb;?" (not get enough milk from mom? Be killed, skinned, and eaten?) How much "suffering like a lamb;[/" does it take to qualify as being "suffered like a lamb;?" The subjectivity is inherent -- one man might feel that Jesus is being suffering like a lamb; by God in a situation another might not even notice. Note that no conditions for fulfillment are given ("He shall be considered suffering like a lamb when A,B, and C occur"). This is another case of the reader reading back into the text specialized readings that aren't there to begin with.

Just plain stupid. Who hasn't prayed for others in one sense or another?

Just plain stupid. Here is the text offered in proof:

1 The LORD said to Abram: "Go forth from the land of your kinsfolk and from your father's house to a land that I will show you.
2 "I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, so that you will be a blessing.
3 1 I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you. All the communities of the earth shall find blessing in you."

This one is plainly stupid, suffering from all three of the aforementioned problems. It is totally incoherent. What does it mean to be blessed, or that all the communities of the earth shall find a blessing in you? One could consider this prophecy fulfilled by any great inventor/scientist of the Jews -- for example, Milton Friedman, Albert Einstein, or Ilya Prigogine (since I am teaching Econ 101 this semester, I am going with Friedman on that one). Note that no conditions are given for fulfillment ("Blessing is when A,B, and C occur"). This is another case of the reader reading back into the text specialized readings that aren't there to begin with.

Having disposed of these incoherent, meaningless, subjective and arbitrary prophecies, contradicted by the biblical record, let's move on to the specific ones in my next post.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Post II

In this post we will look at some of the more specific prophecies that Chief has adduced.

Let's start with the famous translation error in Isaiah 7:14. This is a very common misunderstanding in certain Christian circles. Raymond Brown, the conservative Catholic priest and scholar who exhaustively studied the matter in his magisterial The Birth of the Messiah, speaks for the vast majority of modern critical scholarship when points out why this passage has long been viewed to have been an error (starting in the second century, where Justin and Trypho duel about it).

1. The passage is addressed not to the future, but to King Ahaz (~735-715 BC). and refers to events that took place around or after the year 734.
2. The expected child is not the messiah, for messianism had not developed toward a single future messiah. [Vork notes that 300 years later Jews identified Cyrus of Persia as the messiah!]
3. The word alma used in the hebrew text describes a young girl, not necessarily a virgin. [Vork adds that the gospel writers took this line from the Septaugint, a Greek translation that translated "alma" as "parthenos" -- virgin.] Brown notes this as well, and adds that in later Greek translations of the OT this error is corrected to the right Greek word, "neanis."
4. Isaiah uses the definite article -- THE young girl, not A young girl. Brown takes this to mean that Isaiah had someone particular in mind, whom he knew of.
5. The Hebrew is vague as to time and does not necessarily specify the future.

Brown ends: "In summary, the MT of Isa 7:14 does not refer to a virginal conception in the distant future. The sign offered by the prophet was the imminent birth of a child, probably Davidic, but naturally conceived, who would illustrate God's providential care for his people." (pp147-8)

Clearly not related to Jesus.

NEXT!:

Gen 49:10 (NIV)
10 The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs [3] and the obedience of the nations is his.

As the NIV notes, the text is unclear. At [3] it may also say Or until Shiloh comes ; or until he comes to whom tribute belongs.

In any case, this is of course not a messianic prophecy, but simply Jacob's final talk with his sons. This is the usual incoherent and meaningless nonsense (what does "scepter" mean, for example?). This is more back-reading of the text meanings that aren't there.

The reality is that this text is a mix which relates to the time of the people who wrote it at a later period in the history of the Jews. Walter Harrelson writes: "The great bulk of the remainder of the Book of Genesis (chaps. 37-50) is concerned with one dramatic theme: God's providential direction of the fortunes of Joseph which resulted not only in the deliverance of the forefathers from prolonged famine in the Promised Land but also in the multiplication of the number and the increase of the wealth of Jacob and his descendants. The story contains materials out of the two basic traditions, J and E, supplemented by priestly materials and by some materials brought into the narratives for special purposes, but apparently not a part of any one of the three narratives." (see Kirby's website.)

Richard Friedman notes in his excellent introduction that the Jacob stories are J material, which is concerned with upgrading Judah, his king, and downplaying rivals (Who Wrote the Bible? pp61-5). This very passage is cited on p65, where he notes that Judah gets the Kingship in the J material, in the E material Ephraim gets the Kingship, because when it was written, probably in Jeroboam's time, the capital was in Ephraim, and in fact, Ephraim was the alternate name for Israel.

In other words, this passage is not a messianic prophecy, but instead concerns the political situation of later times. Only someone who is back-reading his assumptions into the text could imagine that it is messianic, let alone talks about Jesus, let alone claims that Jesus comes from the line of Judah!

Four more to go!

Vorkosigan

Magdlyn

Welcome to II, Chief594,

If you look at the preceding and following chapters of Isaiah, you will see this "suffering servant" of YHWH is the entire people of Israel, the dispersed people who are suffering in exile. IN 52: "My people, captive Jerusalem, captive daughter Zion," etc. In 54:

54:3 For you will spread out to the right and to the left; your children will conquer nations and will resettle desolate cities.
4 Don’t be afraid, for you will not be put to shame! Don’t be intimidated, for you will not be humiliated! You will forget about the shame you experienced in your youth; you will no longer remember the disgrace of your abandonment.
5 For your husband is the one who made you— the Lord who leads armies is his name. He is your protector, the sovereign king of Israel.He is called “God of the entire earth.�
6 “Indeed, the Lord will call you back like a wife who has been abandoned and suffers from depression, like a young wife when she has been rejected,� says your God.
7 “For a short time I abandoned you, but with great compassion I will gather you.
8 In a burst of anger I rejected you momentarily, but with lasting devotion I will have compassion on you,� says your protector, the Lord.

YHWH ("Lord") is not the husband of Jesus, after all, but the husband of daughter Zion. YHWH is the sovereign king of Israel (and even the whole world). Jesus is not Lord. There is no mention of a messiah (annointed or human king) in these passages.

You are assuming that Jesus "fulfilled" these prophecies. In fact, the prophecies applied to the Diaspora of 6th century BCE, not to a first century CE messiah. You have been made to believe it does, but it is just "retro-fitting." Some call it stealing. Some call it using Tanakh to write a new fiction about a messiah for the 1st century Judahites under Roman rule. Odd that 21st century Xtians still cling to this fabrication.

Magdlyn

Sorry, Vork, I didn't realize you were working on it. Excuse the interruption.

Vorkosigan

Let us return to these apparently specific prophecies

To understand these we need to understand how the writers of the Gospels wrote. Let us take Mark as our starting point, since it was the first gospel written. Mark built his stories out of the Elijah-Elisha Cycle in Kings, using that as the skeleton for the Jesus stories he was creating. Thomas Brodie on p93 of The Crucial Bridge: the Elijah-Elisha Narrative as an interpretive synthesis of Genesis-Kings and a literary model for the Gospels shows how this works. The foundation of the Jesus legend is the Elijah-Elisha cycle. At the climax of the two legend cycles, both E and J cleanse Temples, Elijah in the purging of the priests of Baal with fire, and Jesus of the moneychangers. Both are annointed (2 Kings 9), accession with cloaks on the ground (2 Kings 9), waiting before taking over (2 Kings 9:12-13, Mark 11:11), challenge the authorities (2 Kings 9:22-10:27), Mark 11:11 - 12:12), and money is given to the Temple (2 Kings 12:5-17, Mark 12:41-44). As Brodie puts it (p93), ..."the basic point is clear: Mark's long passion narrative, while using distinctive Christian sources, coincides significantly both in form and content with the long Temple-centered sequence at the end of the Elijah-Elisha narrative."

Let's give some detailed examples Mark 1:16-20, which I talked about earlier, is usually seen as a creation off of 1Kings 19

1 Kings 19:19-21/Mark 1:16-20
Elijah moves toward Elisha/Jesus moves toward the disciples
those called are working (plowing/fishing)
the call is brief (gesture/word)
those called immediately leave their means of livelihood
the plow is destroyed/the nets are mended
further movement, leave home
leave taking of other workers
Elisha goes to kiss parents good-bye/John/James leave father in boat

Another example of the way the OT is used to create the NT may be found in Mark 11:15-19, where Jesus cleanses the temple of the moneychangers. This one is structured on all three levels by the OT. First, the Elijah-Elisha narrative provides the basis for the plot -- Jesus has arrived in Jerusalem because that's where the EEC narrative is. Then at the level of details, the scenes of Jesus overturning furniture and preventing the vessels from being moved out are taken from Nehemiah. Finally, his famous comment about "den of thieves" is a pastiche of two OT texts. The whole event, from plot to details, is made up out of the OT.

One more example. In Mark 5 Jesus heals Jairus' daughter. This is a clear invention out of the OT. Here are the parallels.

2 Kings 4: 8-37/Mark 5:21-43
woman grasps Elisha's feet/synagogue ruler falls at Jesus' feet
only son is dying/only daughter is dying
word reaches Elisha the child is dead/word reaches Jesus the child is dead
Elisha alone with child/only a few disciples follow Jesus to see miracle
Elisha touches child and it awakes/Jesus touches child and it awakes
mother is ecstatic with all this ecstasy (IV Kgs LXX)/ parents are ecstatic with great ecstasy

Note that last line. Not only has Mark used the story for his frame, he has even borrowed the Greek of the LXX to tell it.

So now we come to the prophecies of the Passion.

As numerous commentators have noted, these "prophecies" are there because the writers of the NT invented these stories out of the OT. We know this because our good friend Matthew made a gross error in Chapter 21 of his story. He read the Greek of the LXX and thought that Zech 9:9 referred to two animals, not one, so he supplied Jesus with two animals. That error shows that Matt was creating, not reporting, for the only way you could get two animals there is by misreading the text of Zech 9:9 in the Septaugint (LXX).

Thus though we know that Psalm 21(LXX, 22 in our Bibles) is controlling the Passion because the various NT authors used that and other Psalms in different ways. See Randel Helms' discussion of Mark used Psalm 69 and then how Matthew corrects his reading of it. It is clear that they are inventing out of the OT rather than recording history that comports with the OT. We know this because not only do they correct each other's usages, but they also copy the Greek of the OT. For example, in his passage about the casting of lots, Mark not only borrows the scene from Psalm 21 (22), but even brings over the Greek. It is easy to see that we are looking at literary creation from a source, not recording of history.

Thus, the three Passion prophecies are evidence, not of prophecy, but, as every scholar knows, literary creation.

On to bethlehem.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Hey, I don't own this thread. It's a good exercise, you know, to dismantle these claims, because it helps familiarize one with the text and arguments. Please join in, no doubt you'll spot things i missed. I think I'll do two more posts here, one on the claim of birth in Bethlehem, the other on the reality of what Isa 53 is really talking about.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

I am going to stop here before I go on to Bethlehem. Let Chief reply to the many points here.

Vorkosigan