jon-eli

Okay, well I define it in terms of an example.

Jews believed, and still believe to this day, that when the messiah comes, he will be preceded by the prophet Elijah who will usher him in. At the beginning of the gospel of Mark, the story attempts to satisfy that requirement (or fulfill it, to use another word) by portraying John the baptist as an incarnation of Elijah. To say that something fulfills prophecy, is to say that the prophecy has been proved true for the first and perhaps only time, that something has happened which satisfies the vital elements of the prophecy.

aa5874

Christianity cannot really be considered an outgrowth of Judaism until it can be shown that there were actual Jews who did believe in Jesus or that Jesus was actually prophesied in Hebrew Scriptures.

The Jewish writers, Philo and Josephus did not reflect any outgrowth of Judaism where a man would have been prophesied to be a God and asked to forgive the sins of the Jews while the Temple was still standing.

It should be noted that Jesus of the NT was executed for blasphemy, not a good indication for the outgrowth of Judaism.

It appears to be quite the opposite. Jesus was an outgrowth of paganism but anachronistically placed in Judaea and falsely said to be to be of Jewish stock when the character really was an anti-christ.

gentleexit

I think this is the root of what you're saying and it defies logic. Why would a polytheistic culture whose higher elements were either agnostic (at one point) or "logical theists" (ala Plotinus at later points), care about the Jewish books, lore etc.? Why, oh why, make god-man a Jew? Jews, the failed uprisers. Who would care for JEWISH prophesy fulfilled, JEWISH lore echo'ed, JEWISH history exegerated except Jews? Diasporan Jews. Wanna fit-in, but wanna cling-on Jews? The "New" testament is icing on the Septuagint and who cared for that? Greek-speaking ... Jews.

jon-eli

In what sense do you mean "Jews"? Do you mean ethnic Jews, or merely subscribers to Judaism? Mark may not himself have been ethnically Jewish, but he did consider himself as religiously Jewish, since he subscribed to the doctrines of Torah.

The Jesus of Mark's gospel never portrayed himself as God, never claimed to be God, and never forgave the Jewish nation.

The Jesus of the NT was executed by Romans, after being handed over to them by an irregular and totally unlikely assembly of the Sanhedrin.

For someone who routinely insists that everyone is "just guessing," and making unsupported claims, etc., you do seem to be "just guessing" at the moment.

IamJoseph

No sir. There are a host of other criteria associated with a messiah - aside from this selective and retrospective factor. However even this singular one is incorrectly applied.

One can say this of anyone happening to be walking by.

The issue is not whether a prophesy is true here, but its prevailing, and the NT uses the term fullfillment to negate. So christianity has negated what it deems true. This has failed - all the Mosaic laws are active and accepted by the world - even in christian country's institutions. The negation of the Sabbath is a total ubsurdity - all that was done is to change this to Hellenist Sunday - to soothe Greeks and Romans and their precedent disdain of the Mosaic!

I suggest you read isaiah again, and keep a caculator handy - not to mark what was fullfilled [which is zero], but to mark all those which were NOT fullfilled. To begin with - the resurrection was NEVER directed at a Messiah but the peoples! And only a true Messiah can muster that feat. Mess with the Mosaic at your own peril.

IamJoseph

This is not in the hands of christians or muslims.

There was no roman trial - please prove this occured from outside the Gospels? You cannot - nor can it be shown how jesus or any other Jew could have escaped Rome's Heresy decree of anyone refusing to bow to the image of a Roman brute. Over a million other jews did not survive - because they were true believers and held steadfast to their belief. Then comes the Gospels accusing Jews of being unbelievers!!!!! Wow - you think.

jon-eli

The point is not whether it was incorrectly applied or not. The point is that Mark believed it was correctly applied.

No they're not. They are for the most part superseded by the Qu'ran and the NT.

Mark your case to someone who believes Jesus was a fulfillment of prophecy. That person wouldn't be me. But there are enough parallels between Isaiah 53 and the death of Jesus to make a strong case.

Resurrection ushers in the kingdom of heaven. There's no reason why this couldn't have begun with the resurrection of Jesus, with the rest to follow in his wake

I just mess with it the way the Mishnah does. I'm in good company.

I never said there was a Roman trial. I was suggesting there was no Jewish trial, since the Sanhedrin of the gospels assembled at night during a Jewish festival, which is just silly. And Jesus is accused of blasphemy, when in fact he did nothing to warrant such an accusation (unless it is to be argued in a very strained way that Jesus was juxtaposing two scripture quotations in such as way as to constitute blasphemy, which I've seem argued before).

What on earth are you talking about? There's not a chance that Rome would have forced such an absurd "decree" on the entire Roman constituency. And there's so much evidence that Pilate was damn good at keeping the peace in Judea and showing respect to the Jews. I don't believe for a second that Jews ever had to do any such thing as bow to imperial simulacra, certainly not in Judea.

Accusing them? They were indisputably unbelievers, no question there. Non-Christian Jews didn't accept Jesus as messiah, since that forms the very distinction between the two groups.

spamandham

Nothing at all? Are you saying Pilate and Herod didn't exist? Are you saying the temple wasn't destroyed as recorded? If we applied the same absurd standard to the NT that you've applied to the old, you would have to conclude the NT was also 100% true. After all, we've confirmed the existence of the interesting people and places (rulers, cities, etc.) of the NT externally.

Can you prove a single historical claim of the NT false? ...or perhaps, do you apply a bit of critical thinking when it comes to texts that you do not idolize?

Paul explains the "plausible" reason quite well. The Jews broke their covenant and were rejected. They could not see the "truth" because they were blinded by thier misunderstanding of the purpose of the law. If you buy into the ridiculous god of the Jews, such arbitrary and childish behavior is expected.


Nothing at all? Are you saying Pilate and Herod didn't exist? Are you saying the temple wasn't destroyed as recorded? If we applied the same absurd standard to the NT that you've applied to the old, you would have to conclude the NT was also 100% true. After all, we've confirmed the existence of the interesting people and places (rulers, cities, etc.) of the NT externally.

Can you prove a single historical claim of the NT false? ...or perhaps, do you apply a bit of critical thinking when it comes to texts that you do not idolize?

Because this is nonsense. That's why it isn't on the radar. It's impossible to disprove anything to someone brainwashed by a cult. But from an unbiased perspective, the magical aspects of the OT are enough to "disprove" it.

Combine that with a complete lack of evidence of anything resembling the exodus, and it's obvious the Jewish texts are myth/legend/propaganda first, and history second.

spamandham

This is an English language forum. I do not pretend to understand Latin, Greek, or Hebrew.

Toto

These are common phrases in this field, and simply mean the earliest possible date and the latest possible date.

I have no idea why Biblical scholars use Latin phrases for simple concepts that could be expressed more easily in English, but they do.