DrZoidberg

Quick question. Is there some sort of handy list with which OT prophecies that Jesus allegedly fulfilled. I'd prefer some sort of annoted list seen from the perspective of some widely shared belief/sect, with references and some sort of explanation.

Thanks.

DCHindley

These are sometimes included in religious tracts or even in commentaries attached to KJV editions.

A pretty good list is at www.accordingtothescriptures.org.

Most folks don't have the time to read through the entire OT and marking out the passages that could be interpreted to Jesus Christ, but if one does so one should also look at study editions of the bible at those passages to see what the context of these passages originally was.

Although this shows I have entirely too much time to waste, I have done it several times over the last 40 years and have 3-4 well marked and dog eared bibles to show for it, ranging from a KJV (1st pass) to the New American Bible study edition (2nd pass) and an RSV study edition (final pass, and after that I am ready to pass on further passes).

DCH

stephan huller

I have been giving this a lot of thought over the years. I think Clement of Alexandria denied that the prophesies which pointed to the royal messiah applied to Jesus. He apparently still held that Deut 18:18 was foretelling Jesus as the prophet like Moses. But this in no way confirms Jesus as 'the Christ.' The Samaritans for instance denied the coming of a royal figure - only someone like Moses who wasn't a king. I think that the early Alexandrian opinion was nuanced. Jesus was called 'the Son,' 'the friend' and 'the brother' etc. He came to establish another as the Christ. The Jewish prophesies which foretold of a royal figure applied to the Christ established by Jesus. But Jesus was 'the prophet' like Moses, or perhaps better yet, Moses was like Him.

aa5874

Your question is a bit odd.

Jesus in the NT was the child of a Ghost and a virgin based on Isaiah 7.14. But how could this seeing Mary KNEW NOT a man?

Jesus of the NT could NOT have fulfilled any prophecies.

There is an EVENT that happened and it was the Fall of the Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem.

The Jesus story was an EXPLANATION for the Fall of the Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem.

DrZoidberg

Even I know that "knew not man" is an expression for "not having had sex with a man". Just because that's not common usage any more doesn't change that fact.

And I don't care whether Jesus really did all those things. I only care about which prophecies are covered according to the two Bibles (NT and OT).

stephan huller

The real question for me is why didn't Jesus embrace the term 'the messiah'? Why did our oldest tradition of scriptural exegesis (the Marcionites) explicitly hold that the gospel confirms that Jesus was going out of his way to deny that he was the Christ? The answer must be that the messianic prophesies were understood by the earliest Christians to apply to someone else - hence Celsus's statement in the True Logos:

have supposed that there were a series of prodigies, (οἱ γὰρ ὁμοίως Κελσῷ ὑπολαβόντες τετερατεῦσθαι) and who for that reason wished to perform acts of the same kind, that they, too, might gain a similar mastery over the minds of men, were convicted of being utter nonentities [Origen Contra Celsum 6.10]

stephan huller

The real question for me is why didn't Jesus embrace the term 'the messiah'? Why did our oldest tradition of scriptural exegesis (the Marcionites) explicitly hold that the gospel confirms that Jesus was going out of his way to deny that he was the Christ? The answer must be that the messianic prophesies were understood by the earliest Christians to apply to someone else - hence Celsus's statement in the True Logos that contemporary heretics:

have supposed that there were a series of prodigies, (οἱ γὰρ ὁμοίως Κελσῷ ὑπολαβόντες τετερατεῦσθαι) and who for that reason wished to perform acts of the same kind, that they, too, might gain a similar mastery over the minds of men, were convicted of being utter nonentities [Origen Contra Celsum 6.10]

maryhelena

Mark 8:28-30 (New International Version, ©2011)
28 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”
29 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Peter answered, “You are the Messiah.”
30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

Matthew 16:15-17 (New International Version, ©2011)
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.

I don't read any denial here re JC and the question of his being viewed in a messianic role. If anything the issue is about not making some public proclamation to that effect.

Stephan, the above is the gospel storyline. If you want your own theory, that Agrippa II should be be viewed in a messianic role, to gain acceptance - then, methinks you would do better with that theory if you first consider that JC is not a historical figure. That way the field opens up to consider historical figures. Otherwise you have an uphill battle on your hands re the assumed historicity of JC - and hence the gospel storyline that he was viewed in a messianic role.

DrZoidberg

Well.. the Bible is clearly mythic. Whether or not Jesus really existed doesn't alter the fact that the events describing Jesus' life in the Bible most certainly didn't happen exactly as described and Jesus most certainly didn't say what he did in the way it is expressed in the Bible, even if he really lived. We have no way of knowing exactly what he said or how he formulated himself.

The people who wrote the Bible (and put Jesus' words into his mouth) clearly thought that Jesus was the messiah, or they wouldn't have bothered to write a new testament. So we can easily deduce that the person described in the Bible as Jesus thinks he's the messiah and will act in such a way and say stuff that implies it. The various writers of Biblical texts have of course placed words in Jesus mouth to strengthen their particular form of Christianity. This should be blindingly obvious. Isn't it? Marcionists obviously want to play down Jesus' Jewishness.

stephan huller

Mary

The interpretation of the passage has nothing to do with the question of who the Christians might have believed WAS the messiah. The Marcionites read this and other pericopes explained that Jesus was NOT the messiah of the OT. Similar interpretations come from other ancient sources. The bottom line is (a) the messiah would appear at the end of the royal line (Gen 49:10) and (b) Jesus never wanted to have anything to do with the title messiah. The Marcionites called him Chrestos