Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 06-30-2005, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenn6162

The Messiah's hands and feet would be pierced. Prophecy
Psalm 22:16c
"... they pierced my hands and my feet."
Fulfillment
Matthew 27:38
"And they crucified him ..."

http://www.messiahrevealed.org/

I was hoping to start a discussion on fulfilled prophecy. We know that the Psalms were written around the 10th century BC, so how could this prophecy be so amazingly accurate while being written so long ago? We know that a man named Jesus was crucified for claiming to be the Son of God, so this in my opinion is not the kind of prophecy which is unverifiable requiring faith to believe. Thoughts??

One should note that the Hebrew of Psalm 22:16 is very difficult and may be corrupt.

The reading of the Septuagint Peshitta and Vulgate. 'they have pierced' may not be what the original Hebrew meant.

Andrew Criddle

Jenn6162 · 06-30-2005, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Selsaral

In the same book that the prophecy is written it's fulfilled. It's all very vague and it was all written thousands of years ago. Let's keep in mind this same book features giants, whales who eat humans (who stay alive), zombies walking around, talking donkeys, talking snakes, many many more absurd things, and endless anthropomorphized explanations for natural events (better known as creation myths).

I don't buy it for the same reason I don't believe Miss Cleo can tell the future or that John Edwards talks to dead people.

I must also say that the incredible mental gymnastics that others have gone through to defend many of these prophecies (read the destruction of tyre thread, or any of Ed's threads) places considerable doubt on them as a whole.

I don't think it is vague. They pierced my hands and feet is a strange way to predict someones death ten centuries before it occurs.

Hedshaker · 06-30-2005, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenn6162

I don't think it is vague. They pierced my hands and feet is a strange way to predict someones death ten centuries before it occurs.

Have you thought about addressing this post ?

Or are you only seeing what you wish to see?

Orbit

Matt the Medic · 06-30-2005, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenn6162

Well yes and no. The Gospels were written under the inspiration of the HS. Jesus being part of the trinity, obviously had a part in that. While he was on earth, it played out as he always knew it would. One cannot say that he made it a self-fulfilling prophecy though, because he played no part in his death.

You just contradicted yourself. If Jesus is a part of the trinity, and thus retaining omnimax powers, he would have to be part of his own death- in fact, he orchestrated it.

To borrow a page from Mageth:

Quote:

God himself created man and woman and placed them in a garden, in "his own image", but got righteously angry at them when they ate, against his wish, and after being tempted by a talking serpent that god himself had somehow allowed to slither about in the garden, a tasty, beautiful fruit, though he himself had placed it there but neglected to instill in his creations the knowledge of good and evil so that they would know it was wrong to eat it. Being omniscient, of course, he knew all this before he started, but was apparently unable to do anything about it because he had planned it this way from the beginning, and apparently god cannot change anything he already knows, in spite of the fact that he's omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent.

Later, God himself impregnated a virgin so that he himself could be born a human, a ManGod. This was necessary, apparently, because only his own ManGod blood could appease himself and deliver humans, who he created, and who he knew would muck things up by eating the fruit, from his own righteous anger.

Of course, he waited several thousand years to implement this divine plan, in the meantime taking the righteous action of drowning every creature on the planet except a few he could stuff on a boat. Not to mention handing down a Law that served to further condemn every one of us, and in which Law he himself had them frequently sacrifice animals to appease himself, though he knew the blood of animals didn't really appease himself.

Much later, god, in a garden, prayed to himself to "take this cup" away from himself, though he himself knew that he himself had planned the coming events from the beginning and knew that not even he himself could save himself, even though he was god and omnipotent, omniscient, etc. Accepting this, he said, in effect, "Not my will, but my will."

God then sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself. (or had himself sacrificed; not much of a distinction between the two, really) Before dying, he himself asked he himself why he had forsaken himself.

He himself, being dead, then raised himself from the dead less than 40 hours later, though he himself had said he'd be dead for three days and three nights, which he could do because he was still alive, and later he himself pulled himself up into heaven where he himself apparently already was, and where he himself is described as now sitting at the right hand of himself.

He himself then sent himself (or a ghost of himself, if you please) back to earth to be a comfort to us, though he himself is still sitting at the right hand of himself.

And, glory hallelujah, he himself promised that he himself will return someday, though he himself is already here, and will still be there, to snatch up those who believe the god blood sacrifice story he himself told us, and kill the rest of us who don't believe the god blood sacrifice story, no matter how nice we were otherwise. But, since killing us isn't enough to appease his righteousness, he himself will then judge us, though according to ManGod he himself will also not judge us, and being a god of love will cast most of us into hell for an eternity of suffering. He has to, of course, because he is a righteous, just god, and can't figure out a way to save anyone who hasn't been redeemed by god-blood, even though he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, and loves us all.

Amaleq13 · 06-30-2005, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenn6162

I was hoping to start a discussion on fulfilled prophecy. We know that the Psalms were written around the 10th century BC, so how could this prophecy be so amazingly accurate while being written so long ago? We know that a man named Jesus was crucified for claiming to be the Son of God, so this in my opinion is not the kind of prophecy which is unverifiable requiring faith to believe. Thoughts??

This passage has been addressed many times (eg On the meaning of "pierced" vs "crucifixion" and in this post from a different thread) but the bottom line, IIUC, is that "pierced" is not the best choice for translation. The passage should convey the image of a man being bitten, if not torn apart, by dogs/lions rather than nailed to a tree/cross.

Spherical Time · 06-30-2005, 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenn6162

I don't think it is vague. They pierced my hands and feet is a strange way to predict someones death ten centuries before it occurs.

I disagree. It sounds like a painful way to die, and would probably keep the person alive for a while. Fits in well with the rest of the S&M interest in the bible.

I think what people have been saying about self-fufilling prophecy is centered around the idea that Jesus was picked as the messiah because it could vaguely relate to a prophecy written before he died rather than happening because it was predicted.

Jenn6162 · 06-30-2005, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paradox

It would be a logical assumption to assume that the prophecies had been written after the event (e.g. the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70 being a good example)

Also, editors and translators could easily be biased when reproducing the Scriptures, assuming that certain words mean certain things. Knowing that they are looking at a prophecy that they believe to have been fulfilled, they are much more likely to use words that back that philosophy up - a kind of circular reasoning. Sometimes intentional, sometimes not.

Also, some prophecy is deliberately vague and rich in picture language therefore open to interpretation - e,g. the book of Revelation.

Of course it would be easy to suggest that they are all fakes and forgeries, because it is easier to explain it all away. It is all a big conspiracy that has been going on for years, and all the authors of the books of the Bible are liars, right? I am going to make this easier for all of you because I made a mistake posting, when the only time I have to respond is on my smoke breaks. I came here to see what this place was all about. I had heard that there was a deconversion thread going on. I am sure I won't be missed though. I will be praying that you all come to know Jesus. Lots of Love to you all :angel:

Amaleq13 · 06-30-2005, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenn6162

Of course it would be easy to suggest that they are all fakes and forgeries, because it is easier to explain it all away. It is all a big conspiracy that has been going on for years, and all the authors of the books of the Bible are liars, right? I am going to make this easier for all of you because I made a mistake posting, when the only time I have to respond is on my smoke breaks. I came here to see what this place was all about. I had heard that there was a deconversion thread going on. I am sure I won't be missed though. I will be praying that you all come to know Jesus. Lots of Love to you all :angel:

First, I hope you read my post before you go since it offers you an explanation that does not involve forgery but a more accurate understanding of your own sacred text. Second, this is not the forum where a deconversion thread would be housed. I suspect it is more likely to be found in one of the Secular Community Forums.

Spherical Time · 06-30-2005, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

First, I hope you read my post before you go since it offers you an explanation that does not involve forgery but a more accurate understanding of your own sacred text. Second, this is not the forum where a deconversion thread would be housed. I suspect it is more likely to be found in one of the Secular Community Forums.

It was. She already posted to it, before she came over here. It was split to here.

Skeptical · 06-30-2005, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenn6162

The Messiah's hands and feet would be pierced. Prophecy
Psalm 22:16c
"... they pierced my hands and my feet."
Fulfillment
Matthew 27:38
"And they crucified him ..."

First of all, you start with the erroneous assumption that this passage refers to the "Messiah". The passage you quote says no such thing nor does the entire chapter ever mention the word messiah, annointed or in any way reference something that can plausbily be said to indicate that it is about any future messianic figure. It's just not there. In order for a prophecy to be reasonably construed as a prophecy about a future messianic figure, there must be some textually demonstrable way to show that the prophecy refers to a future messianic figure. Such a demonstration cannot be shown by this passage under any reasonable reading.

The only argument that can be advanced is some sort of "double tradition" under the theory that even though the passage clearly does not reference a future messianic figure, in retrospect we can now see that it was about the messiah, aka Jesus. More on this below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenn6162

I was hoping to start a discussion on fulfilled prophecy. We know that the Psalms were written around the 10th century BC, so how could this prophecy be so amazingly accurate while being written so long ago?

Even on the theory that despite the fact this passage clearly does not reference a future messianic figure it is still about the Messiah, the passage, in context, is not in any way "amazingly accurate".

Let's examine several other parts of chapter 22 that cannot in any plausible way be said to be found in the NT (all are taken from the NIV):

PS 22:12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.

-There is no record of bulls surrounding Jesus in the NT

PS 22: 13 Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me.

-There is no record of Lions opening their moths wide against Jesus in the NT.

PS 22:21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save [d] me from the horns of the wild oxen.

-Again, no lions, no wild Oxen attacking Jesus in the NT

And my personal favorite:

PS 22:24 For he has not despised or disdained
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.

-This strongly implies that the person about whom this was written was rescued by God and did not die from the suffering he has undergone. Again, can't be applied to Jesus.

Most of the chapter cannot be applied to Jesus even accepting it could be a prophecy about him (which on its face it is not). A prophecy is not accurate, much less "amazingly accurate", if most of the proposed prophecy is wrong.

Not to mention that saying "my hands and feet have been pierced" is a pretty ambiguous way of saying someone has been crucified. "Pierced" can mean different things far short of crucifixion. At most one could say it is consistent with crucifixion, but that is a far cry from "amazingly accurate".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenn6162

We know that a man named Jesus was crucified for claiming to be the Son of God,

We know no such thing. That is the traditional xian interpretation based on faith, but there are plenty of other theories supported by textual evidence that Jesus' claims, assuming he made them, had little to do with his crucifixion, assuming it happened. You can read "Jesus and Judaism" by EP Sanders for a detailed analysis that the reason Jesus was killed had much more to do with his actions at the temple.

Claiming to be the "messiah" or even the son of God would not, alone, have been grounds for his crucifixion. There were numerous messianic pretenders during this period. Read "Bandits, prophets and messiahs" by Horsley.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jenn6162

so this in my opinion is not the kind of prophecy which is unverifiable requiring faith to believe. Thoughts??

Even assuming portions of this passage might be about a future messianic figure, which as I have shown is considerably doubtful, the much more plausible explanation is that the author(s) of Mat looked for evidence in the OT that might be used to bolster the claim the Jesus was the messiah and retrofit the story to fit anything they could find.

The most that could be said about the passage is that it could plasubily be said to be consistent with a crucifixion IF the passage is taken out of context and no attention is paid to the surrounding passages AND one ignores that the passage in no way references a future messianic figure.

I think it goes without saying that this does not support the position that it is an "amazingly accurate" prophecy about Jesus.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.