goldenroad

How did Jesus manage to fulfill all those Jewish prophecies? To see jsut a few of them read Isaiah 53 and consider it with an open mind. The prophecies weren't just broad general statements that could apply to anyone...they were specific identifiers that could not be fulfilled by anyone but the Jewish Messiah.

Thomas II

Question: Did he actually fulfill the prophecies, or did the writers of the gospels "make it so"?

neilgodfrey

I've just re-read Isaiah 53, starting from Isaiah 40-something and continuing on to 50-something else, and am reminded how some of those verses were interpreted as absolutely spot-on prophecies of a religious cult leader I once knew. I especially recall Isaiah 53:19 "Who is blind but my servant, or deaf as my messenger whom I send? Who is blind as he who is perfect, And blind as the LORD's servant? Seeing many things, but you do not observe, opening the ears but he does not hear."

Now that just fits to a minute detail another end-time Elijah-Apostle figure to come who at the very height of his world missionary activity where he went on to deliver the gospel to "kings, emperors, rulers" of this world his age finally took its toll on him and he lost his eyesight and hearing. This prophecy consoled the cult members who "knew" that these physical disabilities that finally overtook him were a sure sign that he indeed was the "one to come" prior to the Second Coming.

Or if those cult members were mistaken, and you think this applied to Christ instead, then maybe one day we will find another gospel in the desert sands somewhere that shows that Jesus also was blind and deaf.

Or maybe Isa 53 is just like its surrounding chapters and all of these were written as literary figures of the nation of Israel and were vivid poetic depictions of her past history -- and maybe that's why the Jews preserved them.

Or maybe Isa 53 is about Jesus and in it we can even learn things about Jesus that are NOT even recorded in the gospels, such as the "prophecy" that he was but-ugly ("no form or comeliness .... no beauty that we should desire him" -- v.2); and that his face was bashed beyond recognition that it was even a human face (52:14) -- but fortunately God healed that bit (though not the spear or nail holes in him) so his disciples could recognize him after his resurrection; and that now (in heaven?) he has been given a portion of some inheritance (only a portion mind you) with other great and strong ones (53:12) .....

With a bit of imagination to fill in the details you could even write another gospel narrative of Jesus that brought out those new revelations --- how he was made deaf, face disfigured, etc.... it would be even STRONGER proof of how Jesus fulfilled this "prophecy"!


Just thoughts.....

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

hatsoff

Is Isaiah 53 even a prophecy? I never paid much attention to OT mysticism due to the fact that so much of it is gibberish, but that particular chapter is all in past tense. Why would we even suppose it was intended as a future prophecy, much less that of a Messiah-Savior?

Sven

Drive-by alert! Four out of six of goldenroad's posts are OPs of new threads. All posted at least 4 hours ago, and no one has seen him since then.

rlogan

The same way you just wrote this post.

See how easy it was?

Coleslaw

He probably fulfilled them the same way Moshe Shulman's rooster managed to fulfill the 42 prophecies that he did.

See:
http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/prophecies.html#A

Johnny Skeptic

Ok, how about Micah 5:2? Where is your evidence that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and that he was ruler of Israel?

What evidence do you have that Jesus was from the house of David? Of course, when the Old Testament writers wrote about the house of David, they meant the "genetic" house of David, most certainly not a person who was conceived by the Holy Sprit would could not possibly have had genetic predecessors.

Why do you suppose that God chose the Jews to be his chosen people? What a motley crew, better stated, a band of murderers and slaveowners.

Now if God really wants people to know that he can predict the future, don't you think he could easily make that more obvious?

goldenroad

I have dial-up and can only get on the internet at night so that's why you don't see me much. As for the prophecies, some were literal and some were figurative and some would apply to Jesus's next coming. As for Jesus being blind, that refers to his innocence ("he was led like a lamb to the slaughter")-a lamb is blind to the doom taht awaits him; just as the sheep that the Jews sacrificed were blind to the doom that awaited them. As for the gospels making all this up, i see your point and am personally studying the reliablity of the gospels right now and would post on this right now but don't have to time to research it thouroughly (i have dial-up) but i'll get back to it. I think, though, that you could make this argument about any historical document-did the author fabricate information to fit his agenda? You could say this about many documents that you hold to be true, the best thing that i can say is that the authors of the gospels that you find in the bible were eyewitnesses and the first of the gospels (supposedly Mark) could be argued to have been written around 50-something C.E. Anyway, hope to get back to this, i'll post more prophecies later.

hatsoff

None of the Gospel authors were eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry. It is quite possible none had been born during Jesus' lifetime. Mark, the earliest Gospel, was probably written no earlier than 70 AD. As for your interpretation of the prophecies themselves, they are entirely arbitrary, cherry-picked to conform to your conception of their alleged fulfillment.