oatmealia

Hello. I've been a fundamentalist Christian for about a year, but I'm now doubting. Much of my doubtingis the product of realizing that the Bible doesn't appear to be inerrant. Beyond this, I've developed suspicions that the prophecies that the authors of the Gospels cite to prove that Jesus was the Christ are slightly less than actual prophecy. Ex., John 19 references Pslam 34:20. Doesn't seem remarkably like Messianic prophecy.

However, in my search for the truth I came across this website. It seems to have good evidence against the arguments of those who would say that the Gospel authors were reaching beyond their means. To be honest, I'm quite lost in all of this. My faith in the Old Testament as an inspired compendium of God is already waning, but the evidence for/against Christ is the clincher for me. Does anyone have any suggestions as to where I could go from here?

The purpose of this thread, though, is to discuss the whole concept of the Messianic prophecy as projected onto Jesus. What prophecies were well known by Jews at the time? By what principles did teachers of that time distinguish the Messianic prophecy from regular old Scripture? I suspect that these principles were quite different from the "literal, historical, contextual" hermeneutic that modern day Evangelicals (and Dispensationalists) propend to. Etc., etc. I'm just hoping to find some good research on these topics.

An aside: I'm new to this message board, though I've been lurking for awhile. A part of me feels as though I should lurk slightly longer, but as you can imagine this is something of a life crisis, and I'm getting impatient for answers. I've been suffering depression for the last year as I deal with various doctrines in Christianity ("inconsistency is depressenogenic," I've read). The eternal security debate has had me concerned that the Bible is unharmonious for a long time. I guess I'm just looking for the best arguments, and even perspective on the Bible as an "inspired book."

spin

Hi oatmealia. Welcome to posting on BC&H.
Although I would dissuade anyone from being a religionist of any sort, many christians are not inerrantists. Many of the more intelligent ones who post here are not of the category.

In order to understand your source...

Roman Destruction of Jerusalem
Daniel foretold the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple:

"And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." (Dan 9:26)

This prophecy must refer to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in A.D. 70. In Daniel's day, Jerusalem was destroyed and Solomon's Temple was in ruins. Daniel spoke of this as a future event, so he anticipated the rebuilding of the city and sanctuary. No matter how the date of the Book of Daniel is determined, whether the 6th century B.C. (the conservative date) or the 2nd century B.C. (the liberal date), this prophecy cannot be post-dated. Actual manuscripts of the book exist dating from the first century B.C.

This ends the list of verifiable long-range predictions. Many more could be documented; these are only a few examples.

Why does Price PhD, professor at Temple Baptist Seminary of Chattanooga, say that the "prophecy must refer to the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in A.D. 70"? He doesn't care to justify himself. In fact he simply assumes it. While admitting there is a "liberal" date for the text, he ignores the fact that that date relates the text to the time of Antiochus IV of Syria who flattened the city and polluted the temple. The "people of the prince" who were to come were clearly Antiochus's forces, as I have shown numerous times here.

I'd recommend that one reads any scholarly commentary on Daniel, ie one published by a recognized scholar from a recognized university, rather than reading the rehashes of an apologist who belongs to a seminary.

Price later gives a hack's attempt to defend the virgin reading in Isa 7:14, which has been investigated many times here. In fact, if you consult the archives, you'll find much of his stuff has been pulled apart several times here. If there's anything that he has talked about that you can't find adequately dealt with here, I'm sure someone here, such as myself, will be happy to give you some feedback on the issue.

Juicy topic. However, I fear much of the material you hope for hasn't survived it's Jewish context, because messianic speculation of the era was abandoned with the fall of Judea and Jewish exclusion from the city, leading to a Pharisaic type orthodoxy imposed on the remnants of the Jews in Palestine. Some has survived though (and J.J. Collins has specialized in analysis of messianism: see for example "The Sceptre and the Star" or "Apocalyticism and the Dead Sea Scrolls").

In the Dead Sea Scrolls we do find a lot about the military nature of the messiah. What can be gleaned from Jewish evidence is that Jesus doesn't fit the Jewish idea of the messiah and as the notion of the messiah is a Jewish concept, I'd think they should know. Jesus is only a messiah in christian terminology, a terminology inherited from Judaism and in conflict with the Judaic notion.

Asking questions and seeking reasoned answers are a way to understanding. Free thought is essential to liberation.

A good way to look at biblical literature is that it was written a long time before science came along, written to deal with the world in the best way the writers could at the time. The world was harsh and aggressive and biblical people needed means for surviving in it. When science came along it naturally supplied better answers about the world. Society has changed enormously and people no longer find themselves in such harsh conditions as two thousand years ago (unless you live in Iraq).

Modern christians, being the heirs of an ancient religion, perpetuate the religion as a cultural imperative, just as gene carriers perpetuate their species. It doesn't matter that there is no meaningful place in the modern world for the religion except as a fallback for people with needs that society refuses not to fulfill.

Don't get me wrong, the bible is a great book of its time. (The laws of Hammurabi were great for their time as well.) It's just that that time has passed and christians can't understand this fact.


spin

judge

The problem I see with this, is that the hebrew bible itself often describes the jews themselves as just the type of people who would miss the messiah.
In other words pointing out that some jews saw the messiah as being different from jesus christ, doesn't hold much weight.

For example look at Romans 9:25-15:22 which begins


Right on.



Maybe, but most modern christians dont live in the west.

-Jay-

Welcome, oatmealia. You'll find an interesting and very knowledgeable group here. I hope your stay is a pleasant one.

To add my opinion to Spin's, my experience is that most Christians aren't inerrantists, and even the ones who claim to be tend to pick and choose (I personally don't know any flat-earthers or geocentrists...).

By recognizing that the Bible isn't inerrant, you've actually opened the door to what you might find to be a much more interesting understanding of it.

I second that recommendation. A few questions to ask yourself when evaluating a source for research (any research, really, but Biblical research specifically):

1) Does the author cite his sources? (Many apologetic works have few or no cited sources besides Biblical verses. Using the Bible to confirm the Bible is circular.)
2) Do the sources all agree with the point of view the author is trying to convey? (Many apologetic works cite other apologetic works almost exclusively. This not only leads to circular reasoning, but it also gives the reader the impression that there is more support for the author's point of view than there may in fact be.)
3) Are opposing opinions actually analyzed, or are they merely quote-mined and summarily dismissed? (Quote mining is the odious technique of pulling a legitimate quote out of its context and presenting it as stating something other than it was intended to state. This often occurs in evolution vs. creationism discussions, but shows up in discussions of inerrancy and prophecy as well. The Isa 7:14 reference that Spin mentioned loses much of its alleged Messianic flavor when considered in the broader context of the surrounding verses, so even the Bible can be, and is, quote mined.)

One significant issue with the hermeneutic you mention is that it starts from the position that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, then retrojects that position onto the OT writings. In doing so, one assumes one's conclusion. (As an observation, some Rules of Biblical Interpretation that you may encounter seem to be constructed so as to make the determination of the literal, historical, and contextual characteristics of Scripture difficult to tease out, since they discourage extra-biblical commentary and the evaluation of Scripture in light of other Scripture. Odd, no?) An interested individual must go outside the Bible to even begin to understand the social and political context in which the Biblical authors wrote. Even then, the details may not always be clear.

Very well said!

My sympathies. I have a good friend who I suspect may be starting to go through the same thing. I hope that you have some friends and family who are outside of the Fundamentalist worldview that can give you support. Changing deeply held beliefs is rarely simple, and unfortunately almost always painful. A strong support network is invaluable.

Understood as a product of the world that produced it, The Bible provides great insight into many aspects of humanity, both good and bad. When people try to read it as directly applicable to 21st century life in a modern society, it doesn't work nearly as well.

Good luck, and never be afraid to ask questions!

regards,

NinJay

Jane H

I would echo Ninjay’s comment- I really hope you have a strong support network, inside or outside of Fundamentalism.

A good place to start on your research would be N.T.Wright. He has written a rich variety of books, and I found his approach revolutionised the way I think about Xianity. He is a heavyweight scholar, and a very strong Christian. Pick a book to suit your style and area of interest.

The biblical scholar F F Bruce (who was correctly reckoned to be a conservative evangelical) was interviewed towards the end of his life and asked the test question. "Do you believe that the Bible is inerrant?". He answered "I prefer the word 'true'".

The OT does reference a Messianic future, but not in the sound-bite proof text way it gets used. It’s a bit like looking at the outline of a building in the dark. The OT tells the story of God’s plan, and rather like Jesus and His parables, had a multi-layered, nuanced approach to prophecy. The Early Church went back to scripture after the resurrection, and realised what the OT had been saying.

For example, you mention John 19:36. This tends to be seen as coming from Exodus 12:46, which says that Passover lambs should not have bones broken. This has been combined with Psalm 34:20; Psalm 34 is about good people being rescued from evil. This in one short line, John declares Jesus to be the Passover sacrifice which rescues God’s people from evil.

judge

The problem might be that you have heard what fundamentalists themsleves say prophecy is.

Look for example how Matthew uses prophecy (ie the words of the prophets).

Matthew 2

He uses it quite differently to fundamentalists, he uses it typologically.

Look at the portion of Hosea he refers to. It is nothing to do with Jesus leaving the land of Egypt. Yet Matthew has no problem (in his own mind)tying the two together.

sy2502

My question about Jesus supposedly fulfilling the messianic prophecies is: if the prophecies were there for everybody to see, and if Jesus fulfilled them so well, why did so few Jews acknowledge him as the messia? Possible answers:
- The so-called prophecies were so vague that everybody and nobody would fulfill them.
- Jesus did not fulfill as many prophecies as his followers wanted everybody to think he did, and the majority of people weren't fooled.

-Jay-

- Decades after Jesus' death, lacking any direct eyewitness descriptions of what he did or said, NT writers went back to the Hebrew Bible looking for things that seemed to be the sorts of things that a Messiah might do or say, declared them to be prophecies, and made the leap that Jesus must've done/said them.
- Early Jewish Christian evangelists, competing with other religious cults within the Roman Empire, needed something to distinguish themselves, and embellished extant oral traditions about Jesus with allegedly fulfilled prophecies to enhance their credibility in the marketplace.
- Early Jewish Christians, working with oral traditions, used alleged prophecy fulfillment as a mnemonic device to reinforce the traditions, and these traditions eventually became incorporated into the NT.

Keep in mind that the oldest known NT writings (some of the Pauline writings) date at least 20-30 years after Jesus would have died (although other writings such as early Passion narratives and sayings Gospels are conjectured to have existed earlier), and the Gospel of Mark as we know it is usually dated in the late 60's to 70's BCE. That's plenty of time for embellishment.

regards,

NinJay

spin

I wouldn't be so harsh on ancient "quote mining". We modern readers can't find it meaningful, but the ancients did. Just take a look at the way citations and even full texts (the peshers) were used in the Qumran literature. We have a few thousand years more literary experience than what they had, so we may be able to see the error in their ways, but it was seen as a valid activity in those days, despite the fact that we see it as ultimately wrong-headed. Modern "quote mining" is simply vacuous.


spin

-Jay-

Very true, and thank-you for pointing out the distinction. I was specifically referring to the modern variety (and yet more specifically to Price's "defense" of Isa 7:14, although Price's approach is perhaps closer to the equally contemptable technique known politely as "making it up as he goes along").

regards,

NinJay