mountainman

There is a list of some here: Prophecies that Jesus Christ Fulfilled

Reference to 100 here: 100 prophecies

More here

mountainman

My bet is that Marcion is late and exotic fiction.
But hey, each to their own poison.

DrZoidberg

Thanks for getting this thread back on track. And thanks for great links. My hat off to you.

stephan huller

Back on track to what? Common opinion? Common prejudice? Remember Nietzsche's dictum - be careful when fighting a monster that you don't become one. It's a worthless argument to claim that the 'New Testament' held that Jesus was the messiah of the Jewish prophesies. Jesus never says this, nor is the exegesis of the various shared prophesies common among Jews and Samaritans.

For instance, Mark begins with a version of Exodus 23.20,21 "I am sending a malakh ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. Pay attention to him and listen to what he says." The Christians have applied this to John the Baptist so he is literally someone who comes before the messiah, but Marqe in the Samaritan Targum makes clear the figure is messianic - i.e. 'I am sending my apostle ahead of you ... etc.'

I know that you have been taught that 'apostle' is an ambassador but among the Samaritans it was a title of Moses - i.e. 'the spokesman' of God. The Samaritans do not hold that Moses was ever a king so the one like Moses was a prophetic figure not one like David (i.e. that there are two different roles). There are intimations similar to this at Qumran.

The point is that if you go into this with stupid and uninformed notions about what 'Judaism' is and stupid and informed notions about what 'Christianity' is (or 'the New Testament' was) you end up with double stupid opinions based on ignorance.

The truth is more complicated than that.

maryhelena

Stephan, oh Stephan - the OP is about how OT prophecies are being used in the gospel storyline re its Jesus figure - that the gospel storyline considers it’s Jesus figure to be a messiah figure.

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.

Now, you can do a little song and dance about this and call those who take the gospel story as it is, as having “ stupid opinions based on ignorance” - but all you are doing is displaying your own biases here. (ie wanting Agrippa II to be viewed as the Jewish messiah figure). Not only that, you are assuming that the gospel story is historical - and is thus in conflict with actual Jewish ideas re it’s messiah figure, or figures. Obviously, the gospel storyline, if historical, is in serious conflict with Jewish messianic ideas re a kingly messiah figure. But that's the main bone of contention is it not - the assumed historicity of JC. If this figure is not historical - then other avenues open up for investigation - historical realities.

As long as the gospel storyline re a messianic Jesus figure is taken to be historical - well then, goodbye any interest in the actual historical realities on the ground, ie any Jewish historical figure that could have been viewed in a messianic kingly role. Stephan, your up against a brick wall here - you need to first knock down that brick wall before real Jewish history can be entertained as having some relevance for early Christianity.

So, I hear your frustration - but that frustration will not dissipate by doing a song and dance re asserting “ignorance” to your opponents. Your talents are considerable - you don’t need to engage in a fool’s errand by trying to dislodge JC from his gospel assigned messianic role. Stephan, its a gospel story - don’t let it get to you....don’t fight this unwinnable ‘war’ - don’t confuse gospel storyline with historical realities, don’t try and neuter the gospel storyline in order to make it fit Jewish messianic ideas.

Indeed, Stephan, the ‘truth’ is complicated - but it’s also not a one man show - or a one woman show. One does not ever know where new insights might spring from. ‘Truth’, methinks, is more a journey than a destination - more like the heartbeat of the mind than any specific notion that we may, for a while, entertain.

mountainman

You're welcome.

The OP.

stephan huller

Yes the OP is asking about how the 'NT' (a supposedly monolithic composition) used the 'OT' (a document supposedly interpreted in a monolithic fashion) with respect to the storyline of Jesus. And I am reminding people that it isn't as simple as you might think to disentangle this. First of all there are prophesies about THE AGE (i.e. the Jubilee, messianic era etc.). Then there are prophesies about THE CONTENT (i.e. peace, healing) of the messianic appearance. But the core of the expectation of course is THE PERSON (i.e. the one who is to come). Here is where differences exist between pre-messianic traditions (i.e. the 'sects of the Israelites' viz. Samaritans, Dositheans, Sadducees, Pharisees etc.) in terms of exegesis. Only a complete imbecile will assume that 'the Jews' said 'this' or 'that' about the messiah. We first have to determine the tradition from which pre-Christianity emerged and then we have some definitive idea about the manner in which 'the prophesies' were originally interpreted.

There was clearly layering on top of the original composition, undoubtedly many layers. But the question is which ancient sect envisioned a 'Son of God' coming down from heaven to announce the messianic jubilee. This is the original context of the gospel narrative. This is how all the lines of the 'prophesies' converged. I happen to believe that the traditions which held Jesus to be a heavenly hypostasis were more original than those which promoted 'Jesus the man.' I think there are many here who hold the same opinion. However the difficulty is then to find a Jewish exegetical tradition that could have conceived of such a 'Son of God' amd him crucified. Not an easy task either.

I sometimes think people here want to leap towards HATING the whole system that they devise an oversimplified scenario. Rules of exegesis were very defined within groups. Your general ignorance of these traditions is not an argument. In order to figure out how the original author of the gospel used the various Jewish scriptures (many now not included in our canon viz. Enoch, the Book of Jubilees etc) to develop the storyline of the gospel we have to develop a provenance or background for the author. From there we can have a meaningful discussion.

You people act as if these writers could 'pick up' ideas from this tradition and that indescriminately LIKE YOU DO from the internet or other theosophical sources and find followers in the ancient world. It simply wouldn't have worked like this in antiquity. For some reason the authors of the New Testament decided to incorporate scriptural material from the Jewish writings. By choosing to use Jewish scriptural writings they necessarily had to have been connected with some system of halakhic interpretation. You can't just have 'OT scripture.' This scriptures can't just exist in a void and your promotion and discussion of an impossibility just demonstrates how worthless this thread is. Where there is scripture there is established exegesis. As such we have to determine the exegetical school which produced or influenced the composition of the gospel. That's the starting point. All of you want to shop at the supermarket - take this from here and this from there and say 'these are the OT prophesies which were used to determine the storyline.' Stupid, stupid, stupid to start at the middle.

You are just betraying your desire to imagine that the ancient people and the ancient world functioned like you. You, your belief system and your inherited presuppositions should be left at the door when trying to figure these things out. You will never make any headway in this study as long as your only wish is to inject yourself and your desires into antiquity.

I don't think anyone in this thread has thought this through properly. It is the typical bantering of ignorant white people not understanding what they hate. Hate your ancestors. If you want to tackle this question you will have to go into the desert and learn new language skills, become familiar with many different schools of Biblical exegesis none which you have even considered at the moment.

If religious people behave stupidly with respect to the way 'the OT' was used to prove Jesus as the messiah, it doesn't give you licence to behave in an equally ignorant manner

mountainman

The LXX at the basis of the copy/paste to the NT was Greek.

We dont know exactly when the Greek LXX first appeared, or who used it. If the dating via Josephus and the Letter of Aristeas is rejected as a forgery, then the Greek LXX might not have appeared until as late as the mid 3rd century, perhaps with Origen.


Arnaldo Momigliano once remarked that Eusebius was possibly of Jewish descent.

aa5874

Was NOT the JESUS story BELIEVED by even the ILLITERATE? Was it NOT recorded in the NT that JESUS himself should have been ILLITERATE? I don't think the Jesus story was written for people with PHD's alone.

Joh 7:15 -
The Jesus story is NOT complicated at all.

The Jesus story was INVENTED as a solution to RESOLVE the reason for the FALL of the Jewish Temple.

The FALL of the Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem are the ONLY so-called Prophecies that were FULFILLED in the NT and it is because the Jesus story was written AFTER the Fall of the Temple.

It is EXTREMELY important that we have the PROPER sequence of EVENTS.

The FALL of the Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem HAPPENED FIRST and then a story was INVENTED that a character called Jesus, who was the TRUE Messiah and SENT by God, did PREDICT that the Temple would Fall BECAUSE the JEWS REJECTED the Messiah sent by God and after that the day of Judgement.

In effect, Isaiah 7.14 is NOT really any prophecy about the birth of Jesus.

Isaiah 40.3 is not really any prophecy about John the Baptist.

Isaiah 53.4 is not really prophecy about the healing miracles of Jesus.

Psalms 22 not really prophecy about the crucifixion of Jesus.

And the book of Jonah has NOThing TO DO WITH the resurrection prediction.

Only the FALL of the Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem happened and it was probably BELIEVED that Daniel 11.31 was fulfilled.

Da 11:31 - Mark 13:14 - Now, there is one other book in the NT that is COMPATIBLE with the Jesus story that AFTER the Fall of the Temple that the LORD will COME.

Joe 2:31 -
Mark 13Re 6:12 - And finally.

Re 22:7 -

The Jesus story is NOT complicated at all. All so-called prophecies in Hebrew Scripture were taken-out-of-context to INVENT the Jesus character and the story that the rejection of the Jesus character was the CAUSE of the FALL of the Temple.


"Against Celsus" 1.47

avi

Thank you Pete.
The oldest extant copy of LXX, that I know of, is found in Codex Sinaiticus, i.e. one century later than your proposal.

Is there an older fragment, somewhere?
Do you happen to have a link?

Sorry, I completely disagree with you.

First of all, I don't claim to know anything about the "original context of the gospel narrative". Nor, do I accept that you, or spin, or anyone else on the forum knows beans about the "original" anything involving the historical evolution of Christianity. We simply don't have the written data to justify any kind of "proof" of any hypothesis regarding historical developments, vis a vis elaboration of the Jesus story. We don't know the authors of the four gospels. We know not when they were published, nor by whom. We have no knowledge of the revision history of these four documents. We are not even sure whether, or which, document served as template for one of the subsequent gospels.

Secondly, I think one is standing on very thin ice to suggest that he/she knows which particular sect from ancient times proposed this or that parameter to add to the Jesus story. Why would any of the earliest sects, all coming from Judaism, propose arrival of a "son" of god, a completely blasphemous notion, contrary to any flavour of Judaism active two millenia before the present day. I accept the hypothesis that JC as "son" of god, is a LATE addition to the story. I see John the Baptist as the start of the story. I think the Jesus story evolved over several decades, commencing in the mid second century, at the conclusion of the third Roman Jewish war. I think the final polishing of the story was accomplished by Constantine--> for example, assigning a birthdate to both John the Baptist and JC.

Finally, I don't agree with your view that the "lines of prophecies" have converged. The main prophecy of the old testament, in my completely ignorant and superstitious mind, is the notion that the messiah will return to earth. Since that has obviously not yet happened, it strikes me as premature, at best, to suggest that the lines of prophecies have converged, as though there is some sort of chap, a stephan type of individual, counting out prophecies:

Let's see number 203, yup, that's done, ok, whose next, ahh, number 416, ok, good, who is that I see on the runway, ah, yes, good, number 821 ready, excellent. Well we have made good progress in all these convergences. have a good evening folks.

avi