Old Man

To the spiritually discerned, the meaning was obvious. The OT is full of prophecy. Events which are recorded as history repeat themselves.

Thus, the destruction of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanese circa BC170 repeated itself in AD 70, as Jesus predicted. The story about Jonah repeated itself in respect of Christ himself. Many things in the OT are types (i.e. images or shaddows) of the NT. If you ever believe and investigate the facts in the absence of propaganda, you will discover all these things.

As I said "time spread over three days". 3 "day + night"s was just the Jewish way of saying 3 separate days. Because their day started at a different time to ours and so it gets confusing as to whether you are referring to "day light" or a "24 h day".

A "day + night" means a 24 h day. Jesus' time dead extended over 3x24h periods. Hence the expression "on the third day".

Amos

Because on that particular Sunday evening did not follow the day and therefore evening did not arrive until Monday evening. Easter Sunday is the fulfillment of the seventh day when evening did not follow the day (Gen.2:1) which is confirmed when "the night shall be no more" (Rev.22:5).

GarColga

Sorry to disappoint you, but unless your family Bible is one of the earliest printed editions, or a unique edition from the 16th or 17th century or is illustrated by Gustav Dorè or something like that it isn't likely to have much monetary value!

Bobzammel

Isiah 7:14 deals with Ahaz, a Judaic king, who reluctantly accepts a sign from Yahweh. He is told: "A young woman(Betulah) will conceive a child and call him Immanuel"(God with Us). The prophecies continues: Before the child grows into boyhood, the kingdoms threathening Israel will not suceed. This does not refer to the messiah at all. In the next chapter, a child is born-Marshallhazbaz(I think!) whose name means "ruin and spoil", and this seems to be an alternate name for the same child, who is Isiah's new son. Indeed, Isiah's entire family has names which are "signs" to Judah, as Isiah notes himself, although Judah's ruling class, at this point, is not quite believing and this is seen as a "Conspiracy" and "Stumbling block".(Many of these passages were later used to describe Jewish persucution of the Christians).

Kosh

Oh, I get it! We have to be...<Church Lady>special</Church Lady>

We're just too stupid to see the emporers new clothes, eh?

The same can be said of many movies made in hollywood. Not because they were prophecies, but because they were copied by the newer writers, just as the NT authors did with the OT.
:banghead:

Please provide substantiation for this claim.

Bobzammel

By some logic, even ET can be said to be a fufillment of prophecy.

Chrissyfly

in fact im not to sure about it, i do know its been in my family for about 4-5 generations and i do know its not just one book, there is the actual bible and 3 other books

BadBadBad

I read this, and I thought it was very revealing. Here is Matthew writing his Gospel, creating christ, christianity, and miracles of God as he goes. He's obviously plagerizing numerous sources. He defines Jesus' birth as fulfilling a poorly translated "prophecy." There it is the miracle of the virgin birth. Only wait a minute, Ooops! There was never a prophesy about a messiah with a virgin mother. So, what does that say about Matthew's virgin birth? What does it say about the validity of Jesus' holy conception?

Malookie, why should the LXX say "virgin." Are you implying something here?

malookiemaloo

I have no hidden agenda in asking the question re the Hebrew Bible v the LXX. I just wondered why, when the Hebrew Bible does not specifically say virgin, the Greek translation does. Just struck me as strange, that's all.

Whether the VB is true or not is not intrinsically dependent on any prophecy, although a clear prophecy would help the apologetic's case.


malookiemaloo

Geoff Hudson

[ ] Read out - proposed editor's insertions

{ } Read in - proposed editor's removals

HOW THE SPIRIT CAME ABOUT (MT.1)

(18)This is how the [birth] {appearance} of [Jesus Christ] {the Spirit} came about:

[His mother]
{The daughter of Annas the high priest,} Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph {Caiaphus},

but before they came together, she was [found] {seen} to be {filled} with [child through] the Holy Spirit.

(19)Because Joseph [her husband] was a [righteous man] {Sadducee}, and did not want to expose [her] {himself} to public disgrace, he had in mind to [divorce] {separate from} her quietly.

(20)But after he had [considered] {done} this, the [angel] {Spirit} of [the Lord] {God} appeared to [him] {John} [in a dream] and said,

“[Joseph] {John} son of [David] {Recab}, “Do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because
[what is conceived in her is from]
{she is filled with} the Holy Spirit.

[(21)She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”]

(24)[When Joseph woke up, he]
{John} did what the [angel] {Spirit} of [the Lord] {God} had commanded him and took Mary [home] {to Mar Saba} as his wife.

(25)But he had no union with her until
[she gave birth to a son]
{they were married}.

[And he gave him the name Jesus.]

****************************
May be John was a type of "Essene" who takes a woman "as a wife" for three years, but refrains from sex until after marriage (War 2.8.12). It is my view that these "Essenes" were the Rechabites who had a tradition of "taking" the daughters of priests, as Zechariah John's father "took" Elizabeth" who was a "daughter of Aaron" (Jud.21).

Geoff