I Want To Thoroughly Debunk This

[SirPhoenix]

So, Mom talked to the super fundy down the street and sent me the link below. Circular reasoning bullshit if you ask me.

 

http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible

 

Daniel's prophesy of the 70 weeks I think is the most deceptive. It has the appearance of truth on the surface. Anyone have any good facts for tearing this one up?

[ExFundiDCLawyer]

So, Mom talked to the super fundy down the street and sent me the link below. Circular reasoning bullshit if you ask me.

 

http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evidence-reliability-bible

 

Daniel's prophesy of the 70 weeks I think is the most deceptive. It has the appearance of truth on the surface. Anyone have any good facts for tearing this one up?

 

 

Yeah that page is complete bull-shit. The whole probability thing is ridiculous - he just makes up the numbers to try and sound scientific. Most of what he claims to be prophecies aren't and you have to stretch the meaning to try and make them fit. It's like claiming Nostradamus predicted Hitler - you can make vague and obscure writings fit whatever you want if you try hard enough. Without refuting them point by point, here is a helpful link that I found when dealing with this subject.

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/prophecy.html

[Sybaris]

Seems even some christians keep him at arms length:

 

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-hugh-ross.htm

[SirPhoenix]

Ahh, infidels.org, I should have gone there first. Such great information.

 

I think my stance on prophesy going forward is going to be, if god were so fucking omniscient, why are all the prophesies so damn vague? I have heard that the measure of an OT prophet was that if he got it wrong, he was put to death. If you're making up bullshit, better make it vague, so you can claim that it came to pass and keep your head.

 

I always get from Christians, that I have to look at the bible through the holy spirit, or I won't understand it properly. Really? So unless, I make myself believe that it's all true, I won't understand it. But the book that is supposed to show me and prove that it's all true can't be understood unless I believe first.

[Eugene39]

First, from my personal experience, it is quite a stretch to think that fundies will listen to anything reasonable. They don't want to be confused with facts because their mind is already made up. But it is still fun to mess with them part of the time.

 

Christianity has so changed what the Messiah will do that it is completely different from what the Old Testament actually says. There are definitely Scriptures which talk about what the Messiah will do, but Jesus didn't fulfill any of those Scriptures. What the Gospels say that Jesus fulfilled are for the most part, just pieces of verses taken completely out of context.

 

On to Daniel 9. Should not the world have ended right after Jesus was here? Also, from what Jesus said, he fully expected the world to end before the people he was talking with had passed away (Matthew 24:34). When Jesus didn't return, the idea of a church age that God hadn't shown Daniel (or apparently Jesus either) would happen was born. Romans 11 talks about how Israel's heart was being hardened and would continue to be so until the full number of Gentiles were saved. 2 Peter 3 also leaves Jesus' return as an open-ended time frame.

 

Good luck!

[ShackledNoMore]

OK, here's a specific spot check on his example #5. Why #5? Well, I'm reading the bible cover to cover, and I just finished Isaiah, so it's fresh, timely, and on my mind.

 

Something that has to strike you like a ton of bricks when you're reading Isaiah, is that once you start reading chapter 40, you're reading a completely different work than you were reading the first 39 chapters. It's written from different perspective, in a different style, with a different focus.

 

Biblical scholars agree: Isaiah was written by multiple authors over multiple time periods. The Wikipedia article gives a pretty good write up. Isaiah 44-45 does reference Cyrus, but it is by no means prophetic. By ignoring the very clear conclusion of multiple authors/time periods Ross is at a bare minimum exercising a profound lack of intellectual honesty and integrity.

 

It also looks like he's pulling his "probabilities" entirely out of his ass (or, er, hat, asshat)?

 

No doubt his other 12 examples would fall apart as easily as this one upon examination.

[Guest Valk0010]

Probability theory, shit goes in, shit goes out. If you have to have a sound basis to even use probability equations correctly.

[centauri]

Daniel 9 apologetic:

Some time before 500 B.C. the prophet Daniel proclaimed that Israel's long-awaited Messiah would begin his public ministry 483 years after the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem (Daniel 9:25-26).

 

The text of Daniel does not say that.

It says that after 7 weeks of years a messiah or anointed one would come. (probably Cyrus)

Then after another 62 weeks, another anointed one would be cut off, which in this case probably means killed.

Christian translations have altered the punctuation to make it appear that only one messiah is involved.

There are two messiahs involved, not one.

The ESV Bible is one of the few Christian Bibles that is honest and shows the proper punctuation.

 

He further predicted that the Messiah would be "cut off," killed, and that this event would take place prior to a second destruction of Jerusalem.

 

Daniel does not identify this as a king, but simply an anointed, which could also mean a high priest.

 

Abundant documentation shows that these prophecies were perfectly fulfilled in the life (and crucifixion) of Jesus Christ.

 

The “abundant documentation” is from Christian apologists!!

It’s self-serving and circular, where the conclusion is assumed ahead of the evidence.

 

The decree regarding the restoration of Jerusalem was issued by Persia's King Artaxerxes to the Hebrew priest Ezra in 458 B.C., 483 years later the ministry of Jesus Christ began in Galilee.

 

Very slippery and deceptive!

The decree to rebuild was issued by Cyrus not Artaxerxes.

All subsequent decrees stemmed from Cyrus and were issued long after the Lord gave the word to rebuild.

 

(Remember that due to calendar changes, the date for the start of Christ's ministry is set by most historians at about 26 A.D. Also note that from 1 B.C. to 1 A.D. is just one year.) Jesus' crucifixion occurred only a few years later, and about four decades later, in 70 A.D. came the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus.

 

Well, this blows up the standard Daniel 9 fulfillment explanations by Christian apologists who insist that Jesus died in 32 AD.

These people can’t even agree on when Jesus died.

It also fails on account of Jerusalem being destroyed about 30-35 years too late to fulfill the prophecy.

The prophecy is 70 “weeks” with each week being 7 years.

The anointed one is cut off at the end of the 69th week.

That leaves only 1 week, or 7 years for the city to be destroyed.

Attaching scientific odds to a concocted apologetic like this is pure bullsh*t.

 

Here's a link that refutes Daniel 9 in detail.

(outdated link removed)

UPDATED link: http://www.theskepticalreview.com/JFTProphecyDaniel70thWeek.html

 

 

I have others as well if you need them.

[SirPhoenix]

Great stuff. To Eugene's point, it is like taking crazy pills arguing with xtians. I have an email from my Mom that I'm going to post separate that illustrates this point.

 

Maybe I should just blaspheme the holy spirit and she'll leave new alone.

[dB-Paradox]

Ahh, infidels.org, I should have gone there first. Such great information.

 

I think my stance on prophesy going forward is going to be, if god were so fucking omniscient, why are all the prophesies so damn vague?

This has been an issue with me lately, especially when you hear of people like Nostradamus who have made "predictions" so much more accurately. (And really, we are the ones who are fulfilling these so-called predictions in our minds.) Anyway, as I've been going through a book called The Rejection Of Pascal's Wager, the author pulls together scholarly knowledge on many areas of the bible. One area is prophesy. Daniel is one prophet cited. He pretends to be a 6th century BCE writer, but shows that he has little knowledge of that time period. However, Daniel makes remarkably accurate predictions which come true in the first century BCE, but that's it. After that time, his predictions are no longer accurate, showing that Daniel was a first century BCE writer, not a 6th century BCE writer. He was trying to make his predictions look legitimate, when in fact all he was doing was simply reporting. (Sorry if this is repeat information from the Infidels website, I didn't read the entire article.)

 

I always get from Christians, that I have to look at the bible through the holy spirit, or I won't understand it properly. Really? So unless, I make myself believe that it's all true, I won't understand it. But the book that is supposed to show me and prove that it's all true can't be understood unless I believe first.

Another pet peeve of mine! Why must I first create the environment for God to exist in, before he can exist at all? In order to hear God's voice, I must first be listening. In order to see God's miracles, I must first be watching. In order to see that the bible is true, I must first believe it is. Bullshit!

[Beachcomber]

Another pet peeve of mine! Why must I first create the environment for God to exist in, before he can exist at all? In order to hear God's voice, I must first be listening. In order to see God's miracles, I must first be watching. In order to see that the bible is true, I must first believe it is. Bullshit!

 

Ah, so true! Why can't believers understand that if there was, indeed, a god then we would all know instinctively without need of any of the nonsense that surrounds their belief.? Belief beggars belief.

[Thumbelina]

Am I allowed to respond to this here? If not, can someone put it in the General Theological Issues section.

 

 

 

The 70 week prophecy is the smaller portion of the prophecy of the 2300 days (years). 70 weeks are cut off from the 2300 day prophecy, it is the first portion of it!

Gabriel told Daniel to understand the vision ( mareh) The 70 weeks are related to the vision.

 

 

 

 

Daniel 9:25-27 NKJV:

25 “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore AND build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince,There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times.

 

 

26 “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined.

 

27 Then he [i.e. the Prince who is to come] shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate.”

[Emphasis mine]

 

 

 

N.B. Key words "abominations" and "desolate".

 

Daniel 9:25:

“Know therefore and understand, that FROM the going forth of the command to restore AND build Jerusalem Unto Messiah the Prince, there shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; the street shall be built again, and the wall,Even in troublesome times.

 

 

Q. Is there a beginning point to the 70 week prophecy?

 

A. Yes, it says FROM.

 

 

Q. Is there an ending point to the first 69 weeks, at least, of

the beginning portion of the 70 week prophecy?

A. Yes, it says FROM-TO (unto). So there's a clearly defined beginning point and ending point.

 

 

N.B. The use of the word COMMAND, that same word was used a little bit earlier in Daniel 9, in vs 23, where it says God commanded Gabriel to give the Mareh (vision) to Daniel. So a command in this case is a decree or order.

 

 

 

Notice the command contemplates 2 things:

 

1)The idea of restoring Jerusalem.

 

2)The idea of building Jerusalem.

 

They are NOT the same thing, they are two SEPARATE things though they are related.

 

The bible interprets itself, therefore one has to look for other places where the same or similar expressions are used.

To understand what it means to restore and build Jerusalem, we need to know what is meant by Jerusalem. We usually think of Jerusalem as a city composed of buildings and walls and a temple but Jerusalem means much more than that. Jerusalem not only means a physical city composed of buildings and walls, it also refers to the social, religious and political order of the city, the institutions of the city. I.e. Jerusalem means the commerce, the rulers, magistrates, the judges and the civil and religious laws.

 

Jerusalem had lost its sovereignty not when the city was destroyed, it lost its sovereignty in the year 605BC when King Nebuchadnezzar came and took all of the royalty and all of the princes and all of the rulers away from to Babylon from Jerusalem. In other words, Jerusalem lost its political autonomy, the city belonged to someone else and not only that, the institutions by which the city had functioned came to an end because there were no legitimate rulers in that city.

 

 

An example of Jerusalem as being described as the rulers, magistrates, business people, military leaders etc. is contained in 2 Kings 24:14-16 (NKJV):

 

14 Also he carried into captivity all JERUSALEM: all the captains and all the mighty men of valor, ten thousand captives, and all the craftsmen and smiths. None remained except the poorest people of the land.

 

15 And he carried Jehoiachin captive to Babylon. The king’s mother, the king’s wives, his officers, and the mighty of the land he carried into captivity from Jerusalem to Babylon.

 

16 All the valiant men, seven thousand, and craftsmen and smiths, one thousand, all who were strong and fit for war, these the king of Babylon brought captive to Babylon.

 

 

Therefore Jerusalem means two things:

1)The political structure which comprises the economic and military leaders of Jerusalem

2)The physical city itself.

 

Another example of BUILT and RESTORED having two separate meanings is found in

2 Kings 14:22 NKJV

 

22 He built Elath and restored it to Judah, after the king rested with his fathers.

 

So any decree that was to fulfill the command to restore and build Jerusalem not only had to include building the physical city but also restoring of its political, military and judicial institutions so the city could function as a political, economic and social entity.

 

There were four (4) decrees that were given with regards to Jerusalem. They were:

 

 

1)The decree by Cyrus given in the year 546 BC

See Ezra 1:2-4; 2 Chron 36:23

He ONLY gave permission to build a temple, it had nothing to do with restoring and rebuilding Jerusalem. That decree ONLY dealt with the religious institutions of Israel.

After the captivity some thousands of Jews (50,000) actually returned to Jerusalem and taking advantage of the decree that Cyrus gave, they started to rebuild the temple, they put the foundations for the temple down.

However, they had opposition from the people of the land so they decided it was not time to build the temple because they were having too many problems and they ceased building the temple and they began building their own houses etc. (Haggai 1)

 

 

2) Darius, the Persian gave a decree RENEWING the decree given by Cyrus (See Ezra 6:3-12; also found in Haggai and Nehemiah. Darius ratified and confirmed the decree given by Cyrus. This happened in 520BC. Nothing in that decree mentioned about restoring and building the city, just the temple. Another decree that could not fulfill the command to build and restore Jerusalem.

 

 

 

3)A third decree was given by King Artaxerxes 1 aka Longanumus

in the fall of 457BC (See Ezra 6:14-15 says this was the third decree with regard to Jerusalem which was given by Persian kings). This decree was the one given to build and restore Jerusalem.

 

4)This 4th decree was given in the year 445 BC. Most evangelical scholars today believe this is the decree that marks the beginning of the 70 week prophecy. This decree is not a new decree at all. After Artaxerxes gave his decree to restore and build Jerusalem, evil reports came from the people in Judah and they wrote a letter to the King telling him that the Jews are rebuilding the city and the wall. They said the Jews were a rebellious people with a bad history and if they are permitted to continue building they would cause problems for the king. So Artaxerxes put his decree on hold until he can investigate the situation and in the year 445BC Artaxerxes RENEWED the decree to restore and build Jerusalem but he did give the command to build and restore it in 457.

 

 

Now, back to the third decree, in Ezra 7:13 Artaxerxes 1 is speaking and he says:

 

13 I issue a decree that all those of the people of Israel and the priests and Levites in my realm, who volunteer to go up to Jerusalem, may go with you

 

N.B. That word decree/command is the identical word that is used in. Daniel 9:25.

 

 

Why take the decree by Artaxerxes in 457 BC over the one in 445 as the decree that begins the 70 weeks?

 

There are 3 reasons:

1) The same word dabar (command) is used in Ezra

 

 

2) None of the three other decrees will fit the chronology of the Messiah

With the 1st decree, if the 70 weeks began in the year 536 BC, then 490 years from then will place Messiah at 46BC.

If the second decree by Darius the Persian is used then the prophecy starts from 520 then 490 years from there will place Messiah arrive at 30BC.

 

The renewal decree from 445 BC places Messiah arriving at about 46AD (there is no zero year). Jesus was crucified in 31AD.

 

 

3) The decree of Artaxerxes in 457 not only gives permission to build but it also gives the authorization to restore the political structure of Hebrew society (See Ezra 7:12-14, vvs 25-26 clearly indicates the reestablishment of the civil order of Israel).

 

Nebuchadnezzar had taken away the sovereignty of Israel 19 years before it was destroyed. Sovereignty was taken away in the year 605 and the city was destroyed in the year 586 BC

 

 

 

In Ezra 7:25-26 the laws of the theocracy are being re-established. Notice, punitive measures could be taken to people who broke said laws.

 

 

 

Q. Based on the bible how accurate is the date 457 as the date for the decree of Artaxerxes?

 

 

A. The bible says that decree was given during the 7th year of the reign of Artaxerxes. Historians recorded this to be 457BC.

 

 

 

 

In Daniel 9:25 it says from the going forth of the command ... there shall be 7 weeks and 62 weeks .

 

 

Q. Why did Gabriel not just say 69 weeks? Why divide it into two?

 

A. He divided it into two because he actually is going to state that the first seven weeks (49 years) have to do with the building and restoring of Jerusalem.

Notice that the last part of Daniel 9:25 says that Jerusalem will be built in troublesome times and that is exactly what happened.

 

After 62 weeks we come to the arrival of the Messiah.

Q.What does the word Messiah mean?

 

A. It means anointed.

 

 

 

 

Q. What was the act that anointed Jesus Christ?

 

A. Baptism

 

The text said until Messiah, the Prince, so Jesus has two names here.

 

In the book of Daniel, Jesus is called different names. He's called Prince of the Host, Prince of the Covenant, Prince of princes etc.

In the prophetic chapters of Daniel, excluding the historical chapters, every time the word Prince appears, it applies to Jesus Christ. Isaiah called Jesus the Prince of Peace. Peter, in the early chapters of Acts calls Jesus the prince twice.

 

Q. When was Jesus anointed?

 

A. At His baptism. See John 1:32, 41

 

Right after Jesus' baptism Andrew said we have found the Messiah. Hebrew Messiah is Greek Christ so both words mean anointed.

 

In Luke 4:14, Jesus went in the power of the spirit to Galilee; what comes immediately before this?

Luke chapter 3 describes the baptism of Jesus and in Luke 4:1-11 describes the temptations of Jesus. The last part of Luke 4 describes the beginning of the public ministry of Jesus in Galilee.

Notice with what words Jesus began His ministry-it took place in the synagogue in Nazareth- Luke 4:18-19, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me, because He has anointed Me To preach the gospel to the poor;He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed;

19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord."

 

Jesus was anointed as the Messiah when He received the Holy Spirit at His baptism. Also see Acts 10:36-38

 

 

 

 

Q. What is the moment when the 69 weeks come to an end?

 

A. It was when Jesus becomes the anointed one at His baptism.

 

 

 

 

Q. What is the date for Jesus' baptism?

A. Luke 3:1-2, this date refers to the year 27AD, this text gives us several historical markers:

 

1 Now

• in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar,

 

[The fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar was 27AD.]

 

• Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea,

 

• Herod being tetrarch of Galilee,

 

• his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and the region of Trachonitis,

 

• and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene,

 

 

• while Annas and Caiaphas were high priests,

 

the word of God came to John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.

 

 

 

 

 

Q. To whom did Jesus preach?

A. To the Jews only.

 

Q. Why only to the Jews?

A. The prophecy of the 70 weeks said 70 weeks are determined for your city and your people so the Jews had to be preached to until the 70 weeks were finished.

Matthew 10:5,6 shows this EXPLICITLY: These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans.

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."

 

 

What was described in Matthew 21:43 (Jews as a nation will no longer be responsible for giving the good news of salvation to the world) was supposed to happen to the Jews because they rejected the Messiah but the 70 weeks (490 years) that was prophesied were not up yet (the 70 weeks were for the city and the people of Daniel). The Jews as a NATION had 31/2 more years from Jesus' death to finish their transgression or probation (that would be AD 34) and subsequently for the gospel to be taken to the gentiles.

 

 

Regarding the prophecy of the 70 weeks, it says in Daniel 9:26 And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself ...

Messiah would have been cut off for others and NOT Himself.

Compare Isaiah 53:5 "But He was wounded for our transgressions,He was bruised for our iniquities;The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed."

 

Q. What does cut off mean?

A. Isaiah 53:8 tells us what cut off means: "He was taken from prison and from judgment,And who will declare His generation? For He was cut off from the land of the living;For the transgressions of My people He was stricken."

Cut off means killed. Isaiah prophesied that Messiah would be killed for others. Jesus fulfilled that prophecy as well as the prophecy in Daniel that said after 62 weeks the Messiah will be cut off (killed) not for Himself but for others.

 

 

 

The other portion of Daniel 9:26 says, "... And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood and till the end of the war desolations are determined."

 

Q. Who is this Prince?

A. Jesus.

 

Q. Is there a change in the sequence to indicate this is a different prince?

 

A. No.

Some say this prince is Antichrist but why would the sequence shift?

 

 

 

Q. Based on this prophecy was Jerusalem going to be destroyed AGAIN?

 

A. Yes. God had told Daniel that Jerusalem will be built and restored but after 69 weeks the anointed one (Messiah) was going to come. Some time after the 69 weeks the Messiah will be cut off for others and after that the sanctuary and the city are going to be destroyed AGAIN.

 

Q. Does the destruction of the city have to do with the cutting off (killing) of the Messiah?

 

A. Yes.

 

 

Q. What does flood represent?

 

A. It represents invasions of armies (compare Isaiah 8:7,8).

 

 

"... till the end of the war desolations are determined." The word desolations is a key word that helps one understand who the Messiah is, therefore it should be noted.

 

How do we determine who the prince in Daniel 9:26 is?

 

There are three basic views on who the prince is.

 

1) The prince is Titus and the people of the prince are the Roman armies.

 

2) The prince is a nasty Antichrist who is going to arise after the rapture of the church.

 

 

3) The prince is Jesus and the people of the prince are the Jews.

 

Regarding view # 1, this view is not sustainable as the bible says the prince will do three things; he will confirm the covenant with Israel for one week. Did Titus do that? No and besides, he lived in the year 70 AD that was after the Messiah was supposed to arrive.

 

( In the midst of the last week the prince will cause the sacrifice and oblations to cease. Titus did cause sacrifice and oblations to cease but NOT in the midst of the last week so the time frame is wrong and therefore does not fit the prophecy.

 

 

The prince would make Jerusalem desolate, this fits Titus.

However the prince has to fit ALL THREE specifications and Titus did not do that.

 

 

Q. Who is this prince and who are the people of the prince?

A. Jesus and the Jews.

 

Who destroyed Jerusalem the first time? The bible gives three explanations: (1) Daniel 9:14 <-- The Lord caused (permitted) the first destruction of Jerusalem.

(2) 2 Chronicles 36:17-20 <-- God used ( permitted) Nebuchadnezzar to destroy the city of Jerusalem.

(3) Daniel 9:11,14-15 <--- Israel's sins brought the destruction of Jerusalem.

In all three descriptions the rebellion and sins of the people led God to permit calamity to befall them via Nebuchadnezzar. God removed the hedge of protection or His blessings from them. Notice Jeremiah 38:21,23, Jeremiah talking to King Zedekiah. Zedekiah's disobedience will cause God to withdraw His protection therefore Zedekiah would be the one responsible for the calamity.

 

.......

 

Notice, each time the destruction of Jerusalem is addressed in the prophecy of the 70 weeks, there's something the Messiah did immediately before. Messiah is cut off and Jerusalem is destroyed. He causes the sacrifice and oblations to cease and then Jerusalem is destroyed (Daniel 9:27). Does the rejection and death of the Messiah have something to do with the destruction of Jerusalem? The bible indicates it does; see Psalm 118:22-23 --Psalm 118 is a Messianic prophecy --and Matthew 21:42, Jesus applied that Prophecy to Himself. Psalm 118:26 contains a verse that was sung by the people who accompanied Jesus in the triumphal entry into Jerusalem (see Luke 19:37-44 ). They sang "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord"

Daniel wrote about the prince that shall come in chapter 9 and verse 26 and according to Psalm 118 Messiah comes in the name of the Lord. The passage in Luke 19:37-44 indicated that Jesus is the Messiah that came in the name of the Lord.

There are three main features in Luke 19:37-44 that shows the sequence that happens leading up to Jerusalem being destroyed.

 

• Jesus comes into Jerusalem and the people are singing "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord."

 

•Jesus is rejected.

 

• Jesus speaks about the destruction of Jerusalem.

 

 

When the people rejected God, they rejected the source of their life, it's basically suicide. This sentiment is expressed in Hosea 13:9 where it is written:

" O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help."

 

In Matthew 21 Jesus arrived at the temple and there's the fig tree episode where Jesus demonstrated via a parable, that the Jewish theocracy would no longer be God's chosen vessel to proclaim the gospel. Jesus then told the parable of the vineyard workers, he was outlining the behavior of the Jews. God sent messengers who were rejected, more messengers were sent and they too were rejected and last of all God sent His Son and the people rejected Him as well! After Jesus tells that parable He said the kingdom will be taken from the Jews and given to a nation that bears the fruits thereof. After the parable of the vineyard workers Jesus pronounced the woes on the Scribes and Pharisees, he told them to fill up their cup and he lets them know he would STILL send them wise men and prophets because the 70 weeks don't end when Jesus was rejected but it was scheduled to end 31/2 years later; the Jews still had a grace period. After Jesus pronounced the woes on the Scribes and the Pharisees, in Matthew 23:38 Jesus left the temple, the Shekinah left the temple and He said " Your house is left unto you desolate." Desolate?Just as it was used here in Matthew, it's used in Daniel 9.

 

 

Q. Is Daniel talking about some future Antichrist after the rapture?

 

A. No. By espousing this erroneous doctrine of the secret rapture the church is clearly going against scripture and:

1) Absolving the Jewish nation from the guilt of the death of the Messiah.

 

2) By interpreting the prophecy of the little horn as a future Antichrist and is thus absolving the RCC of killing the body of Jesus Christ (His church). They persecuted the Saints of the Most High just as the bible predicted (Daniel 7:25). Not only that, they (the RCC) are the ones who INVENTED the secret rapture fallacy to begin with. The reformers identified the RCC as the Antichrist system (This info is in the history books, I learned this from secular sources before I became a Christian) and to throw people off, they hired some Jesuits to come up with PRIVATE interpretations of the scripture. They added and took away from the scripture, something the bible warns NOT to do (Rev 22:18-19). Two Jesuits the church hired were Francisco Ribera (1537–1591) of Salamanca - futurism/rapturists and Luis de Alcazar (1554-1621) of Seville - preterism. The RCC did NOT adopt these interpretations as part of their doctrine but Ribera's PRIVATE interpretation seemed plausible to some and it managed to be resurrected and is espoused by many today. It's akin to the FALSE purgatory doctrine, is it not? That probation will still be open and people will get a second chance. Those are doctrines of devils (1 Tim 4:1) that are meant to cause people to put off salvation thereby hardening their hearts (Heb 3:15) and ensuring they will be lost!

 

 

Caveat, the bible condemns false systems, teachings that teach errors to deceive people but individuals are to be encouraged to find the true gospel.

[CDFree]

Where did you copy and paste that from????

[Deva]

Yes, I recently saw a video on Facebook where Ravi Zacharias spouts this bullshit about Daniel being a prophecy. I can't believe people still fall for this baloney.

 

1. When was the book of Daniel written? Answer: scholars differ - no one knows.

 

2. What exactly was the author of Daniel talking about? no one knows.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Centauri, good points, but your link doesn't work.

 

 

Thumbelina, preaching/proselytizing is not allowed in the Ex-Christian Life forum. [EDIT: Oops! This is in the Rants & Replies forum, which I think is fair game. I thought we were in Ex-Christian Life, but evidently either the thread was moved or I simply had a brain fart; probably the latter.]

 

 

SirPheonix, when I was in the process of losing my faith coming to my senses, one last attempt to boost my faith was to closely study a bunch of NT claims of fulfilled prophecy. What I found over and over again, though, is that the NT repeatedly takes OT texts completely out of context. That is, the original texts did not at all prophesy the events that NT writers claimed were fulfillments. I wrote a fairly lengthy piece about a lot of those, which I can post if you're interested, although the Daniel reference to the "weeks" is not part of that study becuase to the best of my recollection it's not used by the NT writers. That alone raises the question: If Daniel's "weeks" make for such a slam-dunk argument, then why would the NT writers completely ignore such an iron-clad prophecy, even while they wanted prophetic fulfillments so much that they took other OT texts completely out of context in order to fabricate fulfillments? In other words, the NT writers who looked so desperately to find prophecies of Jesus where none really exist would have jumped all over Daniel's "weeks" prophecy if it was really such a strong argument!

 

Of course, in addition to that problem, centauri has pointed out other problems with the Christian usage of Daniel's "weeks."

[★ Citsonga ★]

OK, I see that items 2 and 4 in the link are both claims that I dealt with in the piece that I referred to in my last post, so I decided that it may be worth it for me to go ahead and post that whole piece (which also deals with a handful of other prophetic claims in the NT that the linked article doesn't mention). This is an excerpt from a much longer letter that I sent my parents last year to explain why I no longer believe. Here it is:

 

 

 

FABRICATED PROPHETIC FULFILLMENTS

 

One of the most significant Christian claims is that Jesus fulfilled numerous Old Testament prophecies, and therefore he must be the Messiah. If Jesus had indeed fulfilled numerous prophecies specifically directed at him, then that would definitely be something to strongly consider. Many Christians assume, as I did for many years, that such is the case, and that there is no question that Jesus of Nazareth is the prophesied Savior. But did he really fulfill numerous prophecies? Let's take a look at some of those claims.

 

The Virgin Birth

 

After Matthew mentions Mary's virginal conception from the Holy Ghost and the angel visiting Joseph (Matt 1:18-21), we read, "Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us" (Matt 1:22-23). So, Matthew quotes a prophecy and says that it was fulfilled in Mary and Jesus. But is this really a fulfilled prophecy?

 

Matthew was quoting Isaiah saying, "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14). But is this really the open-and-shut case that it may appear on the surface to be? Let's take a look at the context.

 

During the time when Israel had split into two, with Judah in the south and Israel in the north, Isaiah says that Aram and Israel (also referred to as "Ephraim") came against Judah during the reign of King Ahaz, and Ahaz and the people of Judah were afraid (Isaiah 7:1-2). So God sent Isaiah to comfort Ahaz, telling him that he will not be defeated by the other two kingdoms (Isaiah 7:3-9), and even gives a specific time-frame by saying, "Within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken" (Isaiah 7:8). Thus, Judah's enemy Ephraim is to be broken in no more than 65 years from the time of this prophecy.

 

Isaiah says that "the Lord" told Ahaz, "Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God" (Isaiah 7:10-11). After that, Isaiah goes on to say, "Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign" (Isaiah 7:13-14). Now, who is this "sign" supposed to be for? Isaiah is speaking to King Ahaz concerning the battle issues he was dealing with right then, hundreds of years before the time of Christ! King Ahaz would be long dead before Jesus would arrive on the scene, at which time it would be much later than the 65 year limit specified in the previous verses! Clearly, there is a problem here.

 

Let's go on. What is the "sign"? The description that follows says, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14). Now, one thing that needs pointed out about the word "virgin" is that Jewish scholars say that the Hebrew term "almah" in Isaiah's account actually means "young woman" or "girl of marriageable age," with no necessary "virgin" connotation. The Hebrew term "bethuwlah" is the word that means "virgin," but it is not the word used in Isaiah 7:14. As such, they insist that the text should read the way the NRSV translates it: "Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel."

 

When the Hebrew for Isaiah 7:14 was translated into Greek, "almah" was rendered as "parthenos," a Greek term usually meaning "virgin." Many scholars believe that this is a mistranslation. In turn, the author of Matthew clearly used the Greek translation as his source, and therefore used "parthenos" when quoting Isaiah in Matthew 1:23. Thus, Matthew did use a word usually meaning "virgin," but it appears to be based on a faulty Greek translation of Isaiah. In turn, it appears that most modern Christian translators base their translation of Isaiah on the Greek translation and the quotation in Matthew.

 

On the other hand, many Christian commentators agree that the Hebrew term "almah" means "young woman," but insist that it does have a "virgin" connotation, and therefore it is accurate to translate it as such. However, could this insistence that it be translated "virgin" be fueled by the Christian's theological necessity for it to mean "virgin"? After all, they clearly have a motivation to justify the use of this prophecy in Matthew. Beyond that, I have already demonstrated that the contextual limits on the passage indicate that it could not be about Jesus hundreds of years later, so the meaning of "almah" is not the only problem here anyway.

 

What then can we make of this debate about "almah"? Let's continue to examine the context to see what Isaiah was talking about.

 

Isaiah continues with, "For before the child shall know to refuse evil, and choose good" (Isaiah 7:16). Here we see another problem with the Christian claim that the prophesied child is Jesus. According to Christian belief, Jesus was completely sinless (1 John 3:5), so how could there be a time when he wouldn't know to refuse evil and choose good?

 

Continuing on, Isaiah tells King Ahaz that during the prophesied son's early years, "the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings" (Isaiah 7:16). This is consistent with what Isaiah said earlier in the chapter: "For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people" (Isaiah 7:8-9a). It is interesting that Isaiah goes on talking about what it is supposed to be like "in that day" (Isaiah 7:18-25) and mentions the "king of Assyria" (Isaiah 7:20), and Assyria ceased to exist several centuries before the time of Jesus!

 

So, exactly who is the "son" that Isaiah was referring to? Perhaps his own! Take a look at what immediately follows this account. Isaiah says, "And I went unto the prophetess; and she conceived, and bare a son. Then said the Lord to me, Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz. For before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father, and my mother, the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be taken away before the king of Assyria" (Isaiah 8:3-4). This is a direct parallel to the account in the previous chapter. Isaiah and his wife (the "prophetess") conceive a son, and shortly thereafter Damascus/Syria and Samaria/Ephraim are supposed to be attacked and plundered (Isaiah 7:8-14; 8:3-4). Following the child's birth there is even a poetic oracle from "the Lord" (Isaiah 8:5-10) in which the term "Immanuel" is reiterated (Isaiah 8:8; compare to 7:14).

 

Some try to get around this glaring problem by arguing that Isaiah 7:14 is a "dual prophecy," having an immediate fulfillment and then an ultimate fulfillment in the virginal conception of Jesus (assuming that "almah" means "virgin"). However, such an argument requires that there was another virginal conception before Mary's! Of course, Christians would refuse to consider that possibility. Also, there is absolutely nothing in the context of Isaiah's prophecy to suggest that it was meant as a "dual prophecy." That concept is forced onto the text by Christians in an attempt to make it be something that it clearly isn't.

 

Beyond that, from Isaiah's account of the child's conception, it is apparent that the child was conceived in the normal way, because Isaiah says that he "went unto the prophetess; and she conceived" (Isaiah 8:3). From this, it is quite clear that the prophecy in question (Isaiah 7:14) does not refer to a virginal conception. From this, we can conclude that either the Jews are correct in asserting that the Hebrew term "almah" does not mean "virgin," or, if the Christians are correct in asserting that it does connote "virgin," then Isaiah must have simply meant that she was a virgin at the time the prophecy was issued, but not at the time of conception.

 

From this, the obvious conclusion is that the story of Mary and Jesus simply is not a fulfillment of a prophecy of a virginal conception, because that is not what the prophecy was claiming, nor does the context of the prophecy allow it to be about Jesus!

 

So, what really happened is that Matthew's account took Isaiah's statement out of context and inaccurately included it as a fulfilled prophecy of Jesus' alleged virgin birth. The author of Matthew clearly misused the prophecy he relied on and fabricated a prophetic fulfillment.

 

Bethlehem as Jesus' Birthplace

Matthew says that when some "wise men" go to Jerusalem seeking the "King of the Jews" (Matthew 2:1-2), King Herod calls the "chief priests and scribes," demanding that they tell him "where Christ should be born" (Matt 2:3-4). They reply, "In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet, And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel" (Matt 2:5-6). Afterwards, Herod sends them on their way, and they go and find Jesus in Bethlehem, just as the scribes and priests had indicated was prophesied (Matt 2:7-11; ref 2:1). So, we have another claim of fulfilled prophecy.

 

Matthew was loosely quoting from Micah 5:2, but can Jesus really be the fulfillment? In context, the "ruler" (Micah 5:2) is supposed to "deliver (Israel) from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders" (Micah 5:6). Now, when did Jesus ever fight against and defeat Assyria? Not only was Jesus not depicted as a warrior in the gospels, but Assyria ceased to exist several centuries before the time in which Jesus allegedly lived! Not only that, but Jesus' kingdom is supposedly "not of this world" (John 18:36), so why would he be concerned about the "land" and "borders" (Micah 5:6) of Israel anyway?

 

Again, some allege that this is a "dual prophecy." Again, though, there is nothing in the context to suggest a dual prophecy. Some also try to get around the warrior aspect of Micah's prophecy by alleging that it refers to Jesus' second coming, when he's supposed to defeat the world. However, as already pointed out, the prophecy deals specifically with Assyria (Micah 5:5-6), which no longer exists to be defeated! Some argue that "Assyria" is meant figuratively. But, once again, there is nothing in the context to support the argument. Not only that, but there is nothing in Micah's prophecy to suggest two separate comings. Also, if the person being prophesied about was supposed to be identifiable by fulfilling the prophecy, then how can he be identified as the one when he has not fulfilled the whole prophecy?

 

These Christian arguments are forced onto the text, not gleaned from it, and are nothing more than attempts to get Micah's prophecy to fit with Matthew. As such, it looks like Matthew has once again taken a prophecy out of context in order to fabricate a fulfillment in Jesus of Nazareth.

 

Out of Egypt

 

Matthew goes on to describe an angel telling Joseph to protect Jesus from being killed by Herod by taking the family from Bethlehem to Egypt (Matt 2:13), where they stay "until the death of Herod" (Matt 2:15). Then we read, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt have I called my son" (Matt 2:15). Here we have another claim of fulfilled prophecy, but is it really?

 

Take a look at what Matthew was actually quoting from: "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt" (Hosea 11:1). The alleged prophecy is not even about a future event at all, but a past event! Hosea is talking about the early years (relatively speaking) of "Israel," personifying the nation as a "child" and a "son," and referring to their release from bondage to Egypt (depicted in Exodus 12)! It has nothing whatsoever to do with a single individual hundreds of years later, but an entire nation hundreds of years before!

 

Not only that, but the context presents a huge problem if Jesus is to be identified with this passage about Israel. It goes on to say, "They sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images" (Hosea 11:2). Did Jesus turn away from God and sacrifice to idols?

 

So again, Matthew has taken an Old Testament text out of context in an attempt to make Jesus fulfill prophecy.

 

The Slaughtered Children

 

Matthew continues his story by telling that Herod "sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof" (Matt 2:16). Then we read, "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, In Rama was there a voice heard, lamentation, and weeping, and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not" (Matt 2:17-18). The use of this prophecy implies that the "children" being "not" is a reference to their deaths, and we have yet another claim of fulfilled prophecy, right?

 

Let's take a look at Jeremiah's context. After making the statement that Matthew quoted (Jeremiah 31:15), it goes on to say, "Thus saith the Lord; Refrain thy voice from weeping, and thine eyes from tears: for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord; and they shall come again from the land of the enemy. And there is hope in thine end, saith the Lord, that thy children shall come again to their own border" (Jer 31:16-17). It goes on to say, "Thus saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel; As yet they shall use this speech in the land of Judah and in the cities thereof, when I shall bring again (from) their captivity" (Jer 31:23).

 

At the time that this was written, the Israelites had supposedly been conquered and many of them taken into exile. When Jeremiah said that Rachel's "children... were not" (Jer 31:15), he was referring to Rachel's descendants being removed from their land. As such, the prophecy in question is referring to what had already happened, not a future event, and clearly indicated that they would return. So, was Jeremiah talking about a slaughter of infants and toddlers hundreds of years later, as Matthew claims? Obviously not.

 

So, we have yet another case of Matthew misusing an Old Testament text by taking it out of context in order to fabricate fulfilled prophecy.

 

The Chosen Servant

 

Later on in Matthew's gospel, we read an account in which "great multitudes followed" Jesus "and he healed them all," telling them that "they should not make him known" (Matt 12:15-16). Then we read, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, in whom my soul is well pleased: I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not strive, nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory. And in his name shall the Gentiles trust" (Matt 12:17-21). So, here is another claim of fulfilled prophecy.

 

Let's take a closer look. Matthew quoted Isaiah 42:1-4, but what does the context indicate? Who is the "servant" that Isaiah was referring to? He clearly states in the preceding chapter, "But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art my servant; I have chosen thee, and have not cast thee away" (Isaiah 41:8-9). Clearly, then, the "servant" allegedly "chosen" by God is the nation of Israel, the descendants of Abraham, also referred to as Jacob.

 

This is reiterated in the following chapters as well. We read, "Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant: and Israel, whom I have chosen: Thus saith the Lord that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, which will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen" (Isaiah 44:1-2). Again, it's clear to see that the nation of Israel, also referred to as Jacob, is the servant ("Jesurun" means "the upright one" and is used as a symbolic name of Israel; also spelled "Jeshurun" and used in Deuteronomy 32:15; 33:5,26).

 

He continues, "Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me" (Isaiah 44:21). In addition, we read, "The Lord hath redeemed his servant Jacob" (Isaiah 48:20), and, "Thou art my servant, O Israel" (Isaiah 49:3).

 

While Isaiah repeatedly refers to Israel as God's "servant" and "chosen" one, he never once names anyone else as God's "servant"! In light of this, can there be any question at all about whom Isaiah is referring to as God's "servant," the "chosen" one?

 

But, once again, some argue for a "dual prophecy," in which Jesus is the final fulfillment. However, is that really supported by the text? Not only does Isaiah not mention a dual fulfillment, but does the Jesus of the gospels really fit the description of the "servant"? In the very same chapter of Isaiah that Matthew quoted we read, "Hear, ye deaf; and look, ye blind, that ye may see. Who is blind, but my servant? Or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? Who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the Lord's servant? Seeing many things, but thou observest not; opening the ears, but he heareth not" (Isaiah 42:18-20). Was the Jesus of the gospels blind and deaf to the word of God? Did the Jesus of the gospels pay no attention to his Master?

 

Clearly, then, Jesus was not a fulfillment of the "servant" in Isaiah. The "servant" was Israel, allegedly chosen by God, but rebellious against his ways. The servant that Isaiah claimed that God would make "a light to the Gentiles" (Isaiah 42:6) is the nation of Israel, as is seen throughout Isaiah.

 

So, once again, we have a case of Matthew misusing the Old Testament to fabricate a claim that Jesus fulfilled prophecy.

 

Ever Hearing, Never Understanding

 

Matthew says that the disciples asked Jesus why he taught in parables (Matt 13:10). In Jesus' reply he said, "Therefore I speak to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand" (Matt 13:13). Then Jesus claims, "And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them" (Matt 13:14-15). Here we have yet another claim of fulfilled prophecy.

 

Matthew was loosely quoting Isaiah, but the original was stated as a command, and not a prophecy of a future event. Isaiah said that he was told, "Go and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eye, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed" (Isaiah 6:9-10).

 

Isaiah continued by saying that he inquired, "Lord, how long?" (Isaiah 6:11), to which he was answered, "Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, And the Lord have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land. But yet in it shall be a tenth" (Isaiah 6:11-13). Clearly, this describes Israel being taken captive in exile. It was "until" that time that Isaiah was supposed to issue the command.

 

As such, we have a command for Isaiah to issue until the time of the exile, and not a prophecy of people during Jesus' time! Again, we see that Matthew has taken Isaiah out of context in order to fabricate a fulfilled prophecy in his story of Jesus. This time is even more serious, though, in that Jesus was speaking in Matthew's text, and therefore the error is placed on the lips of Jesus himself!

 

Beyond that, the concept of trying to keep people from converting is quite the opposite of what evangelical Christianity claims! Indeed, it essentially contradicts the teaching that God wants "all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4).

 

Uttering Parables

 

After Matthew mentions that Jesus taught the crowd with parables (Matt 13:34), we read, "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world'" (Matt 13:35). Once again, let's take a closer look at this claim of fulfilled prophecy.

 

The quotation comes from a psalm of Asaph, which starts out, "Give ear, O my people, to my law: incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old" (Psalm 78:1-2). Here Asaph claims that he himself is going to utter parables, and those parables are exactly what we find in the remainder of this very psalm, as Asaph recounts story after story about Israel's past (Psalm 78:5-72).

 

Asaph's psalm does not give any prophetic prediction whatsoever. From the context, then, it is quite clear that the comment in question (Psalm 78:2) was not a prophecy of Jesus telling parables!

 

So, once again, we have Matthew misusing an Old Testament text to make it appear as though Jesus fulfilled prophecy. It should also be pointed out that even if this had been a prophecy, the fact is that any mere mortal human could self-fulfill a prophecy about telling stories simply by telling stories, and thus there would be no miracle involved at all. But, of course, it wasn't really even a prophecy.

 

Shared Bread

 

John's gospel says that Jesus identified Judas as the one who would betray him (John 13:18-30) by giving him a "sop" (piece of bread) that he "dipped" (John 13:26). One of Jesus' statements during this scene was, "But that the scripture may be fulfilled, He that eateth bread with me hath lifted up his heel against me" (John 13:18). Again, let's take a closer look.

 

Jesus was quoting a psalm that said, "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me" (Psalm 41:9). Throughout this psalm, David is describing the actions of his enemies, God's protection from them, and his own pleading for God's mercy. David is most certainly talking about himself and one of his own friends!

 

Again, though, some argue for a "dual fulfillment," saying that David was talking about himself and prophesying a future event with Jesus and Judas. However, there is absolutely nothing in the text to suggest any such second meaning. Beyond that, taking this passage as a prophecy of Jesus is extremely problematic, because it also says, "I said, Lord, be merciful unto me: heal my soul; for I have sinned against thee" (Psalm 41:4). When did the Jesus of the gospels sin against God?

 

So, we clearly have yet another Old Testament passage taken out of context and misused in order to fabricate a fulfilled prophecy. And, again, this one is placed on the lips of Jesus himself!

 

Hating Jesus Without Reason

 

John's gospel says that Jesus told his disciples that they would be hated by the world, just as he was allegedly hated by the world (John 15:18-24). Then Jesus claimed, "But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause" (John 15:25). So here we have another claim of fulfillment.

 

The quotation is of a phrase used in two psalms of David. In one we read, "They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of mine head: they that would destroy me, being mine enemies wrongfully, are mighty: then I restored that which I took not away" (Psalm 69:4). David is talking about himself in this psalm and gives no indication whatsoever of any future person meant to fulfill these words. Beyond that, if this is to be taken as referring to Jesus, then the very next statement is extremely problematic. It says, "O God, thou knowest my foolishness; and my sins are not hid from thee" (Psalm 69:5). Was Jesus guilty of foolishness and sin?

 

The other psalm using the phrase John quoted says, "Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: neither let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause" (Psalm 35:19). Again, David is talking about himself, and once again the context proves problematic if this is to be taken as a reference to Jesus. The psalm starts out by saying, "Plead my cause, O Lord, with them that strive with me: fight against them that fight against me. Take hold of shield and buckler, and stand up for mine help. Draw out also the spear, and stop the way against them that persecute me: say unto my soul, I am thy salvation" (Psalm 35:1-3). When did Jesus pray for God to fight against those pursuing his life? When did he pray for God to draw the spear against them?

 

It goes on to say, "Rescue my soul from their destructions, my darling from the lions" (Psalm 35:17). For clarity of meaning, here is a different translation: "Rescue my life from their ravages, my precious life from these lions" (NIV). There is no mention whatsoever of submitting to a plan of God to be put to death, there is pleading for his life. How is this consistent with the Jesus of the gospels?

 

So, once again, we have Old Testament passages taken out of context and misconstrued as prophecies of Jesus.

 

No Bones Broken

 

John's gospel tells us that the solders broke the legs of those being crucified, but that since Jesus was already dead, they did not break his legs (John 19:31-33). John claims, "For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken" (John 19:36). Yet again, we have another claim of fulfilled prophecy.

 

The quotation is from a psalm of David. Once again, though, the context does not support the claim that it was a prophecy of Jesus. We read, "Many are the afflictions of the righteous: but the Lord delivereth him out of them all. He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken" (Psalm 34:19-20). Did God deliver Jesus from the trouble of the cross or expect him to endure it? David is making a generalized statement about "the righteous" (see also verse 17) and implies that in life they will be protected, but Jesus was allegedly already dead, so what would be the point of protecting his bones then? Also, there is no hint whatsoever in David's words that he was envisioning a sacrifice of Jesus hundreds of years later in which no legs were broken.

 

So, again, we have a statement taken out of context and misused to fabricate a fulfilled prophecy of Jesus.

 

The One They Have Pierced

 

John says that when the soldiers didn't break Jesus' bones, they pierced him with a spear instead (John 19:33-34). John then claims that this was in fulfillment (John 19:36) of what "another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced'" (John 19:37). One more time, let's take a closer look.

 

This quotation comes from Zechariah, where we read, "And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn" (Zechariah 12:10). This is allegedly a quote from God (Zech 12:1), and is therefore a text cited by many Christians to claim that Jesus is God. But is this really talking about Jesus?

 

In context, Zechariah's prophecy is about God destroying Jerusalem's enemies (Zech 12:1ff). He specifically states, "And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem" (Zech 12:9). Did the Jesus of the gospels do that when the people looked upon his piercing? Of course not!

 

Once again, we see that John has taken a passage out of context in order to fabricate a fulfilled prophecy in Jesus.

 

Called a Nazarene

 

Another interesting one is the claim that Jesus "came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene" (Matt 2:23). One more time, let's take a closer look.

 

The prophecy in question is found in... uh, it's found at... well, um, nowhere! The statement, "He shall be called a Nazarene" (Matt 2:23) does not exist anywhere in the Old Testament, nor is there any statement even resembling it! This "prophecy" is pulled out of thin air!

 

Of course, Christians have a couple ways of trying to get around this problem. One suggestion is that this is a loose reference to the Nazarite vow, in which "either man or woman shall separate themselves" and make "a vow of a Nazarite, to separate themselves unto the Lord" (Numbers 6:2). However, this in not a prediction at all, nor is it referring to where someone is from (i.e., Nazareth). "Nazarite" and "Nazarene" are simply two different things. In addition, the Nazarite text says, "He shall separate himself from wine and strong drink" (Numbers 6:3), but Jesus is said to have drunk wine (Luke 7:33-34). Thus, the Nazarite vow suggestion is simply taking the text completely out of context in order to try to make the Nazarene prophecy exist.

 

Another suggestion is that the prophecy is found in the words, "And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots" (Isaiah 11:1). The argument is that the Hebrew term for "branch" is "netser," which is similar to the Aramaic word for "Nazarene." But this argument also has problems. First, the words are not actually the same, just similar, and Isaiah does not say, "He shall be called a Nazarene" (Matt 2:23). Second, it is not talking about location at all, but is using the imagery of a rod and a branch growing out of a stem and roots. Third, the text says that this branch "shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked" (Isaiah 11:4), which Jesus of Nazareth did not do. Fourth, the New Testament authors used the Greek translation of the Old Testament, known as the Septuagint, which uses the Greek word "anthos" instead of the Hebrew word "netser" for the "branch" (Isaiah 11:1). So, once again we have a text being taken out of context in order to try to make the Nazarene prophecy exist.

 

As such, we are left with a New Testament claim of a fulfillment of a prophecy that doesn't exist in the Old Testament! It is yet another fabricated prophetic fulfillment.

 

Conclusion from the Fabricated Prophetic Fulfillments

 

I have just demonstrated several misuses of the Old Testament by New Testament authors fabricating prophetic fulfillments, and there are more.

 

How can the claim that Jesus is proven by fulfilled prophecy be believed when over and over and over again we see that the original writings have been misused and distorted? It sounds more and more like the gospel writers were making up a story, since they were misconstruing texts from the Hebrew Scriptures in order to fabricate prophetic fulfillments in the key character. After all, if they had a true story worth believing, then why would they need to resort to such underhanded tactics?

 

Christians assert that it was a miracle for Jesus to fulfill so many prophecies about him and that nobody could fulfill them all by chance, but that is nonsense. One could easily hand-pick statements from a vast work like the Old Testament, take them out of context and apply them to any number of individuals that the original authors never had in mind. It would be even easier if the character, or at least his story, is made up to begin with. In other words, all of these alleged prophetic fulfillments prove nothing about Jesus!

 

Christians often vilify Jews for rejecting their "Messiah." Indeed, I used to wonder how the Jews couldn't see that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, but now that I have studied it closer I can understand why. The simple fact is that the Jews who take their religion seriously can clearly see how Christians have butchered the Hebrew Scriptures! They are not convinced that Jesus fulfilled prophecy because it is a simple fact that he didn't, as has been demonstrated.

[★ Citsonga ★]

OK, since centauri addressed #1, ShackledNoMore addressed #5, and my previous post about Fabricated Prophetic Fulfillments dealt with #2 and #4, I decided to take a look into #3.

 

(3) In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave—thirty pieces of silver, according to Jewish law-and also that this money would be used to buy a burial ground for Jerusalem's poor foreigners (Zechariah 11:12-13).

 

As far as when Zechariah was written, I'm not qualified to say. However, we can take a look at what it says and see how well it lines up with Hugh's claim.

 

Zechariah 11

¹²

And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver.

¹³

And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord.

 

That says absolutely nothing about a Messiah being betrayed for the price of a slave, or about buying burial ground. It simply has Zechariah asking to be paid for his work (which was watching some flocks, as can be seen from the context beginning at verse 4). The thirty pieces of silver were simply what they paid Zechariah, not some prophecy about the future. Also, it simply has Zechariah tossing the money to the potter, while making absolutely no prediction about a potter's field being bought with betrayal money.

 

Bible writers and secular historians both record thirty pieces of silver as the sum paid to Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus, and they indicate that the money went to purchase a "potter's field," used—just as predicted—for the burial of poor aliens (Matthew 27:3-10).

 

No "secular historians" from the time in question recorded any such thing. The "secular historians" in later centuries who mentioned the 30 pieces of silver were simply reiterating the claim made in the Bible, without any way of verifying or falsifying the claim. As such, any appeal to "secular historians" in this matter is quite misleading.

 

At any rate, indeed Matthew 27 does have the familiar story of Jesus being betrayed for 30 pieces of silver and the potter's field being bought with it. However, as I just demonstrated above, Zechariah prophesied no such thing. Beyond that, what does Matthew actually claim was the prophecy that was fulfilled? Let's take a look:

 

Matthew 27

⁹

Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

¹⁰

And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.

 

Interestingly, Matthew claims to be quoting Jeremiah ("Jeremy" in the KJV version's NT), but nothing of the sort appears in Jeremiah. The closest thing to it is what Hugh referenced and I quoted above, which is Zechariah 11:12-13 (apologists try to get around this problem by saying silly nonsense about Zechariah being a minor prophet, as if that somehow justifies the misattribution to Jeremiah in Matthew).

 

At any rate, as can be seen by comparing the two texts, the verses from Zechariah did NOT make the predictions that Matthew claims were made. The author of Matthew has reworded the quote to suit his purpose of fabricating a prophetic fulfillment, and even erroneously attributed it to the wrong prophet.

 

So, once again we have a case of a NT author abusing the Hebrew scriptures and making up a fulfilled prophecy.

[centauri]

Am I allowed to respond to this here? If not, can someone put it in the General Theological Issues section.

 

 

The 70 week prophecy is the smaller portion of the prophecy of the 2300 days (years). 70 weeks are cut off from the 2300 day prophecy, it is the first portion of it!

Gabriel told Daniel to understand the vision ( mareh) The 70 weeks are related to the vision.

 

Daniel 9:25-27 NKJV:

25 “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the command to restore AND build Jerusalem Until Messiah the Prince,There shall be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublesome times.

 

 

26 “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined.

 

27 Then he [i.e. the Prince who is to come] shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate.”

[Emphasis mine]

There are two messiahs in Dan 9:25-26, not one.

The first anointed, a prince, comes after 7 weeks.

A second anointed is cut off after another 62 weeks.

The first anointed is not called "the Prince" but is called "a prince".

The ESV is one of the few Christian Bibles that properly translates it.

 

Dan 9:25-26(ESV)

Know therefore and understand that from the going out of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time.

And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary...

 

This is the Jewish rendition:

 

Dan 9:25-26 (JPS Tanach)

Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto one anointed, a prince, shall be seven weeks; and for threescore and two weeks, it shall be built again, with broad place and moat, but in troublous times.

And after the threescore and two weeks shall an anointed one be cut off, and be no more; and the people of a prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;...

 

 

1)The decree by Cyrus given in the year 546 BC

See Ezra 1:2-4; 2 Chron 36:23

He ONLY gave permission to build a temple, it had nothing to do with restoring and rebuilding Jerusalem. That decree ONLY dealt with the religious institutions of Israel.

King Cyrus of Persia would serve as a tool for God to use to rebuild both Jerusalem and the Temple.

 

Isa 45:1-3,13 (JPS Tanach)

Thus saith the Lord to His anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him, and to loose the loins of kings; to open the doors before him, and that the gates may not be shut:

I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight; I will break in pieces the doors of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron;

And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I am the Lord, who call thee by thy name, even the God of Israel.

I have roused him up in victory, and I make level all his ways; he shall build My city, and he shall let Mine exiles go free, not for price nor reward, saith the Lord of hosts.

 

All subsequent orders pertaining to reconstruction of Jerusalem and the Temple stemmed off of the decree by Cyrus.

 

3)A third decree was given by King Artaxerxes 1 aka Longanumus

in the fall of 457BC (See Ezra 6:14-15 says this was the third decree with regard to Jerusalem which was given by Persian kings). This decree was the one given to build and restore Jerusalem.

God already declared that Cyrus was the anointed one that would decree the building of the city and the Temple.

All subsequent orders pertaining to reconstruction of Jerusalem and the Temple stemmed off of the decree by Cyrus.

 

Why take the decree by Artaxerxes in 457 BC over the one in 445 as the decree that begins the 70 weeks?

Because the apologetic works backwards, trying to find a starting point that aligns with a timeline for Jesus to fulfill it.

However, Cyrus is the starting point for decrees, not Artaxerxes.

 

There are 3 reasons:

1) The same word dabar (command) is used in Ezra

 

2) None of the three other decrees will fit the chronology of the Messiah

With the 1st decree, if the 70 weeks began in the year 536 BC, then 490 years from then will place Messiah at 46BC.

If the second decree by Darius the Persian is used then the prophecy starts from 520 then 490 years from there will place Messiah arrive at 30BC.

And this is exactly what I expected, you're trying to find a starting point that works for Jesus being jammed into the timeline.

You're an archer that shoots an arrow into a target and then paints a circle around the arrowhead after the fact.

The problem is that it's a contrived solution further compounded by the problem that there are two anointed ones in Dan 9:25-26, which ruins the scenario for Jesus fulfilling this.

 

The renewal decree from 445 BC places Messiah arriving at about 46AD (there is no zero year). Jesus was crucified in 31AD.

Who says Jesus was crucified in 31 CE?

That means all the Christians claiming other dates are wrong.

 

3) The decree of Artaxerxes in 457 not only gives permission to build but it also gives the authorization to restore the political structure of Hebrew society (See Ezra 7:12-14, vvs 25-26 clearly indicates the reestablishment of the civil order of Israel).

Ezra 7 grants safe passage and allows political and judicial structures.

Artaxerxes decreed that building work be stopped.

The work was not started again until the reign of Darius.

 

Ezra 4:21-24

Make ye now a decree to cause these men to cease, and that this city be not builded, until a decree shall be made by me.

And take heed that ye be not slack herein; why should damage grow to the hurt of the kings?'

Then when the copy of king Artaxerxes' letter was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power.

Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem; and it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.

[centauri]

Regarding the prophecy of the 70 weeks, it says in Daniel 9:26 And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself ...

Messiah would have been cut off for others and NOT Himself.

Compare Isaiah 53:5 "But He was wounded for our transgressions,He was bruised for our iniquities;The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed."

 

Cut off means killed. Isaiah prophesied that Messiah would be killed for others. Jesus fulfilled that prophecy as well as the prophecy in Daniel that said after 62 weeks the Messiah will be cut off (killed) not for Himself but for others.

Isa 53 never says a king messiah is killed.

It says his servant would suffer and be cut off, and that servant was defined as Israel in Isa 49.

Israel was cut off from their land due to being taken into captivity and exile.

Isaiah personified Israel throught the text, which was written with a heavy use of metaphor.

Jesus didn't fulfill the basic requirements for a king messiah so the very premise of this apologetic is flawed.

 

The other portion of Daniel 9:26 says, "... And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end of it shall be with a flood and till the end of the war desolations are determined."

 

Q. Who is this Prince?

A. Jesus.

Jesus didn't destroy Jerusalem, the Romans did.

 

 

Q. Based on this prophecy was Jerusalem going to be destroyed AGAIN?

 

A. Yes. God had told Daniel that Jerusalem will be built and restored but after 69 weeks the anointed one (Messiah) was going to come. Some time after the 69 weeks the Messiah will be cut off for others and after that the sanctuary and the city are going to be destroyed AGAIN.

It says that after 7 weeks a prince would come.

[centauri]

Centauri, good points, but your link doesn't work.

Unfortunately, the site may no longer exist.

It was Farrell Till's site.

I think I still have a hardcopy of his essay on Daniel 9, but I can't post it here due to copyright issues.

[★ Citsonga ★]

Here's a link that refutes Daniel 9 in detail.

http://www.theskepti...ventyweeks.html

I have others as well if you need them.

 

 

Centauri, good points, but your link doesn't work.

Unfortunately, the site may no longer exist.

It was Farrell Till's site.

I think I still have a hardcopy of his essay on Daniel 9, but I can't post it here due to copyright issues.

 

From the link it looks like the title ended with "Seventy Weeks." I just did a search for "seventy weeks" on the site and got various results, so there's probably some good stuff somewhere in them: http://www.theskepticalreview.com/search.php?searWords=seventy+weeks&Send=Search&search=0&match=2

 

It's late now and I gotta get to bed. Take care....

[centauri]

Here's a link that refutes Daniel 9 in detail.

http://www.theskepti...ventyweeks.html

I have others as well if you need them.

 

 

Centauri, good points, but your link doesn't work.

Unfortunately, the site may no longer exist.

It was Farrell Till's site.

I think I still have a hardcopy of his essay on Daniel 9, but I can't post it here due to copyright issues.

 

From the link it looks like the title ended with "Seventy Weeks." I just did a search for "seventy weeks" on the site and got various results, so there's probably some good stuff somewhere in them: http://www.theskepti...earch=0&match=2

 

It's late now and I gotta get to bed. Take care....

I saved Till's article as an MS Word file and one by Gerald Sigal.

I have several other articles and forum notes as well.

If you want it, let me know and I'll PM it to you as an attachment (assuming your computer can read MS Word).

This is my essay on Dan 9, which focuses on the structure of the Christian claim more than the exact dating of the events.

http://agnosticreview.com/daniel9.htm

 

The dating issue is not all that interesting to me because Christian apologists refute each other.

They can't determine the date Jesus died with any accuracy.

Claims that Jesus fulfilled Dan 9 "to the very day" are meaningless because of that problem.

[midniterider]

So, Mom talked to the super fundy down the street and sent me the link below. Circular reasoning bullshit if you ask me.

 

http://www.reasons.o...liability-bible

 

Daniel's prophesy of the 70 weeks I think is the most deceptive. It has the appearance of truth on the surface. Anyone have any good facts for tearing this one up?

 

Why does one need to refute fiction? People will believe ignorant things. And does it make logical sense to refute one piece of bible fiction with another piece of bible fiction? Isn't it all fiction?

 

" In approximately 700 B.C. the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah (Micah 5:2). The fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Christ is one of the most widely known and widely celebrated facts in history."

 

Has it been verified (outside the bible) that Micah was a real person? Has it been verified that christ was a real person? A single book cannot verify itself. A book CAN reference other independent sources to help verify itself. A book CAN point to external evidence or experiments that you can see and do to prove to yourself something is true.

 

Has it been verified that Superman is a real person with super powers? Superman could make a prophecy too...but well, Superman is fiction.The prophecy of fictional characters is irrelevant. Superman exits only in fictional movies and fictional comic books. He does not nor ever has had a real existence.

[★ Citsonga ★]

So, Mom talked to the super fundy down the street and sent me the link below. Circular reasoning bullshit if you ask me.

 

http://www.reasons.o...liability-bible

 

Daniel's prophesy of the 70 weeks I think is the most deceptive. It has the appearance of truth on the surface. Anyone have any good facts for tearing this one up?

 

Why does one need to refute fiction? People will believe ignorant things. And does it make logical sense to refute one piece of bible fiction with another piece of bible fiction? Isn't it all fiction?

 

" In approximately 700 B.C. the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah (Micah 5:2). The fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Christ is one of the most widely known and widely celebrated facts in history."

 

Has it been verified (outside the bible) that Micah was a real person? Has it been verified that christ was a real person? A single book cannot verify itself. A book CAN reference other independent sources to help verify itself. A book CAN point to external evidence or experiments that you can see and do to prove to yourself something is true.

 

Has it been verified that Superman is a real person with super powers? Superman could make a prophecy too...but well, Superman is fiction.The prophecy of fictional characters is irrelevant. Superman exits only in fictional movies and fictional comic books. He does not nor ever has had a real existence.

 

Dude, it all depends on where one is coming from. I'm living proof that Bible fiction refuting other Bible fiction does matter. What opened my eyes to the reality that Christianity is mythology is the fact that it's based on an inconsistent collection of writings. I was so thoroughly indoctrinated with Christian dogma that I probably never would have come to my senses if it wasn't for the contradictions in the Bible. I fully agree that even if the Bible was fully consistent, then that alone wouldn't prove that it's true; however, that point is lost on those of us who were idoctrinated with the assumption that the Bible is infallible and that any outside "evidence" against it is a biased attack from a world not in submission to God. Simply put, the fact that the Bible is internally inconsistent is itself a strong proof against the assumption of biblical inerrancy, and that issue alone can help people such as myself realize that the Bible does not deserve to be on the pedestal that Christians put it on.

[★ Citsonga ★]

This is my essay on Dan 9, which focuses on the structure of the Christian claim more than the exact dating of the events.

http://agnosticreview.com/daniel9.htm

 

Lots of good points in there. I've been meaning to spend some more time on your site, so I'll have to put forth the effort soon.