Christians: Why would an all-good God base our salvation from Hell on whether or not we believe in a 2,000-year-old supernatural story?

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

Muslims change many things in the Bible.  

 

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.

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

Muslims change many things in the Bible.  

 

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.

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

Muslims change many things in the Bible.  

 

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" (Matthew 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.

[★ Citsonga ★]

 

Muslims change many things in the Bible.  

 

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.

[Stranger]

 

 

If you can see how Muslims take 16:7-15 out of its original context in order to make it apply to Mohammed instead of to the holy spirit, do you not see how the authors of the gospels could have taken Hebrew bible passages out of their original contexts and made them apply to Messiah and to Jesus?  You don't see how a Jew would read the context surrounding Isaiah 7:14 and see Matthew taking the passage completely out of context to have it be about a virgin birth for Jesus?  The prophecy in the Isaiah passage is only about the son that would be born as a sign to King Ahaz.  There is nothing there related to the Messiah.  The double near fulfillment / far fulfillment is a midrash-like re-interpretation of the text to claim that there is another, hidden meaning present.  In addition to what LogicalFallacy mentioned in post #956, the next verses, Isaiah 7:15-16, state that the child had to learn how to refuse evil and choose good, and that before the child would know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land that the two kings that Ahaz feared would be deserted.  So this means that Jesus, who as God incarnate is omniscient, had to learn how to choose good and refuse evil?  Also, if the woman who gave birth to Isaiah's son was a virgin, is this not miraculous birth of a son of God, some 600 years earlier than Jesus?  Was Isaiah's son a divine child who was born without sin, like Jesus?  If Matthew used the Greek word for virgin in Matthew 1:23 in speaking about the woman prophesied in Isaiah 7:14, do you not claim this for the woman referenced in Isaiah and instead rely on the Hebrew word almah meaning a young woman? 

 

In reading some of your earlier responses, I'm not sure if you ever read through Citsonga's posts 537 - 539, but those are other examples of Hebrew bible passages taken out of their original contexts. 

 

Islam doesn't take things out of context.  They change them.   The  virgin birth was to be expected due to the promise of the 'seed of the woman' in (Gen. 3:15) The Hebrew word used speaks to young woman of marrying age.  By implication, a virgin.    Near and far fulfillment is common in Old Testament prophecy.   

 

So, Isaiah did have a son by a young woman of marrying age.  No doubt a virgin.   But the child was the product of Isaiah.  (8:3)  But that there was to be a yet future child born who was Divine is explained in (9:6-7).     Thus the prophecy has a near and far fulfillment and Christ did and will fulfill it.  (Matt. 1:23)

 

Stranger

 

 

[Stranger]

 

 

Remembering two things:

 

1) There is a word in Aramaic that means virgin.

2) The writers were very specific with their choice of words.

 

Thus if the writer of Isaiah had wanted to mean virgin, he would have used the word for virgin, not young woman. So while a young woman may be a virgin, in the context of prophesy virgin is not explicitly stated UNTIL Matthew gets hold of it and perverts the meaning. And therein lies the Christian perversion of Jewish writings.

 

Both near and far fulfullment was required.  The son of Isaiah would not be virgin born.   Thus the use of the term for young woman.  That it spoke to a future virgin birth is definitely made known to us in (Matt:1:23)    Matthew is a Jewish writing also.   

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

But is this not God taking on a form other than spirit?  When God walks in the garden of Eden in Genesis 3:8, how could there not be some type of physical representation of God present there?

 

When God manifests Himself as the 'Angel of the LORD', yes it is through physical appearance.   As to (Gen.3:8),  it is worded somewhat differently.  It speaks of the 'voice of God walking'.  I don't see that as a physical manifestation.   But, neither am I able to explain it.

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

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 Assyriaceased 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.

 

 

(Micah 5:2) is clear concerning the birth of the Messiah.  It was to be in Bethlehem.   Actually this is not a dual prophecy.   This is all future.  As (5:3) says, God gives Israel up until the time of the end.   And that is what happened.  

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

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.

 

 

All that is being alluded to by Matthew as a fulfillment of prophecy is 'out of Egypt have I called my son'.     And Jesus did go down to Egypt until the time God said it was safe.   Matthew has showed that this movement of Israel as a son was prophetic of the future Son.  

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

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.

 

 

Concerning the Jews there are many instances where they can identify with (Jer. 31:15).    The killing of the infants in Christ's day was a fulfillment of that.  Do you  think the Jewish parents did not weep?   Matthew is not saying the other things did not happen.  He is saying this weeping of Rachael is fulfilled in the killing of the infants.   

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

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.

 

The prophecy is about God and Christ.   Note it says in Zechariah "they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him"  God and the One pierced are the same.  

For prophecy to be fulfilled the piercing would have to take place.   It did with Jesus as Matthew says.   Again, the rest of Zechariah's prophecy has to do with the future which most certainly will be fulfilled also.    And the remnant of the nation Israel will look again on Him Whom they have pierced.

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

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.

 

 

Throughout the Old Testament Israel is referred to as a servant and son.  And God used the nation Israel, her movements in history, as prophetic of The Servant, and The Son, Jesus Christ.   

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

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).

 

 

Nothing lose about the reference to (Is.6:9)   Jesus is saying that this is fulfilled in the Jews rejection of Him as Messiah.   Isaiah is a prophet.   

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

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.

 

 

 

The Psalms, and all of the Old Testament point to and are prophetic of  Jesus Christ.   It is not a prophecy to you because you don't believe.   The Spirit of God in Matthew shows that He wrote what He did in Psalms as a prophecy.    

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

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!

 

 

Yes David is talking about himself, and David was a prophet.   Not only Davids sayings were prophetic but so was His life prophetic.   

 

Prophecy is woven throughout the Old Testament.  And the Old Testament does not hide the sins of the people of God.  The sins of the people of God are never prophetic of the Messiah to come to be a sinner.    So, Jesus never did say, 'I have sinned against thee'.    What was prophetic however, is David was betrayed which spoke to Jesus being betrayed by Judas.

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

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.

 

(Psalm 69:4) is being addressed.  Not (69:5).

 

Everything in (Ps. 35)  Jesus  could have prayed.   We are not told all that Jesus prayed.   And all that is being addressed here by John is 'they hated me without a cause'.   

 

Stranger

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

Well @Citsonga I don't think you made much impact on Stranger - he's just spouting out straight theological replies like any of us would have as Christians. No critical study of what you said.

 

To people reading this, two quick points to consider regarding David:

 

1) There is no evidence the psalms were actually written or spoken by an Israelite king named David. In fact, its well known in the ancient world to attribute writings to a well known person, whether fictional or real, in order to give the writings authority.

2) There's little evidence to show that King David of the bible actually existed. The one piece of evidence I know (Merneptah Stele) of is suspect - some claim translation errors of the Stele, and the dating of the evidence poses problems for the biblical time line as the date puts it only some 50 years after the suppose exodus which is too soon for King David to be around.

3) The bible is usually fairly specific about who the prophets are - David is not among them. David is always referred to as King. Which is why the messiah is supposed to sit on the throne of king David.... not the "prophet" David.

 

Everything that Stranger spouted in his replies to Citsonga are bookshelf theological replies you'd expect out of a teens Sunday school class.

 

There are many other things that could be pointed out, but this is proving to be a big time sink with no gain in the conversation so I'm only hitting relevant points that haven't already been covered.

[Stranger]

 

 

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" (Matthew 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.

 

One point to note is that no one prophet is cited.   "spoken by the prophets."    

 

As to exactly how this fits, I don't know.   But it appears to be the teachings of the prophets that the Messiah would be held in contempt being called a Nazerine.  

 

Stranger

[Stranger]

 

 

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.

 

You have demonstrated that you don't believe the New Testament, or Old for that matter.   And that you don't understand prophecy.   

 

Sorry, the Jews have a long long history of rejecting God.  That is why they were under Romes heal at the time of Christ.  They constantly rejected God in the Old Testament just like they do again with Jesus in the New.   Nothing new.     These were Jews under the Old Testament law at the time of Christ.   They didn't butcher any Scriptures.   

 

Stranger

[bornagainathiest]

Citsonga,

 

You do realize that you cannot hold the Stranger accountable to your understanding/interpretation of scripture?

Or anyone else's, for that matter.   In the end he is only answerable to himself.   (Or to god... but that dialog would be hidden from us anyway.)  

 

He's internalized what he believes is the absolute truth and he's internalized his truth-checking processes.  

So, whatever he believes god tells him - is (to him) the absolute truth.  He needs no external frame of reference with which to judge what is true and what isn't.

 

He knows the Truth.  

 

Case closed.

 

 

 

[sdelsolray]

Why play in the troll's sandbox?

[midniterider]

 

Why play in the troll's sandbox?

 

I'm thread shopping now. LoL.

 

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

 

 

(Micah 5:2) is clear concerning the birth of the Messiah.  It was to be in Bethlehem.   Actually this is not a dual prophecy.   This is all future.  As (5:3) says, God gives Israel up until the time of the end.   And that is what happened.  

 

Stranger

 

You completely ignored the fact that the person these verses are describing is intended to be ruler over Israel and defeat the Assyrians. Mica 5:2 and 5:3 are clearly not about Jesus. 

[florduh]

In summary....

 

Christian "X" claims to have direct interaction with something he labels "God."

 

Christian "X"  claims his experience proves the existence of his "God."

 

Christian "X" claims, essentially, that his belief in this "God" is proof that this "God" exists.

 

Normal Person "X" asks, first prove that "God" exists and then demonstrate you actually interacted with it.

 

Christian "X" always responds, "faith."

 

So, you guys still having fun with this ponderous thread?

[nutrichuckles93]

Maybe not fun exactly, but per Logical Fallacy's point: once I remember I'm not going to get anywhere with Stranger, it is still amusing in a sad way to see him fall over himself repeatedly in his "reason."