Messianic Prophecies?

November 20, 2009

I'm terribly rusty. I've been out of college for over 6 months now, half because said college was a Christian college and would boot me if they found out, and half because I had to move out of NYC. Then again, I'm also only on my 1st cup of Bailey's coffee for the morning..

Anyway. Messianic scriptures, you know the ones, how supposedly there are hundreds of them? Particularly Isaiah 53? How do you combat these claims that Jesus fulfilled all said prophecies?

I've already used the "Judaism never deemed this messianic" card, but it didn't come as well as I wanted it to. So particularly fellow disbelievers who have studied Judaism on your way out of Christianity, what do you say to such people?

Additional books to read are always appreciated too.

November 20, 2009

Is 53 is one of those passages that was chosen because it is vague enough to be applied to any situation. There were already various interpretations. Some Jews interpret the passage as applying to the nation of Israel as a whole, their suffering resulting in redemption.

Others, apply it to a collective or remnant of Israel. And others looked at this as a messianic prophecy of an individual Messiah.

So, you can take the events described in the gospels and make it apply to Jesus' situation pretty easily. But remember, the gospel accounts seem to be embellished for the express purpose of making them look like the fulfillment of ancient prophesies.

That way the romanized and Hellenized cultures of the day would view Christianity as having some legitimacy.

So, they adapted the gospel stories to conform to Is. 53 and other prophecies.

November 20, 2009

Anyway. Messianic scriptures, you know the ones, how supposedly there are hundreds of them? Particularly Isaiah 53? How do you combat these claims that Jesus fulfilled all said prophecies?

Simple, the stories about Jesus were made to match the prophesies.

There were prophecies in Harry Potter too. Things were revealed in earlier books which were fulfilled later.

November 21, 2009

Simple, the stories about Jesus were made to match the prophesies.

That, as well as the fact that NT authors also made up prophecies about Jesus by taking OT texts out of context, sometimes even rewording them to suit their purposes. So much for being the inspired word of gawd....

November 21, 2009

Anyway. Messianic scriptures, you know the ones, how supposedly there are hundreds of them? Particularly Isaiah 53? How do you combat these claims that Jesus fulfilled all said prophecies?

My suggestion is this (it's what I did anyway): Go through the Gospels, and every time you see a claim that a prophecy has been fulfilled, look up the original text and read it in context to see what it was really about. (Also note that the Hebrew term translated "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 literally means "young woman," but there are also contextual problems with that one.)

Regarding Isaiah 53, the following book is supposed to be really good (I want to read it sometime): Isaiah 53: Who is the Servant?

Anyway, regarding my initial look through at alleged prophetic fulfillments in Jesus, a few years ago I wrote about some of my findings in a (lengthy) letter to a friend. Below is what I wrote to him about this topic (I had planned to look into and discuss even more, but the letter was getting quite long). This stuff was basically what sealed the deal in my realization that christianity is bs, so hopefully it will be helpful. Here it is:

MISUSES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

One of the most significant Christian claims is that Jesus fulfilled countless Old Testament prophecies, and therefore must be the Messiah. If Jesus has 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 the First Century AD Jesus of Nazareth is the prophesied savior. But did he really fulfill countless prophecies, as the New Testament claims? Let's take a look at some of those claims.

The Virgin Birth (Matthew 1:18-21; Isaiah 7:14)

After Matthew mentions Mary's virginal conception from the Holy Spirit and the angel visiting Joseph (Matthew 1:18-21), we read, "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel' -- which means, 'God with us'" (1:22-23). So, Matthew quotes a prophecy from Isaiah and says that it was fulfilled in Mary and Jesus. Was it a fulfilled prophecy?

Let's look at Isaiah. 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 Judah was 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 (7:3-9).

Isaiah goes on to say, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign" (Isaiah 7:13-14a). Now, who is the "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!

Now, what is the "sign"? As the NIV renders it, "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14b). Ironically, though, Jewish scholars indicate that the Hebrew word ("alma") in Isaiah's account actually means "young woman," with no "virgin" connotation. As such, they insist that it should read, "The young woman will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." In fact, a few versions (such as the NRSV) translate it "young woman." Christian commentators agree that the term means "young woman," but insist that it does have a "virgin" connotation.

So, what can we make of this debate? I am not a Hebrew scholar (by a long shot), but we can examine the context to see what Isaiah was talking about.

Isaiah continues by telling King Ahaz that during the prophesied son's early years, "the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste" (Isaiah 7:16). This is consistent with what Isaiah said earlier in the chapter: "For the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people. The head of Ephraim is Samaria" (7:8-9a). So, we're really dealing with a relatively immediate time-frame, not something that would happen many centuries later. In fact, Isaiah goes on talking about what it is supposed to be like "in that day" (7:18-25) and mentions the "king of Assyria" (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? Evidently his own! Take a look at what immediately follows this account. Isaiah says, "Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said to me, 'Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. Before the boy knows how to say "My father" or "My mother," the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by 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/Aram and Samaria/Ephraim are supposed to be attacked and plundered (7:8-14; 8:3-4). Following the child's birth there is even an oracle from "the LORD" (8:5-10) in which the term "Immanuel" is reiterated (8:8; compare to 7:14).

Some Christian commentators 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. However, that doesn't work unless one concludes 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 a prophecy of Jesus.

Beyond that, from Isaiah's account of the child's conception, it is apparent that the child was conceived in the normal fashion. Isaiah says that he "went to the prophetess, and she conceived" (Isaiah 8:3), implying sexual contact. From this, it is quite clear that the prophecy in question (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 does not mean "virgin," or, if the Christians are correct in asserting that it does mean "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!

So, it seems that 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. And he may have even changed "young woman" to "virgin" (possibly by misunderstanding the Hebrew or using a faulty translation). Regardless of that, though, Matthew clearly misused the prophecy he relied on.

Bethlehem as Jesus' Birthplace (Matthew 2:3-4; Micah 5:2)

Matthew reports a visit of some "Magi" who go to Jerusalem, seeking the Christ-child (Matthew 2:1-2). King Herod calls the "chief priests and teachers of the law," asking them "where the Christ was to be born" (2:3-4). Then we read, "'In Bethlehem in Judea,' they replied, 'for this is what the prophet has written: "But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel"'" (2:5-6). Afterwards, Herod sends them on their way, and they go and find Jesus in Bethlehem, just as the teachers and priests had indicated was prophesied (2:7-11; ref 2:1). Matthew has reported another fulfilled prophecy, right?

Matthew was indeed loosely quoting from Micah 5:2, but can Jesus really be the fulfillment? In context, not only is the "ruler" (Micah 5:2) supposed to "shepherd his flock" (5:4) as Christians would expect, but it also says, "He will deliver us [israel] from the Assyrian when he invades our land and marches into our borders" (5:6). Now, when did Jesus ever fight against and defeat Assyria? Not only was Jesus not depicted as a warrior in the gospels, Assyria ceased to exist several centuries before the time in which Jesus allegedly lived! Not only that, Jesus' kingdom is supposedly "not of this world" (John 18:36), so why would he be concerned about the "land" and "borders" of Israel anyway?

Some allege that this (like the previous one discussed) 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, 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 appears that Matthew has once again taken a prophecy out of context in order to make it appear to be about Jesus of Nazareth.

Out of Egypt (Matthew 2:15; Hosea 11:1)

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 (Matthew 2:13), where they stay "until the death of Herod" (2:14-15a). Then we read, "And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'Out of Egypt I called my son'" (2:15b). Another fulfilled prophecy, right?

Not quite. Take a look at what Matthew was actually quoting from: "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son" (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, "But the more I called Israel, the further they went from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images" (Hosea 11:2). Did Jesus turn away from God and sacrifice to idols?

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

The Slaughtered Children (Matthew 2:17-18; Jeremiah 31:15)

Matthew continues his story by telling of Herod giving the "orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years and under" (Matthew 2:16). Then we read, "Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: 'A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more'" (2:17-18). The use of this prophecy implies that the "children" being "no more" is a reference to their deaths, and we have yet another fulfilled prophecy, right?

By now, you may have guessed that the answer is going to be negative. Let's take a look at Jeremiah's context. After making the statement that Matthew quoted (Jeremiah 31:15), he says, "This is what the LORD says: 'Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for your work will be rewarded,' declares the LORD. 'They will return from the land of the enemy. So there is hope for your future,' declares the LORD. 'Your children will return to their own land'"(Jeremiah 31:16-17). He goes on to say that "the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel" will "bring them back from captivity" (31:23).

At the time that Jeremiah allegedly wrote this, the Israelites had been conquered and many of them taken into exile. When Jeremiah said that Rachel's "children are no more" (Jeremiah 31:15), he was apparently 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 said that they would return. So, was Jeremiah talking about a slaughter of infants and toddlers hundreds of years later, as Matthew claims? Obviously not.

Once again, though, some argue that it's a "dual prophecy." And, once again, the context does not support it.

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

The Chosen Servant (Matthew 12:17-21; Isaiah 42:1-4)

Later on in Matthew's gospel, we read about Jesus healing some sick people and telling them "not to tell who he was" (Matthew 12:15-16). Then we read, "This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: 'Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my spirit on him and he will proclaim justice to the nations. He will not quarrel or cry out; no one will hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out, till he leads justice to victory. In his name the nations will put their hope" (12:17-21). So, Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of this servant, right?

Well, 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 you, O Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend, I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said, 'You are my servant'; I have chosen you and have not rejected you" (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, "But now listen, O Jacob, my servant, Israel, whom I have chosen. This is what the LORD says -- he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you: Do not be afraid, O Jacob, my servant, Jeshurun, 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 ("Jeshurun" means "the upright one," and is also used in Deuteronomy 32:15; 33:5,26).

He continues, "Remember these things, O Jacob, for you are my servant, O Israel. I have made you, you are my servant; O Israel, I will not forget you" (Isaiah 44:26). In addition, we read, "The LORD has redeemed his servant Jacob" (48:2), and, "You are my servant, Israel" (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"? We read, "Hear, you deaf; look, you blind, and see! Who is blind but my servant, and deaf like the messenger I send? Who is blind like the one committed to me, blind like the servant of the LORD? You have seen many things, but have paid no attention; your ears are open, but you hear nothing" (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. Yet, Isaiah claimed that God would make his servant (Israel) "a light to the Gentiles" (Isaiah 42:6).

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

Ever Hearing, Never Understanding (Matthew 13:14-15; Isaiah 6:9-10)

Matthew says that the disciples asked Jesus why he taught in parables (Matthew 13:10). Jesus responded with, "This is why I speak to them in parables: 'Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand'" (13:13).

Then Jesus, according to Matthew, claims, "In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them'" (Matthew 13:14-15). But, could the people of Jesus' time have been a fulfillment of the prophecy Jesus allegedly quoted?

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: 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.' Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed" (Isaiah 6:9-10).

Isaiah continued by saying that he inquired, "For how long, O Lord?" (Isaiah 6:11a), to which he was answered, "Until the cities lie ruined and without inhabitant, until the houses are left deserted and the fields ruined and ravaged, until the LORD has sent everyone far away and the land I utterly forsaken. And though a tenth remains in the land, it will again be laid waste" (6:11b-13a). 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, therefore, Matthew has taken Isaiah out of context in order to make it appear that prophecy had been fulfilled with his story of Jesus. This time is even more serious, though, in that the error is placed on the lips of Jesus himself!

Uttering Parables (Matthew 13:35; Psalm 78:2)

After Matthew mentions that Jesus taught the crowd with parables (Matthew 13:34), we read, "So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: 'I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world'" (13:35). Was this really a fulfilled prophecy?

The quotation comes from a psalm of Asaph, which starts out, "O my people, hear my teaching; listen to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in parables. I will utter hidden things, things from of old" (Psalm 78:1-2). Here Asaph claims that he 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 (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.

Shared Bread (John 13:18; Psalm 41:9)

John's gospel says that Jesus identified Judas as the one who would betray him (John 13:18-30) by giving him a piece of dipped bread (13:26). One of Jesus' statements was, "But this is to fulfill the scripture: 'He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me'" (13:18b). But, was Jesus quoting a prophecy about Judas and himself?

Jesus was quoting a psalm in which David said, "Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me" (Psalm 41:9). In this psalm, he is describing the actions of his enemies, God's protection from them, and his own pleading for God's mercy. He is most certainly talking about himself!

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 as a prophecy of Jesus is extremely problematic, because it also says, "I said, 'O LORD, have mercy on me; heal me, for I have sinned against you'" (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 an attempt to make Jesus fulfill prophecy. And, again, this one is placed on the lips of Jesus himself!

Hating Jesus Without Reason (John 15:25; Psalm 69:4; 35:19)

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 is to fulfill what is written in their Law: 'They hated me without reason'" (15:25). Another fulfilled prophecy?

The quotation is of a phrase used in two psalms of David. In one, we read, "Those who hate me without reason outnumber the hairs of my head; many are my enemies without cause, those who seek to destroy me. I am forced to restore what I did not steal" (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, "You know my folly, O God; my guilt is not hidden from you" (69:5). Was Jesus guilty of folly?

The other psalm in question says, "Let not those gloat over me who are my enemies without cause; let not those who hate me without reason maliciously wink the eye" (Psalm 35:19). Again, David is talking about himself, and the context proves problematic if this is to be taken as a reference to Jesus. The psalm starts out by saying, "Contend, O LORD, with those who contend with me; fight against those who fight against me. Take up shield and buckler; arise and come to my aid. Brandish spear and javelin against those who pursue me. Say to my soul, 'I am your salvation'" (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 and javelin against them? It goes on to say, "O Lord, how long will you look on? Rescue my life from their ravages, my precious life from these lions" (35:17), with no mention whatsoever of submitting to a plan of God to be put to death. 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 19:36; Psalm 34:20)

John's gospel tells us that the solders to 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, "These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: 'Not one of his bones will be broken'" (19:36). Another 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, "A righteous man may have many troubles, but the LORD delivers him from them all; he protects all his bones, not one of them will be 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 34:17) 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 as a prophecy of Jesus.

The One They Have Pierced (John 19:34; Zechariah 12:10)

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 (19:36) of what "another scripture says, 'They will look on the one they have pierced'" (19:37). So, another fulfilled prophecy?

This quotation comes from Zechariah, where we read, "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son" (Zechariah 12:10). This is allegedly a quote from God (12:1), which is one of the reasons that Christians claim that Jesus is God. But is this really talking about Jesus?

In context, Zechariah's prophecy is about God destroying Jerusalem's enemies (Zechariah 12:1ff). He specifically states, "On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem" (12:9). Is that what Jesus set out to do when the people looked upon his piercing?

Again, we see that the statement has apparently been taken out of context.

Conclusion from the Misuses of the Old Testament in the New Testament

I have just demonstrated several misuses of the Old Testament, and there are more like these. In a sense, these are more contradictions, but they seem to me to be even more problematic to the Bible than the issues raised under the "Contradictions" section.

How can the claims that Jesus fulfilled prophecy be believed when over and over again we see that the original writings have been misused? Isn't it sounding more and more like the gospel writers were making up a story, misconstruing texts from the Hebrew Scriptures in order to fabricate prophetic fulfillments in the key character? 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 Hebrew Scriptures, take them out of context and apply them to someone 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!

How can such a book be divinely inspired? The foundation to my belief in the Bible has crumbled some more.

November 21, 2009

Anyway. Messianic scriptures, you know the ones, how supposedly there are hundreds of them? Particularly Isaiah 53? How do you combat these claims that Jesus fulfilled all said prophecies?

Step 1. Find the master "fulfilled prophecies" list.

Step 2. There is no step 2 since you can never complete step 1.

Just go online and you'll find plenty of lists with varying numbers. When I decided to check all the "prophecies" out for myself I kept looking until I found as many unique prophecies as I could, which was around 300 or so, but there was no one list I could turn to. This was a big let down for me from the start. And prophecies like "the son of a woman" weren't big "winners" in my book. Hell, I qualify under a lot of these.

I've already used the "Judaism never deemed this messianic" card, but it didn't come as well as I wanted it to. So particularly fellow disbelievers who have studied Judaism on your way out of Christianity, what do you say to such people?

Be careful when you toss this around. The actual answer may surprise you. But in reality the way around it is "So?" Even if every Jew of the day believed every single one of those "prophecies" were messianic then he failed because he didn't fulfill what all the Jews thought were messianic prophecies. Jeremiah 31? Ezekial (whatever it is). Nowhere in the prophecies does it say "...To be continued" and so he failed. Pretty simple. He shows up. He "fulfilled" everything. Holy shit! Then he up and dies. What the fuck!?!?!?!?! Without ushering in the new temple? The writing of laws on everyone hearts so no one needs to be taught anything? The establishment of all this crap that most certainly was messianic in nature? Ooops. He was so very, very close even if we grant them every little last thing...and yet he didn't cross that finish line. And so he's a loser. Next.

You see? Even if you grant them every thing on every possible list they don't want to grant anything on the rest of the list that is actually contained within the bible itself. The actual requirements the bible states "This here...this thing...this is a messiah dude and this here is what this guy will do in his lifetime...no dies-ies or he's not the real deal and that's my godly promise to you so you'll know from the fakers." They just blow that off and say that's in the sequel. If they can't be upfront about the rules then screw it. If you've got to cheat to win...

mwc

November 23, 2009

Anyway. Messianic scriptures, you know the ones, how supposedly there are hundreds of them? Particularly Isaiah 53? How do you combat these claims that Jesus fulfilled all said prophecies?

My suggestion is this (it's what I did anyway): Go through the Gospels, and every time you see a claim that a prophecy has been fulfilled, look up the original text and read it in context to see what it was really about. (Also note that the Hebrew term translated "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 literally means "young woman," but there are also contextual problems with that one.)

Regarding Isaiah 53, the following book is supposed to be really good (I want to read it sometime): Isaiah 53: Who is the Servant?

Anyway, regarding my initial look through at alleged prophetic fulfillments in Jesus, a few years ago I wrote about some of my findings in a (lengthy) letter to a friend. Below is what I wrote to him about this topic (I had planned to look into and discuss even more, but the letter was getting quite long). This stuff was basically what sealed the deal in my realization that christianity is bs, so hopefully it will be helpful. Here it is:

MISUSES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

<snip>

How can such a book be divinely inspired? The foundation to my belief in the Bible has crumbled some more.

Citisonga!!

GREAT! Absolutely concise and well-presented survey of the New Testament's misuse of the OT to claim fulfilled prophesy!

I hope you don't mind, but I copied and pasted your letter into a Word document for frequent reference.

You've done a great service and made a great contribution to this site by providing it.

(It ended up being 9 pages, by the way).

With admiration,

OB '63

November 23, 2009

Citisonga!!

GREAT! Absolutely concise and well-presented survey of the New Testament's misuse of the OT to claim fulfilled prophesy!

I hope you don't mind, but I copied and pasted your letter into a Word document for frequent reference.

You've done a great service and made a great contribution to this site by providing it.

(It ended up being 9 pages, by the way).

With admiration,

OB '63

Thanks for the kudos!

The whole letter was 18 pages long, with what I've posted here obviously being a large chunk of it. The reason I wrote the letter was because this christian friend had asked what happened to cause me to struggle with my faith, seeming to think that I was upset at god.

I decided to take the time to give him a good explanation of the bible issues I was dealing with. The letter may have been longer than it needed to be, but I really wanted him to see that it was not a matter of being upset at god, it was a matter of no longer finding the bible to be believable.

I'm glad that part of it has been useful here.

Take care, and have a great turkey day....

November 23, 2009

I'm terribly rusty. I've been out of college for over 6 months now, half because said college was a Christian college and would boot me if they found out, and half because I had to move out of NYC. Then again, I'm also only on my 1st cup of Bailey's coffee for the morning..

Anyway. Messianic scriptures, you know the ones, how supposedly there are hundreds of them? Particularly Isaiah 53? How do you combat these claims that Jesus fulfilled all said prophecies?

Try these:

http://www.messiahtruth.com/isai53a.html

http://www.messiahtruth.com/isai53b.html

http://www.messiahtruth.com/isai53c.html

http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/Isaiah53.html

http://www.drazin.com/chap12.phtml

November 23, 2009

Thanks for those links, centauri.

November 24, 2009

Thanks for those links, centauri.

The forum at the Messiah Truth site is also good, they've covered just about everything regarding apologetics over the years.

Here's another link as well, which is a huge compilation by Isaac Troki(1500's) refuting Christianity in detail.

http://faithstrengthened.org/FS_TOC.html

I recommend the index of verses section for easy referencing to scripture.

http://faithstrengthened.org/FS_Verse_Index.html

December 30, 2009

Anyway. Messianic scriptures, you know the ones, how supposedly there are hundreds of them? Particularly Isaiah 53? How do you combat these claims that Jesus fulfilled all said prophecies?

Simple, the stories about Jesus were made to match the prophesies.

There were prophecies in Harry Potter too. Things were revealed in earlier books which were fulfilled later.

And that's a fact. Idiot christians won't accept that though.

January 1, 2010

You see? Even if you grant them every thing on every possible list they don't want to grant anything on the rest of the list that is actually contained within the bible itself. The actual requirements the bible states...

You see, the bible isn't all there is. There are the extra-biblical texts, Enoch, Gabriel's Vision, that seem to say the Messiah, the Son of Man was to die. He was to stand for the innocent who were killed unfairly. In one text, I think Enoch?, the one to be killed is a High Priest who is killed, and who is brought back by God to avenge god's people.

So I'm not sure going there and saying oh... but he's dead so that's that, means he doesn't fit.

Anyway,that's all for now from me.

Ya'll gave me a LOT to read. Thank you. I actually forgot about this post in the light of my recent "testimony." I'm going to save it all and do some reading. =)

Appreciate it!

January 2, 2010

You see, the bible isn't all there is. There are the extra-biblical texts, Enoch, Gabriel's Vision, that seem to say the Messiah, the Son of Man was to die. He was to stand for the innocent who were killed unfairly. In one text, I think Enoch?, the one to be killed is a High Priest who is killed, and who is brought back by God to avenge god's people.

So I'm not sure going there and saying oh... but he's dead so that's that, means he doesn't fit.

I tried finding where the son of man dies and returns in 1 Enoch but couldn't find any such thing. The reference to a resurrected messiah in Gabriel's Vision (line 80) is difficult thanks to all the missing pieces (at least from the version I saw on Scribd...maybe I'll look for another).

mwc

January 16, 2010

Anyway. Messianic scriptures, you know the ones, how supposedly there are hundreds of them? Particularly Isaiah 53? How do you combat these claims that Jesus fulfilled all said prophecies?

Simple, the stories about Jesus were made to match the prophesies.

There were prophecies in Harry Potter too. Things were revealed in earlier books which were fulfilled later.

And that's a fact. Idiot christians won't accept that though.

So your saying that some Jewish nutcase that performed miracles with the help of demons and was killed for blaspheme convinced thousands to believe in Him, and in His time, was actually capable of setting His life up to be able to perfectly fulfill every prophecy of the old testament and have thousands witness every single occurrence? Sounds like this Jesus Christ was really smart, and just really lucky to be able to pull off everything listed below and fool the world. It is a fact that Jesus existed, even jews and muslims know of the record of His existence. How can a book, that is 2000 years old, has never been changed in any way, and is by far the most published book of all time, be completely false. All these NUTCASES that wrote the new testament must have really spent thousands of hours studying every detail of these prophetic scriptures and modeled Jesus after them perfectly, just to fool everyone for some kind of personal gain right? What a coincidence that four men recorded nearly the same exact story from their point of view in the gospels. Why the same story four times? These COMPLETE MORONS that wrote these new testament books must have been thinking, " in 2000 years these books will still be unchanged and will be the most powerful, most read, most published, most useful, most descriptive teachings for living good Godly lives that ever existed, and I will be famous!" right? These RETARDS did it just to trick millions of people into living honest, loving, law abiding, compassionate, joyful,purposeful, less selfish and sinful lives right? I have just one question: If God and the devil don't exist, then how do we know the difference between right/wrong, good/bad? There must be something programmed into us that tells us the difference. Something beyond comprehension that is born into every person that has ever existed. Where do you suppose these inner feelings of right/wrong come from? From the God of the Bible, thats where.

KEEP IN MIND, ALL THESE EVENTS HAD MULTIPLE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS.I CHALLENGE YOU TO READ THEM AND FIND FAULT HERE.

The Messiah will be the offspring (descendant) of the woman (Eve) Genesis 3:15 - fulfilled in Galatians 4:4

The Messiah will be a descendant of Abraham, through whom everyone on earth will be blessed Genesis 12:3; 18:18 - fulfilled in Acts 3:25,26

The Messiah will be a descendant of Judah Genesis 49:10- fulfilled in Matthew 1:2 and Luke 3:33

The Messiah will be a prophet like Moses Deuteronomy 18:15-19- fulfilled in Acts 3:22,23

The Messiah will be the Son of God Psalm 2:7- fulfilled in Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22

The Messiah will be raised from the dead (resurrected) Psalm 16:10,11- fulfilled in Matthew 28:5-9; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:4-7; John 20:11-16; Acts 1:3 and 2:32

The Messiah crucifixion experience Psalm 22 (contains 11 prophecies—not all listed here)- fulfilled in Matthew 27:34-50 and John 19:17-30

The Messiah will be sneered at and mocked Psalm 22:7- fulfilled in Luke 23:11,35-39

The Messiah will be pierced through hands and feet Psalm 22:16- fulfilled in Luke 23:33 and 24:36-39;John 19:18 and 20:19-20,24-27

The Messiah’s bones will not be broken (legs were usually broken after being crucified to speed up death) Psalm 22:17 and 34:20- fulfilled in John 19:31-33,36

Men Will Gamble for the Messiah’s clothing Psalm 22:18- fulfilled in Matthew 27:35; Mark 15:24; Luke 23:34; John 19:23,24

The Messiah will accused by false witnesses Psalm 35:11- fulfilled in Matthew 26:59,60 and Mark 14:56,57

The Messiah will be hated without a cause Psalm 35:19 and 69:4- fulfilled in John 15:23-25

The Messiah will be betrayed by a friend Psalm 41:9- fulfilled in John 13:18,21

The Messiah will ascend to heaven (at the right hand of God) Psalm 68:18- fulfilled in Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9; 2:33-35; 3:20-21; 5:31,32; 7:55-56; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20,21; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22 .

The Messiah will be given vinegar and gall to drink Psalm 69:21- fulfilled in Matthew 27:34; Mark 15:23; John 19:29,30

Great kings will pay homage and tribute to the Messiah Psalm 72:10,11 - fulfilled in Matthew 2:1-11

The Messiah is a “stone the builders rejected” who will become the “head cornerstone” Psalm 118:22,23 and Isaiah 28:16 - fulfilled in Matthew 21:42,43; Acts 4:11; Ephesians 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6-8

The Messiah will be a descendant of David Psalm 132:11 and Jeremiah 23:5,6; 33:15,16 - fulfilled in Luke 1:32,33

The Messiah will be a born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14 - fulfilled in Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-35

The Messiah’s first spiritual work will be in Galilee Isaiah 9:1-7 - fulfilled in Matthew 4:12-16

The Messiah will make the blind see, the deaf hear, etc. Isaiah 35:5-6 - fulfilled in Many places. Also see Matthew 11:3-6 and John 11:47

The Messiah will be beaten, mocked, and spat upon Isaiah 50:6 - fulfilled in Matthew 26:67 and 27:26-31

People will hear and not believe the “arm of the LORD” (Messiah) Isaiah 53:1 - fulfilled in John 12:37,38

The Messiah will be rejected Isaiah 53:3 - fulfilled in Matthew 27:20-25; Mark 15:8-14; Luke 23:18-23; John 19:14,15

The Messiah will be killed Isaiah 53:5-9 - fulfilled in Matthew 27:50; Mark 15:37-39; Luke 23:46; John 19:30

The Messiah will be silent in front of his accusers Isaiah 53:7 - fulfilled in Matthew 26:62,63 and 27:12-14

The Messiah will be buried with the rich Isaiah 53:9 - fulfilled in Matthew 27:59,60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:52,53; John 19:38-42

The Messiah will be crucified with criminals Isaiah 53:12 - fulfilled in Matthew 27:38; Mark 15:27; Luke 23:32,33

The Messiah is part of the new and everlasting covenant Isaiah 55:3-4 and Jeremiah 31:31-34 - fulfilled in Matthew 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; Hebrews 8:6-13

The Messiah will be our intercessor (intervene for us and plead on our behalf) Isaiah 59:16- fulfilled in Hebrews 9:15

The Messiah will come at a specific time Daniel 9:25-26 - fulfilled in Galatians 4:4 and Ephesians 1:10

The Messiah will be born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2 - fulfilled in Matthew 2:1 and Luke 2:4-7

The Messiah will enter Jerusalem riding a donkey Zechariah 9:9 - fulfilled in Matthew 21:1-11

The Messiah will be sold for 30 pieces of silver Zechariah 11:12,13 - fulfilled in Matthew 26:15 with Matthew 27:3-10

The Messiah will forsaken by His disciples Zechariah 13:7 - fulfilled in Matthew 26:31,56

The Messiah will enter the Temple with authority Malachi 3:1 - fulfilled in Matthew 21:12 and Luke 19:45

January 16, 2010

KEEP IN MIND, ALL THESE EVENTS HAD MULTIPLE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS.I CHALLENGE YOU TO READ THEM AND FIND FAULT HERE.

You really don't know how this prophecy stuff works, do you?

You find a passage like "And he turned right" and say, "Jesus turned right one time!" But then you put in "context" and see that the passage says, "And he turned right into a pile of shit."

Finding any passage talking about a personal experience in the OT and extrapolating that into the New Testament is a trick done specifically to make you think the former passage was speaking about a later time, but the whole idea of a 1) non prophetic text applied as prophecy or 2) a prophetic text reapplied in a totally different context ("double" prophecy) is sheer nonsense.

Here's just a small sample of the misuses of the OT for prophecy:

MISUSES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

One of the most significant Christian claims is that Jesus fulfilled countless Old Testament prophecies, and therefore must be the Messiah. If Jesus has 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 the First Century AD Jesus of Nazareth is the prophesied savior. But did he really fulfill countless prophecies, as the New Testament claims? Let's take a look at some of those claims.

The Virgin Birth (Matthew 1:18-21; Isaiah 7:14)

After Matthew mentions Mary's virginal conception from the Holy Spirit and the angel visiting Joseph (Matthew 1:18-21), we read, "All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel' -- which means, 'God with us'" (1:22-23). So, Matthew quotes a prophecy from Isaiah and says that it was fulfilled in Mary and Jesus. Was it a fulfilled prophecy?

Let's look at Isaiah. 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 Judah was 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 (7:3-9).

Isaiah goes on to say, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign" (Isaiah 7:13-14a). Now, who is the "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!

Now, what is the "sign"? As the NIV renders it, "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel" (Isaiah 7:14b). Ironically, though, Jewish scholars indicate that the Hebrew word ("alma") in Isaiah's account actually means "young woman," with no "virgin" connotation. As such, they insist that it should read, "The young woman will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel." In fact, a few versions (such as the NRSV) translate it "young woman." Christian commentators agree that the term means "young woman," but insist that it does have a "virgin" connotation.

So, what can we make of this debate? I am not a Hebrew scholar (by a long shot), but we can examine the context to see what Isaiah was talking about.

Isaiah continues by telling King Ahaz that during the prophesied son's early years, "the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste" (Isaiah 7:16). This is consistent with what Isaiah said earlier in the chapter: "For the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is only Rezin. Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people. The head of Ephraim is Samaria" (7:8-9a). So, we're really dealing with a relatively immediate time-frame, not something that would happen many centuries later. In fact, Isaiah goes on talking about what it is supposed to be like "in that day" (7:18-25) and mentions the "king of Assyria" (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? Evidently his own! Take a look at what immediately follows this account. Isaiah says, "Then I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said to me, 'Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. Before the boy knows how to say "My father" or "My mother," the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by 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/Aram and Samaria/Ephraim are supposed to be attacked and plundered (7:8-14; 8:3-4). Following the child's birth there is even an oracle from "the LORD" (8:5-10) in which the term "Immanuel" is reiterated (8:8; compare to 7:14).

Some Christian commentators 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. However, that doesn't work unless one concludes 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 a prophecy of Jesus.

Beyond that, from Isaiah's account of the child's conception, it is apparent that the child was conceived in the normal fashion. Isaiah says that he "went to the prophetess, and she conceived" (Isaiah 8:3), implying sexual contact. From this, it is quite clear that the prophecy in question (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 does not mean "virgin," or, if the Christians are correct in asserting that it does mean "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!

So, it seems that 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. And he may have even changed "young woman" to "virgin" (possibly by misunderstanding the Hebrew or using a faulty translation). Regardless of that, though, Matthew clearly misused the prophecy he relied on.

Bethlehem as Jesus' Birthplace (Matthew 2:3-4; Micah 5:2)

Matthew reports a visit of some "Magi" who go to Jerusalem, seeking the Christ-child (Matthew 2:1-2). King Herod calls the "chief priests and teachers of the law," asking them "where the Christ was to be born" (2:3-4). Then we read, "'In Bethlehem in Judea,' they replied, 'for this is what the prophet has written: "But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel"'" (2:5-6). Afterwards, Herod sends them on their way, and they go and find Jesus in Bethlehem, just as the teachers and priests had indicated was prophesied (2:7-11; ref 2:1). Matthew has reported another fulfilled prophecy, right?

Matthew was indeed loosely quoting from Micah 5:2, but can Jesus really be the fulfillment? In context, not only is the "ruler" (Micah 5:2) supposed to "shepherd his flock" (5:4) as Christians would expect, but it also says, "He will deliver us [israel] from the Assyrian when he invades our land and marches into our borders" (5:6). Now, when did Jesus ever fight against and defeat Assyria? Not only was Jesus not depicted as a warrior in the gospels, Assyria ceased to exist several centuries before the time in which Jesus allegedly lived! Not only that, Jesus' kingdom is supposedly "not of this world" (John 18:36), so why would he be concerned about the "land" and "borders" of Israel anyway?

Some allege that this (like the previous one discussed) 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, 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 appears that Matthew has once again taken a prophecy out of context in order to make it appear to be about Jesus of Nazareth.

Out of Egypt (Matthew 2:15; Hosea 11:1)

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 (Matthew 2:13), where they stay "until the death of Herod" (2:14-15a). Then we read, "And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'Out of Egypt I called my son'" (2:15b). Another fulfilled prophecy, right?

Not quite. Take a look at what Matthew was actually quoting from: "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son" (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, "But the more I called Israel, the further they went from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images" (Hosea 11:2). Did Jesus turn away from God and sacrifice to idols?

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

The Slaughtered Children (Matthew 2:17-18; Jeremiah 31:15)

Matthew continues his story by telling of Herod giving the "orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years and under" (Matthew 2:16). Then we read, "Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: 'A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more'" (2:17-18). The use of this prophecy implies that the "children" being "no more" is a reference to their deaths, and we have yet another fulfilled prophecy, right?

By now, you may have guessed that the answer is going to be negative. Let's take a look at Jeremiah's context. After making the statement that Matthew quoted (Jeremiah 31:15), he says, "This is what the LORD says: 'Restrain your voice from weeping and your eyes from tears, for your work will be rewarded,' declares the LORD. 'They will return from the land of the enemy. So there is hope for your future,' declares the LORD. 'Your children will return to their own land'"(Jeremiah 31:16-17). He goes on to say that "the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel" will "bring them back from captivity" (31:23).

At the time that Jeremiah allegedly wrote this, the Israelites had been conquered and many of them taken into exile. When Jeremiah said that Rachel's "children are no more" (Jeremiah 31:15), he was apparently 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 said that they would return. So, was Jeremiah talking about a slaughter of infants and toddlers hundreds of years later, as Matthew claims? Obviously not.

Once again, though, some argue that it's a "dual prophecy." And, once again, the context does not support it.

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

The Chosen Servant (Matthew 12:17-21; Isaiah 42:1-4)

Later on in Matthew's gospel, we read about Jesus healing some sick people and telling them "not to tell who he was" (Matthew 12:15-16). Then we read, "This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah: 'Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I delight; I will put my spirit on him and he will proclaim justice to the nations. He will not quarrel or cry out; no one will hear his voice in the streets. A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out, till he leads justice to victory. In his name the nations will put their hope" (12:17-21). So, Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of this servant, right?

Well, 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 you, O Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, you descendants of Abraham my friend, I took you from the ends of the earth, from its farthest corners I called you. I said, 'You are my servant'; I have chosen you and have not rejected you" (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, "But now listen, O Jacob, my servant, Israel, whom I have chosen. This is what the LORD says -- he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you: Do not be afraid, O Jacob, my servant, Jeshurun, 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 ("Jeshurun" means "the upright one," and is also used in Deuteronomy 32:15; 33:5,26).

He continues, "Remember these things, O Jacob, for you are my servant, O Israel. I have made you, you are my servant; O Israel, I will not forget you" (Isaiah 44:26). In addition, we read, "The LORD has redeemed his servant Jacob" (48:2), and, "You are my servant, Israel" (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"? We read, "Hear, you deaf; look, you blind, and see! Who is blind but my servant, and deaf like the messenger I send? Who is blind like the one committed to me, blind like the servant of the LORD? You have seen many things, but have paid no attention; your ears are open, but you hear nothing" (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. Yet, Isaiah claimed that God would make his servant (Israel) "a light to the Gentiles" (Isaiah 42:6).

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

Ever Hearing, Never Understanding (Matthew 13:14-15; Isaiah 6:9-10)

Matthew says that the disciples asked Jesus why he taught in parables (Matthew 13:10). Jesus responded with, "This is why I speak to them in parables: 'Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand'" (13:13).

Then Jesus, according to Matthew, claims, "In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them'" (Matthew 13:14-15). But, could the people of Jesus' time have been a fulfillment of the prophecy Jesus allegedly quoted?

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: 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving.' Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed" (Isaiah 6:9-10).

Isaiah continued by saying that he inquired, "For how long, O Lord?" (Isaiah 6:11a), to which he was answered, "Until the cities lie ruined and without inhabitant, until the houses are left deserted and the fields ruined and ravaged, until the LORD has sent everyone far away and the land I utterly forsaken. And though a tenth remains in the land, it will again be laid waste" (6:11b-13a). 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, therefore, Matthew has taken Isaiah out of context in order to make it appear that prophecy had been fulfilled with his story of Jesus. This time is even more serious, though, in that the error is placed on the lips of Jesus himself!

Uttering Parables (Matthew 13:35; Psalm 78:2)

After Matthew mentions that Jesus taught the crowd with parables (Matthew 13:34), we read, "So was fulfilled what was spoken through the prophet: 'I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things hidden since the creation of the world'" (13:35). Was this really a fulfilled prophecy?

The quotation comes from a psalm of Asaph, which starts out, "O my people, hear my teaching; listen to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in parables. I will utter hidden things, things from of old" (Psalm 78:1-2). Here Asaph claims that he 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 (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.

Shared Bread (John 13:18; Psalm 41:9)

John's gospel says that Jesus identified Judas as the one who would betray him (John 13:18-30) by giving him a piece of dipped bread (13:26). One of Jesus' statements was, "But this is to fulfill the scripture: 'He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me'" (13:18b). But, was Jesus quoting a prophecy about Judas and himself?

Jesus was quoting a psalm in which David said, "Even my close friend, whom I trusted, he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me" (Psalm 41:9). In this psalm, he is describing the actions of his enemies, God's protection from them, and his own pleading for God's mercy. He is most certainly talking about himself!

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 as a prophecy of Jesus is extremely problematic, because it also says, "I said, 'O LORD, have mercy on me; heal me, for I have sinned against you'" (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 an attempt to make Jesus fulfill prophecy. And, again, this one is placed on the lips of Jesus himself!

Hating Jesus Without Reason (John 15:25; Psalm 69:4; 35:19)

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 is to fulfill what is written in their Law: 'They hated me without reason'" (15:25). Another fulfilled prophecy?

The quotation is of a phrase used in two psalms of David. In one, we read, "Those who hate me without reason outnumber the hairs of my head; many are my enemies without cause, those who seek to destroy me. I am forced to restore what I did not steal" (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, "You know my folly, O God; my guilt is not hidden from you" (69:5). Was Jesus guilty of folly?

The other psalm in question says, "Let not those gloat over me who are my enemies without cause; let not those who hate me without reason maliciously wink the eye" (Psalm 35:19). Again, David is talking about himself, and the context proves problematic if this is to be taken as a reference to Jesus. The psalm starts out by saying, "Contend, O LORD, with those who contend with me; fight against those who fight against me. Take up shield and buckler; arise and come to my aid. Brandish spear and javelin against those who pursue me. Say to my soul, 'I am your salvation'" (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 and javelin against them? It goes on to say, "O Lord, how long will you look on? Rescue my life from their ravages, my precious life from these lions" (35:17), with no mention whatsoever of submitting to a plan of God to be put to death. 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 19:36; Psalm 34:20)

John's gospel tells us that the solders to 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, "These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: 'Not one of his bones will be broken'" (19:36). Another 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, "A righteous man may have many troubles, but the LORD delivers him from them all; he protects all his bones, not one of them will be 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 34:17) 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 as a prophecy of Jesus.

The One They Have Pierced (John 19:34; Zechariah 12:10)

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 (19:36) of what "another scripture says, 'They will look on the one they have pierced'" (19:37). So, another fulfilled prophecy?

This quotation comes from Zechariah, where we read, "And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son" (Zechariah 12:10). This is allegedly a quote from God (12:1), which is one of the reasons that Christians claim that Jesus is God. But is this really talking about Jesus?

In context, Zechariah's prophecy is about God destroying Jerusalem's enemies (Zechariah 12:1ff). He specifically states, "On that day I will set out to destroy all the nations that attack Jerusalem" (12:9). Is that what Jesus set out to do when the people looked upon his piercing?

Again, we see that the statement has apparently been taken out of context.

Conclusion from the Misuses of the Old Testament in the New Testament

I have just demonstrated several misuses of the Old Testament, and there are more like these. In a sense, these are more contradictions, but they seem to me to be even more problematic to the Bible than the issues raised under the "Contradictions" section.

How can the claims that Jesus fulfilled prophecy be believed when over and over again we see that the original writings have been misused? Isn't it sounding more and more like the gospel writers were making up a story, misconstruing texts from the Hebrew Scriptures in order to fabricate prophetic fulfillments in the key character? 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 Hebrew Scriptures, take them out of context and apply them to someone 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!

January 16, 2010

So your saying that some Jewish nutcase that performed miracles with the help of demons and was killed for blaspheme convinced thousands to believe in Him, and in His time, was actually capable of setting His life up to be able to perfectly fulfill every prophecy of the old testament and have thousands witness every single occurrence?

*Straps on troll-feeding gloves*

You assume the gospels are accurate, true and not embellished or fabricated in any way.

Sounds like this Jesus Christ was really smart, and just really lucky to be able to pull off everything listed below and fool the world.

Just like the literary hero in any story, Jesus does what the author wants and needs him to do.

It is a fact that Jesus existed, even jews and muslims know of the record of His existence.

So Jesus is in their books of crazy stories, too. So what?

How can a book, that is 2000 years old, has never been changed in any way, and is by far the most published book of all time, be completely false.

Fail. The gospels and epistles and other assorted crap in the new testament are not 2,000 years old, their ages vary. And there is plenty of evidence that they have been changed in many ways. Ever heard of Secret Mark? And so it's the most published book. Big deal. Does that mean Titanic, the best selling movie of all time, is the best movie ever and is a record of what really happened?

What a coincidence that four men recorded nearly the same exact story from their point of view in the gospels. Why the same story four times?

Fail. There are plenty of differences between the four gospels, and discrepancies in their stories. Riddle me this, troll: Did Jesus scourge the temple at the beginning of his ministry, or the end? Why are the Christmas stories so different? Why do some of the books describe the passion chronology differently? Maybe you should try reading the bible and asking these questions yourself.

These RETARDS did it just to trick millions of people into living honest, loving, law abiding, compassionate, joyful,purposeful, less selfish and sinful lives right?

People hold convictions -- even crazy ones -- for all sorts of reasons. For example, you just came in here and made an ass out of yourself because of your convictions. Some people even die for obviously wrong convictions, even flying planes into buildings.

I have just one question: If God and the devil don't exist, then how do we know the difference between right/wrong, good/bad? There must be something programmed into us that tells us the difference. Something beyond comprehension that is born into every person that has ever existed. Where do you suppose these inner feelings of right/wrong come from? From the God of the Bible, thats where.

The bible god's a pretty shitty role model when it comes to not killing, controlling your temper and not being a capricious ass. The only reason anyone follows him is because they're afraid of him.

I think millions of years of societal evolution has taught us what is right and wrong for a group to live in harmony, and we have passed those lessons on. It's a lot more meaningful than arbitrary words from the invisible psychopath YHVH.

And thanks for the bible verse copypasta, but I've had my fill. None of those verses prove anything, other than that people can take verses and make them fit events to make them look like they were prophetic. Like the vague nonsense written by Nostradamus.

I could destroy each of those prophecies verse by verse, if you like. Should I go on?

EDIT: I see Shyone already did a particularly devastating job while I was trying to remember how to spell "capricious ass."

January 16, 2010

I have just one question: If God and the devil don't exist, then how do we know the difference between right/wrong, good/bad? There must be something programmed into us that tells us the difference. Something beyond comprehension that is born into every person that has ever existed. Where do you suppose these inner feelings of right/wrong come from? From the God of the Bible, thats where.

This little segment struck me as the most ignorant. It reminds me of the logic behind the question, "If there is no God, then Who pops up the next Kleenex!?"

People of all cultures know right from wrong and good from bad. Most of it is just common sense. Even you understand the reasons for the laws regulating behavior and defining bad behavior.

It may seem to be beyond your comprehension, but it is obvious to anyone that has thought about it.

Did you learn nothing from your parents? I suppose you're probably too young to be a parent, but if you're going to teach your children this kind of crap and assume that they will learn what they need to because these truths were "born into every person that has ever existed" then I suggest you have yourself sterilized.

If not, then you should know that you can't have children unless your spouse swallows all of your semen.

I'm a doctor. Trust me.

January 16, 2010

EDIT: I see Shyone already did a particularly devastating job while I was trying to remember how to spell "capricious ass."

Maybe, but I plagiarized another post, and I can't remember who wrote the blue text.

Citsonga?

At any rate, it was worth keeping, even if I can't remember the attribution. As soon as I figure it out I'm going to add it to my copy on my HD.

January 16, 2010

Maybe, but I plagiarized another post, and I can't remember who wrote the blue text.

Citsonga?

At any rate, it was worth keeping, even if I can't remember the attribution. As soon as I figure it out I'm going to add it to my copy on my HD.

Scroll up to post #5.

Yup, same thread, just resurrected by a troll.

January 16, 2010

Maybe, but I plagiarized another post, and I can't remember who wrote the blue text.

Citsonga?

At any rate, it was worth keeping, even if I can't remember the attribution. As soon as I figure it out I'm going to add it to my copy on my HD.

Scroll up to post #5.

Yup, same thread, just resurrected by a troll.

Thanks! I won't forget again. Or, rather, my computer won't forget.

January 16, 2010

KEEP IN MIND, ALL THESE EVENTS HAD MULTIPLE EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS.I CHALLENGE YOU TO READ THEM AND FIND FAULT HERE.

Is this the same thing as saying "Read'em and weep?"

The Messiah will be the offspring (descendant) of the woman (Eve) Genesis 3:15

- fulfilled in Galatians 4:4

Ack! If we accept that there were only an Adam and an Eve then I may very well be the Messiah! Could it be? Oh, no. Someone else beat me to it in that Galatians 4:4. Drat!

The Messiah will be a descendant of Abraham, through whom everyone on earth will be blessed Genesis 12:3; 18:18

- fulfilled in Acts 3:25,26

The Messiah will be a descendant of Judah Genesis 49:10

- fulfilled in Matthew 1:2 and Luke 3:33

More descendant stuff. Too bad this is really only traced through the males in Judaism until AFTER the temple fell and rabbinical Judaism took its place. Mary seems to nice in the stories it would be fun to include her.

The Messiah will be a prophet like Moses Deuteronomy 18:15-19

- fulfilled in Acts 3:22,23

Acts 3

20 And that he may send the Christ who was marked out for you from the first, even Jesus: 21 Who is to be kept in heaven till the time when all things are put right, of which God has given word by the mouth of his holy prophets, who have been from the earliest times.

22 For Moses said, The Lord will give you a prophet from among your people, like me; you will give ear to everything which he will say to you. 23 And every soul who does not give attention to that prophet, will be cut off from among the people.

24 And all the prophets from Samuel and those who came after, every one of them, gave word of these days.

Ummm...yeah. It's good to know that old Peter can simply quote what Moses said and that fulfills the prophecy. Hey did you know that Moses said that the Lord will give you a prophet from among your people, like me; you will give ear to everything which he will say to you. And every soul who does not give attention to that prophet, will be cut off from among the people. Did you know that? It will sure suck when that guy comes around since he hasn't yet come around to this day. This will happen at a future time. Not yet though.

The Messiah will be the Son of God Psalm 2:7

- fulfilled in Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22

Plenty of people were the "son of god." King David gets that a lot. Who cares?

The Messiah will be raised from the dead (resurrected) Psalm 16:10,11

- fulfilled in Matthew 28:5-9; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:4-7; John 20:11-16; Acts 1:3 and 2:32

Psalms 16

1 Keep me safe, O God: for in you I have put my faith. 2 O my soul, you have said to the Lord, You are my Lord: I have no good but you.

4 Their sorrows will be increased who go after another god: I will not take drink offerings from their hands, or take their names on my lips.

7 I will give praise to the Lord who has been my guide; knowledge comes to me from my thoughts in the night.

[/indent]

He seems to have multiple personality disorder. He asks his other godly self for protection, he has a "soul," and he's no good even though he's a god without his bigger god daddy self? It's understandable since it does seem bad to go after strange gods and an unknown god-man critter would seem problematic. He also seems to get his magical knowledge from dreams. This is no way for a little god-man to behave.

The Messiah crucifixion experience Psalm 22 (contains 11 prophecies—not all listed here)

- fulfilled in Matthew 27:34-50 and John 19:17-30

Oooh. The Messiah crucifixion experience. Sounds like I'll need to get my tickets now at TicketMaster.

The Messiah will accused by false witnesses Psalm 35:11

- fulfilled in Matthew 26:59,60 and Mark 14:56,57

The Messiah will be hated without a cause Psalm 35:19 and 69:4

- fulfilled in John 15:23-25

Psalms 35:11 False witnesses got up: they put questions to me about crimes of which I had no knowledge.

Psalms 35:19 Do not let my haters be glad over me falsely; let not those who are against me without cause make sport of me.

Was he truly ignorant of what the false witnesses were accusing him? An all knowing god-man critter? This cannot be.

We have a some "do not let" type things but the passage also has this:

Psalms 27 Let those who are on my side give cries of joy; let them ever say, The Lord be praised, for he has pleasure in the peace of his servant. 28 And my tongue will be talking of your righteousness and of your praise all the day.

Let those. Come on "god" let this happen too. No? Not messianic? Only the stuff that matches up.

The Messiah will be betrayed by a friend Psalm 41:9

- fulfilled in John 13:18,21

This is a tough one.

Psalms 41

9 Even my dearest friend, in whom I had faith, who took bread with me, is turned against me. 10 But you, O Lord, have mercy on me, lifting me up, so that I may give them their punishment. 11 By this I see that you have pleasure in me,

because my hater does not overcome me.

Sooooooo...how are we to explain the whole Messiah crucifixion experience? (And after I just bought my tickets from a scalper)

The Messiah will ascend to heaven (at the right hand of God) Psalm 68:18

- fulfilled in Luke 24:51; Acts 1:9; 2:33-35; 3:20-21; 5:31,32; 7:55-56; Romans 8:34; Ephesians 1:20,21; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet 3:22 .

Psalms 68

17 The war-carriage of God is among Israel's thousands; the Lord has come from Sinai to the holy place. 18 You have gone up on

high, taking your prisoners with you; you have taken offerings from men; the Lord God has taken his place on the seat of his power.

The only one going up anywhere is the "god" of Israel. A single YHWH is all. That's it. The "Lord" (YHWH) has moved from Sinai to the holy place (Jerusalem). The whole passage is full of holy mountains and this going up "on high" is about ascending to his new holy mountain. Nothing about "heaven" here.

The Messiah will be given vinegar and gall to drink Psalm 69:21

- fulfilled in Matthew 27:34; Mark 15:23; John 19:29,30

Psalms 69:21 They gave me poison for my food; and bitter wine for my drink.

Guess they were all out of poison food?

Great kings will pay homage and tribute to the Messiah Psalm 72:10,11

- fulfilled in Matthew 2:1-11

Psalms 72

1 Give the king your authority, O God, and

your righteousness to the king's son

. 2

May he be

a judge of your people in righteousness, and make true decisions for the poor.

...

10 Let the kings of Tarshish and of the islands come back with offerings; let the kings of Sheba and Seba give of their stores. 11 Yes, let all kings go down before him; let all nations be his servants.

Ain't nothin' wrong about asking for this stuff about yourself and your own son.

Anyway, I've already played this game with something like 300 of these stupid "prophecies" on my own and I've spent too much time playing this game here (I just had Psalms open so it was easy to keep going).

Anyone who actually takes the time to do this can see that these "prophecies" are nothing but a load of shit. Half truths at best.

mwc

January 17, 2010

So your saying...

J.I.L, I am a believer, though I'm barely hanging on to nmy belief. But anyway, I have to say your post was the most ignorant and faith blind I have EVER read.

And I exaggerate not onbe iota.

It's cringingly sad, really it is

January 17, 2010

I find that the rebuttals of Christian reasoning is not what convinces me most, it's the poorly put together arguments by Christians that convinces me their doctrines are false. =/ I have to say that Christian apologetic books are what push be furthest into atheist because they fail so terribly. If I had a dollar for every Christian that came to me and said "This book is different! You HAVE to read it!" and read it... well, actually I'd be poor AND dissatisfied because I pay for my books. Libraries are good and all, but I'm a scholar in the making, need to make my own library.

Anyway ya'll... yeah. I didn't even have to read past the first sentence before my brain got back to working.

I'm taking a class in Luke this semester though (yeah, I'm going back to Christian school, call me nuts). I've been looking forward to this class for a long time, because the professor is amazing.. I have read to find anyone who has such contextual and historical insight into the gospels. And he's Dr. of the Old Testament too. If I had not taken his classes, I would not be an atheist. Which is too bad, because he's a Christian. But I love him, and respect him tremendously. Maybe I'll be able to add information to this topic...

January 17, 2010

I'm terribly rusty. I've been out of college for over 6 months now, half because said college was a Christian college and would boot me if they found out, and half because I had to move out of NYC. Then again, I'm also only on my 1st cup of Bailey's coffee for the morning..

Anyway. Messianic scriptures, you know the ones, how supposedly there are hundreds of them? Particularly Isaiah 53? How do you combat these claims that Jesus fulfilled all said prophecies?

I've already used the "Judaism never deemed this messianic" card, but it didn't come as well as I wanted it to. So particularly fellow disbelievers who have studied Judaism on your way out of Christianity, what do you say to such people?

Additional books to read are always appreciated too.

Just like anything, literature is read in context of the reader. One person could read a book and be inspired, informed, acknowledged, etc, whereas another could read the same with no effect.

Though I retain my belief as a Christian, I have struggled with this in the past. The Jews where looking for a certain characterized person, Messiah. This is accurate through their belief in the present, and they felt Jesus didn't qualify for many more reasons, aside from the traditional debated scripture.

The Jews felt Jesus was a blasphemous person, at that time, and still today they see him as a false prophet.

So, really, IMO, a Gentile as you or I couldn't determine whether he is the Messianic Prophet because we are not, and will never be, Jewish. I settle to know that the Jews deny him, and their reasons; and in my own interpretation and following of Christ feel that he claimed the God of Israel, worked miracles in that God's name, and continued with the God of Israel as his foundation even though the other Jews denied him and his works.

So, to nail the head in the coffin depends on who you are debating with about Messianic Prophecy. People like me say there is enough for me to believe he was from the essence of God, great prophet, Son of God, One to come, etc.

Messianic Prophecies?

Recommended Posts

SEEtheScorn

Link to comment

Share on other sites

oddbird1963

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Ouroboros

Link to comment

Share on other sites

★ Citsonga ★

Link to comment

Share on other sites

★ Citsonga ★

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mwc

Link to comment

Share on other sites

oddbird1963

Link to comment

Share on other sites

★ Citsonga ★

Link to comment

Share on other sites

centauri

Link to comment

Share on other sites

★ Citsonga ★

Link to comment

Share on other sites

centauri

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Vixentrox

Link to comment

Share on other sites

SEEtheScorn

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mwc

Link to comment

Share on other sites

JesusIsLordofAll

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Shyone

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Dagan

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Shyone

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Shyone

Link to comment

Share on other sites

★ Citsonga ★

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Shyone

Link to comment

Share on other sites

mwc

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Bro

Link to comment

Share on other sites

SEEtheScorn

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Abiyoyo

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Main Blog

Browse

Activity