Jump to content

Bible Prophecies SUCK


Recommended Posts

Note to Ex-C-ers... I'm studying for physics right now and just took a break to debate Biblical revealed theology, the side of the Christian issue that I dislike most. This is in response to another poster giving me the following links...










Screw this. I'm sick of physics.






Thing is, my main interest in the Theism-Atheism debate is a philosophical one, not a theological one.  I haven't cared to look much into revealed theology because the fact of the matter is that each religion has their own supposed objective truth with competing theologies and no way to resolve them without the aid of rational inquiry.  This is why I put reason before everything else.  This is also why my course will focus more on Natural Theology rather than Revealed Theology.  As a result, I'm not as learn-ed in Biblical studies as I am in philosophy, so don't expect my posts to be shining beacons of clarity on the matter here.


My primary thesis in this post is this...


I do not deny that the Bible possesses literary value, nor do I claim that it is not a valuable cultural and mythological artifact.  What I DO dispute is the use of the Bible in epistemic terms.


Now onto revealed theology...


The question of the veracity of the Bible has several hurdles it must cross before I can accept it as a true and valid element to argue over and use as evidence.  First is the matter of meaning:  is the Bible internally consistent and do its passages point to a clear objective truth?  Many theologians may scoff at this and argue that the Bible is meant to be taken metaphorically or poetically, but I think this is beside the point.  If the Bible is meant to be poetic, metaphorical, or "inspired," how exactly do we identify what the passages mean, exactly?  How is the Bible then a historical and factual document rather than a mythological literary work?  What, exactly, does the Bible point towards?  If the Bible by itself does not outline its points and truths clearly, then we must appeal to something EXTERNAL to the Bible for clarification, in particular, a faculty that IS established as objective.  Liberal interpretations of Biblical matter is great as a literary excercise, but alone is useless in terms of outlining the nature of reality.


Second, even IF the Bible is consistent, meaningful, and valid as a source, is it TRUE?  That is, is it actually linked to reality?  The first point establishes whether or not the Bible is VALID (i.e. is clear and meaningful) this second point establishes whether the Bible is an accurate description of reality as an epistemic tool.  Given the historical inaccuracies in the Bible that I've observed, I find this to be another terrible flaw in Biblical Revealed Theology.  I won't be focusing on this here, so please don't address this either unless you wish to start a new thread.  It's a meaningful point, but I'd rather focus on one thing at a time.


Third, Thomas Hobbes argued that a revelation passed down secondhand ceases to be a revelation.  Without confirming evidence, words passed down secondhand is merely hearsay.  As a result, God would not use the Bible as a way of conveying truth to humanity (this was the catalyst for the Transcendentalist movement, I believe).  Again, I won't be focusing on this point, I just want to point out that there is more to discuss later on in other conversations.  However, I would prefer discussing the first two points.


Fourth (and this really is a MINOR matter in my eyes, though most people think it's the biggest issue), Thomas Paine argued that given the gross atrocities and terrible plagues outlined in the Bible as the wrath of God, the God of the Bible could not be the benevolent Deistic god he believed in.  I honestly don't think this topic is worthy of much discussion in the future, it tends to curl down into psychological quibbling of a relatively superficial level.  As fun as it is, meatier topics in regards to the Philosophy of Religion can be tackled.


I will be addressing and querying about the use of prophecies to prove the Messiah-ness of Jesus, namely, in the style of point 1... whether or not the Bible is consistent and meaningful in its approach.  This will be relatively light on the low-level philosophy I'm used to.


Corallary:  Note that I find that the Messiah-ness of Jesus is also questionable in the context of point 2... I don't see much historical evidence for his existence at all other than the possibility that he MAY have been a relatively insignificant historical figure that certainly did not undergo the events described in the Bible.


Corallary:  Please note that again, I know I am on shaky ground because I have studied very little Biblical Revealed Theology.  As a result, I have many queries despite my arguments.  I realize that Biblical Theology is much more flexible than other fields (a blessing and a curse), so I don't put as much solidarity in my research as I do in my philosophical points.  Please keep these concerns in mind.





I've done what research I can (just ask Esuna... I've been bugging her on and off recently to help me because I have no experience in this stuff), and it is to my understanding that when the Jews were anticipating the coming of their Savior, the Christ was supposed to be a military conqueror, one who would liberate the Jews from generations of oppression and hardship through warfare. From what I've seen, it is because of this that the Jewish community rejected Jesus as their messiah.


However, the followers that DID accept Jesus as a savior needed to see that their Christ fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament. Because of the huge disparity between Jesus and the prophesized military messiah, SEVERE and grotesque context-dropping and mangling of Biblical passages has been performed.


These days, accusations often fly back and forth where both sides on the religious spectrum accuse each other of taking the Bible out of context. However, what I don't often see is an analysis of how the Biblical authors THEMSELVES took Biblical passages grossly out of context in order to pidgeonhole Jesus into a prophecy-fulfilling suit.


In all honesty, I've only studied two such prophecies, but these two by themselves appear to me to demonstrate a level of internal dishonesty that I can't fathom from a book that is supposed to be so central to a religion.




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"[d]—which means, "God with us." ~Matthew 1:22-23


Is SUPPOSED to fulfill the Old Testament prophecy...


Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. ~Isaiah 7:14


(Sorry, I'm using the NIV, I can't find an Oxford Annotated right now, but that shouldn't matter)


Superficially, the latter passage seems to prophesize the former event. However, there are two problems I have found...


1. This passage is based on a mistranslation of the Old Testament passage. The author of Matthew has taken the word "almah," which means "maiden" or "young woman" to mean "virgin." If the author of Isaiah HAD meant for his prophecy to mean "virgin," the hebrew word "behulah" would have been more appropriate (this has been corrected in the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, though this linguistic resolution comes at the cost of the validity of this prophecy). It seems to me that the author of Matthew has twisted the Isaiah passage slightly to conform to his interpretation. Some may argue that this is a minor matter, and I can kind of understand that. However...


2. There is a much more serious matter. The author of Matthew has taken the Isaiah passage ENTIRELY out of context. A FULL reading of Isaiah will show that Isaiah 7:14 refers NOT to Jesus as the Messiah, but as a sign to Ahaz (king of Judah) that he won't be defeated by Pekah and Resin (kings of Isreal and Syria, respectively). Note ALSO that this prophesized son of a maiden was birthed by Isaiah chapter 8: the kid's name was Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. This cannot possibly translate to a prophecy of Jesus' birth, because the Isaiah 7:14 prophecy has not only meant something else ENTIRELY, it has already been fulfilled.


If you don't have a Bible at hand, you can find the full passage here:








So he (Joseph) got up, took the child (Jesus) and his mother (Mary) during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son." ~Matthew 2:15


Is SUPPOSED to fulfill the Old Testament prophecy...


"When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. ~Hosea 11:1


This example of blatant context-dropping is clear, and I'm glad I didn't see it in the "60 Prophecies" site, though I am grossly disappointed in seeing it in the "Prohecies of the Old Testament" site (misspelling retained). Hosea 11:1 refers to Isreal as the "son" during the exodus from Egypt... only very superficially (and you'd also have to dice Hosea in half) is the prophecy true.


You can find the full passage here:




Corallary: Note that historically, there is no evidence of Herod's mass slaughter. Historian Flavius Josephus, who recorded Herod's atrocities in detail, is silent on the issue in all his accounts.



These sorts of objections are often countered by Theologians arguing that Isaiah 7:14 and Hosea 11:1 have a double-meaning, i.e. "double prophecies." Despite my hatred for this phrase, I feel it is appropriate in this instance in that this is a total cop-out. We are expected to trust that the author of Matthew knew what he was doing and what he meant, even if we do not. It is at this point that we skip from supposed documented account to subjective whim. It is a simple matter to take any sentence from the Bible and dress it up as a prophecy ex post facto. Hell, I could rip a page out of the Wheel of Time, pick out a sentence, and claim that it prophesizes 9/11 or somesuch.


As of now, I can't see how the author of Matthew was anything more than a wishful thinker at best, or a blatant liar at the worst. The mangling of these passages to squeeze Jesus' round peg into the Old Testament's square hole is wholly dishonest, and I am thus highly skeptical of the Bible as a unified whole. After all, if Matthew is so empty of objective historic truth, why not any other book?


I will most certainly look at the other passages when I have time, Gwai, but I will be doing so with a very critical eye.


And the "Born of a woman" prophecy of Genesis 3:15 I already find amazingly unimpressive.







Atheism: The Case Against God by George H. Smith


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shit. I forgot.



Conclusion: Not only are these two prophecies false, they are based on a methodology wholly inadequate and intellectually dishonest such that I cannot accept that the Bible is the Word of God. Again, noting Hobbes: a perfect God would not convey His message via such imperfect means. If the Bible can be so easily misinterpreted even by BIBLICAL AUTHORS, one must ask what the hell was God thinking when he presented it as a revelation. Ergo, an omniscient and perfect God would not convey such an important message via human-interpersonal communicable means. Ergo, Biblical Theology is a contradiction in terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I should go study for my FRELLING PHYSICS EXAM TOMORROW.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know! I'll pray my problems away!








Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Gospel writers, in asserting the Messiahship of Jesus, needed OT “prophecies” to vindicate Jesus. I tend to believe the Gospel writers had the OT scriptures in front of them as they wrote, and they picked some verses to fit in thus “prophecies” realized.


Following is quoted from a modern Rabbi on “….riding donkey entering Jersusalem”:


Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion, shout, O daughter of Jerusalem; behold, thy king cometh unto thee, he is triumphant, and victorious, lowly, and riding upon an ass, even upon a colt the foal of an ass


In 9, Zechariah is making the point that the king messiah will come on an animal used for peaceful purposes rather than a war-horse. That theme of peace continues in 10. It describes the destruction of the implements of war.


There isn’t much difference in the KJV and the Tanakh, but the real story is in the slight changes and how they reflect the Hebrew. All four gospels have the story of Jesus entering Jerusalem at Passover (actually the description of the scene puts it at Tabernacles) on the back of a donkey (Mk 11:1-10, Mt 21:1-10, L 19:29-40, and Jn 12:12-15). It is only Matthew, however, that has him riding in on the back of two donkeys. Matthew actually has him send the disciples out to look for a donkey and a foal tied next to it. They bring both back and he rides in on both of them like he was auditioning for Barnum and Bailey. The story is lifted out of Zechariah 9:9 where the entry of Israel's king messiah is described. The KJV has the phrase in Zechariah "...riding upon an ass, and upon a colt, the foal of an ass." (Jerusalem Bible says the same as does the Rev Stand Vers). That wording makes it sound like two donkeys. The translator of the Hebrew into the Greek Septuagint didn't understand that the repetition was a form in Hebrew grammar that is used for emphasis (“hendiadys” in English.) So the Greek version used by the evangelists had that misunderstanding that two donkeys were involved. The Jewish Publication Society's Tanakh, properly translated from the Hebrew says, "...on an ass, on a donkey foaled by a she-ass."


If Matthew had not copied his entry from Zechariah, but recorded Jesus’ actual entry, he would not have needed that entire narrative about sending the disciples out to look for a donkey and its foal. What generated the narrative of the search was that he thought Zechariah was speaking of two donkeys. The Greek translation must have flubbed the hendiadys in the Hebrew and Matthew needed to match his narrative with what you called a “prediction.”


The mistake encourages one to think that perhaps no one knew how he came into Jerusalem, but the evangelists knew two things. They needed to draw on Jewish sacred history to remind the people whom they believed Jesus to be, and that Zechariah didn't lie. Remember that these narratives were not read, only heard. It was enough for people to hear that Jesus came in on a donkey for them to make the connection to the prediction of Zechariah with which they were also familiar from hearing and then make the connection to the messiah, whom the evangelists wanted them to understand Jesus was.


There are many such “mistakes” in going from Hebrew to Greek that the evangelists incorporated in their narratives copied from Jewish Testament. The sayings on the cross are other good examples.




Scotter adds:


I have read Josh McDowell’s “Evidence that Demands Verdict”….he did not include this Jewish apologetic theory then further refuted it. Not sure if he was aware of it or deliberately left it out.


And I think this is a good one to crack the “double prophecy” excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the "out of Egypt I have called my son" "prophecy". Don't christians find it problematic that this would be equating Jesus with the tribe of Israel? The Israelites were famous for doing stupid shit and sniveling about going back to Egypt and worshipping "false" gods.


In every other instance that I'm aware of, the tribe of the Israelites is equated with the individual's spiritual journey.


Calling this a prophecy of Jesus is just another stretch by the writers of the gospels. Actually, this prophecy thing was one of the first major problems I had as a christian. Check it out. Each time a "prophecy" is cited in the NT, flip back to the OT and read.


The NT writers twisted things and changed words and went to great lengths to try and prove that prophecy was fulfilled.


I mean "they shall look on him who they have pierced." Could be referring to someone with a nipple ring. Hell, Charles Mansen probably fulfills that one.


From the mythicist position, the prophecy argument completely disintegrates. Anyone can fulfill any prophecy if they create a character and sculpt him according to plan. Engineers have a term when designing things and there are unknowns involved. It's called "warp to fit". That's what they did with the Incredible Shrinking Son of Man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shit.  I forgot.

Conclusion:  Not only are these two prophecies false, they are based on a methodology wholly inadequate and intellectually dishonest such that I cannot accept that the Bible is the Word of God.  Again, noting Hobbes: a perfect God would not convey His message via such imperfect means.  If the Bible can be so easily misinterpreted even by BIBLICAL AUTHORS, one must ask what the hell was God thinking when he presented it as a revelation.  Ergo, an omniscient and perfect God would not convey such an important message via human-interpersonal communicable means.  Ergo, Biblical Theology is a contradiction in terms.


Your conclusion is precisely why I stopped believing over a year ago. I studied the prophecies of the NT and also Paul's "as it is written" and found them to be dishonest. Most Christians I know are not aware of these problems and when informed they duck and run. I have yet to have one person I have shared these biblical problems with actually study them for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By all means, DD, I'd love to hear your criticisms of other passages. I'm not much of a Biblical scholar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anathema

Fantastic essay, MrSpooky! Wow......that's about as clear and concise an analysis of those two irrefutable bible blunders i've seen so far. Please, do more in the future.


Amazingly, the first verses of Isaiah 8 go on to tell us that Isaiah "went in to the prophetess" which means they conceived the child together sexually. This isn't even talking about a "virgin birth" anyway. And christians want me to believe this is an accurately fulfilled prophecy?? :nono:









Hey, now that I think of it......didn't that Isaiah 7:14 prophecy turn out to be false? I thought I read that Ahaz did end up getting routed after all. Is that correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly dunno.


I can't take too much credit. I'm borrowing straight from Smith here. The only work I did was independantly confirm his arguments by reading the passages myself and rewriting his arguments so it wouldn't be plagarism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good stuff, Mr.Spooky and Scotter. I've read these topics before and have always meant to return to them and study them further. Any other instances you can post would be appreciated. For me, it supports the idea that 1st and second century writers were willing to lie to promote their ideas- Which is also supported by the numerous pseudographs of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aspirin and folks:


Before I look forward to posting more on this Messiah issue, reflect on this light and humorous treat. This can help you to understand the (il)logical flow of copy-and-paste from OT and call it prophecy. This Friday morning is filled with humor (the beautiful chocolate-thread and more) and may I join?


(quoted from another discussion)


Proof that the Tooth Fairy is the Messiah, as prophesied in OT:


The Fairy Tooth shall suffer as the atonement


Job 16:9

His anger tears [at me], and He harasses me.

He gnashes His teeth at me.


Job 19:20

My skin and my flesh cling to my bones;

I have escaped by the skin of my teeth.


Job 29:17

I shattered the fangs of the unjust

and snatched the prey from his teeth.


Job 41:14

Who can open his jaws,

surrounded by those terrifying teeth?


Ps 3:7

You strike all my enemies on the cheek;

You break the teeth of the wicked.


Ps 35:16

With godless mockery

they gnashed their teeth at me.


Ps 37:12

The wicked schemes against the righteous

and gnashes his teeth at him.


Ps 57:4

I am in the midst of lions;

I lie down with those who devour men.

Their teeth are spears and arrows;

their tongues are sharp swords.


Ps 58:6

God, knock the teeth out of their mouths;

Lord, tear out the young lions' fangs.


Ps 112:10

he will gnash his teeth in despair.


The Salvation by the Tooth Fairy


Ps 124:6

Praise the Lord,

who has not let us be ripped apart by their teeth.


Prov 10:26

Like vinegar to the teeth and smoke to the eyes,

so the slacker is to the one who sends him [on an errand].


Song of Songs 6:6

Your teeth are like a flock of ewes coming up from washing, each one having a twin, and not one missing.


Jer 31:29

The fathers have eaten sour grapes,

and the children's teeth are set on edge.


The Final Redemption by the Tooth Fairy


Zec 9: 7

I will remove the blood from their mouths

and the detestable things




Like it? I know of one more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proof that the Tooth Fairy is the Messiah, as prophesied in OT:

Very good! I was hoping that someone someday came up with a different analysis of the Bible and its prophecies by finding things like this. Perfect!


So we have three competing religions now:


- IPU-ism

- Chocolatism

and now

- Tooth Fairyism


Really nice. Soon we need a war too...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey I already know of 3 people that believe the tooth farie is a rouge farie plagueing parents and making them give their children money. And the child believes so hard in the tooth farie that it creates a portal for the farie to do its bidding. Yeah, i live in a strange City.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



A technical exposition of Isaiah 7:14 in detail supplementing Spooky’s Isaiah post:

(quoted from a previously post in Ex.C)


Isaiah 7:14


לָכֵן יִתֵּן אֲדֹנָי הוּא לָכֶם אוֹת | הִנֵּה הָעַלְמָה הָרָה וְיֹלֶדֶת בֵּן וְקָרָאת שְׁמוֹ עִמָּנוּ אֵל


Isaiah 7:14 – Christian Translation (King James Version)


Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.


Isaiah 7:14 – Jewish Translation (Judaica Press)


Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel


The criticial issue in the translations of Isaiah 7:14 is the meaning of the word האלמה (ha'almah). The original Hebrew text, along with a Christian and Jewish translation, is shown above. The word ha'almah and the translations of it are highlighted in red.


The word ha'almah is composed of two parts: the prefix ha (ה) and the word almah (עלמה). The prefix ha means "the" in Hebrew; for example, "the man" is ha'adam (האדם). Thus, we see that the translation should be "the almah". To give them credit, some Christian translations include this into their translations, such as the NKJV and NIV, among others.


The second part of the word ha'almah is the word almah (עלמה) which most Christian Bibles translate as "virgin". However, almah does not mean "virgin" - it means "young woman". All Jewish Bible translations have rendered almah as either "maiden" or "young woman". Had Isaiah meant the prophecy to be about a virgin, he would have used the word betulah (בתולה), which does mean virgin. almah and betulah are similar to square and rectangle. A betulah may be an almah, but an almah isn't always a betulah.


Let us examine some of the the instances where the word almah is found in the Tanakh.


Pharaoh's daughter said to her, "Go!" So the girl went and called the child's mother (Exodus 2:8, Judaica Press)


Behold, I am standing by the water fountain. When a maiden comes out to draw [water], I will say to her, 'Please, give me a little water to drink from your pitcher.' (Genesis 24:43, Judaica Press)


In both these instances, it cannot be derived whether or not the text is speaching about a virgin with certainty. However, it can be derived in other instances, such as Proverbs 30:19.


There are three things that are concealed from me, and four that I do not know; The way of the eagle in the heavens, the way of a serpent on a rock, the way of a ship in the heart of the sea, and the way of a man with a young woman. So is the way of an adulterous woman; she eats and wipes her mouth, and she says, "I have committed no sin." (Proverbs 30:18-20, Judaica Press)


We see here that "the way of a man with an almah" is compared to the "way of an adulterous woman". In other words, "the way of a man with an almah" refers to sexual relations before marriage. This shows us that almah can in fact refer to non-virgins.


Next, let us examine the ancient Greek translation of the Bible into Hebrew, the LXX. Christians point out that the translators of the LXX (who may or may not have been Jews) translated the word almah as the Greek parthenos (παρθενος) in Isaiah 7:14, and they say that it means "virgin". It is true that parthenos can refer to virgins; however, like almah, it does not neccessarily mean "virgin". For example, in Genesis 34:2 we read that Shechem raped Dinah. However, in the next verse the LXX refers to Dinah as a parthenos, though she was obviously not a virgin.


In summary, the Hebrew word almah does not mean virgin, as it is used to describe non-virgins (See Proverbs 30:19, or the LXX of Genesis 34:3), but it can refer to one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Messiah issue continued: (after the light treat, a formal discussion)


Q. If Jeconiah was cursed and told that he would not be (or any of his descendants and would be as childless) how would the prophecy of Messiah coming from this line come to be?


A beautiful treatise on the issue of Jeconiah (par the genealogical trees from Matthew and Luke)


- quoted from a modern Rabbi:


That’s a reasonable question from the isolated reading of Jeremiah 22:24-30, especially 30:

Thus saith the Lord: Write ye this man childless, A man that shall not prosper in his days; For no man of his seed shall prosper, Sitting upon the throne of David, And ruling any more in Judah.


In the very next chapter there seems to be a contradiction when Jeremiah reports in 23:5

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, That I will raise unto David a righteous shoot, And he shall reign as king and prosper…


Immediately after Jeconiah, his son, Shealtiel did not inherit the throne. For all intents and purposes, even though he did have children, he was “childless” in terms of his dynasty. His uncle Zedekiah briefly continued on the throne.Despite the wickedness of Jeconiah which brought on the curse to begin with, his grandson, Zerubbabel was righteous. He led the people back from Babylonia and had great power over their affairs; but he was never a king, only a governor.


The story continues that in Talmudic times, not a story from our Bible, that the curse on Jeconiah was lifted in Exile because he demonstrated repentance, a return to the ways of God. So, as tlennhoff correctly pointed out, it has no effect.


Of course the big problem that the curse presents for Christianity is Matthew’s inclusion of Jeconiah in his genealogy of Jesus in 1:11-12. They handle it in a couple of ways, both of which opens up more questions than it handles. One way is to say that since Jesus is the adopted son of Joseph, the curse doesn’t really apply because he really isn’t a descendant of Jeconiah by blood. But consider the irony. Jesus is a descendant of David through Jeconiah for the sake of his messiahsip, but escapes the curse because he really isn’t a descendant of David through Jeconiah.


The second way to get around the curse of Jeconiah for Jesus is for the Church to point to the talmudic tractate that claims the curse lifted for Jeconiah’s descendants because of his great repentance, his turning back to the ways of HaShem. Consider this irony as well. The Talmud, much vilified throughout Jewish-Christian relations in medieval Europe, is now elevated to the level of scripture by those trying to dance around Matthew. The rabbinic interpretation, so denigrated by the Church in every other regard, is now elevated to and equated with God’s word.


The other irony of Christianity accepting the Talmudic account of Jeconiah’s repentance as a basis for lifting the curse, is the acceptance by the Church that one’s actions, in this case Jeconiah’s, is sufficient to attain one’s atonement. What happened to the Christian concept that atonement can only be achieved through Jesus’ sacrifice, his blood? Surely they don’t mean to imply that they accept the concept that one can atone for one’s errors by meritorious action, by making things right. Maybe if Jeconiah can do it, all of humankind can find “salvation” through their own actions and not the death of Jesus.


No, but once again Christianity had to deal with Matthew and Jeconiah’s curse. I outlined a couple of ways: Jesus is not a blood descendant of Jeconiah because he was adopted by Joseph, Christianity actually accepts the talmudic story of Jeconiah’s curse being lifted in his exile.


There is another way that Christianity handles it; Luke has a different genealogy. Apparently, Luke was mindful of Jeconiah’s curse and the question it would raise, so he has Mary descended from David’s other son, Nathan, thus bypassing Jeconiah.


Now how can this be acceptable if the messiah is to come through David and Solomon, as the Jews believe?(1Chron 28:5-7) Christians will point out that the promise through Solomon is contingent on being faithful and walking in the ways of God. (1 Kings 2:4, 1 Chron 28:9)


Clearly Solomon himself was a disappointment in that regard, (1 Chron 28:9), and his united kingdom did not survive him. The northern tribes split off from Judah under his son Rehoboam. The final kabosh on the royal line through Solomon was Jeconiah’s curse, and his uncle Zedekiah who took his place wasn’t any better. (Ezek 21:25-27)


The above becomes the Christian justification for why the royal line could bypass Solomon by going through Nathan and Mary as is found in Luke. Solomon no longer deserved it.


The Jewish, biblical explanation of through which line the Messiah will come is David and Solomon. The Jewish explanation for getting around Jeconiah’s curse is post biblical. It comes in the Talmud in the story of Jeconiah’s repentance while imprisoned.


It’s hard to know what the myriad of Jewish sects of the 1st century thought of the messiah. We can only go back to our scripture which predates that century by hundreds of years and read these requirements:


1.Descendant of David - (Jeremiah 23:5) (there are more regarding this one), note, must also be a descendant of Solomon (1 Chronicles 22:9), but can not be a descendant of Jeconiah (Jeremiah 22:30)

This is established only through the biological father (for line/tribe) Numbers 36 (Tribal lineage), Genesis

49:10, 1 Kings, 11:4, 1 Chronicles 17:11-19 (Kingship lineage), Exodus 28:4, 29:9-30, 30:30, and 40:15

(Priesthood lineage)

2.Preceded by Elijah - Malachi 3:23-24 (Malachi 4:4-5 in Christian testament)

3.World Peace - Isaiah 2:4, Exekiel 39:9

4.Universal Knowledge of G-d - Isaiah 11:9, Jeremiah 31:33, Zechariah 8:23, 14:9, 14:16

5.Building of the Third Temple - Ezekiel 37:26-28 (See also Ezekiel 40-48, Isaiah 33:20)

6.Death Will Cease - Isaiah 25:8

7.Resurrection of the Dead - Isaiah 26:19, Daniel 12:2, Ezekiel 37:12-13

8.Ingathering of Israel - Isaiah 43:5-6 (See also Jeremiah 19:15, 23:3, Isaiah 11:12, Zechariah 10:6,

Ezekiel 37:21-22)

9.The Nations Will Help the Jews Materially - Isaiah 60:5, 60:10-12, 61:6

10.Eternal Joy and Gladness Will Characterize the Jewish Nation - Isaiah 51:11

11.The Jews Will Be Sought For Spiritual Guidance - Zechariah 8:23

12.All Weapons Of War Will Be Destroyed - Ezekiel 39:9

13.The Enemy Dead Will Be Buried - Ezekiel 39:12

14.The Egyptian River Will Run Dry - Isaiah 11:15

15. Trees Will Yield New Fruit Monthly in Israel - Ezekiel 47:12

16.Each Tribe of Israel Will Receive It's Inheritance - Ezekiel 47:13-14

17.All Warfare Will Cease - Isaiah 2:4

A more accurate view of 1st century expectations of the messiah might be seen in the Dead Sea Scrolls. That library might more closely reflect the Jewish thinking of the day.


The commandments will be kept.

The pious, righteous, and the poor will be glorified.

The captives will be liberated.

The blind and disabled will be restored.

The dead will be revived.

There was also a discussion of two or three messiahs.


It is apparent, if one can extrapolate from the Scrolls and extend their preoccupation to others of their day, that messianism was rampant in ist century Jewish thought. But that may be a unacceptable extension to the general population




Scotter adds (about the 17 points):


Evangelical apologetics, in telling the evangelical Christian listeners, and perhaps the world, tend to oversimplify that: “The Jews (at that time) were expecting a Messiah who could fight against the Roman Empire and redeem Israel. Thus they could not accept a Messiah who came to talk about love and peace…..”


It is a blatant oversimplication, and I would say to the point of distorting, Jewish expectation of Messiah. Evangelicals then even accuse Jews of not being able to accept a peaceful Messiah.


Jewish definition of Messiah IS based on the Bible, to say it more accurately, the Jewish Bible, called Tanakh.


Now, review the 17 conditions that when the Messiah comes, they will be fulfilled.

IMO, one single point No. 3 already suffices by itself to qualify and disqualify.

You can match it with _____ and see for yourself.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well done, Scotter. It seems that you've also covered any possible Christian responses. Nice work. I'll read this through a few more times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.