Did Any OT Prophesies Actually Come True?

Advanced search

[Terms Of Conduct]

Terms Of Conduct

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[wmdkitty]

Hey, Howie, did you accidentally a tag?

[Howiedds]

Kwd:

Don't know how that happened.

Howie:
Of course, the Christian reaction to the above is that it was history prophesied, i.e. that Jesus fulfilled the events spoken of. My point would be that the evangelists had the Jewish testament narratives in front of them as they were writing their gospels and those narratives would be used to fill in the blanks. Then Christians point them out to us and say, "Look, these are your books that are talking about Jesus."

Ken:
Well... not so much us as our Jewish forefathers.  And it certainly wasn't a "get together to construct a new religion" type of situation.And it certainly wasn't a "get together to construct a new religion" type of situation.

You have always misunderstood me on this. It was evolving into a new religion by the end of the century writing. I don't believe anyone was sitting around constructing a new religion. They knew who Jesus was from their experience of him or rather what the oral tradition conveyed about him. They were trying to convey that conviction to others. They used Jewish Bible to do that. There was no malevolence in it, no intent to deceive. They knew who he was and they knew what the Bible had said about an anointed of God. For them, the two were one.

Howie:
A tell tale sign that the evangelists used their Greek Jewish testament is the occasional mistake that the Greek translation makes but was, nevertheless, incorporated, mistake and all, into their writing of the Jesus narrative based on their Greek testament: gibberish said from the cross about not being forsaken and riding into Jerusalem on two donkeys.

Kwd:
Yes... and we were all there to verify the hoax...

There was no hoax. They knew him to be the Messiah and they wrote about his life so that it would match what was true of the Messiah's. They may have even thought that it was true of Jesus because he was their messiah and the Jewish Bible didn't lie. If the scripture said that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem, they wrote two completely different birth stories to get him there from Nazareth. Did they lie? No. He must have been born in Bethlehem because Micah said he would be. How they got him there was less important than people hearing he was from there so they would know, as did the writers, who Jesus was.

If Zechariah said the messiah would come in on a donkey, then that must have been how Jesus arrived. The fact that they have a story of him coming in on two donkeys because the Greek testament didn't convey the Hebrew idiom of repetition for emphasis, tells me that they were using their Greek Zechariah, mistake and all, to describe his arrival.


 

of course.   Roll Eyes

Roll 'em till they fall out, but my explanation is as plausible as yours. BTW, what is your explanation for two birth stories that only have Jesus, Joseph, Mary, and Bethlehem in common?

Seriously, though, what 'mistake' are you talking about?  (Besides what you call gibberish and not agreeing that Jesus went into Jerusalem on two donkeys, of course.)

How about intentional mistranslations to fit Christian needs? That wouldn't be the writers making the intentional changes but later Christian translators. How about "pierced versus lion" in Psalms?

Howie:
The fulfillment of prophecies long into the future would do nothing as lesson for the audience the prophet is addressing. Of course, one could look to sayings in the distant past and apply them to the present. For example, you spoke of the modern state of Israel. Certainly the prophets of the exile in 700 and 586 BCE speak of a rebuilt Jerusalem, but we believe that they are speaking of a hopeful longing by the exiles to return to their homeland within decades of their exile. Today's Jews could, of course, find hope and sustenance from these messages about exiles of long ago and apply them to their own exile.

ken:
Or.... just maybe, when God said He was going to rebuild it... He actually meant it!

I'm sure they thought He would and did. It just might not be about today but millenia ago.

Ken:
After all, my friend Howie, if the prophets spoke on behalf of God... maybe it was just that!  on behalf of God!

The effectiveness of their proof in being right would be events that would soon come to pass. Fulfilled prophecy occurring a thousand years after their audience was dead would not convince that audience.

[SquirleyWurley]

It seemed to me that pierced vs. lion translation was a situation of two plausible interpretations, one being preferred when viewed with hindsight by Christians.

[Deacon777]

author=Heterodoxus link=topic=2576.msg83553#msg83553 date=1261094810]

But, if it's evidence you seek, consider Matthew 16:16-20, and be careful for what you wish, because despite this passage often appearing in red letters, the earliest that 16:17-19 appear in any codex/manuscript is in the 9 CE palimpsest G-A 0120/Soden a 1005. The reader can easily confirm this info for themself since the resources needed to verify that 16:17-19 do not appear in any pre-Nicean (325 CE or earlier) manuscript are available both online and commercially. Ergo, it really isn't necessary for one to take the word of either a church-sponsored/supported author, Bible scholar, or myself.

Why don't we just keep this simple and just look at the earliest gospel - Mark. Please go to the very beginning of that gospel and read the first verse...any questions? 

[SteveC]

For my Christian friends, any prophet worth their salt, would have told god that none of this would work. A prophet would have told god that we were a bunch of idiots and that we would screw up this riddle/prophesy nonsense, and people would get hurt in the process. Now, that's what I would consider a prophet in any language..........and, by golly, it would have been the truth.  I guess they don't make prophets the way they should. Another glaring failure of the Bible god to add to my list.

This is what I'd like for Christmas, god - a new rule book that unites, rather than divides. I don't want any of that prophesy/parable nonsense included, we all have ADD, so that just sends us off in countless directions. Send me a draft, I'd be willing to clean it up for you, no charge.

[Deacon777]

As Howie has already alluded to - OT prophets were NOT fortune tellers. They did not look into the future as much as they called the people BACK to the covenant. The literary style that looked into the future is called apocalyptic literature and that would come later. All the OT prophets called the people (and especially the Kings and nobles) back to the covenant - and warned them of the consequences of not living up to the covenant.

As for Christians, yes we see the "suffering servant" verses of Isaiah ( I think starting at chapter 51) as a vision of Jesus Christ. But as for "OT prophecies actually coming true", it depends on the lens in which you see history unfolding before you. Jeremiah warned the people that their destruction was nigh - and sure enough, they were led into captivity in Babylon. But my main point is prophets functioned not as Hebrew "crystal balls" - their purpose was to call the people back from apostasy  - to rediscover the faith of their ancestors.    

[SteveC]

It seemed to me that pierced vs. lion translation was a situation of two plausible interpretations, one being preferred when viewed with hindsight by Christians.

That's right, put your blinders on and forget about the big picture. There's more going on here than your tunnel vision allows.

[poi]

Howie,When American police ask an eyewitness to identify a criminal,they show him or her together with others of similar appearance.If they only showed the criminal alone,the witness might falsely but sincerely "remember" that individual.It sounds like you believe the early Christians were victims of this flaw in human memory. I also found what you said about translation flaws leading to gibberish from the cross and riding on 2 donkeys very interesting.Could you go into a little more detail on this?What was the gibberish and did Jesus really ride on 2 donkeys?Different interpretations of the Bible often have a he said/she said quality but this sounds refreshingly concrete.Thanks again for contributing to my continuing education.

[kwd111]

Kwd:


The fulfillment of prophecies long into the future would do nothing as lesson for the audience the prophet is addressing. Of course, one could look to sayings in the distant past and apply them to the present. For example, you spoke of the modern state of Israel. Certainly the prophets of the exile in 700 and 586 BCE speak of a rebuilt Jerusalem, but we believe that they are speaking of a hopeful longing by the exiles to return to their homeland within decades of their exile. Today's Jews could, of course, find hope and sustenance from these messages about exiles of long ago and apply them to their own exile.

Let's see if you are right.

Leviticus 26:44:  Yet in spite of this, when they are in the land of their enemies, I will not reject them or abhor them so as to destroy them completely, breaking my covenant with them. I am the Lord their God.

Doesn't sound like hope here.  Sounds very detailed and to the point...  The people of Isreal were never destroyed completely.  God's covenant remains firm.

Let's try another one.

Amos 9:14-15 (King James Version)
 14And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them.
 15And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.

"I" WILL!!   Not "we" hope. And remember, the prophets speak on behalf of God!

and let me emphasize  you "shall no more be pulled up" our of your land!

So, if you look carefully, my dear brother, and forget your "commentary" for a minute and just look at what it says... is it really a stretch to believe that God said it and it wasn't just a 'hope'?

[kwd111]

Howie,When American police ask an eyewitness to identify a criminal,they show him or her together with others of similar appearance.If they only showed the criminal alone,the witness might falsely but sincerely "remember" that individual.It sounds like you believe the early Christians were victims of this flaw in human memory. I also found what you said about translation flaws leading to gibberish from the cross and riding on 2 donkeys very interesting.Could you go into a little more detail on this?What was the gibberish and did Jesus really ride on 2 donkeys?Different interpretations of the Bible often have a he said/she said quality but this sounds refreshingly concrete.Thanks again for contributing to my continuing education.

Hello poi...

Let me break your statement down along with your first one.

1)  You asked for a scripture (which I gave) which you haven't addressed
2)  If, as you say, someone is on the witness stand (in this case you), and they said "this sounds refreshingly concrete" - the defense would say "I object!  Opinion that hasn't been established."
3)  In other words... it is quite obvious you never really wanted an answer.  You have already came to your own conclusion and, by not addressing the first scripture, it is a clear indication you never really cared for an explanation in the first place.

Sorry to expose your cover!

[Lilly]

In both the Torah and the Tanakh, god makes it quite clear that He will punish us, which was done by proxy, if we did not follow His Commandments as directed.  Therefore, we see this being played out in Isaiah whereas we had to pay for our transgressions.  Like with a parent has to do, sometimes punishment of the child is in order.

Isaiah 53 is talking about suffering and death of a "righteous" servant for the sins of others.  It says, "After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities...  For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressor." 

The idea that Israel as a nation was punished for their disobedience is one thing and is mentioned in other scripture, but that's not what's being discussed here.

So, to ask if it's God's will is sort of a loaded question.  I don't think it's what He wants to do, but He certainly said what would happen if we didn't obey.

It's not a loaded question at all!  You're just not accepting what is clearly written.  Isaiah 53:10 says "Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer."  My question is simple:  Is it God's will that the Jewish people suffer?  Is it God's will to make the Jewish people a guilt offering for the sins of others?

The Christian answer is that we see this verse as being about the Messiah, not the Jewish people.  Jesus taught us that.  He said, "It is written: 'And he was numbered with the transgressors' (Isaiah 53:12), and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me.  Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment."  Luke 22:37

Even the Jerome Bible Commentary, which is a Christian source, states that the "Suffering Servant" is Israel personified. 

Then I would throw away that commentary as being anything Christian, because Christ taught Isaiah 53:12 was about him.  Who should I believe?  Christ or some man who writes an incorrect commentary as you've portrayed it?

If one reads the last two chapters of Isaiah, what we see is that it refers to the restoration of Israel whereas the Law would be and must be followed again.  Now how can this possibly be a reference to Jesus if his supporters walked away from the Law? 

I don't see anything in the last two chapters of Isaiah about the Law of Moses.  Do you mean that Israel will once again stone to death errant sons; that homosexuals will be killed;  that animal sacrifices will once again be done in Jerusalem for sins?  Does anyone even do that now?

[Lilly]

Lilly:

For example Jesus said:  "How is it that they say the Christ (Messiah) is the Son of David?  David himself declares in the Book of Psalms:  'The LORD said to my Lord:  "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for you feet."' David calls him 'Lord.'  How then can he be his son?"

You have raised an interesting point with this Psalm, and it is a perfect example of the confusion created by assuming what it means because we only read the English.

The word adonoi is used as substitute by Jews for the four lettered name of God, Y*K*. But it also is translated as "Lord" in English when used in ordinary speech. So in your quote we have two "Lords" in English. How can we tell them apart. In English, you can't, but in the original Hebrew you can.

"The Lord says unto my lord"  is written in the Hebrew as n'oom Y*K* l'adonoi. Notice that the first Lord in English is for Y*K* and the second lord in English is for the word adonoi. It is obvious from the Hebrew that the first Lord is a substitute for God's name and the second lord is for someone of high rank, but not the tetragrammaton. The two Lords may appear as the same word in English, but in Hebrew they are two distinct words.

The Greek rendering uses the Greek word kyrios, "lord," twice in the sentence, and the Christian translations into English capitalize the initial letter of the word to read "Lord" in both instances. The Jewish translation only capitalizes the first Lord because the Hebrew is Y*K*.

In the Greek text, the initial kyrios the first  "Lord," that is, God, and translates the Tetragrammaton. The second kyrios, renders 'adoni, "my master," "my lord" That is, the Greek, kyrios, is used to render two separate and distinct Hebrew words in the Greek translation. The confusion it creates in Greek does not exist in the Hebrew original.

In English translations the name of God is written as LORD in all caps.  The translation of adoni is Lord without the caps.  I understand that and I understand the Greek NT quotes the OT using the word adoni even for the name of God. 

None of that changes the understanding of Psalm 110.  It is a Psalm written by David.  David says, "The LORD (YHWH) says to me Lord (adoni):  'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.'"

The question remains:  Who is David's Lord (adoni)?  If he is Messiah, David's son, why does he call him Lord (adoni)?

[kwd111]

Lilly:

For example Jesus said:  "How is it that they say the Christ (Messiah) is the Son of David?  David himself declares in the Book of Psalms:  'The LORD said to my Lord:  "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for you feet."' David calls him 'Lord.'  How then can he be his son?"

You have raised an interesting point with this Psalm, and it is a perfect example of the confusion created by assuming what it means because we only read the English.

The word adonoi is used as substitute by Jews for the four lettered name of God, Y*K*. But it also is translated as "Lord" in English when used in ordinary speech. So in your quote we have two "Lords" in English. How can we tell them apart. In English, you can't, but in the original Hebrew you can.

"The Lord says unto my lord"  is written in the Hebrew as n'oom Y*K* l'adonoi. Notice that the first Lord in English is for Y*K* and the second lord in English is for the word adonoi. It is obvious from the Hebrew that the first Lord is a substitute for God's name and the second lord is for someone of high rank, but not the tetragrammaton. The two Lords may appear as the same word in English, but in Hebrew they are two distinct words.

The Greek rendering uses the Greek word kyrios, "lord," twice in the sentence, and the Christian translations into English capitalize the initial letter of the word to read "Lord" in both instances. The Jewish translation only capitalizes the first Lord because the Hebrew is Y*K*.

In the Greek text, the initial kyrios the first  "Lord," that is, God, and translates the Tetragrammaton. The second kyrios, renders 'adoni, "my master," "my lord" That is, the Greek, kyrios, is used to render two separate and distinct Hebrew words in the Greek translation. The confusion it creates in Greek does not exist in the Hebrew original.

In English translations the name of God is written as LORD in all caps.  The translation of adoni is Lord without the caps.  I understand that and I understand the Greek NT quotes the OT using the word adoni even for the name of God.  

None of that changes the understanding of Psalm 110.  It is a Psalm written by David.  David says, "The LORD (YHWH) says to me Lord (adoni):  'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.'"

The question remains:  Who is David's Lord (adoni)?  If he is Messiah, David's son, why does he call him Lord (adoni)?

Good question... but Poi... would it be safe to say that for you it is irrelevant?

[Metis]

And yet in the Hebrew there is this double reference to 'Lord', and what of the notion of the dual-nature of Christ?

The word lord means an overseer and this word does not necessarily state or imply that it refers to God.  If you were my overseer, and God spoke to you, then I could say "the lord talked to my lord".   

[kwd111]

And yet in the Hebrew there is this double reference to 'Lord', and what of the notion of the dual-nature of Christ?

The word lord means an overseer and this word does not necessarily state or imply that it refers to God.  If you were my overseer, and God spoke to you, then I could say "the lord talked to my lord".   

But that does not answer the question.  Why would David's future son be David's Lord?

[Today]

• Science Corrects Itself by Ed.W [Today at 07:07:23 PM]
• Religion gets ugly by charliejohn [Today at 02:48:42 PM]
• Abortion gets UGLY by CCC460 [Today at 12:09:55 PM]
• God No Longer Male by CCC460 [Today at 10:34:45 AM]
• A thought by Betsy by kwd111 [Today at 09:23:57 AM]
• Another Free Spirit Canne... by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:46:29 PM]
• Very interesting theory! by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:30:59 PM]
• Very Interesting Insight by kwd111 [September 06, 2010, 03:29:51 PM]
• Jewish Understanding by SteveC [September 06, 2010, 09:57:12 AM]
• GOOD Science by SteveC [September 05, 2010, 10:12:43 PM]
• A Miracle Picture is Wort... by kwd111 [September 04, 2010, 08:41:28 PM]
• Best Science by kwd111 [September 04, 2010, 01:56:27 PM]
• WOW by SteveC [September 02, 2010, 07:24:09 PM]
• Very Logical - Abortion I... by kwd111 [September 01, 2010, 09:13:15 AM]
• Court Upholds Expulsion o... by kwd111 [August 31, 2010, 09:07:08 PM]
• Atheist believes in Intel... by kwd111 [August 30, 2010, 05:41:49 PM]
• Radioactice Decay Not Con... by SteveC [August 28, 2010, 11:03:26 AM]
• Assumptions. by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 10:24:55 AM]
• Is this your perspective ... by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 10:19:53 AM]
• Adult Stem Cell Research ... by kwd111 [August 26, 2010, 07:37:57 AM]

Members

• Total Members: 564
• Latest: jerrellowensa

Stats

• Total Posts: 87094
• Total Topics: 2648
• Online Today: 74
• Online Ever: 135
• (July 09, 2010, 02:08:16 PM)

Users Online

Users: 3
Guests: 17
Total: 20

Ed.W
CCC460
kwd111