Messiah prophecies

[Warman17]

well my point was that your times were off. The closest time in that article to what you said was 13 CE, not 68 CE.

 

[cgannon64]

Any sane Christian won't deny that some of the little details that fulfill prophecies could very well be after-added details.

But those aren't why I beleive, nor should they be why you beleive.

 

[CurtSibling]

What rubbish, as usual. You think, for example, that there is nothing worth reading in the Nicomachean Ethics? I'd be interested to hear what it is that makes it pointless reading today. But I doubt you will be able to come up with anything other than prejudice. Someone who can dismiss somebody else's (good) argument that the Old Testament as it is today is much as it was in ancient times on the grounds that it is worthless even to open a Bible, even to establish what is in it before you go about refuting it, isn't really worth arguing with on the basis of reason or evidence.

I note again that there is an awful lot of arguing here with little knowledge of the facts. The fact is that there are actually hardly any prophecies in the Old Testament about the Messiah. Have a look at those cited at the start of the thread. How many of them mention "Messiah"? In fact, Messianic speculation was only one element of pre-Christian Jewish eschatology, and a pretty minor one at that. The truth is not that Christians added material to the Old Testament, a claim for which there is certainly no evidence at all. Rather, they interpreted much of the Old Testament as if it were prophecies, when in reality it is not. For example, Christians have always taken Isaiah 53 to be a prophecy, and pointed to how Jesus fulfilled it. Again, Psalm 22 has always been interpreted as a prophecy about Jesus. But neither of these texts is presented in the Old Testament as a prophecy. On the contrary, Isaiah 53 seems to be about some unnamed contemporary or past person, whilst Psalm 22 seems to be the psalmist's own experience. According to the Synoptics, Jesus quoted Psalm 22 before dying, and experts think that he probably really did this, and really did think that his situation parallelled that of the psalmist. But it doesn't follow that he thought that the psalm was a prophecy about himself, and it certainly doesn't follow that it actually was.

The Dead Sea Scrolls come from approximately the time of Jesus, probably a few years later. They were written by a group who almost certainly had nothing to do with Jesus but were in fact probably associated with the Essenes. There is some speculation that Jesus had something to do with the Essenes but it is based on very flimsy evidence. The Dead Sea Scrolls do indicate that much of the Old Testament, as we have it, is as it was in the time of Jesus. There is no serious doubt otherwise except by polemicists with a personal agenda to push, who are uninterested in actual evidence. The views I cite are not those of Christians or Jews, among whom I do not count myself, but experts.

Prove the existence of a god, and then you can take up this debate.

Years of dedication to a fabrication are the focus of my criticism.

 

[Iggy]

EDIT: Warman, your links aren't very good. Most are answered if you ask a good faithful Christian. A lot of them were examples of taking the Bible too literally.

Absolutely right! The bible must be re-interpreted, re-written and constantly re-evaluated otherwise people might begin to think that God's prophets were either wrong or just making it up as they went along.

Edit: spelling

 

[Pikachu]

most modern translations( most are interpretations not translations ; there is a big difference) can be crap too. I got other famous translations as well as all of them said the same thing. I notice you haven't told what translation you are using . Also I Use Strong Concordance which give me the Hebrew . the word "clan" is a someone interprrtation and not a translation of the Hebrews words in this passage. So your attack on the KJV is vain with Strong's concordance giving each word in Hebrew and Greek.
the word "little" is the Hebrew word "tsaowr" means least ,little,small, young
the word "among" is the Hebrew word "beyn" means among,asunder,at,between
the word "thousands" is the Hebrew word "eleph" means thousands.

P.S. i like to know what so called translation you found this from and what Hebrew word is being uses for the word "clan";..."eleph"???

Does any of your famous translation use the word ‘you’ instead of ‘thou’? For example New International Version, New American Standard Version and English Standard Version all use the word ‘clan’ instead of ‘thousands’, but ‘thousands’ are not necessarily a wrong translation. In the context of the text, ‘thousands' could easily be interpreted as meaning the same as ‘clans’. My attack on the King James Version is not specific to this verse. I just find the KJV a generally poor translation, and prefer not to take it too seriously. Young’s Literal Translation uses the word ‘chiefs’ instead of 'clans/thousands', so I suppose that is the literal meaning of the original word. To me ‘chief’ sounds more like the head of a clan than a town, but let’s pretend that you are right. In that case Jesus did not fulfill this prophecy. Jesus didn’t come from Bethlehem like the prophecy says. In that case he should have been called Jesus from Bethlehem, but as we know he was instead called Jesus from Nazareth. So let’s stretch it further and assume that the prophecy really refers to the birthplace of Messiah. Then Jesus cannot be the Messiah because he was not born in Bethlehem. The birth story in Luke is obviously fictional because it doesn’t make sense. There was no census around that time. Such an event would certainly be noticed and reported by several Roman government officials and historians. Especially if it happened the way Luke describes it. Luke claims that Joseph couldn’t register in the village he lived in, but had to travel all the way to Bethlehem, because that was his place of origin. But if Bethlehem was his place of origin, why didn’t he have some friends or family there who he could stay with? Such an event would be a great opportunity for a reunion! But no, Joseph chooses to stay in a stable belonging to a total stranger, so it doesn’t seem like he had ever lived in Bethlehem himself. So why should he go there to register? Of course Luke gives us the answer: It is because he is of king David’s house. It seems like he traces his place of origin several hundreds years back. With that policy this census would require a lot of people to travel very far to register. That would certainly cause chaos, not just in Bethlehem, but all over the Empire. How could Luke be the only one who reported such a major event? Maybe all the other accounts were miraculously destroyed? Anyway, I seriously doubt that the Romans would be able to organize this costly operation, and for what purpose? Again the Bible gives us the answer. The Romans would use the census for tax purposes. So why would a taxman want a list of people who had their origin in his neighborhood, but who doesn’t live there anymore? Such a list is totally useless for a taxman! He would rather want a list over all the people who currently lives and works in his neighborhood, so that he can use that list to make sure that everybody pays their taxes. Therefore the Romans would demand Joseph to register in Nazareth where he lived, and that would be where Jesus was born.

I won't be looking at any bibles, as I have made my conclusions:

So what is the point in bringing you evidence, when you already have made your conclusions and won’t even take a look at the evidence I provide?

But I am sure even you can see the advantage to latter-day
religious leaders, changing holy texts to suit their agenda.

I don’t see what advantage Jewish leaders (who believe that Jesus was not the Messiah), would get by changing their own holy texts in order to strengthen the Christians claim that Jesus was the Messiah. But if Christians somehow managed to fool the Jews to do this, why didn’t they do it properly? As far as I know there are no obvious Messiah prophecies in the Old Testament, and most of the few passages that can be interpreted as Messiah prophecies are at best only partly fulfilled by Jesus. If Christians really changed the Old Testament, they would definitely have put in some more convincing prophecies.

In that they can tell you what they wish you to believe.

And you are not going to challenge them, are you?

How can you say this? Haven’t you noticed that I have tried to challenge supposed Messiah prophecies many times in this thread? Why do you always have to judge me by your sick imagination of a stereotyped Christian?

We both also know you have nothing to back your claim up.

A bunch of metaphoric stories are not enough to convince.

What claim are you talking about here? The claim that the Christian Jesus-myth is based on a historical person? That discussion does not belong in this thread, so please don’t bring that up here again.

How typical.

In other words, I have you at a disadvantage and you now
use the 'spam accusation' tactic to try and shut me up?

Nice try, but I am merely asking questions.
If you find it uncomfortable, I cannot help that.

Discussing something that has nothing to do with the thread topic is spam, but I don’t want to shut you up. A while back I started a separate thread just for you to discuss the historical ‘evidence’ of Jesus, but you never showed up. The thread is still at the second page in the history forum if you have changed your mind, but I suppose that is something you never do?

The Dead Sea Scrolls come from approximately the time of Jesus, probably a few years later. They were written by a group who almost certainly had nothing to do with Jesus but were in fact probably associated with the Essenes. There is some speculation that Jesus had something to do with the Essenes but it is based on very flimsy evidence. The Dead Sea Scrolls do indicate that much of the Old Testament, as we have it, is as it was in the time of Jesus. There is no serious doubt otherwise except by polemicists with a personal agenda to push, who are uninterested in actual evidence. The views I cite are not those of Christians or Jews, among whom I do not count myself, but experts.

So not all the Dead Sea Scrolls predate Jesus. What an embarrassing mistake. I should have investigated my sources better. Please forgive me Curt! Anyway, great post Plotinus!

 

[bigfatron]

Indeed, if the Bible cannot be taken literally then perhaps we should be sceptical about some of the more incredible claims within it.

Such as an all-powerful loving god choosing an obscure middle eastern tribe and exalting it above all other nations, creating the earth in seven dayus but putting in fossil records to show he didn't, wiping out all humanity and animal life, repeatedly massacring large numbers of neighbouring peoples mostly for teeh hell of it, allowing his 'chosen people' to be enslaved and freed again on a regular basis, and finally sending his 'son' to die in order to save us all from the eternal torture we will suffer unless we send regular cheques to his earthly representatives!

Nope, it makes sense to me, where did I put my credit card again....?

 

[privatehudson]

How could JC's mother have a child without the usual human conception...?

I always thought that part was very unbelievable. (among other things)

To roughly quote Dogma, that's not the impossible part, the impossible part is believing that for however many years, Joseph and Mary remained celibate

 

[King Alexander]

To roughly quote Dogma, that's not the impossible part, the impossible part is believing that for however many years, Joseph and Mary remained celibate

I disagree: the impossible part is that we're wasting our time with a fairy tale(Bible) which was written by a/some lunatic/s at a time which was after Great Civilizations had already shined. Talk about dark ages! Dark ages begun from the moment Christianity and Muslim spread over to the people, who all they were hoping was the chance for a better life.

EDIT: btw, I'd like to make a Prophecy: In 20 years from now, Nitzche will rise from the dead and will exterminate God once and for all.

 

[privatehudson]

I disagree: the impossible part is that we're wasting our time with a fairy tale(Bible) which was written by a/some lunatic/s at a time which was after Great Civilizations had already shined. Talk about dark ages! Dark ages begun from the moment Christianity and Muslim spread over to the people, who all they were hoping was the chance for a better life.

EDIT: btw, I'd like to make a Prophecy: In 20 years from now, Nitzche will rise from the dead and will exterminate God once and for all.

Something tells me you took my remark too seriously

 

[CurtSibling]

To roughly quote Dogma, that's not the impossible part, the impossible part is believing that for however many years, Joseph and Mary remained celibate

Exactly! - Boring job, no money, What else would they have to do but not be celibate?

 

[Plotinus]

Prove the existence of a god, and then you can take up this debate.

Years of dedication to a fabrication are the focus of my criticism.

I've already told you I'm an atheist. Now answer my question.

 

[Plotinus]

well my point was that your times were off. The closest time in that article to what you said was 13 CE, not 68 CE.

I take your point, certainly. However, remember that as the article points out, only a few of the scrolls have been carbon-dated, for fear of damaging them. Given the content of many of the scrolls, it's likely that at least some date from a little later than that (because, as I understand it, they reflect the increasingly horrible conditions in Palestine in the Jewish revolt of the 60s - just as, say, Mark 13 does). But the important thing is that we agree that the scrolls are evidence for the Old Testament text that is independent of Christianity. Whether any given scroll was written before or after Jesus, it wasn't a Christian who wrote it. The Qumran community were much nuttier than the early Christians, and that's saying something.

 

[Plotinus]

[Pikachu] Good post - I think you're exactly right in your analysis of Luke's birth narrative. I could also point out that Galilee, in the time of Jesus, was not under Roman rule anyway but was a semi-independent client state of the empire.

Luke dates Jesus' birth to the time when Quirinius was legate of Syria, but Matthew puts it to shortly before Herod died. However, Herod died in 4BC and Quirinius became legate of Syria in 6AD, nine years later. There was a census carried out in 6AD, although it did not cover Galilee, and no-one had to move. There were also riots in both dates. So it seems likely that Luke or his source has confused the two dates, because of the similarities between them, "discovered" a census at around the time Jesus was born, and used it as an excuse to have Jesus' parents in Bethlehem at the time of his birth.

It's generally thought that Jesus probably was indeed born shortly before Herod's death, which would put it at 4BC. It's also usually thought that he probably died in around 30AD, perhaps 29. That's a little funny, because it means that the traditional age that Jesus was supposed to be at when he died - 33 - would actually be correct, quite coincidentally.

 

[CurtSibling]

So what is the point in bringing you evidence, when you already have made your conclusions and won’t even take a look at the evidence I provide?

I am just providing other dimensions for the debate.

You are welcome to believe what suits you.

And I assume you already do.

I don’t see what advantage Jewish leaders (who believe that Jesus was not the Messiah), would get by changing their own holy texts in order to strengthen the Christians claim that Jesus was the Messiah. But if Christians somehow managed to fool the Jews to do this, why didn’t they do it properly? As far as I know there are no obvious Messiah prophecies in the Old Testament, and most of the few passages that can be interpreted as Messiah prophecies are at best only partly fulfilled by Jesus. If Christians really changed the Old Testament, they would definitely have put in some more convincing prophecies.

At the end of the day, I am merely trying to make you see the whole fanciful nature of the claim.

That one man is a mystical figure for all others too follow...
I find that myth stretches the logical boundaries a bit.

Being sceptical is healthy...But I see you are trying to look deeper, so that's a good move.

How can you say this? Haven’t you noticed that I have tried to challenge supposed Messiah prophecies many times in this thread? Why do you always have to judge me by your sick imagination of a stereotyped Christian?

I don't judge anyone - In your mind you think I have judged.

I am just a humble forum poster.

Is it a crime to provide you with other ideas on the subject?

What claim are you talking about here? The claim that the Christian Jesus-myth is based on a historical person? That discussion does not belong in this thread, so please don’t bring that up here again.

I was wording out that no so-called prophesies are set in stone.
Only the writings and philosophical yearnings of mortal, ancient men.

Discussing something that has nothing to do with the thread topic is spam, but I don’t want to shut you up. A while back I started a separate thread just for you to discuss the historical ‘evidence’ of Jesus, but you never showed up. The thread is still at the second page in the history forum if you have changed your mind, but I suppose that is something you never do?

There are so many threads, and only one Curt.
Any time you wish to start an evidence of Jesus thread, I will be happy to take part.

No more I will say about that here.

So not all the Dead Sea Scrolls predate Jesus. What an embarrassing mistake. I should have investigated my sources better. Please forgive me Curt! Anyway, great post Plotinus!

Well, learning is good.
No apologies required, there is no hostility between us!

 

[CurtSibling]

I've already told you I'm an atheist. Now answer my question.

I don't take orders.

And what question? - All I see is a statement.

Please summarise.

 

[Plotinus]

Well, I asked you to justify your claim that there is no point in reading anything by ancient dead people. Do you think that there is nothing worthwhile in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics? If not, why not?

 

[Iggy]

Well, I asked you to justify your claim that there is no point in reading anything by ancient dead people.

Obviously you have never read the Daily Telegraph newspaper?

 

[CurtSibling]

Well, I asked you to justify your claim that there is no point in reading anything by ancient dead people. Do you think that there is nothing worthwhile in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics? If not, why not?

I meant within the context of the thread - I should have mentioned that.

Obviously there is plenty of use for William Shakespeare, Confucious and Plato.

I just don't the bible (whatever testement) as anything more than myths by primitive cultures.

Not the kind of thing to guide a nation with in the modern age.

 

[Plotinus]

CurtSibling, the problem is that Pikachu made a valid point about the reliability of the Biblical text by reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Jewish Scriptures. He wasn't arguing that the text is true, only that it has not been altered since the time of Jesus. And in this he was, I think, quite right. You replied simply by stating that you refuse to look in any Bible because you have made up your mind about its value. You also seem to have made up your mind about the degree to which Christians have tampered with the text, irrespective of any evidence. In the same way, you claim that the whole Bible is nothing but primitive myths. You need to give evidence for such an extreme view. The Bible is, to varying degree, history mingled with myth. For example, there's not much historical value in the Pentateuch; but there is in Acts. It seems to me that paradoxically you share the same basic viewpoint as fundamentalists. They believe that a text must be either completely true or completely worthless: they cannot accept that the Bible could be flawed, wrong in places, but still reliable in others. Therefore they believe that it is completely inerrant. You, for your part, despise all religious people and the Bible equally. You therefore assume that the Bible must be utterly valueless, either ancient myths or Christian forgeries. Why can't you see that reality is rarely so black and white, irrespective of which side of the fence you are on? I don't believe in Christianity or in God but I'm capable of making critical judgements go beyond sheer prejudice all the same.

Can't you see that there is a difference between looking at a text to establish historical conclusions about its provenance, and looking at it for life guidance?
The former does not entail the latter. Your dismissal of Pikachu's argument was as intellectually evasive as that of a fundamentalist who refuses to look at any evidence *outside* the Bible because they already know that the Bible contains all truth.

 

[CurtSibling]

Can't you see that there is a difference between looking at a text to establish historical conclusions about its provenance, and looking at it for life guidance?

Can you?

I am under no obligation to sit and study a bible - There are no answers therein for me.

The former does not entail the latter. Your dismissal of Pikachu's argument was as intellectually evasive as that of a fundamentalist who refuses to look at any evidence *outside* the Bible because they already know that the Bible contains all truth.

Your flaming anger in defence of the dogma makes me wonder at your claim to be an 'atheist'.

This stance you present strangely reminds one of a fundamentalist ethos also.