Nonexistent prophecies

[santamarana]

Any challenge to the integrity of the bible will very likely draw the familiar prophecy fulfillment response. "If the bible is not inspired of God, how do you explain all the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled?"

The answer is quite simple.

The so-called prophecy fulfillments that the New Testament writers claimed in the person and deeds of Jesus of Nazareth were prophecy fulfillments only in the fertile imagination of the writers.

The virgin birth, the birth in Bethlehem, The slaughter of the innocents became prophecy fulfillments only through the distortions and misapplications of the original Old Testament statements.

Since fundamentalist believe the bible to be inerrant
why is John 7:37-38, Matt 2:23, in error and no where to be found in the bible whatsoever.

John 7:37-38
In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

Matt 2:23
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

Can any Christian please refer to the old testament verse that Jesus and Matthew are quoting from?

[Good Will]

More words ripped out of context, to and viewed with 'Christ' colored glasses. It has nothing to do with the 'spirit of the prophets' at all, but the desire to justify a predetermined belief by ripping phrases out of context.

Then what does Zechariah mean to say in the passages above, goat? And why did all the NT writers (who broached the subject) agree with Matthew about Mary?

[Goat]

More words ripped out of context, to and viewed with 'Christ' colored glasses. It has nothing to do with the 'spirit of the prophets' at all, but the desire to justify a predetermined belief by ripping phrases out of context.

Then what does Zechariah mean to say in the passages above, goat? And why did all the NT writers (who broached the subject) agree with Matthew about Mary?

They took it from a common source. Why didn't Paul mention the miracles and Mary?
Why are all the miracles from later sources?

Why do Matthew and Luke disagree about the geneology of Jesus? Mary was not of the house of david, since according to the Bible, she was the related to Elizebeth (john the baptists mother), and that she is shown to be a Levite, so Luke's geneology can't be hers.

And Zechariah says nothing about Jesus. That is just phrases ripped out of context.

[Good Will]

More words ripped out of context, to and viewed with 'Christ' colored glasses. It has nothing to do with the 'spirit of the prophets' at all, but the desire to justify a predetermined belief by ripping phrases out of context.

Then what does Zechariah mean to say in the passages above, goat? And why did all the NT writers (who broached the subject) agree with Matthew about Mary?

They took it from a common source. Why didn't Paul mention the miracles and Mary?
Why are all the miracles from later sources?

Why do Matthew and Luke disagree about the geneology of Jesus? Mary was not of the house of david, since according to the Bible, she was the related to Elizebeth (john the baptists mother), and that she is shown to be a Levite, so Luke's geneology can't be hers.

Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth. Was it not possible for members of different tribes to marry?

If I understand correctly, Matthew and Luke's genealogies may differ inasmuch as one denotes the lineage of Jesus' step-father, Joseph, and the other his mother, Mary.

Perhaps a better explanation may be, as one Bible dictionary reports:

The N.T. contains two genealogies of Jesus Christ; that in Matt. 1: 1-17 descends from Abraham to Jesus, being intended for Jewish readers; while that in Luke 3: 23-38 ascends from Jesus to Adam, and to God, this Gospel being written for the world in general. We notice also that Luke gives 21 names between David and Zerubbabel, and Matthew gives only 15; Luke gives 17 generations between Zerubbabel and Joseph, and Matthew only 9; moreover, nearly all the names are different. The probable explanation is that the descent may be traced through two different lines. Matthew gives a legal descent and includes several adopted children, such adoption carrying with it legal rights, while Luke gives a natural descent through actual parentage.

By all accounts, Jesus would be of royal birth, irrespective of His divine Parentage.

[Goat]

More words ripped out of context, to and viewed with 'Christ' colored glasses. It has nothing to do with the 'spirit of the prophets' at all, but the desire to justify a predetermined belief by ripping phrases out of context.

Then what does Zechariah mean to say in the passages above, goat? And why did all the NT writers (who broached the subject) agree with Matthew about Mary?

They took it from a common source. Why didn't Paul mention the miracles and Mary?
Why are all the miracles from later sources?

Why do Matthew and Luke disagree about the geneology of Jesus? Mary was not of the house of david, since according to the Bible, she was the related to Elizebeth (john the baptists mother), and that she is shown to be a Levite, so Luke's geneology can't be hers.

Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth. Was it not possible for members of different tribes to marry?

If I understand correctly, Matthew and Luke's genealogies may differ inasmuch as one denotes the lineage of Jesus' step-father, Joseph, and the other his mother, Mary.

Perhaps a better explanation may be, as one Bible dictionary reports:

The N.T. contains two genealogies of Jesus Christ; that in Matt. 1: 1-17 descends from Abraham to Jesus, being intended for Jewish readers; while that in Luke 3: 23-38 ascends from Jesus to Adam, and to God, this Gospel being written for the world in general. We notice also that Luke gives 21 names between David and Zerubbabel, and Matthew gives only 15; Luke gives 17 generations between Zerubbabel and Joseph, and Matthew only 9; moreover, nearly all the names are different. The probable explanation is that the descent may be traced through two different lines. Matthew gives a legal descent and includes several adopted children, such adoption carrying with it legal rights, while Luke gives a natural descent through actual parentage.

By all accounts, Jesus would be of royal birth, irrespective of His divine Parentage.

Apparently, they werne't, according to ELsebeth's geneology.

The blood line of someone goes through the MALE line anyway.. so Mary's geneology would be totally irrelvent. Adopted children go with their blood father's line, not the adoptive father's line, according to jewish Law.

Therefore , when it comes to being the seed of david (unbroken male line), neither geneolog was relevent.

[Good Will]

More words ripped out of context, to and viewed with 'Christ' colored glasses. It has nothing to do with the 'spirit of the prophets' at all, but the desire to justify a predetermined belief by ripping phrases out of context.

Then what does Zechariah mean to say in the passages above, goat? And why did all the NT writers (who broached the subject) agree with Matthew about Mary?

They took it from a common source. Why didn't Paul mention the miracles and Mary?
Why are all the miracles from later sources?

Why do Matthew and Luke disagree about the geneology of Jesus? Mary was not of the house of david, since according to the Bible, she was the related to Elizebeth (john the baptists mother), and that she is shown to be a Levite, so Luke's geneology can't be hers.

Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth. Was it not possible for members of different tribes to marry?

If I understand correctly, Matthew and Luke's genealogies may differ inasmuch as one denotes the lineage of Jesus' step-father, Joseph, and the other his mother, Mary.

Perhaps a better explanation may be, as one Bible dictionary reports:

The N.T. contains two genealogies of Jesus Christ; that in Matt. 1: 1-17 descends from Abraham to Jesus, being intended for Jewish readers; while that in Luke 3: 23-38 ascends from Jesus to Adam, and to God, this Gospel being written for the world in general. We notice also that Luke gives 21 names between David and Zerubbabel, and Matthew gives only 15; Luke gives 17 generations between Zerubbabel and Joseph, and Matthew only 9; moreover, nearly all the names are different. The probable explanation is that the descent may be traced through two different lines. Matthew gives a legal descent and includes several adopted children, such adoption carrying with it legal rights, while Luke gives a natural descent through actual parentage.

By all accounts, Jesus would be of royal birth, irrespective of His divine Parentage.

Apparently, they werne't, according to ELsebeth's geneology.

The blood line of someone goes through the MALE line anyway.. so Mary's geneology would be totally irrelvent. Adopted children go with their blood father's line, not the adoptive father's line, according to jewish Law.

Therefore , when it comes to being the seed of david (unbroken male line), neither geneolog was relevent.

Cousins' genealogies (Mary vs. Elizabeth) may diverge along different paths, with different forefathers tracing back through different tribes, depending upon whom marries into whose blood line. Isn't this obvious?

Anyway, "Jewishness" is defined by whether the MOTHER is Jewish, not the father. (When did that tradition begin?) Perhaps (to some), Mary's line is not irrelevant after.

Jewish law doesn't recognize legal adoption, only natural descent? How about illegitimacy? What evidence do you have to support your assertion? However, even if your point is valid, your argument supports two different genealogies: For the benefit of those who would not countenance the descendant of an adoptee or a bastard on the throne of David.

[Goat]

More words ripped out of context, to and viewed with 'Christ' colored glasses. It has nothing to do with the 'spirit of the prophets' at all, but the desire to justify a predetermined belief by ripping phrases out of context.

Then what does Zechariah mean to say in the passages above, goat? And why did all the NT writers (who broached the subject) agree with Matthew about Mary?

They took it from a common source. Why didn't Paul mention the miracles and Mary?
Why are all the miracles from later sources?

Why do Matthew and Luke disagree about the geneology of Jesus? Mary was not of the house of david, since according to the Bible, she was the related to Elizebeth (john the baptists mother), and that she is shown to be a Levite, so

Luke's geneology can't be hers.

Mary was the cousin of Elizabeth. Was it not possible for members of different tribes to marry?

If I understand correctly, Matthew and Luke's genealogies may differ inasmuch as one denotes the lineage of Jesus' step-father, Joseph, and the other his mother, Mary.

Perhaps a better explanation may be, as one Bible dictionary reports:

The N.T. contains two genealogies of Jesus Christ; that in Matt. 1: 1-17 descends from Abraham to Jesus, being intended for Jewish readers; while that in Luke 3: 23-38 ascends from Jesus to Adam, and to God, this Gospel being written for the world in general. We notice also that Luke gives 21 names between David and Zerubbabel, and Matthew gives only 15; Luke gives 17 generations between Zerubbabel and Joseph, and Matthew only 9; moreover, nearly all the names are different. The probable explanation is that the descent may be traced through two different lines. Matthew gives a legal descent and includes several adopted children, such adoption carrying with it legal rights, while Luke gives a natural descent through actual parentage.

By all accounts, Jesus would be of royal birth, irrespective of His divine Parentage.

Apparently, they werne't, according to ELsebeth's geneology.

The blood line of someone goes through the MALE line anyway.. so Mary's geneology would be totally irrelvent. Adopted children go with their blood father's line, not the adoptive father's line, according to jewish Law.

Therefore , when it comes to being the seed of david (unbroken male line), neither geneolog was relevent.

Cousins' genealogies (Mary vs. Elizabeth) may diverge along different paths, with different forefathers tracing back through different tribes, depending upon whom marries into whose blood line. Isn't this obvious?

Anyway, "Jewishness" is defined by whether the MOTHER is Jewish, not the father. (When did that tradition begin?) Perhaps (to some), Mary's line is not irrelevant after.

Jewish law doesn't recognize legal adoption, only natural descent? How about illegitimacy? What evidence do you have to support your assertion? However, even if your point is valid, your argument supports two different genealogies: For the benefit of those who would not countenance the descendant of an adoptee or a bastard on the throne of David.

Jewish law does recognize legal adoption, but the BIRTH father determines the bloodline.

This is the law as it is practiced today. It is written for the 'lay person', and doesn't go into a lot of the details,but it is enough to show the BIRTH father is what is important for the bloodline. The mother being Jewish is enough to establish someone is JEWISH, but the father's line is what establishes blood relations.

http://www.starsofdavid.org/stories/adopjew.html


Also, if you accept the story of Jesus' birth by Matthew and Luke, since Jesus was not the blood son of Joesph, he would considered a "mazer' and ritualistically unclean. This shows that the author's of Matthew and Luke might have been hellenised Jews, but did not understand Jewish law too well. That is just yet another reason that Jewish people won't accept Christian beliefs.

[Cathar1950]

santamarana,

The writings of the prophets can only be understood by the spirit of the prophets. They speak by revelation. The "prophecies" you claim are "manufactured" are, in fact, spiritually discerned. Otherwise, they would be overlooked -- and misunderstood -- in context (just as Jesus was).

I have a problem with the claim of needing to be 'spiritually discerned' . It sounds like too much of a cope out to twist the words to mean anything you want

"Spiritually discerned" means performing hermaneutic gymnastics. With the appropriate interpretation prophecies are always fulfilled.

Perhaps. But consider the following scripture:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isa. 7:14)

The "virgin birth" prophecy is considered a "biggie" in the Christian world. But the word "virgin" doesn't necessarily mean "one who has not had carnal knowledge", rather it may mean "a young girl". Without spiritual discernment, this prophecy means, essentially, nothing. Any young girl can have a child and call him Immanuel ("God with us"). Now, a virgin having a son...that's a different story.

Without spiritual discernment, the scriptures may easily be misunderstood. (Bernee may, of course, say: "You're reading whatever you want into them." Fine. I get it.)

But the scriptures, written by prophets under inspiration, are best -- perhaps only fully -- understood by prophets (i.e., those also filled with the spirit of prophecy, or the Holy Ghost) -- just as those who write in English are best understood by those who read English.

In your passage above it seems the NT writer didn’t know what the author of the passage was talking about if you claim it is about Jesus because it is clearly shown in the context and content what the prophet was talking about.
It is pointless to say that the prophet knows when you don’t seem to know what he is talking about as it is used in the NT.

I know we may not agree on this, Cathar, and I certainly am not the most qualified to make the case. But I have found, in my reading, that scriptures are frequently timeless, finding meaningful application in both other times and contexts.

Yes, certain scriptures deal with events corresponding only to the time in which they were written. But quite frequently the writers "trail off" almost in trance-like prose to allude to topics or events that may only be understood by the Spirit of God; otherwise, one would presume the topic to be purely mundane (as in the scripture above).

I'm not expecting you to see it that way. But a serious student of the scriptures would at least acknowledge several instances where (particularly N.T.) prophets cited O.T. scriptures, using interpretations that were completely foreign or different from what those in power (in Judaism) understood them to mean. These "new" interpretations, these writers asserted, were the "inspired" or "true" interpretations. Many Jews didn't see it that way -- particularly with those scriptures involving Christ. But others did. (These became Christians.)

Today, many discount the ancient prophesies of re-emergent Israel and all pertaining thereto, prophesies that appear to be in the process of being fulfilled right before our eyes.

They are no more being fullfilled then the scriptures were fullfilling other missused writings.
Scholars that are serious student of scriptures understand that the belief came first and the foreign interpretations came after. They projected their beliefs upon to writings. Calling the process the work of the Holy Wind or Breath doesn’t legitimize it as the Spirit had many interpretations that were ay odds with each other. A serious student would look at the history and evolution of the uses of scripture.

[Good Will]

santamarana,

The writings of the prophets can only be understood by the spirit of the prophets. They speak by revelation. The "prophecies" you claim are "manufactured" are, in fact, spiritually discerned. Otherwise, they would be overlooked -- and misunderstood -- in context (just as Jesus was).

I have a problem with the claim of needing to be 'spiritually discerned' . It sounds like too much of a cope out to twist the words to mean anything you want

"Spiritually discerned" means performing hermaneutic gymnastics. With the appropriate interpretation prophecies are always fulfilled.

Perhaps. But consider the following scripture:

Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isa. 7:14)

The "virgin birth" prophecy is considered a "biggie" in the Christian world. But the word "virgin" doesn't necessarily mean "one who has not had carnal knowledge", rather it may mean "a young girl". Without spiritual discernment, this prophecy means, essentially, nothing. Any young girl can have a child and call him Immanuel ("God with us"). Now, a virgin having a son...that's a different story.

Without spiritual discernment, the scriptures may easily be misunderstood. (Bernee may, of course, say: "You're reading whatever you want into them." Fine. I get it.)

But the scriptures, written by prophets under inspiration, are best -- perhaps only fully -- understood by prophets (i.e., those also filled with the spirit of prophecy, or the Holy Ghost) -- just as those who write in English are best understood by those who read English.

In your passage above it seems the NT writer didn’t know what the author of the passage was talking about if you claim it is about Jesus because it is clearly shown in the context and content what the prophet was talking about.
It is pointless to say that the prophet knows when you don’t seem to know what he is talking about as it is used in the NT.

I know we may not agree on this, Cathar, and I certainly am not the most qualified to make the case. But I have found, in my reading, that scriptures are frequently timeless, finding meaningful application in both other times and contexts.

Yes, certain scriptures deal with events corresponding only to the time in which they were written. But quite frequently the writers "trail off" almost in trance-like prose to allude to topics or events that may only be understood by the Spirit of God; otherwise, one would presume the topic to be purely mundane (as in the scripture above).

I'm not expecting you to see it that way. But a serious student of the scriptures would at least acknowledge several instances where (particularly N.T.) prophets cited O.T. scriptures, using interpretations that were completely foreign or different from what those in power (in Judaism) understood them to mean. These "new" interpretations, these writers asserted, were the "inspired" or "true" interpretations. Many Jews didn't see it that way -- particularly with those scriptures involving Christ. But others did. (These became Christians.)

Today, many discount the ancient prophesies of re-emergent Israel and all pertaining thereto, prophesies that appear to be in the process of being fulfilled right before our eyes.

They are no more being fullfilled then the scriptures were fullfilling other missused writings.
Scholars that are serious student of scriptures understand that the belief came first and the foreign interpretations came after. They projected their beliefs upon to writings. Calling the process the work of the Holy Wind or Breath doesn’t legitimize it as the Spirit had many interpretations that were ay odds with each other. A serious student would look at the history and evolution of the uses of scripture.

Isn’t that the way it works? The belief or understanding of truth (by a witness of the Spirit) comes first and then the interpretation of scripture. (Sometimes, it is the prayerful, humble questioning of a passage that prompts the revelation of the Holy Ghost!) Without that witness, the scriptures remain a “closed book” – virtually useless, unintelligible nonsense. (As you have aptly demonstrated.)

25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
32 And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures? (Luke 24:25-27,31-32)

The scriptures (frequently the OT, and often the NT) are not always plainly written. What we have are often “dark” sayings, shrouded in mystery, confusion and controversy. (This may be due to the fact that the Jews repeatedly persecuted and killed those prophets who spoke plainly. And human error has undoubtedly crept in, as well.) Without the Spirit, the true meaning and purpose of the prophets’ testimonies -- to testify of Christ and His works -- cannot be appreciated.

[Goat]

The scriptures (frequently the OT, and often the NT) are not always plainly written. What we have are often “dark” sayings, shrouded in mystery, confusion and controversy. (This may be due to the fact that the Jews repeatedly persecuted and killed those prophets who spoke plainly. And human error has undoubtedly crept in, as well.) Without the Spirit, the true meaning and purpose of the prophets’ testimonies -- to testify of Christ and His works -- cannot be appreciated.

That is another way of saying "you have to really dig down deep to try to find Jesus in the writings" (I.e, he isn't there , unless you twist the words around a lot"

You're misunderstanding and claims about the Jews are noted. They are pretty highly selective. And claims that you have been 'touched' by special knowledge (i.e. the spirit), are not very credible. Forgive me if your inability to back up your 'special knowledge' is met with skepticism

[Cathar1950]

Isn’t that the way it works? The belief or understanding of truth (by a witness of the Spirit) comes first and then the interpretation of scripture. (Sometimes, it is the prayerful, humble questioning of a passage that prompts the revelation of the Holy Ghost!) Without that witness, the scriptures remain a “closed book” – virtually useless, unintelligible nonsense. (As you have aptly demonstrated.)



The scriptures (frequently the OT, and often the NT) are not always plainly written. What we have are often “dark” sayings, shrouded in mystery, confusion and controversy. (This may be due to the fact that the Jews repeatedly persecuted and killed those prophets who spoke plainly. And human error has undoubtedly crept in, as well.) Without the Spirit, the true meaning and purpose of the prophets’ testimonies -- to testify of Christ and His works -- cannot be appreciated.

It seems if the Holy Wind was the source there would be no disagreement about ultimate reality, yet there is and that makes an appeal to the HS irrelevant.
So tell us how many prophets were killed by those pesky Jews?
If I recall the prophets of Baal were killed.