Problematic Prophesy

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yes, I didn't mean to convey that this passage of Zech was a prophesy about Jesus, but the custom of midrash. Those passages where clearly about Israel. It seemed that Jesus along with his disciples employed midrash in passages which concerned Israel and applied it to Jesus as the Messiah. [The Suffering Servant]

Yes, I was pretty sure that you understood that.

It is the "main method" of the NT, which is really a "midrash" about how Jesus was messiah, proved with "proof texts" freely lifted from their correct context and applied to Jesus.

If we followed that methodology, we could make up whatever we wanted.

[gilgal]

According to Arnold Fruchtenbaum Matthew 2 has 4 Quotes from the Old Testament which are not necessarily direct prophecies.

Rachel crying for her children for example isn't direct but an application.

Out of Egypt have I called my firstborn...Israel was considered the first national son of God so maybe Israel was a shadow of the Messiah. But wherever Israel failed Jesus succeeded. So even a nation can find its' perfection in Jesus. Jesus spent 40 daus in the wilderness and Israel 40 years.

He shall be called a Nazarene. I'm not even sure where this comes from. Maybe the Hebrew is clearer.

Micah is the direct prophecy that the Jews knew exactly where the Messiah ought to be born.

You might want to take a look at this, a chronological prophecy:
http://www.biblewheel.com/forum/show...ghlight=isaiah

[Richard Amiel McGough]

According to Arnold Fruchtenbaum Matthew 2 has 4 Quotes from the Old Testament which are not necessarily direct prophecies.

Rachel crying for her children for example isn't direct but an application.

Out of Egypt have I called my firstborn...Israel was considered the first national son of God so maybe Israel was a shadow of the Messiah. But wherever Israel failed Jesus succeeded. So even a nation can find its' perfection in Jesus. Jesus spent 40 daus in the wilderness and Israel 40 years.

He shall be called a Nazarene. I'm not even sure where this comes from. Maybe the Hebrew is clearer.

Micah is the direct prophecy that the Jews knew exactly where the Messiah ought to be born.

That all sounds pretty accurate. The supposed prophecy that he would be called a "Nazarene" was probably an oral tradition. It's not found in the Bible. It could be a play off the "netzer" (branch) of Isaiah 11:1.

The fulfillment of the prophecy about Bethlehem seems supsect. It looks like the NT writers might have made that up to fit the prophecy. The Jews in John's gospel thought that Christ came from Galilee and knew that would contradict the prophecy:

John 7:41 Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? 42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?

If John knew that Jesus was from Bethlehem, it is odd that he didn't mention it in his gospel.

And Luke's story of the census causing Christ's parents to go to Bethlehem from their home in Nazareth seems like a story made up to place his birth in Bethlehem when it was commonly known that he grew up in Nazareth.

Luke 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David) 5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

The contradictions between Matthew and Luke concerning the birth of Christ are quite striking. Luke knows nothing of any murder of the young boys or the flight to Egypt, and Matthew knows nothing of any census that caused Christ's parents to take a trip to Bethlehem. And just as Luke seems to invent a story to place Mary in Bethlehem at the time of Christ's birth, so Matthew seems to invent a story to explain why he moved from Bethlehem to Nazareth:

Matthew 2:22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: 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.

Putting all these facts together, it seems to me that both Matthew and Luke made up stories to explain why Christ, who lived in Nazareth, was born in Bethlehem. It looks like they were making up stories to fit the prophecy.

[gilgal]

That all sounds pretty accurate. The supposed prophecy that he would be called a "Nazarene" was probably an oral tradition. It's not found in the Bible. It could be a play off the "netzer" (branch) of Isaiah 11:1.

The fulfillment of the prophecy about Bethlehem seems supsect. It looks like the NT writers might have made that up to fit the prophecy. The Jews in John's gospel thought that Christ came from Galilee and knew that would contradict the prophecy:

John 7:41 Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee? 42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?

If John knew that Jesus was from Bethlehem, it is odd that he didn't mention it in his gospel.

And Luke's story of the census causing Christ's parents to go to Bethlehem from their home in Nazareth seems like a story made up to place his birth in Bethlehem when it was commonly known that he grew up in Nazareth.

Luke 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David) 5 To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

The contradictions between Matthew and Luke concerning the birth of Christ are quite striking. Luke knows nothing of any murder of the young boys or the flight to Egypt, and Matthew knows nothing of any census that caused Christ's parents to take a trip to Bethlehem. And just as Luke seems to invent a story to place Mary in Bethlehem at the time of Christ's birth, so Matthew seems to invent a story to explain why he moved from Bethlehem to Nazareth:

Matthew 2:22 But when he heard that Archelaus did reign in Judaea in the room of his father Herod, he was afraid to go thither: notwithstanding, being warned of God in a dream, he turned aside into the parts of Galilee: 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.

Putting all these facts together, it seems to me that both Matthew and Luke made up stories to explain why Christ, who lived in Nazareth, was born in Bethlehem. It looks like they were making up stories to fit the prophecy.

So John 7 shows what people believed that Jesus was to come out of Bethlehem.

As for Nazarene it says that it came out of the book of the prophets which might be the collection of 12 minor prophets or maybe every prophet had something to say on that subject.

You have to understand that Matthew or Muke or the other 2 gospels differ due to the audience they are writing to but without contradiction.

Luke's account is probably from women and it would hurt them to recall the story of the massacre of the infants.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

So John 7 shows what people believed that Jesus was to come out of Bethlehem.

Yes, and there is no indication that John knew anything about him being born there.

As for Nazarene it says that it came out of the book of the prophets which might be the collection of 12 minor prophets or maybe every prophet had something to say on that subject.

That makes sense.

You have to understand that Matthew or Muke or the other 2 gospels differ due to the audience they are writing to but without contradiction.

No contradiction? The two stories have nothing in common. Major events listed in one are missing from the other, and vice-versa.

Luke's account is probably from women and it would hurt them to recall the story of the massacre of the infants.

[/quote]
Yes, Luke's account is very "women oriented." But that doesn't explain why they wouldn't mention the murder of children. Luke said he was trying to write accurate history after checking many eyewitnesses. It doesn't make sense that he would leave it out if he knew about it.

[throwback]

I think the false prophets may have a connection to Deut 18 and that no one after Christ would be that prophet [Acts 3:22-24]
Just theories and thoughts to consider.

Interesting that Deuteronomy 18 has been brought up. Is it another Messianic prophecy, or is it something entirely unrelated? Recall that the context of Deut. 18 begins in chapter 12 and reads:

'Now, these are the rules and decisions that you must be sure to follow in the land that Jehovah the God of your ancestors is giving you as your inheritance, and during the entire time that you will live in the land:

After laying down the "law of the promised land," God through Moses tells the people the following:

'Then Jehovah your God will raise a Prophet like me from among your brothers, and you must listen to him, 16 as when you received all that you desired from Jehovah your God in the dry place (Horeb) after the whole gathering said, We don't want to listen to the voice of your God Jehovah again or see His great fire, so we won't die. 17 For, Jehovah said to me, What they have said is good, 18 so I will raise a Prophet like you from among their brothers, and I will put My words in his mouth and he will tell them whatever I command him. 19 Then I will bring vengeance upon anyone who doesn't listen to what that Prophet says in My name. 20 But, any prophet who uses My Name in an irreverent way by saying things that I didn't tell him to say, or who speaks in the name of other gods, must die!
21 'And if you ever wonder in your hearts which words Jehovah didn't say; 22 [remember that] anything a prophet says in the Name of the Lord that doesn't come true, is something that Jehovah didn't say. So, that prophet has spoken wickedly and he must die!'

Notice verse 20. Is it letting the reader know that the meaning of the preceding verses speaks about the prophets, plural, that would be used by God to lead and instruct His chosen people through the years? I find it interesting that God choose to point out the people's fear of Him speaking directly to them at Sinai as a reason to "raise a prophet like unto Moses" to relay Gods commands to His chosen people.

[David M]

Hey there throwback,
I find it interesting that God choose to point out the people's fear of Him speaking directly to them at Sinai as a reason to "raise a prophet like unto Moses" to relay Gods commands to His chosen people.

Hello Throwback

As it says in Hebrews 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Those prophets that first encountered God,even a meeting with God's representative (His Holy Angel); it was a fearful experience for them . Receiving visions from God was no cosy event. Daniel said this when encountering God's representative; (Dan 10:8) Therefore I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in me: for my comeliness was turned in me into corruption, and I retained no strength.


Thanks for bringing this point up. I can use this quote to support my understanding that Jesus is not God.
Deut18:1515 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

Jesus was like Moses and his brethren in every way except his conception at birth. Jesus was no different to his brethren. Only in what Jesus accomplished he was distinguished and he became better than all other types of Jesus as portrayed in the Old Testament. Jesus is the first man to achieve perfection and was given the perfect incorruptible body by his Heavenly Father; the same incorruptible body that will be given to all those who are raised to eternal life.



David

[gilgal]

Yes, and there is no indication that John knew anything about him being born there.

Actually both in John and Matthew 2 it says that the people said it not the writers. But in Matthew 2's case the people were right. So I guess some group of people were better taught than others.

No contradiction? The two stories have nothing in common. Major events listed in one are missing from the other, and vice-versa.

Yeah so? My point is that the audiences being different must have different needs. And the gospels are written to soothe those needs.

Although there's one thing that I don't understand is how long was it that after Jesus got baptized he went in the wilderness. John makes no mention of the wilderness until John 4 when he meets the Samaritan woman (could that be after the 40 days?) but Mark says immediately after his baptism:

John 1:33 KJV - And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
John 1:34 KJV - And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.
John 1:35 KJV - Again the next day after John stood, and two of his disciples;
John 1:36 KJV - And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!
John 1:43 KJV - The day following Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto him, Follow me.
John 2:1 KJV - And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there:

While Matthew and Luke 4 are excusable Mark says:
Mark 1:12 KJV - And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.
Mark 1:13 KJV - And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

[David M]

Hello Richard

If they were not "direct prophecies of the Messiah" then why did Jesus claim they spoke of him? The futurist habit of shredding Scripture into bits and pieces that are "fulfilled" in events separated by thousands of years makes a mockery of any claim of "prophecy." Such confetti could be arranged in any pattern that happened to enter your mind - or that you found "useful" for your eschatological speculations.

I agree that Jesus quotes this verse, as it is the only verse in the OT that matches closely. We can agree that Zech 13:5,6 is talking of an apostate prophet. This shows that verse 6; And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends cannot apply to Jesus. At least we agree this verse should not be taken out of context and applied to Jesus. On balance, as difficult as the figurative language in chapter 13 is to understand, I would say that chapter 13 applies to the time of Jesus. The verse I quoted from chapter 14 goes on to speak of future events occurring after the time of Jesus' first ministry and beyond AD70.

And another point: the same passage speaks of animal sacrifices. So either you are not interpreting that passage literally, or you are assuming that there will be animal sacrifices in the future commanded by God. Most Christians would consider that blasphemous in light of Christ as the final sacrifice to which all the OT sacrifices pointed as type, such as the Passover Lamb.

If you look at the prophecy again, it is about the Feast of Tabernacles; it is not about sacrifices for sin. The Feast of Tabernacles was one of three mandated feasts the Israelites had to keep. The Feast of Tabernacles was to celebrate their deliverance from Egypt. The Jews continue to celebrate this feast to this day. If the Feast of Tabernacles is to continue, I see the sense in that. It ensures the deliverance that God has afforded to those in the past, and will do so again, when Christ returns is remembered. Killing an animal to celebrate the feast is not sacrificing an animal for sin. Yes, an animal is killed and is classed as a sacrifice, but the animal does not go to waste, and is eaten as food. When Christ returns, there is nothing to say everyone will stop eating meat. Animals are sacrificed every day to keep us alive by giving us food to eat.

Your entire paradigm is based on the fundamental error of failing to understand how Christ is the fulfillment of the OT types.

I understand more than you give me credit for. Look in the mirror before you make these judgment calls.

Colossians 2:16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

Hebrews 10:1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.

In view of what I have commented on about the Feast of Tabernacles, you have taken Zechariah 14 out of context and are now misapplying the verses quoted above.

According to Christianity, Christ is the True Temple, the True Priest, and the True Temple. Your paradigm denies these fundamental teachings..

Christ is the Head of the Church(Eph 5:23), Christ is the Mediator between God and man(1 Tim 2:5). Jesus is our High Priest after the order of Melchisedec (Heb 7:17). But he spake of the temple of his body(John 2:21) .
I am not aware my paradigm (as you like to think it is) denies these things. I accept them. Therefore, if I have a paradigm, it is not what you say it is.

But we don't need to debate that here. There are bigger fish to fry.

I agree that there are big fish to fry and this was by no means a small fish. I hope you take note of my answers in reply to your assertions.

All the best again.

David

[Silence]

I just found this explanation for the wedding feast/wilderness apparent contradiction. In reading the passage in John it is easy to assume that the baptism John is describing to those who were sent from the Jewish leaders had just occurred, since it is described in dramatic ways. But there could easily have been a time gap intervening.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apco...=6&article=780