-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Bible Prophecys coming true
- Thread starter Ryan2065
- Start date
Sooperhotshiz
New Member
Should the Old Testament meet the requirements of the New Testament or should it be vice versa? Christians use Jesus and the NT and claim it to be a miracle because it meets so many of the requirements of the Old Testament. This can be seen by showing that there are so many prophecies "fulfilled" that seemed to have been predicted in the OT. The problem, though, is that those "prophecies" fulfilled in the NT, are actually from verses that take the Old Testament out of context, out of mistranslation(using non-Masoretic Text), fulfilled simply by quoting an OT verse, and by other means of changing the OT. Many Christians actually use the theology in the NT to change the meanings of things, and change some words in the OT, so that it satisfies their beliefs and theology that is written in the New Testament. Why are Christians interpreting the OT by NT standards when, in my opinion, they should be judging the NT by the standards of the OT(If the OT is to be believed the words of God)?
Why should I believe that the NT fulfilles the OT, when Christians are first interpret the OT first(off the NT), and then the NT after(Based on the already changed interpretation of the OT?). The NT does not fit with the standards of the Tanakh and shouldn't be supported by saying it does. Does the NT fit with the OT? I don't believe it does, and I am disgusted that Christians change the OT so they can use it to prove the NT.
Why should I believe that the NT fulfilles the OT, when Christians are first interpret the OT first(off the NT), and then the NT after(Based on the already changed interpretation of the OT?). The NT does not fit with the standards of the Tanakh and shouldn't be supported by saying it does. Does the NT fit with the OT? I don't believe it does, and I am disgusted that Christians change the OT so they can use it to prove the NT.
Sooper,
The first Christians were Jews...
They used the same verses we do today...
Are you suggesting that Jewish interpretation of Jewish scripture disgusts you?
The first Christians were Jews...
They used the same verses we do today...
Are you suggesting that Jewish interpretation of Jewish scripture disgusts you?
Sooperhotshiz
New Member
I do realize that the writers of the New Testament used the Septuagint text translation when the quoted the OT, and I also realize that the translation was written by Jews, so obviously there are problems that arise in translation. That isn't what I am talking about though, although it probably did contribute to the problems in the NT when it was referring back and quoting the OT. I will give an example, todays Christians take Isaiah 7(Virgin birth) completely out of context. Lets assume it is "virgin birth" because we all know the "young woman" argument. So I will summarize that passage for you:
For a battle of Jerusalem, Ahaz was scared because he was outnumbered. God sent Isaiah to him to make sure he would be assured that he wouldn't fall. God said that as long as he has faith, Judah will not fall. So God requested Ahaz to give a sign to let him know that God was with him. Ahaz chose not to because that would be testing God. Isaiah then said that there will be a sign for you victory, and the sign will be this: That virgin over there will get pregnant and have a son, Immanuel. He said that if Ahaz keeps faith, he will promise that the Kings against him will fall before that kid even knows the difference between wrong from right.
Why do Christians resist from reading that passage and consistantly take it out of context to promote its "quote" from the New Testament? It isn't a messianic prophecy, and there is no reason to believe it was. Christians put NT standards first when interpreting it. I say put OT standards when testing the NT, not the other way around.
Matthew and Luke also had geneologies of Jesus(which accounts for 4 or 5 prophecies). I will first explain why they don't make sense. This is according to 2 different geneologies, where one fits 25 generations in the same time the other fits 40 generations. The life expectancy of people, in the days of Christ, was somewhere usually in their 20's. It is obvious that the average age of conception was lower than that. In the Bible, one geneology shows fathers who had kids at the average age of 40, 25 times in a row. Then the other side were fathers, each at the average age of 25, having kids 40 times in a row. It is plausible to believe in Matthew, but not at all Lukes. I personally do not trust eithere of the geneologies though. It seems as if it was just made up.
What about OT standards? Both passages pervert, change, and take away from the more correct order which is in 1 Chron 3. Again, these people obviously didn't understand the OT correctly.
One of the prophecies is "heir to the throne of David." Luke 1:32-33. Realize that in Matt 1, the geneology includes somebody named Jeconiah. Read Jeremiah 22:24-30. Jesus, according to Christians, is a decendent. According to the OT, he cannot be heir to the throne of David.
Lots of the "fulfillments" are simple quotes from the OT, not actual fulfillments. For example, Christians use Isaiah 11:10 and Romans 15:12 as an example of this.
Lots of other verses are taken out of context, mistranslated, misunderstood, changed, or it just doesn't make sense; Micah 5:2, Isaiah 53, 2 Samuel 7, Psalms 22, Gen. 49:10, and hundreds of others Christians scew with.
People can put NT theology on the OT all they want for it is probably the only way to put them together, but Christians are being hypocrites if they judge the NT by OT standards, when infact what they are doing is putting NT standards on the OT.
For a battle of Jerusalem, Ahaz was scared because he was outnumbered. God sent Isaiah to him to make sure he would be assured that he wouldn't fall. God said that as long as he has faith, Judah will not fall. So God requested Ahaz to give a sign to let him know that God was with him. Ahaz chose not to because that would be testing God. Isaiah then said that there will be a sign for you victory, and the sign will be this: That virgin over there will get pregnant and have a son, Immanuel. He said that if Ahaz keeps faith, he will promise that the Kings against him will fall before that kid even knows the difference between wrong from right.
Why do Christians resist from reading that passage and consistantly take it out of context to promote its "quote" from the New Testament? It isn't a messianic prophecy, and there is no reason to believe it was. Christians put NT standards first when interpreting it. I say put OT standards when testing the NT, not the other way around.
Matthew and Luke also had geneologies of Jesus(which accounts for 4 or 5 prophecies). I will first explain why they don't make sense. This is according to 2 different geneologies, where one fits 25 generations in the same time the other fits 40 generations. The life expectancy of people, in the days of Christ, was somewhere usually in their 20's. It is obvious that the average age of conception was lower than that. In the Bible, one geneology shows fathers who had kids at the average age of 40, 25 times in a row. Then the other side were fathers, each at the average age of 25, having kids 40 times in a row. It is plausible to believe in Matthew, but not at all Lukes. I personally do not trust eithere of the geneologies though. It seems as if it was just made up.
What about OT standards? Both passages pervert, change, and take away from the more correct order which is in 1 Chron 3. Again, these people obviously didn't understand the OT correctly.
One of the prophecies is "heir to the throne of David." Luke 1:32-33. Realize that in Matt 1, the geneology includes somebody named Jeconiah. Read Jeremiah 22:24-30. Jesus, according to Christians, is a decendent. According to the OT, he cannot be heir to the throne of David.
Lots of the "fulfillments" are simple quotes from the OT, not actual fulfillments. For example, Christians use Isaiah 11:10 and Romans 15:12 as an example of this.
Lots of other verses are taken out of context, mistranslated, misunderstood, changed, or it just doesn't make sense; Micah 5:2, Isaiah 53, 2 Samuel 7, Psalms 22, Gen. 49:10, and hundreds of others Christians scew with.
People can put NT theology on the OT all they want for it is probably the only way to put them together, but Christians are being hypocrites if they judge the NT by OT standards, when infact what they are doing is putting NT standards on the OT.
To you perhaps...
So you say. Except that at least some first century Jews believed so.
This arguement is fallacious because before there was a NT, they interpretted it the same way... I don't put new standards on the OT, I do however use the same that the writers of the NT used.
Hmm, Jesus fits Isaiah 11:10 very well... gentiles sought/seek and have found Him, and the His rest is glorious...
*sigh* Simply because one disagrees with interpretation, they must be screwing with them...
As I pointed out before, I am not putting a new standard on the OT, I am using the same standard used by the 1st century Jews who wrote the NT...
Sooperhotshiz
New Member
Nor would most rational people who read it would.. well, unless they take it out of context first so it goes with what they want to believe.Mister Emu said:
And obviously those few had ignorance of the OT as I have shown above.
Not before Christ for most of them(besides mistranslations they were reading). no it was not interpreted that way. The "NT", after Christ, was mostly passed down through word of mouth for hundreds of years. The Council of Nicea had to decide what writings to include and what writings to exclude from the first New Testament. That council was as much a political convention as a spiritual meeting - with some representative being excluded by force by Emperor Constantine. Some of the excluded writings, like the Gospel of Thomas - were discovered in the Nag Hammadi codices in 1945.
No, some don't read scripture and just believe what they are told from those who have scewed with it. It is quote obvious from comparing the two.
You seem to think there is a different between putting NT standards on the OT, and putting the NT authors standards on the OT. There isn't a difference. It is very clear of their ignorance on the scriptures, there is no reason for Christians to change context of the OT to prove the NT.
Please explain why belief in Jesus as the Messiah would all of the sudden change the way they interpret the OT... You have it backwards, their interpretations are what led them to believe, not the other way around...
False...
I would appreciate evidence...
Ok, then when you said
"Christians put NT standards first when interpreting it. I say put OT standards when testing the NT..."
You really meant...
"Christians put NT standards first when interpreting it. I say put {MY}OT standards when testing the NT..."
Sooperhotshiz
New Member
As I had said, the authors of the NT clearly didn't know much about the OT. That would be an easy reason for them to "change the way they interpret;" They probably didn't even have an interpretation in the first place. I am not saying that all Jews were that ignorant. A lot wern't even Jewish, nor very knowledgeable of its scriptures. Muslims do the same thing to the Bible which Christians do to the Tanakh. Why did muslims all a sudden misinterpret the Bible? Muslims use many of those prophecies, which Christians use for Jesus, to support their Mohammed. They believe their scripture explains previous ones, which Christians think of their NT. Then they but bias on it, then change it to support their cause.
There are several other reasons for not understanding the OT as I have mentioned before. They relied on Greek translation of scriptures originally written in Hebrew. Obviously problems arise, like the virgin birth mistranslation, when this happens. Also, there wasn't even an official Tanakh before Christ. Infact, the same OT that Protestants use today were infact created by Jews who rejected and denied Jesus. After the Jews gathered and decided which ones are "correct" and which ones wern't, then Protestants, hundreds of years later, decided to use the Tanakh for their OT.
"The most popular examples of oral history are the works of several authors that have, over the span of many hundred years BC, collected folklore which ultimately resulted in these works being included in a collective book known as the Old Testament. The New Testament was created by four different original authors whose slightly differing versions of many biblical events were combined. The Bible was therefore 'nearly' entirely created using oral history."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_history
Sources at the bottom
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
I would say it is "my" OT standard, but I approach the OT using the correct grammar, words, text, and approach which the earliest and most correct scriptures were written in. I myself cannot take credit for the language it was written in, infact I wasn't even alive when people spoke the language. The dead sea scrolls have shown great significance in how early scriptures, in its original language, was written. It has shown that the masoretic text has been the most correct thus far. Christians interpret scriptures according to NT bias, which itself was written based on a translated version of scriptures. It is understandable why they screw up. For example, micah 5:2 Christians claim a prophecy of Jesus town of Birth. In its original scriptue, the language itself doesn't even allow it to be interpreted as a city in any shape or form. Now, you say "interpretation" but I say that the language should rule it out first. Infact, it was referring to a clan of bethlehem, for cities are opened with a feminine pronoun. In Hebrew, it start with a masculine. Now, rationally one would disagree with Christian "interpretation." It is easy to fall victim to this for most cannot even read its language and have to trust Christian bias which too falls victim. The authors of the NT too couldn't read it, they, even the Jews, had to rely on Greek translation. Sometimes languages simply don't mix. Also, notice the last line in Micah 5:2. Read the KJV, they translated that word as that to show Christ was eternal. Read a modern translation, some Bibles correct it, some don't. It is correctly interpreted as "ancient times." Infact the KJV translated correctly 5 other times yet seemed to have "messed up" on that one part. Ironic, it was also a prophecy in the NT.
I will stop debating this though, this is my last post in this thread. One, my ADD is acting up again and I lose interest in things fairly fast. Medication isn't working either. I also am just justifying my own beliefs, it is understandable why Christians believe what they do. I think it is fine what they believe, as long as they don't misinterpret their own interpretation and do bad things with it like history has presented and I see in modern times as well.
Bennettresearch
Politically Incorrect
OK Jerry L
How abouth this one?
And Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him.
And He answered and said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here shall be left upon another, which will not be torn down."
How abouth this one?
And Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him.
And He answered and said to them, "Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here shall be left upon another, which will not be torn down."
Matthew (24:1-2)
Bennettresearch
Politically Incorrect
The Romans tore down the Temple in the revolt of 66 AD (CE whatever)
JerryL
You might be interested in visiting my thread on the Seven Seals. These are fulfilments of biblical prophecy that happened outside of the Bible.
JerryL
You might be interested in visiting my thread on the Seven Seals. These are fulfilments of biblical prophecy that happened outside of the Bible.
chariot of fire
New Member
oh! ds verse has caught my interest..isnt Jesus prophesying about the destruction of the magnificent Jewish temple??
take a look at this short story...
THE JEWISH AGE
Israel had a long string of histories on how they were oppressed and colonized by many countries. Although, Jews were originally the chosen race, God sometimes had to deliver them to their enemies instead of taking them away due to their disobedience. Before Jesus Christ came, the Jews were looking for a Messiah who would save them from oppression . They were under the bondage of the Pharaoh for 400 years. They cried out to God because their freedom had been lost for a very long period of time. The Jews knew that they were the nation of God. It was a common notion among the Jews that once a Jew was born, automatically he became a child of God and salvation was upon him. They believed that this could not be changed. They had known this since the time of the prophets. Abraham was the Father of the Jewish nation. God gave them the patriarchs, the prophets, the kings and the Covenant. It started with Abraham, Moses and Jacob until the twelve tribes of Israel were produced. God originally planned to give His salvation among the Jewish people. Later, the lives of the Jewish people revolved around the rituals in the temple. They became hard-headed and worshipped idols in spite of God's reminders through the prophets. However, God's grace continued and still sent the prophets to give them commandments to follow. Yet, they rejected God's offer to become their King because they wanted a physical king to rule them until Jesus Christ came and represented Himself as the standard of God's true Son. Instead of accepting God's final recourse for their redemption, they rejected Him and crucified the Savior. This grieved God's spirit until He left them and later turned to the Gentiles.
Titus, the Jewish general marked the end of the Jewish age when in 70 AD he destroyed the city of Jerusalem including the temple where the Jews used as a place of worship. This was also the fulfillment of what Jesus Christ prophesied in Matthew 24:2 saying, "...See ye not all these things? Verily I say unto you, there shall not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down." Jesus Christ was referring to the magnificent temple of the Jews built by King Solomon. It had two parts: the place called Holy Place where Jews worshipped and the Holy of Holiest where only the High Priest could enter. It was the place where the presence and glory of the Father dwelled. the HOLY PLACE of the temple in the Bible refers to the OLD EARTH - the jewish worshippers and the HOLY OF HOLIEST of the temple refers to the OLD HEAVEN in the Bible - where teachings of the Jews came from. God's presence formerly dwelled in this temple but later He faced it out...
because this Jewish temple was just the shadow of the real temple to come in the future. God doesnt want to dwell any longer on a temple built by human hands but in a real temple - us.
Jerry, it is also in the Gospel accoridng to Luke, which was not written after 66 A.D.
Luke Chapter 19 Verse 44 said:
Bennettresearch
Politically Incorrect
Hi Jerry, I expected as much from you. The subject of post-prediction is aninteresting one and can not really be proven on way or another. There is much to question about the Gospels and we hope that much of what we read about Jesus is true. It isn't so important when it was written as to whether it is accurate. I believe that this prophesy by Jesus really happened because I believe He was a true prophet.
Hi Chariot. Your line of discussion goes to the heart of a lot of the OT prophecies. I think the reason that Ezekiel has not been creditied with predicting the return of the Jews under Cyrus and the rebuilding of the Temple is because the new one became just as corrupt as the old one. His warning was not headed. Sorry to keep mum on where that is because I am writing a book about it.
Hi Sooper, I am not going to go off subject here, but your statements give thought to whether the Gospel writers were trying to make a monolinear connection between the OT and the NT by applying pre-exisiting standards in the text of the NT. One thing I have a problem with is that if the whole argument about Jesus being born of a virgin is true, then how can He be a direct descendant of David? Did they decide that this was a requirement and wrote it into the story? Deep subject.
Hi Chariot. Your line of discussion goes to the heart of a lot of the OT prophecies. I think the reason that Ezekiel has not been creditied with predicting the return of the Jews under Cyrus and the rebuilding of the Temple is because the new one became just as corrupt as the old one. His warning was not headed. Sorry to keep mum on where that is because I am writing a book about it.
Hi Sooper, I am not going to go off subject here, but your statements give thought to whether the Gospel writers were trying to make a monolinear connection between the OT and the NT by applying pre-exisiting standards in the text of the NT. One thing I have a problem with is that if the whole argument about Jesus being born of a virgin is true, then how can He be a direct descendant of David? Did they decide that this was a requirement and wrote it into the story? Deep subject.
Well if we are talking about the second coming I would think that it's time has come and gone.
MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
So is any thing really coming true? Has any of it ever came true? I would say no. It is all what you read into it. People could say the same about the prophecies of Nostradamus. Nostradamus' predictions were closer to being real but that is because he was smarter than those who wrote the bible, quran or whatever.
MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.
So is any thing really coming true? Has any of it ever came true? I would say no. It is all what you read into it. People could say the same about the prophecies of Nostradamus. Nostradamus' predictions were closer to being real but that is because he was smarter than those who wrote the bible, quran or whatever.
JerryL
Well-Known Member
Of course it was. Luke was written by a deciple of Paul (by most accounts) and is certainly post 66AD.
What, exactly, did you expect? That I would not take someone writing of a past event as prophecy?
Huh? I prophicy that a hurricane will flood New Orleans last month. Am I a true prophet too now?
Bennettresearch
Politically Incorrect
JerryL, your are missing my point!
Many of the quotes of Jesus are from before any Gospel was written about it. In writing about it in the future, Jesus was quoted as saying this. You are going along the lines of the Jesus Seminar in trying to decide what is really a quote and that which was written into the Gospel as to what Jesus said.
Therefore, it is equally wrong to automatically assume that everything said in the Gospels was merely a creation of whoever wrote it tan it is to say tha everything in the Gospels is true. This area of study is ongoing.
As to my expectations, it was based upon the direction I saw you going in previous statements. I myself have many questions about the Gospels, but like I said, Jesus was a prophet and it would stand that like other prophets he saw the eventual destruction of the Temple. I have no proof that this statement isn't true and my chagrin is that we don't have a definitive Gospel written or dictated to a scribe by Jesus Himself. That would make the study of the Gospels much easier indeed.
Didn't mean to offend.
Many of the quotes of Jesus are from before any Gospel was written about it. In writing about it in the future, Jesus was quoted as saying this. You are going along the lines of the Jesus Seminar in trying to decide what is really a quote and that which was written into the Gospel as to what Jesus said.
Therefore, it is equally wrong to automatically assume that everything said in the Gospels was merely a creation of whoever wrote it tan it is to say tha everything in the Gospels is true. This area of study is ongoing.
As to my expectations, it was based upon the direction I saw you going in previous statements. I myself have many questions about the Gospels, but like I said, Jesus was a prophet and it would stand that like other prophets he saw the eventual destruction of the Temple. I have no proof that this statement isn't true and my chagrin is that we don't have a definitive Gospel written or dictated to a scribe by Jesus Himself. That would make the study of the Gospels much easier indeed.
Didn't mean to offend.
joeboonda
Well-Known Member
There are many many prophecies of the Bible that took place in history 'outside the Bible', the destruction of Tyre, the world rulers predicted by Daniel, and the fact that Israel became a nation to name a few. If one honestly studies prophecy, one will find the truth, which leads straight to Jesus Christ, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Argue all you want, but you will face him one day.