Well, one wonders why that wasn't pointed out by the list-makers. I suppose because it makes it sound much less awesome.
Did someone ever say that, that Paul needs to point that out?
-
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!
Fulfillment of Prophecy in the New Testament
- Thread starter Samael_Khan
- Start date
Did someone ever say that, that Paul needs to point that out?
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
It is the nature of many Christians to proof text rather than read the text like it is supposed to, as is what many do with the OT's context. which is, disregard it. A good question to ask someone quoting any book is: "what is the book about and what is its context?". If they cannot answer this then they evidently do not understand what is written and their opinion isn't reliable.
It is like someone who quotes "42" from the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, but when you ask them what the context of the book is, they dunno why and they dunno what the question even was.
The supposed reason was because there was conflict between the Jews and Gentiles who converted to christianity in that specific congregation. The Jews were saying that they were superior to the Greek gentiles because they are God's chosen people. The culmination of Paul's argument is that in God's eyes there is no distinction between Jew and Greek and Gentiles, because they all worship God and in the new covenant all believers are equal despite nationality or who they are descended from, which should have been obvious to them. But that is referring to specific jews in a specific area who are part of the context.
edit: I had to edit some mistakes I made in this explanation above.
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
Yeah, it isn't a special prophecy because it applies to all natural Jews. A very weak argument on their part. But it is a necessary prerequisite.
Yeah. I still haven't seen anything but a guess on their part as to Jesus two geneaologies. It could be that one or both writers got the geneaology wrong. It could be that one is Joseph's ancestry and the other is Mary's. The problem is that they don't specify apart from having the word "supposed" in one of them. I would think that their reasoning is that Mary is a descendent of Judah if they want to make the claim.Harelian commentary:
Let's see, Jesus genealogy...here it is:
(Contradiction: Which geneaology of Jesus is correct?)
And so, Joseph, adoptive father of Jesus, may be a descendant of David. What does that say about Jesus? Absolutely nothing.
As the NT goes, Jesus would fully fulfill his role as King in the end as laid out in the book of Revelation in the future. Problem is that that doesn't give Jews a reason to believe now. To me, 2 Samuel seems to apply to Solomon but also doesn't because of his throne being established forever, as Solomon was the one who built the house in God's name.
@Rival and I already addressed this one in a previous post. Isaiah 7 is referring to Isaiah's wife who was a prophetess and their son would be called Immanuel and this prophecy was fulfilled when the two Kings left their two lands. I for one do not see it being fulfilled beyond that.
I agree with you here. It seems to be one of those random verse taken out of context.
I must look into this one. I do think that the rendering comes from the septuagint.
Although I did read the context that paraphrased quote is what the people Herod spoke to said about the prophecy. It is their quote. Matthew isn't saying that it is the correct quote. Matthew is speaking about a conversation that took place.
I should note that in Jewish law, even if one lineage is Mary's, that still says nothing about Jesus. It doesn't give him the right to the crown. Look, random fact about myself: I'm descended from a number of rabbis who, according to certain books that bring their lineages, are descendants of King David. Does that make me lawfully an heir to the throne? No. Why? Because I'm descended from my mom's side. Tribal lineage is from the father's side. I may still be a lawful heir to the throne, but we have no proof for that.
Then one must ask: What went through the heads of the authors of the Septuagint (I blame faulty translations not just on the authors of the KJV)?
Ah, so for Matthew it's important to be as historically accurate as possible.
Does that statement hold water?
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
Yes, I am aware of that Jewish Law. Can a son be considered an heir if he is adopted though?
ManSinha
Well-Known Member
To myknowledge, if a father wishes to leave an adopted son part of the inheritance, he may do so, but direct tribal connection isn't through adoption. For example, non-Kohen kids adopted by Kohens aren't Kohens (priests). I have a friend who's a Kohen whose parents adopted twin boys into the family - those kids don't go up in the middle of prayers to say the blessing of the Kohanim (Priestly Blessing - Wikipedia).
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
My friend and I are asking the same thing. Because if the translators were Jews, and the Jews were very concerned with accuracy, then why weren't they accurate? Or were they accurate but were aware that there can be varying translations? Maybe modern day Jewish understanding differs from the Jews in those days? It is something we are unsure of and we have to investigate deeper. Because the Christians have the right to say that the septuagint was translated by 70 Jewish Scholars so therefore the septuagint is valid. I have read that the reason why Jews eventually stopped using the Septuagint was because the Christians used it a lot as they were largely Greek speaking at the time.
Both mean the same, it doesn't matter. I prefer Tanach because the back and forth between capital and lowercase letters is jarring to me. And, I was taught in spelling class in 1st grade that Jews use "ch" for the guttural sound of "kh".
That's a big if. Remember what @Rival and I said about the origins of the Prophets and Writings sections in the Septuagint. But even Christian-Jews have biases towards Christianity. Yeah, yeah, hard to believe, I know.
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
I do not know how to gauge whether he intended to be or not, as historical inaccuracies might have resulted from ignorance and not have been deliberate. But him writing that someone else said something, especially some people he might not have considered spiritually reliable, allows the possibility that he didn't consider their rendering of the scripture to be word for word accurate.
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
Thanks. This is very useful. It has been a question I have wondered for a while.
Okay, follow-up: why didn't he write: "and this was incorrect as any knowledgeable man would know"?
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
It is a big if. I must actually check out the in depth origins of the Prophets and Writings sections in the septuagint. I think that any religious person has bias towards their own religion, as most people I have met are religious for emotional reasons rather than evidential ones.
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
I honestly do not think that they were concerned with the accuracy of the statements in the first place. It seems very much that paraphrases were OK with them. Hence why they used alternative readings to the hebrew.
So the exact interpretation might have been wrong, but Matthew certainly believed that it was an actual prophecy about Jesus as he shows that it was fulfilled by him in his writing.
Hey, I'm the same.
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
The crushing of the serpents head will happen after the apocalypse, after the 1000 year rule of the Messiah. The apocalypse ushers the Messiahs reign in. And, just a correction, the snake's head will be crushed and the offsprings heel will be struck by the snake, as God is here talking to the snake. So Jesus death was the snake's strike. I love the idea of Satan and the fall of man as it is a pretty cool story so I have no problem with the Christians even making it up
. It is a theology that develops over a period. the snake is only referred to as Satan in the Book of revelation if I remember correctly, in chapter 12. What is the Jewish understanding of the snake, Adam and Eve story in Genesis? Another question which I have wondered about.This is the types and shadows section, which focuses on symbolism and isn't necessarily prophecy. Read Hebrews to get an understanding of this. The Christian idea is that the whole sacrificial system was a symbol telling people of what was to come. Much like the symbols used in Freemasonry (I think the Freemason get their ideas of the use of symbols from types and shadows). The Jesus sacrifice basically has its foundations in the relevance of sacrifices and what they mean. The Christians would say that Jesus vigilantism was a cleansing, much like the acts of prophets in the old Testament, and approved by God. Also, the Christian and NT understanding is that Jewish tradition isn't sent down by God and is man made so following it doesn't matter.
I agree with you on this. But I suspect they are focusing on "the son of man part" in verse 4 (my NKJV says "the") which they would link to the Son of Man in Daniel, which they would link to Jesus.
I have no idea. My Bible translations all say "heart" and not intestines. I find it interesting that "your law is within my heart" is ommitted as it probably refers to the mosaic law.
The kingdom of heaven is the saving act. The Kingdom of heaven is basically paradise in the NT. (Just ask a JW. They REALLY focus on the Kingdom of Heaven and why it is mans salvation. It is their specialty.)
Yeah, it is so open ended that it could apply to many Jews. It falls under basic requirements at best and isn't specific.
Yeah, you see, it is like saying that people won't like what I say. So basically a person can say they fulfill this just by people not liking what they say. So if Jesus made a parable about killing people and people thought it was horrible then he could say "HA!!!! I fulfill prophecy!". Funnily enough this actually happened when Jesus says "you must eat my flesh". People said no thanks and left. The reasoning of those who stayed were only "To whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" which was a pretty weak argument for staying. (John 6: 53-71)
I think we'd need a whole DIR for that...