Another question about prophecies fulfilled by Jesus

[CG Didymus]

I checked out a site that tried to answer the question about a prophecy saying that Jesus would suffer, die, and rise again. This is what it said:

In Luke 24:46 He told them ,"This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day." Where in the Old Testament is the above written, particularly the rising from the dead on the Third Day?
Answer
That the Messiah was to suffer is a common theme in the prophecies of Isaiah. Four passages talk about “the Servant,” and each indicates a suffering servant. The passages are Isaiah 42:1-4; 49:1-7; 50:4-9; and 52:13-53:12. The most famous of these is Isaiah 53. A friend of mine has an excellent booklet that can be downloaded in PDF format, which deals in detail with these passages. It can be viewed/downloaded at http://www.padfield.com/acrobat/sermons/suffering-servant.pdf
While there is no single passage that says directly that the Messiah will rise again on the third day, there are passages that, by the Jewish manner of interpretation, imply that.

"Imply"? Since the gospels and Paul's writing were after the fact. How does this even come close to being "as written" or "as Scripture says"? It sounds too much, again, like Christians making the Jewish Scriptures saying what they want them to say.

 

[CMike]

The "suffering servant" is Israel.

The original Isaiah isn't broken down by chapters.

The prosephy in 53 starts in 52, and goes to 54.

Israel is clearly mentioned as it's subject.

No jewish scripture has anything to do with jesus.

Jesus is the christian whatever he is to christian, he has no real value in judaism.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I checked out a site that tried to answer the question about a prophecy saying that Jesus would suffer, die, and rise again. This is what it said:
"Imply"? Since the gospels and Paul's writing were after the fact. How does this even come close to being "as written" or "as Scripture says"? It sounds too much, again, like Christians making the Jewish Scriptures saying what they want them to say.

That is a web site for very non-ecumenical group calling themselves 'Church of Christ'. They call themselves that as a way of excluding all other churches and Christians. In other words their answers may have nothing to do with most Christians, Also there is more than one division that calls itself this, so again even groups that call themselves 'Church of Christ' believe widely different things. For example there is a Church of Christ that believes the gospel was lost for centuries then revived in the Philippines from whence it has begun to spread again in the USA only in the last twenty years (or 50 something like that), AND that this was all predicted in the Biblical prophets. Notice that their teachings are nothing like what other churches believe, and the exclusive title 'Church of Christ' is a kind of indicator that these are people who stay in their own group with their own jargon and their own untested ideas.

 

[CG Didymus]

The "suffering servant" is Israel.

The original Isaiah isn't broken down by chapters.

The prosephy in 53 starts in 52, and goes to 54.

Israel is clearly mentioned as it's subject.

No jewish scripture has anything to do with jesus.

Jesus is the christian whatever he is to christian, he has no real value in judaism.

It is supposedly Jesus himself saying that "It is written". Then I looked it up and it said that no where "Is it written" but it's implied? Wow. 40 years ago I took it for granted that I was being told the "truth". What's amazing is that Christians still find a way to justify what the NT says is correct. I don't understand why they didn't just say that "We're a new religion. We're loosely based on Judaism, but we're different." Oh, the other part of "It is written" is that it supposedly said the Christ is to die and rise again in three days. The closest they come is the "sign" of Jonah. Since he was three days in the belly of a fish, therefore the Christ will be in the belly of the earth. Because it was Jesus saying that, somehow, that story in Jonah became a prophecy? I guess? Thanks for your input.

 

[roger1440]

I checked out a site that tried to answer the question about a prophecy saying that Jesus would suffer, die, and rise again. This is what it said:
"Imply"? Since the gospels and Paul's writing were after the fact. How does this even come close to being "as written" or "as Scripture says"? It sounds too much, again, like Christians making the Jewish Scriptures saying what they want them to say.

I had mentioned this in a few threads. In the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) Jesus is portrayed as the Israel that never went astray or a sinless Israel. Since Jesus is Israel and Jesus is also the Messiah, then logic would dictate Israel is its own Messiah. The idea that Israel is its own Messiah does fall within the confines of some Jewish sects or denominations in modern times. It’s not that all off the wall. The Jesus of ALL known Gospels is a metaphor.

 

[CG Didymus]

I had mentioned this in a few threads. In the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) Jesus is portrayed as the Israel that never went astray or a sinless Israel. Since Jesus is Israel and Jesus is also the Messiah, then logic would dictate Israel is its own Messiah. The idea that Israel is its own Messiah does fall within the confines of some Jewish sects or denominations in modern times. It’s not that all off the wall. The Jesus of ALL known Gospels is a metaphor.

If it's in the "Scriptures", meaning the Jewish Scriptures, then it's got to be in it. It can't be in some round-about way, otherwise anything goes. In another thread I'm challenging the Baha'i concept of "progressive revelation". For them all religions are equal, from the one and same God, but they make everything that goes contrary to their interpretation a metaphor or a misinterpretation. Christians seem to be doing that with the Jewish Scriptures. They have "The Truth" and that truth is Jesus and they can prove it by using the Bible. Only thing is, you have to see it the way they tell you to see it. Why can't different religions just say they're different instead of pretending they part of some manipulated continuation of the previous religion? If it was clearly written in the Jewish Scriptures that the Christ was to die and rise again, that would be different. But no, it's not.

 

[Pegg]

I checked out a site that tried to answer the question about a prophecy saying that Jesus would suffer, die, and rise again. This is what it said:
"Imply"? Since the gospels and Paul's writing were after the fact. How does this even come close to being "as written" or "as Scripture says"? It sounds too much, again, like Christians making the Jewish Scriptures saying what they want them to say.

Jesus was also a prophet, and his teachings about such things are viewed as revelations about the prior prophecies. Even the prophets of old added new details to the writings of the prophets who came before them.

So the Christians were getting more details and clarifications of prior prophecies.

 

[seeking4truth]

The suffering servant in Isaiah is Jesus.
He wrote those texts as well as some of the psalms which after the destruction of the Temple and break up of Jewish religious authority.
This was after the Romans sacked Jerusalem.
Texts were reconstructed from texts kept in scattered Jewish communities including among the followers of Jesus who had preserved them eg. Dead Sea Scrolls

 

[CG Didymus]

Jesus was also a prophet, and his teachings about such things are viewed as revelations about the prior prophecies. Even the prophets of old added new details to the writings of the prophets who came before them.

So the Christians were getting more details and clarifications of prior prophecies.

That's exactly what Baha'is say their prophet did. So it ends up that anything can be "proven" to be true, because it was "prophesied". Still, where does it say in Scripture that the Christ would die and rise again?

 

[Brickjectivity]

If it's in the "Scriptures", meaning the Jewish Scriptures, then it's got to be in it. It can't be in some round-about way, otherwise anything goes. In another thread I'm challenging the Baha'i concept of "progressive revelation". For them all religions are equal, from the one and same God, but they make everything that goes contrary to their interpretation a metaphor or a misinterpretation. Christians seem to be doing that with the Jewish Scriptures. They have "The Truth" and that truth is Jesus and they can prove it by using the Bible. Only thing is, you have to see it the way they tell you to see it. Why can't different religions just say they're different instead of pretending they part of some manipulated continuation of the previous religion? If it was clearly written in the Jewish Scriptures that the Christ was to die and rise again, that would be different. But no, it's not.

You are choosing to view Christians in a particular way and using a particularly divisive sect to do it -- a worst case scenario. You posit that religions are problems not solutions. You finish up by suggesting the Bahai's should mind their own business and stop trying to harmonize the Abrahamic three, but the Bahai's are fully invested. They're dying, literally, to make their point. That isn't ever going to stop because you construct an effective argument. They are Bahai's, and Bahai's try to harmonize the three. Also Christians can be mellow. Christians can be part of a solution to problems and don't have to default to being a problem.

 

[CMike]

if it's in the "scriptures", meaning the jewish scriptures, then it's got to be in it. It can't be in some round-about way, otherwise anything goes. In another thread i'm challenging the baha'i concept of "progressive revelation". For them all religions are equal, from the one and same god, but they make everything that goes contrary to their interpretation a metaphor or a misinterpretation. Christians seem to be doing that with the jewish scriptures. They have "the truth" and that truth is jesus and they can prove it by using the bible. Only thing is, you have to see it the way they tell you to see it. Why can't different religions just say they're different instead of pretending they part of some manipulated continuation of the previous religion? If it was clearly written in the jewish scriptures that the christ was to die and rise again, that would be different. But no, it's not.

+100000

 

[CMike]

The suffering servant in Isaiah is Jesus.
He wrote those texts as well as some of the psalms which after the destruction of the Temple and break up of Jewish religious authority.
This was after the Romans sacked Jerusalem.
Texts were reconstructed from texts kept in scattered Jewish communities including among the followers of Jesus who had preserved them eg. Dead Sea Scrolls

You are extremely confused.

The suffereing servant clearly mentioned is Isarel.

King David wrote most of the psalms. Jesus wrote none.

Texts were never reconstructed. They all came from the five books of Moses and the Prophets who wrote their individual books. Of course there is also the oral law.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Yes, Israel is the suffering servant of Isaiah. The Psalms were written long before Jesus time. The oral law is implied to exist in one of the letters of Paul the Christian Apostle to gentiles though it is not directly called that. All of this underlines the head butting by new Christians who sometimes don't get sufficient explanation and introduction into scripture study as well as some of the very divisive church groups that would cut you off from fellowship just as soon as they'd look at you.

 

[rusra02]

There are prophetic events that applied to Jesus life and ministry. For example, Jesus said:"For just as Jo′nah was in the belly of the huge fish for three days and three nights, so the Son of man will be in the heart of the earth for three days and three nights." (Matthew 12:40)

 

[roger1440]

The suffering servant in Isaiah is Jesus.
He wrote those texts as well as some of the psalms which after the destruction of the Temple and break up of Jewish religious authority.
This was after the Romans sacked Jerusalem.
Texts were reconstructed from texts kept in scattered Jewish communities including among the followers of Jesus who had preserved them eg. Dead Sea Scrolls

Please quote yours sources. I have never heard any of this before.

 

[CG Didymus]

You are choosing to view Christians in a particular way and using a particularly divisive sect to do it...

No. The question is with the NT writers implying that Jesus' death and resurrection was stated in the Jewish Scriptures. Here's another site that is asking the same question that I'm wondering about:

Luke 24:46 vs. The Entire Old Testament

Luke is supposedly quoting a passage from the Old Testament:

Luke 24:46


He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,

However, the ironic thing is that there is no such verse in the Old Testament that mentions this statement. So either Luke made this up purposely to deceive his audience or either he quoted it from some other source that he deemed to be inspired, yet we don't have it today. If it is the latter, then it would still hold serious problems to the Christian who would have to explain why the word of God has not been preserved in its entirety and would raise questions about what else has not been preserved as well.

So forget the Church of Christ. They've got nothing to do with what I'm asking. The whole problem has to do with what Luke says: "This is what is written". Where? Too many people assume or take for granted that the religion they belong to is telling them the truth. Are they?

I have no doubt that a person who believes in Jesus can truly feel and believe that everything they are taught is the truth. But what are the facts? A major part of what is supposed to be factual are the prophecies. Most Christians I'm sure have no problem with the different prophecies that are supposedly found in the Jewish Scriptures. I find them questionable.

 

[Desert Snake]

I have no doubt that a person who believes in Jesus can truly feel and believe that everything they are taught is the truth. But what are the facts? A major part of what is supposed to be factual are the prophecies. Most Christians I'm sure have no problem with the different prophecies that are supposedly found in the Jewish Scriptures. I find them questionable.
[/FONT][/SIZE]

You are actually talking about "Judaism", not "Jewish Scriptures". Judaism is a religion with specific views which differ from Christianity, it's apples & oranges, Christianity uses Judaic Scriptures, not 'Judaism" for interpretation.

 

[Brickjectivity]

No. The question is with the NT writers implying that Jesus' death and resurrection was stated in the Jewish Scriptures. Here's another site that is asking the same question that I'm wondering about:
So forget the Church of Christ. They've got nothing to do with what I'm asking. The whole problem has to do with what Luke says: "This is what is written". Where? Too many people assume or take for granted that the religion they belong to is telling them the truth. Are they?

I have no doubt that a person who believes in Jesus can truly feel and believe that everything they are taught is the truth. But what are the facts? A major part of what is supposed to be factual are the prophecies. Most Christians I'm sure have no problem with the different prophecies that are supposedly found in the Jewish Scriptures. I find them questionable.

Oh, I see what you are saying. None of the quotations of 'Fulfillment' in Matthew refer to anything at all like a prediction in the original source prophets, but a lot of preachers act as if they do. The gospel writers refer to quotations from prophets and say that those are fulfilled, but when you look up the quotation in the associated prophet there doesn't immediately seem like a connection and certainly not a prediction.

Also its totally incompatible with the way Church of Christ interprets the NT, true. That is a good example. Also many other people don't, as you say, bother to look up the sources referred to in the gospels. Because of that a lot of people presume that there are lots of predictions in the Bible that predict things done in the NT when there are no predictions of the items that the gospel writers call fulfilments.

 

[CG Didymus]

Oh, I see what you are saying. None of the quotations of 'Fulfillment' in Matthew refer to anything at all like a prediction in the original source prophets, but a lot of preachers act as if they do. The gospel writers refer to quotations from prophets and say that those are fulfilled, but when you look up the quotation in the associated prophet there doesn't immediately seem like a connection and certainly not a prediction.

Also its totally incompatible with the way Church of Christ interprets the NT, true. That is a good example. Also many other people don't, as you say, bother to look up the sources referred to in the gospels. Because of that a lot of people presume that there are lots of predictions in the Bible that predict things done in the NT when there are no predictions of the items that the gospel writers call fulfilments.

Yes, exactly. Sorry about the confusion.

 

[CMike]

You are actually talking about "Judaism", not "Jewish Scriptures". Judaism is a religion with specific views which differ from Christianity, it's apples & oranges, Christianity uses Judaic Scriptures, not 'Judaism" for interpretation.

It's the same thing.

Judaism comes from Jewish scripture.