• 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

Faithofchristian

Well-Known Member
Hi there,

As a former Christian, having read the Old Testament and New Testament to completion and numerous books multiple times, it has always occurred to me that a few Old Testament scriptures that the New Testament says was fulfilled by Jesus or in some other way, seem to have been taken out of context.

Sometimes the writers would quote a single verse from a passage to prove a point and then when going back I would find that the context seemed very different.

In some cases I have found that this was a misunderstanding of the context on my part.

Would you guys say that the NT writers definitely take certain quotes out of context from the OT?

@Harel13

It's those who translation of the Hebrew and Greek or take certain quotes out of context.
Those people who translation of the Hebrew and Greek did the best that they could with what limited tools they had.

Where we today have the technology to do a lot better of a job .

So at least give them some credit for trying to translate the Hebrew and Greek languages
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
It's those who translation of the Hebrew and Greek or take certain quotes out of context.
Those people who translation of the Hebrew and Greek did the best that they could with what limited tools they had.

Where we today have the technology to do a lot better of a job .

So at least give them some credit for trying to translate the Hebrew and Greek languages
For Jews only, per the title.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
Yes. If you took it literally then Isaiah wold have to be God.

Isaiah is reporting what he sees and what others say.

Verse 6 reports, "While you shall be called “Priests of the LORD,” And termed “Servants of our God.” You shall enjoy the wealth of nations And revel in their riches."

The YOU is the children of Israel. The YOU shall is a prophecy about the nation. Isaiah isn't guaranteeing that; he is speaking on behalf of God.

Verse 7 then continues
Because your shame was double— Men cried, “Disgrace is their portion”— Assuredly, They shall have a double share in their land, Joy shall be theirs for all time.

Then in verse 7 the text continues with the speaker (Isaiah on behalf of God addressing "you". But then the humans insist that disgrace will be what THEY (the children of Israel) get, God comes in and assures (as only He can) that they will have joy (note the third person pronoun). Once that third person is introduced, the verse 8 continues in that voice, as God is continuing his assurance referring to the people in third person - "And make a covenant with them for all time". The speaker (who was the "I" beforehand) is no longer the "I" of verse 8.

That is fascinating. In my translation verse 7 says:

"Instead of your shame you shall have double honour, and instead of confusion they shall possess double; Therefore in their land they shall possess double;everlasting joy shall be theirs."

So in my NKJV it says nothing about people thinking that disgrace is what they think they will get. But certain words like honour are in italics, which means that they aren't in the original text, so without that it says:

"Instead of your shame you double, And confusion they shall rejoice in their portion..."

This is how I read it:

In verse 61 someone is saying that The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me. He then starts preaching to people and comforting them up until verse 2. Those who are comforted are the ones who are referred to as "they". Then the "you" refers to Israel because that is who is being spoken to. Then it seems like the one speaking is referring to himself as the LORD, which is what the angels do.

Your explanation makes more sense though because of the "they" and "you".
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
I know this thread is for Jews only. Would just ask does if it make a difference in translation of NT to consider that during the copying, the redaction, the work of the scribes, the NT was not yet considered to be Scripture?
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
The flaw in the symbolism though is that the Deuteronomy text isn't saying under the sea, which would symbolise the grave, but other side of the sea, which means a foreign land across the sea.
In a flat-earth world, traveling to the end of the ocean will subsequently lead you to falling over the edge and under the ocean, where some believed Tartarus was. :wink::relieved:
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Paul's context here is that one isn't a child of God just because he is a Jew, which is the point of Romans. And he makes a good point. Yes, the Jews being among the nations were the reason God's Name was being blasphemed, as they said that they belonged to him, but it seemed as if he wasn't protecting them.
So they don't follow the law, God kicks them out, them having been kicked out blasphemes his name. So the point is proven that just because one is a Jew, does not mean that they are in good standing with God, and just because they know the law, that doesn't mean that they are its gatekeepers either, as often their ancestors had the law, but were often punished for not keeping it. And for God to exile a people or to get them killed shows his disapproval of them, so the wrong doers might as well not be Jews.

Paul disagrees with the popular Jewish view that while the merit of the patriarchs has ended, the covenant of the patriarchs has not. No matter how badly the Jewish people act, they will always remain God's people.

"...how much the more so for an entire people that has merit and the covenant of the ancestors that you have come to uproot!" (Bamidbar Rabbah 20:15)
And Shmuel said: The letter tav is the first letter of the word tama, ceased, indicating that the merit of the Patriarchs has ceased and will not help the wicked. (Shabbat 55a)
Tosfot there: "Says Rabbeinu Tam that the merit of the Patriarchs has ceased but the covenant of the Patriarchs has not ceased."​
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
I know this thread is for Jews only. Would just ask does if it make a difference in translation of NT to consider that during the copying, the redaction, the work of the scribes, the NT was not yet considered to be Scripture?

It would make a difference I think.

If it was just a recounting of records (which is what I hold the gospels to be) then the translations are fine. But that means that they are not infallible and cannot be wholly relied upon.

Many Christians today believe the gospels to be God breathed, thus believing in sola scriptura, meaning that the gospels are infallible, so they try their best to harmonize scripture. If the gospels are not God breathed and were not scripture then that makes a big difference.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
In a flat-earth world, traveling to the end of the ocean will subsequently lead you to falling over the edge and under the ocean, where some believed Tartarus was. :wink::relieved:

Huh? I did not know that. Tarturas was a Greek myth. So maybe Paul's symbolic reference takes that into account?
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
Paul disagrees with the popular Jewish view that while the merit of the patriarchs has ended, the covenant of the patriarchs has not. No matter how badly the Jewish people act, they will always remain God's people.

"...how much the more so for an entire people that has merit and the covenant of the ancestors that you have come to uproot!" (Bamidbar Rabbah 20:15)
And Shmuel said: The letter tav is the first letter of the word tama, ceased, indicating that the merit of the Patriarchs has ceased and will not help the wicked. (Shabbat 55a)
Tosfot there: "Says Rabbeinu Tam that the merit of the Patriarchs has ceased but the covenant of the Patriarchs has not ceased."​

It is interesting then that Christianity was started by Jews, as they would be considered the remnant brought back to God, like what is mentioned in Isaiah.

Paul's theology isn't that Jews are no longer God's people, but they are not exclusively such. But a Jew is only one of God's children if he follows God. So he uses an example of branch grafting on a tree to demonstrate that the Jews are the base, the ones which the promised have traveled through, some Jew's have been snapped off from the branch because they weren't Gods children and then the Gentiles are grafted on in place of them and thus become God's children.

Many Christians still believe that the 144 000 mentioned in Revelation 7 are physical Jews who have just become Christian, and that they have a special place.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
Maybe, but then is it still a reference to Deuteronomy?

It is in Paul's nature to convert OT scriptures to symbolism. But the coincidence is too convenient.

Tartarus is even a term used in the bible, as Tartarus is where the angels are kept in chains, much like the Titans were. Jesus is said to have preached to the fallen angels where they are kept before he ascended, which would be Tartarus.

It seems to me that Tartarus is a recurring them in the NT, and it takes advantage of the Greek myth to prove an NT point.

What we know of the NT writers is that they taught Greek people by using terms that the Greeks would understand, like referencing the Unknown God in Acts.

So I would say that it isn't a reference to the intention of the author of Deuteronomy. But Paul must have been very knowledgeable about Greek myth and the OT to take advantage of such a coincidence or to even be aware of it. He is manipulating the original text to prove to prove a teaching point.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
It is in Paul's nature to convert OT scriptures to symbolism. But the coincidence is too convenient.

Tartarus is even a term used in the bible, as Tartarus is where the angels are kept in chains, much like the Titans were. Jesus is said to have preached to the fallen angels where they are kept before he ascended, which would be Tartarus.

It seems to me that Tartarus is a recurring them in the NT, and it takes advantage of the Greek myth to prove an NT point.
Yeah, I know. In fact, I was originally going to write 'hell' but then remembered the Tartarus ref.
Sure, it probably is a reference to Greek Mythology and would tie in to what some people say that the Galilean Jews were much more hellenistic than the Judean Jews or even as an idea that's better understood by Greco-Roman gentiles. But, other than somewhat similar phrasing, that means that there isn't much to tie Paul here to Deuteronomy.
 

Samael_Khan

Goosebender
Yeah, I know. In fact, I was originally going to write 'hell' but then remembered the Tartarus ref.
Sure, it probably is a reference to Greek Mythology and would tie in to what some people say that the Galilean Jews were much more hellenistic than the Judean Jews or even as an idea that's better understood by Greco-Roman gentiles. But, other than somewhat similar phrasing, that means that there isn't much to tie Paul here to Deuteronomy.

I think Paul used the Etymological fallacy.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
I wonder if Paul was drawing upon something from some now unknown sect that bridged that gap we appear to be seeing between traditional 2nd Temple Judaic practices and beliefs and his Greco-Hebrew view. The more I look at it the more it seems there are missing links, however untenable, between Paul's view and the otherwise standard Jewish one in Israel.

One wonders at the groups he was preaching to; especially in Galatians where he rants about how the 'foolish Galatians' were 'bewitched' into following the Law. Why would they have any inclination to do that? There seems to have been some reluctance even in these apparently total Pagan-before-conversion communities that confuses me. The other problem is we only have Paul's letters, so we don't know the other half of the conversation.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
The other problem is we only have Paul's letters, so we don't know the other half of the conversation.
Hey, for all we know the other people were calling him to quit his nonsense and get a job...:p:D
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
Walked right into that one, didn't I? :)
The best bit is where Paul's preaching is so long and boring Eutychus falls asleep and falls out of a window.

7 Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul, ready to depart the next day, spoke to them and continued his message until midnight.
8 There were many lamps in the upper room where they were gathered together.
9 And in a window sat a certain young man named Eutychus, who was sinking into a deep sleep. He was overcome by sleep; and as Paul continued speaking, he fell down from the third story and was taken up dead.
10 But Paul went down, fell on him, and embracing him said, "Do not trouble yourselves, for his life is in him."
11 Now when he had come up, had broken bread and eaten, and talked a long while, even till daybreak, he departed.
12 And they brought the young man in alive, and they were not a little comforted.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
The best bit is where Paul's preaching is so long and boring Eutychus falls asleep and falls out of a window.

On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. the upper room where we were gathered. fell down from the third story and was taken up dead. bent over him, and taking him in his arms, said, “Do not be alarmed, for his life is in him.” had broken bread and eaten, he conversed with them a long while, until daybreak, and so departed. 12 And they took the youth away alive, and were not a little comforted.
Someone mentioned this to me a few days ago. Maybe @Israel Khan?
 
Top