Fulfillment of Prophecy in the New Testament

[Samael_Khan]

Some especially Messianic prophecies seem to have been written and not meant to be understood properly till the fulfilment came. With some other Messianic prophecies there is indeed a logical progression that can be understood and could have been understood by the Jews, but the paths of logic in some instances meant that they would have to think a bit differently than through the dogmas they had set up to think with. I think it would have been hard for them to see the full truth of the Messiah even if to those Jews who did accept Jesus, the meaning of the prophecies seemed easy enough to see.

I understand if this meant that the context validated a certain conclusion but that the Jews were too blind to see it because of tradition. But if the context isn't there then the prophecy is worthless.

True I am biased, but I accept the internal evidence of the timing of the gospel writing and accept the traditions and internal evidence for the authorship. Modern historians use methods that are also biased however and they seem to reject the internal evidence and tradition (no matter how reliable) and make the assumption that the prophecy about the destruction of the temple had to have been written after the event, and then look for a time and place that they think might fit each gospel after that event.

Archaeological evidence trumps tradition, and internal evidence is only relevant regarding writing style to identify age and some other archaeological stuff. Authors intent is also valid but says something about the author and not what was actually happening at the time in many cases. Modern historians don't necessarily reject internal evidence and traditions, because they have used the Bible to point to archaeological discoveries.

With regards to prophecy about the destruction of the temple, do you have evidence showing archaeologist's biases?

Isaiah's context of the Isaiah 9 prophecy being about a divine child who is the Messiah (rules on David's throne forever) can make the Isa 7 child a child of a virgin, which is legitimate if we accept that Almah is indeed used to refer to virgins at times in the OT.
But also the immediate context of the Isaiah prophecies can also point to a normal child and a differing translation and non literal understanding of Isa 9 can point to Hezekiah I guess, if one is desperate for a fulfilment. BUT there should always be a mind that can see the alternatives and see that the prophecies could be dual prophecies and the Jews should be ready to admit that. But Isaiah's commission (Isa 6) shows that God wanted that the Jews did not fully understand things. (That is a tough one to understand but God has His reasons)

Translating Almah as virgin in Isaiah 7 is not legitimate. Context prevents that.

Saying that God has his reasons for making a a statement ambiguous or hidden is begging the question.

There is no reason that makes one think a prophecy has a dual fulfillments unless the author says so.

I have heard that Almah can be translated as virgin, and has been used to refer to virgins. But of course the translation of "virgin" probably does not fit the context of the original prophecy of Isa 7, I think, and so that is why I see that original prophecy as giving a rough time span for events then, which would have happened as predicted if Ahaz had done as God wanted, to calm down and trust Him. A baby may have been born whose name was Immanuel etc. BUT the use of "virgin" would still only be referring to the literal understanding of the Messianich prophecy in Isa 9.
I hope you could follow that.

I can definitely follow the Christian reasoning regarding this, as I used to believe it myself, but I reject it because of exegesis. So I can look inside and outside the christian perspective.

It's a bit far back and long ago for me to remember really. I guess the literal Isa 9 prophecy is Messianic and refers to a divine Messiah and Immanuel means God with us and sounds as if it could be about someone divine. The child of Isaiah was not Immanuel but fulfilled the time span meaning. God's words to Ahaz were that if he did not stand firm in his faith he would not stand at all. (Isa 7:9) and this is what happened. The child called Immanuel was to be given for a trusting Ahaz, but was not given at all because Ahaz did not stand firm in his faith.
I'm just guessing what I had meant.

We shouldn't overemphasise the importance of a name's meaning unless God changed it for a specific reason related to the context. Otherwise we could see many people as divine.

The question regarding Ahaz is: was there a child born in the time of the two Kings and did they leave the land before the child knew right from wrong?


Also, a question I have been thinking about, are there two Kings who died in Jesus childhood? We know of King Herod, but was there another one?

There are prophecies in the OT which have not yet been fulfilled and which are expected to be fulfilled eventually. Does that make the prophet a false prophet? I guess the prophet was seen as not false based on fulfilled prophecy originally but anything which should have been fulfilled long ago and has not been, probably would indicate a false prophet. The Jews seem to have original fulfilment or explanation of prophecies that have dual meaning.

So, no. A yet unfulfilled prophecy does not make the prophet false as long as the fulfilment fits the context. Revelations is a good example.

Starting with the 2nd point, I should have said in needs one to know the story of Jesus first (not believe first).
With the 1st point, Jews do look at what Christians say and claim we understand things the wrong way and cannot be right, but as far as I can see we are just using alternative but legitimate understanding and translation of scriptures, but imo the Jews have so completely rejected the Christian understanding that it is true what the prophecy says that the Jews have cut Jesus/their king off from themselves in more ways than one. Judaism seems set in it's thinking about Christianity.

I disagree with your first point about Jesus. One would have to know which prophecies are about the Messiah first, make predictions off that and then determine who fulfilled them.

I wouldn't paint Judaism with such a broad brush. I do think their traditions get in the way, but the traditions also helps one to understand things, and in any case it is their religion and texts so they can do what they want with them. You certainly are using alternative understanding but to say it is legitimate still has to be proven.

 

[rosends]

Just to butt in here with this one. Genesis 3:15 mentions the woman's offspring who crushes the head of the serpent as ONE person, either by using "it" or "he". So it cannot apply to multiple people.

Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed. He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel."

The various Aramaic translations (Onkelos, TYonatan and TYerushalmi) see the reference as a plural probably because the antecedent, "zera" (in the form of zar'acha and zar'ah) (seed) is a collective noun that is dealt with as a singular when it takes a pronoun but as a plural when you deal with its constituent elements conceptually. So it doesn't refer to one person but to the descendants as a group. Compare to Gen 15:13, "A stranger (singular noun) will zar'acha, your seed be (sing verb)" -- it doesn't mean that one person will be a stranger in Egypt, but that all the descendants will be even though the text speaks in the singular. So this verse does not apply only to a single person.

 

[Brian2]

No, not exactly, only in the sense that we have the Original Writings of Baha'u'llah penned in His own hand, so we know exactly what He wrote; and also in the sense that His message of the unity of mankind as well as His social teachings and laws are pertinent thus what is needed in this new age.

Hi Susan, fancy meeting you here.
Jesus teachings are more pertinent in the long run imo, as we all die and need a remedy for this, and the teaching of Jesus on love covers any spiritual teaching and what Jesus offered, God's Spirit in us and guiding us eliminates the need for any other Messenger to humanity. Jesus is the anointed and He alone..........imho
The teachings of the whole Bible from the very start teach the unity of mankind. That message is not new and is not heeded.
It is God's plan to bring unity through Jesus for humanity and everything.
Eph 1:9 And He has made known to us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure, which He purposed in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to bring all things in heaven and on earth together in Christ.
When humans need to cooperate they will do this but that is not and will not be the unity that God wants for us all.
Knowing who wrote something and what he wrote does not make it true. Other people witnessing to you and about you is a better sign that what you did and said it true, especially if they witness that God gave His seal of approval by resurrection from the dead.

However, the spiritual teachings of all all the previous Messengers are just as valid as they ever were.
As Jesus said: Matthew 24:35 “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

We both know that Baha'i wants to correct the teachings of all religions and deny their scriptures while saying that they believe them and that Baha'is do not really believe what you just quoted.
We have been through all of this before more than once.

 

[Brian2]

By accepting Jesus one does not discard the Old Testament, one sees it with a new frame of reference. It is the same as accepting all the New Covenants, the Old is fulfilled, the spiritual teachings made more clear.

By accepting Baha'u'llah one denies many of the teachings of the OT and NT............imo

 

[Brian2]

The problem with the last point is that it equally applies to anybody who wishes to claim that certain verse prophecy them, whether right or wrong. That is problematic and therefore if it was the original intent of the OT author, then it is incompetent.

There are many many Messianic prophecies and some are rather hidden and probably would not even be recognised without having seen what the Messiah actually did and is supposed to do. To fulfil all these prophecies along with the hidden ones is not easy for someone to do, especially when it entails being killed by the Jews and rising from the dead, something that I don't think anybody noticed in the OT till it was pointed out by the Christians. I could be wrong, the Jews were pretty astute at finding these things.

The problem here is how one determines what typology stems from good imagination or not? One certainly cannot say something like "because Jesus and Paul said so" because that is circular reasoning. One has to be able to determine such without their input to determine whether it is just their imagination.

As you have said, typology is easy to see and play with in the Bible. It is a matter of knowing what Jesus did and looking up references to it from the OT and either recognising that it is typology or denying that the quotes are about the Messiah or about Jesus and denying that typology is there and is used as a means of giving and no doubt hiding prophecies.
As I say, it is hard to say a prophecy is about you if you don't know it is there.

 

[Brian2]

Well, a specific Israelite who is internal to the text, the speaker, Isaiah. Not a random other Israelite.

I actually don't see Isaiah in the text, and Isaiah was not called from his mother's womb.

But if, via the grammar, we can see that it IS appropriate for one or the other, then Jesus is not a possibility.

If you could do that, it would not eliminate another another Israelite being the one speaking, especially someone who is Divine and able to speak through the prophets. The Son of God (Ps 2) Mighty God (Isa 9)

Really? Because the text of 49 says otherwise. And the text of Isaiah 6 is the first phase in this, as the downfall has to be foretold before the return. As the Radak writes about the role delineated:
כי אף על פי שיגלו כולם לא תחשבו כי יכלו בגלות ולא ישובו לארצם כי עוד יפרחו ויצמחו וישובו לארצם
"For even though they will be exiled, don't think that they will cease in exile and never return to their land as they will once again flower and grow and return to their land" (my translation).
Both parts are elements of the mission of Isaiah. And both are found in the text.
As the Ibn Ezra writes on 49:5 "God formed me, that I should rebuke Israel, till they returned to Him."
Thus there is no need to find an outside messianic figure as the text is very explicit about how it refers to Isaiah in this case.

Isaiah did not restore Israel or bring Israel back. Isaiah may have prophesied that this would happen one day but Isaiah did not accomplish it and what did he do as a light and salvation for the gentiles?

49:7 begins a new address "ko amar hashem" thus says God. And it speaks to the nation which is the subject, as servant, or the reports in 52 and 53. No need to read anyone else in.

Yes I was wondering that when I wrote the last post. Interestingly it probably does not matter. Isa 49:7 speaks of one who is despised and abhorred by the nation. One nation. He is despised and abhorred by Israel. He was when He lived by the rulers and many others. Isa 52:13-15 It is Isaiah speaking in this prophecy also but of course is not speaking about himself except maybe in Isa 53:1. He asks who has believed our report (concerning the servant he is speaking about, and using "our" to maybe also indicate the report of the Kings, but more likely the report of other prophets)? The Kings believed but Israel did not. Then it goes on to tell us something about the servant, about his life and how he suffered and was despised and looked down upon in life,,,,,,,,,,,by his own people. (it has to be his own people because the gentiles were not there in his life)
It seems to fit with Isa 49:7 about the one who was despised by the Nation (Israel) and acknowledged by Kings.
In Isa 53:4 it is the Jews who considered Him punished by God (the gentiles did not even know He existed)
BUT you have your own understanding.

This is not a subject for this thread but there are plenty of sites and pages which can explain that not only

1. did Jesus only "fulfill" anything by testimony of the self serving work
1a. he "fulfilled" things based on poor readings and misapplications of verses, some of which weren't even messianic and
2. he also didn't fulfill what he was supposed to to be the messiah

It is probably the subject of the thread. But it probably deserves a thread of it's own.

Since that woman is Eve, we ALL are.

Yes we all are offspring or seed of the woman, but it is only one who will crush the head of satan and it is only one who came from a woman without any male involvement.

They did not understand their own texts the way you choose to. If your position is that native speakers, closer to the event misunderstood something that you, thousands of years later get from a translation, then say so.

Not all Jews rejected Jesus and they managed to justify it in the text. What they did not believe was the report given the witnesses. It is as Isa 53 says. "Who has believed our report........"

 

[rosends]

I actually don't see Isaiah in the text, and Isaiah was not called from his mother's womb.

Sure he was -- he says he was really clearly, that God decided what his mission was to be while he was still in teh womb. Are you saying God didn't decide that?

If you could do that, it would not eliminate another another Israelite being the one speaking, especially someone who is Divine and able to speak through the prophets. The Son of God (Ps 2) Mighty God (Isa 9)

You wrote "If we can see the passage as not appropriate for Isaiah and for the nation of Israel as a whole AND if we can see a Messianic application in the passage then Jesus is really an appropriate possibility for the servant."
And I pointed out that we can show the passages as appropriate for Isaiah and Israel so there is no reason to have it refer to anyone else. Your if/then is deflated. Claiming that even if I showed that you STILL could have it refer to someone else is a different argument.

Isaiah did not restore Israel or bring Israel back. Isaiah may have prophesied that this would happen one day but Isaiah did not accomplish it and what did he do as a light and salvation for the gentiles?

God will restore Israel (I sense that you have misread verses 5 and 6) and Isaiah will serve as a beacon throughout the generations. As the Malbim wrote
עתה לא יהיה תכלית שליחותך ענין פרטי שהוא להשיב הדור ההוא בתשובה רק ענין גדול כללי, כי אתה נמשחת לבשר ענוים הבשורות הגדולות והנחמות העתידות, בעת הישועה הכללית שתהיה באחרית הימים, אשר לאור נבואתך ילכו גוים רבים, ,
Now the purpose of your mission will not be a particular item to return that generation in repentance, but a large, general item. For you continued to proclaim the items of the important news and future consolation -- the time of general salvation that will be at the end of days, when by the light of your prophecies many nations will go
(trans mine)

So the charge to be a light unto the nations was for Isaiah and was to continue beyond his lifetime. I guess when the messiah comes, you can decide if his words had any effect.

Yes we all are offspring or seed of the woman, but it is only one who will crush the head of satan and it is only one who came from a woman without any male involvement.

Does that mean that all the times in the text that God talks to the forefathers about their seed it means only their ones of their seed that had no female involvement? #dontbesilly

Not all Jews rejected Jesus and they managed to justify it in the text. What they did not believe was the report given the witnesses. It is as Isa 53 says. "Who has believed our report........"

The ones who did left Judaism by doing so. You can tell because they aren't Jewish now. And you misunderstand what is happening in Is 53 if that's how you quote it.

 

[CG Didymus]

Some especially Messianic prophecies seem to have been written and not meant to be understood properly till the fulfilment came.

I understand if this meant that the context validated a certain conclusion but that the Jews were too blind to see it because of tradition. But if the context isn't there then the prophecy is worthless.

We both know that Baha'i wants to correct the teachings of all religions and deny their scriptures while saying that they believe them and that Baha'is do not really believe what you just quoted.
We have been through all of this before more than once.

"too blind to see it because of tradition." That, as you know, is exactly what Baha'is say to Christians... Christians are so caught up into their misinterpretations and traditions they could not see "The Christ" when he did return. The Baha'is say that Baha'u'llah fulfilled...

"In that day also he shall come even to thee from Assyria, and from the fortified cities, and from the fortress even to the river, and from sea to sea, and from mountain to mountain ... Feed thy people in the midst of Carmel..." [Micah 7: 10-12]

Bahá'u'lláh was banished first to Assyria (now part of Iraq), then to the city of Constantinople, then again to the fortress within the fortified city of Akka. When finally released from the fortress, he stayed on an island in the Na'mayn river. During His banishments He travelled on the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, lived as a Holy Man on Mount Gar-lu and pitched His tent on Mount Carmel, the "Mountain of God" where Elijah had dwelt in his cave.​

And...

"And behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east." [Ezekiel 43:2]

Bahá'u'lláh, Whose name means "Glory of God", came from Persia which is east of the Holy Land. And again:

"And the glory of the Lord came into the house by way of the gate whose prospect is towards the east." [Ezekiel 43:4]
The Person Who came to prepare the way for Bahá'u'lláh was called the Báb, which means the Gate.​

And they say he is the Comforter...

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come. – John 16:13.
​

Christians, I'm sure have a different interpretation... and it depends a lot on the context. Then, Jews, no doubt, disagree with both Christians and Baha'is on the Micah and Ezekiel verses that Baha'is say are prophecies about Baha'u'llah. Here's another one from Abdul Baha...

In the eighth chapter of the Book of Daniel, verse thirteen, it is said: “Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary 42 and the host to be trodden under foot?” Then he answered (v. 14): “Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed”; (v. 17) “But he said unto me … at the time of the end shall be the vision.” That is to say, how long will this misfortune, this ruin, this abasement and degradation last? meaning, when will be the dawn of the Manifestation? Then he answered, “Two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” Briefly, the purport of this passage is that he appoints two thousand three hundred years, for in the text of the Bible each day is a year. Then from the date of the issuing of the edict of Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem until the day of the birth of Christ there are 456 years, and from the birth of Christ until the day of the manifestation of the Báb there are 1844 years. When you add 456 years to this number it makes 2300 years. That is to say, the fulfillment of the vision of Daniel took place in the year A.D. 1844, and this is the year of the Báb’s manifestation according to the actual text of the Book of Daniel. Consider how clearly he determines the year of manifestation; there could be no clearer prophecy for a manifestation than this.​

This clearly adds up to the year 1844... but... why start with the year 456? That was the edict to rebuild Jerusalem. In Daniel it says...

“How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, the surrender of the sanctuary and the trampling underfoot of the LORD’s people?”
14 He said to me, “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.”​

So how do Christians and Jews interpret this prophecy? And do either start with 456BC like the Baha'is?

And still... are the basic Jewish prophecies about when the Messiah will come and what he will do fulfilled? Christians say, "Yes, but some of them won't be fulfilled until he comes back." Baha'is say, "Yes, all has been fulfilled... but some are figurative and bringing peace is an ongoing process, not an immediate thing that gets fulfilled." Great, everybody could "prove" they are right.

 

[CG Didymus]

We both know that Baha'i wants to correct the teachings of all religions and deny their scriptures while saying that they believe them and that Baha'is do not really believe what you just quoted.
We have been through all of this before more than once.

By accepting Baha'u'llah one denies many of the teachings of the OT and NT............imo

And that is the point. And to be fair, Christians do that to the Jews. Everything is vague enough to where smart people can go either way with the interpretations and feel confident that those interpretations are correct.

Baha'is have some great teaching, but... why follow them? Why believe those teachings are really from God? Because their prophet said he was sent by God? That he claims to be the Promised One of all the major religions? That's the problem. There are a million reasons to doubt what he claims is true. And, for those that believe him, there are million reasons to accept his claims. If I find one that's not too bad and quite believable, I find two that are too vague, out of context or just plain wrong. But I can do that with Jesus too. Like Matthew 2:23...

"and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets, that he would be called a Nazarene."
​

Really? Where did Matthew get that? But, then again, who wrote Matthew? Once I start digging in to verifying these things to myself, I have plenty of reasons to doubt. And, of course, there are great reasons to believe. But then, what do you do? Blot out the problematic verses and problematic teachings and beliefs of Christianity? And, I'm sure, you have to do this too as you sort through the teachings and beliefs of some Christian denomination. Which ones can you trust and which ones are reading too much into the Bible and coming up with interpretations you can't get behind?

So Baha'is have done it to all the major religions. They drop off the teachings they can't get behind and call it all "progressive revelation". God keeps updating his teachings as humanity evolves and grows spiritually. That sounds good, but what about the rest of the Baha'i teachings and claims? Although, I don't totally believe in their claims, I think the Baha'i Faith is worth looking at and considering as possibly true.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hi Susan, fancy meeting you here.

Sorry Iggy, I did not recognize you with your new name.
Good to see you here... Sorry I never caught up with you on Planet Baha'i but I have been super busy.

Jesus teachings are more pertinent in the long run imo, as we all die and need a remedy for this, and the teaching of Jesus on love covers any spiritual teaching and what Jesus offered, God's Spirit in us and guiding us eliminates the need for any other Messenger to humanity.

Even if that was true, which I do not believe, what about people who are not Christians?

The 67% of people in the world who are not Christians are not going to convert to Christianity, so that leaves all those people without any guidance from God, according to Christianity. Imo it is an untenable belief system that flagrantly disregards two thirds of the world population just because they did not accept Jesus as Savior.

The teachings of the whole Bible from the very start teach the unity of mankind. That message is not new and is not heeded.

I disagree that the Bible taught the unity of mankind. You trying to take a primary teaching of Baha'u'llah and apply it to the Bible in order to make Baha'u'llah superfluous, but it won't work. The Bible did not teach the unity of mankind because the world was nowhere near ready to be united during the Bible dispensation. You cannot make the Bible apply to the Dispensation of Baha'u'llah, because the Bible was written for the Dispensation of Jesus.

Dispensation

1. the divine ordering of the affairs of the world.
2. an appointment, arrangement, or favor, as by God.
3. a divinely appointed order or age:

e.g. the old Mosaic, or Jewish, dispensation; the new gospel, or Christian, dispensation.

Definition of dispensation | Dictionary.com

According to Baha'i beliefs, the Revelation identified with Bahá’u’lláh abrogates unconditionally all the Dispensations gone before it, and that would include the new gospel, or Christian, dispensation.

It is God's plan to bring unity through Jesus for humanity and everything.
Eph 1:9 And He has made known to us the mystery of His will according to His good pleasure, which He purposed in Christ 10 as a plan for the fullness of time, to bring all things in heaven and on earth together in Christ.

Imo, that verse in no way applies to world unity as it was envisioned by Baha'u'llah, for which He devised a concrete plan in His Writings which involves the Baha'i administration. Again, you are trying to make the Bible apply to a dispensation that it does not apply to. You are trying to do what you say Baha'is do; you say Bahais try to make what Baha'u'llah wrote FIT with the Bible, and now you are trying to make the Bible FIT with what Baha'u'llah wrote, but it will not work because old wine cannot be put into new wine sacs.

One cannot make a newer religion like the Baha’i Faith FIT into the same mold as the older religions such as Judaism or Christianity because Baha'i is a much more expansive revelation and has many more components that the older religions did not have; so Baha’i cannot be made to fit into the Bible mold.

Luke 5:37-38 And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.”

Matthew 9:17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved.

We both know that Baha'i wants to correct the teachings of all religions and deny their scriptures while saying that they believe them and that Baha'is do not really believe what you just quoted.
We have been through all of this before more than once.

Baha'is have no need for any older religions because we have a new religion that is not dependent upon the religions of the past, since it is a NEW Revelation from God. However, Baha'is do not deny any older scriptures; we just accept the way 'some' of the Bible has been explained by Baha'u'llah and Abdu'l-Baha. Explaining 'some' of what the Bible means is not correcting, because that would imply that Christians had the correct understanding of the Bible and the Baha'is corrected their understanding. However, there is no reason to think that Christians ever understood what all of the Bible meant because if they had understood it there would not be thousands of sects of Christianity all if whom disagree in many verse meanings. To say that Christians understand all of what the Bible means is logically impossible since Christian interpretations of many verses differ so much which has led to different beliefs among Christians.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

By accepting Baha'u'llah one denies many of the teachings of the OT and NT............imo

It can indeed be seen that way and there is a sound reasoning as to why. It is in fact true. An example is Matthew 5:17-48

In the passages quoted above Jesus say You have heard this, then Jesus says, but I say unto you. Consider when he said that the Jews accused Jesus, just as you have now accused Baha'u'llah.

Baha'u'llah also explains this. God's Messages in each age abolishes some laws, replaces some, but always upholds the basic virtues common in all Faiths. In that way, it is why the Faiths of the world appear to differ, as laws specific to an age are given and some changed in a subsequent age.

Also religion is progressive, in each age the Message given allows for a greater expansion on man's capacity. We have gone through building families to tribes to nations and now is the age for the Unity of all Humanity.

As such, we need to consider different frames of references in each age. Those that choose not to consider new frames of references, become those that reject God's Messengers.

IMHO

Regards Tony

 

[wellwisher]

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

One example is connected to the anticipated Messiah of the Old Testament. The New Testament claims that Jesus was the Messiah. The contradiction is connected to the OT Messiah expected to be rich and powerful and would beat back the enemies of Israel. While Jesus the Messiah was poor, humble and did not fight back. On the surface these appear to be two different people, which is why Jesus was not accepted by the scholars of his time.

The way this contradiction is resolved within the NT is connected to the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness by Satan. Among the many temptations, Satan promises Jesus the wealth and power of the kingdoms of the world if Jesus would bow down and worship Satan. Had Jesus bowed to Satan he would have become the anticipated OT Messiah, with all his power and bling.

Instead, Jesus, who knew the prophesy and Satan, took a different path and became the Messiah, but not the one expected and written of in the OT. That Messiah would have required an alliance with Satan.

Satan was condoned in heaven, up to Relations of the NT. Revelations was written maybe 50 years after Jesus. Satan was accepted in Heaven when Jesus appears and dies. Satan was condoned by God and had been put in charge of humans since the Fall from paradise. This is why Jesus never questioned Satan's authority to give him all the power and wealth of the kingdoms of the world. Jesus knew the offer was good, but he did not want to accept the offer. That would have extended the OT. Jesus's decision to go solo starts a power struggle in Heaven, from which Satan is finally expelled and no longer condoned in heaven.

The OT were the glory days of Satan. God was resting on the seventh day and he was mediated to humans through Satan. The NT is where Satan's authority is not longer from God and heaven, but would nevertheless feel very familiar to many.

The analogy would be a CEO whose contract is expiring. The board has not yet yet found a replacement. Those loyal to the CEO will continue to follow orders, even though his power is no longer under contract. Satan comes down to the earth having great wrath since his time is limited.

The elephant in the room is the Satan connection to the OT. Most atheists will quote the old testament to question the mercy and love of God. The answer was God's CEO was in charge of operations and he had little mercy. On the seventh day God rested. There is no mention I can find of the eight day, where God stops resting in the OT. God cannot work on the heavenly Sabbath, but another; Satan, could work for him.

The eighth day when God stops his rest is where a new round of creation begins. This started with the heavenly Jerusalem and the New Heavens and Earth.

 

[Brian2]

I understand if this meant that the context validated a certain conclusion but that the Jews were too blind to see it because of tradition. But if the context isn't there then the prophecy is worthless.

The context is probably there for most of the prophecies but it is hard to see at times.

Archaeological evidence trumps tradition, and internal evidence is only relevant regarding writing style to identify age and some other archaeological stuff. Authors intent is also valid but says something about the author and not what was actually happening at the time in many cases. Modern historians don't necessarily reject internal evidence and traditions, because they have used the Bible to point to archaeological discoveries.

With regards to prophecy about the destruction of the temple, do you have evidence showing archaeologist's biases?

It's not archaeological bias this time (even if that does seem to exist in the case of the Hebrews in Egypt and the conquest after the Exodus). It is certain assumptions that are used with the modern "higher criticism" method to evaluate history and in particular Biblical history. An assumption used is that prophecy was written after the event and so the dating is determined that way and therefore the traditional authors are thrown out when a late date is determined.
Tradition is not just made up but comes down because of what was known at the time the tradition was first established. So if an author is known then his name is attached to a gospel even if his name does not appear in the actual gospel story as the author.

Translating Almah as virgin in Isaiah 7 is not legitimate. Context prevents that.

Not if the context is seen as the prophecy of Isa 9, which does follow on from Isa 7 in a logical way.

Saying that God has his reasons for making a a statement ambiguous or hidden is begging the question.

Maybe the whole of these arguments are begging the question. They are all based on faith in God and in Jesus as His Messiah.

There is no reason that makes one think a prophecy has a dual fulfillments unless the author says so.

The human author may not even know of a dual meaning or what that other meaning may be. It is God who is the real author. (Begging the question?)

The question regarding Ahaz is: was there a child born in the time of the two Kings and did they leave the land before the child knew right from wrong?

I think that happened. The original prophecy before Isa 14:7 was that Ahaaz should not be concerned because what he is worried about will not happen, just trust God. Then God seems to have given a sign (the child) that the first prophecy was true by giving an alternative prophecy of what was now going to happen because Ahaz was not trusting God and was going off to ask assistance. The Emmanuel child does not necessarily mean a divine child but the change of name to the one God told Isaiah to call his child reflects the new prophecy of destruction on the land.
In Isa 8 Isaiah seems to be lamenting that Ahaz did not trust God when Isaiah uses the name Emmanuel.

Also, a question I have been thinking about, are there two Kings who died in Jesus childhood? We know of King Herod, but was there another one?

I cannot say for sure. I have heard that there was not another however.

I disagree with your first point about Jesus. One would have to know which prophecies are about the Messiah first, make predictions off that and then determine who fulfilled them.

Yes if you see prophecy as telling us things about the Messiah before he comes. But as I said, Ps 22 is a good example of precision prophecy but I don't know if there is any way that we could say it was Messianic before we saw those things happen to someone.

I wouldn't paint Judaism with such a broad brush. I do think their traditions get in the way, but the traditions also helps one to understand things, and in any case it is their religion and texts so they can do what they want with them. You certainly are using alternative understanding but to say it is legitimate still has to be proven.

I do get overly harsh about peoples' beliefs at times. It probably comes from frustration and looking at their beliefs from my pov instread of trying to see them from their pov.
However OT prophecy does say that the Jews cut off their King and this does mean to kill him but also in the case of Jesus the cutting off goes deeper than that.
And yes I do use alternative understanding but interestingly at times I seem to be the one who wants to use a more literal understanding and not one that is symbolic.

 

[Samael_Khan]

The various Aramaic translations (Onkelos, TYonatan and TYerushalmi) see the reference as a plural probably because the antecedent, "zera" (in the form of zar'acha and zar'ah) (seed) is a collective noun that is dealt with as a singular when it takes a pronoun but as a plural when you deal with its constituent elements conceptually. So it doesn't refer to one person but to the descendants as a group. Compare to Gen 15:13, "A stranger (singular noun) will zar'acha, your seed be (sing verb)" -- it doesn't mean that one person will be a stranger in Egypt, but that all the descendants will be even though the text speaks in the singular. So this verse does not apply only to a single person.

Genesis 15:13 shows that the seed is not singular by adding theirs to the verse: "stranger in the land is not THEIRS".

I am not focusing on the word seed, but when Genesis 3:15 says about the seed "IT shall bruise your head" which is singular.

 

[Samael_Khan]

There are many many Messianic prophecies and some are rather hidden and probably would not even be recognised without having seen what the Messiah actually did and is supposed to do. To fulfil all these prophecies along with the hidden ones is not easy for someone to do, especially when it entails being killed by the Jews and rising from the dead, something that I don't think anybody noticed in the OT till it was pointed out by the Christians. I could be wrong, the Jews were pretty astute at finding these things.



As you have said, typology is easy to see and play with in the Bible. It is a matter of knowing what Jesus did and looking up references to it from the OT and either recognising that it is typology or denying that the quotes are about the Messiah or about Jesus and denying that typology is there and is used as a means of giving and no doubt hiding prophecies.
As I say, it is hard to say a prophecy is about you if you don't know it is there.

Well, I find JW's, SDA and various other people do the same thing with typology and they validate their beliefs through it. They find many things to match their groups in the Bible. The JW's have written whole books analysing prophecy and how it applies to them. The history of Christian groups is evidence that it is pretty easy to find prophecy anywhere in the Bible, often at the sacrifice of context.

 

[Samael_Khan]

"too blind to see it because of tradition." That, as you know, is exactly what Baha'is say to Christians... Christians are so caught up into their misinterpretations and traditions they could not see "The Christ" when he did return. The Baha'is say that Baha'u'llah fulfilled...

"In that day also he shall come even to thee from Assyria, and from the fortified cities, and from the fortress even to the river, and from sea to sea, and from mountain to mountain ... Feed thy people in the midst of Carmel..." [Micah 7: 10-12]

Bahá'u'lláh was banished first to Assyria (now part of Iraq), then to the city of Constantinople, then again to the fortress within the fortified city of Akka. When finally released from the fortress, he stayed on an island in the Na'mayn river. During His banishments He travelled on the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea, lived as a Holy Man on Mount Gar-lu and pitched His tent on Mount Carmel, the "Mountain of God" where Elijah had dwelt in his cave.​

And...

"And behold, the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the east." [Ezekiel 43:2]

Bahá'u'lláh, Whose name means "Glory of God", came from Persia which is east of the Holy Land. And again:

"And the glory of the Lord came into the house by way of the gate whose prospect is towards the east." [Ezekiel 43:4]
The Person Who came to prepare the way for Bahá'u'lláh was called the Báb, which means the Gate.​

And they say he is the Comforter...

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come. – John 16:13.
​

Christians, I'm sure have a different interpretation... and it depends a lot on the context. Then, Jews, no doubt, disagree with both Christians and Baha'is on the Micah and Ezekiel verses that Baha'is say are prophecies about Baha'u'llah. Here's another one from Abdul Baha...

In the eighth chapter of the Book of Daniel, verse thirteen, it is said: “Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary 42 and the host to be trodden under foot?” Then he answered (v. 14): “Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed”; (v. 17) “But he said unto me … at the time of the end shall be the vision.” That is to say, how long will this misfortune, this ruin, this abasement and degradation last? meaning, when will be the dawn of the Manifestation? Then he answered, “Two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.” Briefly, the purport of this passage is that he appoints two thousand three hundred years, for in the text of the Bible each day is a year. Then from the date of the issuing of the edict of Artaxerxes to rebuild Jerusalem until the day of the birth of Christ there are 456 years, and from the birth of Christ until the day of the manifestation of the Báb there are 1844 years. When you add 456 years to this number it makes 2300 years. That is to say, the fulfillment of the vision of Daniel took place in the year A.D. 1844, and this is the year of the Báb’s manifestation according to the actual text of the Book of Daniel. Consider how clearly he determines the year of manifestation; there could be no clearer prophecy for a manifestation than this.​

This clearly adds up to the year 1844... but... why start with the year 456? That was the edict to rebuild Jerusalem. In Daniel it says...

“How long will it take for the vision to be fulfilled—the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, the rebellion that causes desolation, the surrender of the sanctuary and the trampling underfoot of the LORD’s people?”
14 He said to me, “It will take 2,300 evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary will be reconsecrated.”​

So how do Christians and Jews interpret this prophecy? And do either start with 456BC like the Baha'is?

And still... are the basic Jewish prophecies about when the Messiah will come and what he will do fulfilled? Christians say, "Yes, but some of them won't be fulfilled until he comes back." Baha'is say, "Yes, all has been fulfilled... but some are figurative and bringing peace is an ongoing process, not an immediate thing that gets fulfilled." Great, everybody could "prove" they are right.

Yep. 100%

 

[Brian2]

Sure he was -- he says he was really clearly, that God decided what his mission was to be while he was still in teh womb. Are you saying God didn't decide that?

No doubt God knew and decided Isaiah's mission long before the womb but since Isa 49 is not about Isaiah, who was not to bring back Jacob and gather Israel.

You wrote "If we can see the passage as not appropriate for Isaiah and for the nation of Israel as a whole AND if we can see a Messianic application in the passage then Jesus is really an appropriate possibility for the servant."
And I pointed out that we can show the passages as appropriate for Isaiah and Israel so there is no reason to have it refer to anyone else. Your if/then is deflated. Claiming that even if I showed that you STILL could have it refer to someone else is a different argument.

The if/then statement is an additional argument yes, but really there was no need for it since you cannot show that the passage is appropriate for either Isaiah or Israel.

Does that mean that all the times in the text that God talks to the forefathers about their seed it means only their ones of their seed that had no female involvement? #dontbesilly

No, but it is interesting that Eve's seed was chosen and not Adam's.

The ones who did left Judaism by doing so. You can tell because they aren't Jewish now. And you misunderstand what is happening in Is 53 if that's how you quote it.

They did not leave Judaism at the time. They were after all just pointing out that the scriptures pointed to Jesus being the Messiah. But it did not take long for a disliking of the sect to grow amongst the Jews and for persecution to start. These days there are Messianic Jews and Jews for Jesus or whatever the name it and they do not deny the Hebrew scriptures and see that those scriptures can be understood to be about Jesus.
The early Christians did not leave but were kicked out of Judaism.

 

[Harel13]

They did not leave Judaism at the time. They were after all just pointing out that the scriptures pointed to Jesus being the Messiah. But it did not take long for a disliking of the sect to grow amongst the Jews and for persecution to start. These days there are Messianic Jews and Jews for Jesus or whatever the name it and they do not deny the Hebrew scriptures and see that those scriptures can be understood to be about Jesus.

Calling it "Judaism" does not make it Judaism. Judaism has had a specific meaning for many ages now, and Jews for Jesus, Hebrew Christians and Messianic Jews do not follow Judaism. They follow a very preachy version of Christianity.

 

[Samael_Khan]

One example is connected to the anticipated Messiah of the Old Testament. The New Testament claims that Jesus was the Messiah. The contradiction is connected to the OT Messiah expected to be rich and powerful and would beat back the enemies of Israel. While Jesus the Messiah was poor, humble and did not fight back. On the surface these appear to be two different people, which is why Jesus was not accepted by the scholars of his time.

The way this contradiction is resolved within the NT is connected to the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness by Satan. Among the many temptations, Satan promises Jesus the wealth and power of the kingdoms of the world if Jesus would bow down and worship Satan. Had Jesus bowed to Satan he would have become the anticipated OT Messiah, with all his power and bling.

Instead, Jesus, who knew the prophesy and Satan, took a different path and became the Messiah, but not the one expected and written of in the OT. That Messiah would have required an alliance with Satan.

Satan was condoned in heaven, up to Relations of the NT. Revelations was written maybe 50 years after Jesus. Satan was accepted in Heaven when Jesus appears and dies. Satan was condoned by God and had been put in charge of humans since the Fall from paradise. This is why Jesus never questioned Satan's authority to give him all the power and wealth of the kingdoms of the world. Jesus knew the offer was good, but he did not want to accept the offer. That would have extended the OT. Jesus's decision to go solo starts a power struggle in Heaven, from which Satan is finally expelled and no longer condoned in heaven.

The OT were the glory days of Satan. God was resting on the seventh day and he was mediated to humans through Satan. The NT is where Satan's authority is not longer from God and heaven, but would nevertheless feel very familiar to many.

The analogy would be a CEO whose contract is expiring. The board has not yet yet found a replacement. Those loyal to the CEO will continue to follow orders, even though his power is no longer under contract. Satan comes down to the earth having great wrath since his time is limited.

The elephant in the room is the Satan connection to the OT. Most atheists will quote the old testament to question the mercy and love of God. The answer was God's CEO was in charge of operations and he had little mercy. On the seventh day God rested. There is no mention I can find of the eight day, where God stops resting in the OT. God cannot work on the heavenly Sabbath, but another; Satan, could work for him.

The eighth day when God stops his rest is where a new round of creation begins. This started with the heavenly Jerusalem and the New Heavens and Earth.

This is an interesting understanding. And I see how you come to this conclusion because scriptures are going through my mind to back it up.

Is this understanding accepted by quite a few Christians.

Would Satan be the corrupt CEO and Jesus the replacement once God has stopped resting?

 

[Samael_Khan]

The context is probably there for most of the prophecies but it is hard to see at times.

That is begging the question.

It's not archaeological bias this time (even if that does seem to exist in the case of the Hebrews in Egypt and the conquest after the Exodus). It is certain assumptions that are used with the modern "higher criticism" method to evaluate history and in particular Biblical history. An assumption used is that prophecy was written after the event and so the dating is determined that way and therefore the traditional authors are thrown out when a late date is determined.
Tradition is not just made up but comes down because of what was known at the time the tradition was first established. So if an author is known then his name is attached to a gospel even if his name does not appear in the actual gospel story as the author.

You say that. But what does "higher critics" actually say is their method for determining these things?

Not if the context is seen as the prophecy of Isa 9, which does follow on from Isa 7 in a logical way.

That isn't context. That is taking two sections and ignoring what is in between them, therefore invalid. You would have to match the context from chapter 7 through to chapter 9 and everything has to fit.

Maybe the whole of these arguments are begging the question. They are all based on faith in God and in Jesus as His Messiah.

And that is the problem. The one problematic premise is that Jesus is the Messiah. You will have to divorce yourself from that premise when engaging in my OP and through contextual understanding arrive at such a conclusion.

The human author may not even know of a dual meaning or what that other meaning may be. It is God who is the real author. (Begging the question?)

Well, we aren't discussing whether God was the author or not, we are just discussing text and context. That has no baring on whether God was the author or not. So we are just discussing text and context.

I think that happened. The original prophecy before Isa 14:7 was that Ahaaz should not be concerned because what he is worried about will not happen, just trust God. Then God seems to have given a sign (the child) that the first prophecy was true by giving an alternative prophecy of what was now going to happen because Ahaz was not trusting God and was going off to ask assistance. The Emmanuel child does not necessarily mean a divine child but the change of name to the one God told Isaiah to call his child reflects the new prophecy of destruction on the land.
In Isa 8 Isaiah seems to be lamenting that Ahaz did not trust God when Isaiah uses the name Emmanuel.

Actually to me chapter 8 is saying in verse 4, 6 and 7 that the two Kings are being destroyed. Verse 18 proves my point that children were given to Isaiah as signs. I don't see where you get the reference to Ahaz not trusting God?

I cannot say for sure. I have heard that there was not another however.

OK.

Yes if you see prophecy as telling us things about the Messiah before he comes. But as I said, Ps 22 is a good example of precision prophecy but I don't know if there is any way that we could say it was Messianic before we saw those things happen to someone.

Was it? Maybe the gospel writers applied it to him retroactively? Because we know that the gospel writers weren't quoting Jesus verbatum.

I do get overly harsh about peoples' beliefs at times. It probably comes from frustration and looking at their beliefs from my pov instread of trying to see them from their pov.
However OT prophecy does say that the Jews cut off their King and this does mean to kill him but also in the case of Jesus the cutting off goes deeper than that.
And yes I do use alternative understanding but interestingly at times I seem to be the one who wants to use a more literal understanding and not one that is symbolic.

I understand that. It is difficult to see from someone elses POV when we have our own beliefs. Even atheists struggle a lot with that in IMO.

Thing is, there must be a solid critical basis from which to examine everything. So for instance if we assumer premises as true, such as "our religious figure is true" that is a rocky basis because then everybody determines what is true based on what they wish. And that doesn't lead to truth. This also influences when people wish to say that one verse is literal and another is symbolic, as we can see on this very thread.