EASTER QUIZ: Where is the missing prophecy Jesus fulfilled?

by Terry 38 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Bobcat
    Bobcat

    mP:

    If i recall Samson was a Nazarene as well. Nazarenes were holy men who didnt shave for one amongst other things.

    That's "nazirite."

    The NICNT commentary mentioned above (R. T. France, pp. 92 - 93) considers the possibility that Matthew was using a wordplay between Nazarene (a resident of Nazareth) and Nazirite, which involved a personal vow to God and included not cutting the hair and not drinking wine.

    There is only one letter difference between the two words, and thus, some feel that Matthew was trying to connect the two words via a wordplay.

    R. T. France comments that, in his opinion, this is not a workable idea for the following reasons:

    The closest possible reference to "He will be called a Nazarene," is in Judges 13:5, 7. . . It is not an exact echo, but at least it might be easier to detect in Greek than the alleged reference to Isaiah 11:1. But if this was the passage Matthew had in mind, it is not obvious why he should have obscured the supposed allusion by altering "he will be" to "he will be called." Moreover, while Samson was a miraculously born savior-figure, his notoriously amoral lifestyle is not an attractive option as a type of the Messiah. And the supposed echo would backfire rather badly when the reader reaches [Matthew] 11:18 - 19 where Jesus is set in deliberate contrast with the nazirite lifestyle of John the Baptist, and is labeled rather a "glutton and wine drinker." Jesus was no nazirite, and it does not seem that anyone "called" him that.

    [End of quote]

    In Matthew 11:18 - 19, Jesus admits to being a 'drinker of wine,' and thus admits to not being a nazirite. And the people calling him a "wine drinker" ("Given to drinking wine" - NWT) shows that they did not call him a nazirite either. So if Matthew is trying to say about Jesus that Nazarene equates with his being a nazirite, he then destroys his own argument in chapter 11.

    Take Care

  • mP
    mP

    mP -> Bob:

    Matthew is using Nazarene as interchangible with Narerite and so on.

    Bob:

    n Matthew 11:18 - 19, Jesus admits to being a 'drinker of wine,' and thus admits to not being a nazirite. And the people calling him a "wine drinker" ("Given to drinking wine" - NWT) shows that they did not call him a nazirite either. So if Matthew is trying to say about Jesus that Nazarene equates with his being a nazirite, he then destroys his own argument in chapter 11.

    MP:

    YOu are of course assuming that the gospels are in complete harmony which is of course garbage.

  • mP
    mP

    Terry:

    If there is any validity to the NICNT view expressed by R. T. France, it actually makes your somewhat dismissive view fit in line with what was predicted by Matthew's "He will be called a Nazarene."

    MP:

    Im confused given Matthew was written after Jesus, how is this a prediction after the fact ?

  • villagegirl
    villagegirl

    Possibilities:

    1. Said by Jeremiah but later written by Zechariah

    2. Zechariah's second name is Jeremiah, like "Simon Peter", for Peter

    3. Copyist mistake, the Syriac and Persion versions have no prophet listed

    but the Greek versions do.

    4. This is a quote from an apocryphal work of Jeremiah,

    like when Jude quotes from the book of Enoch (no such book in modern Bible )

    5. The last four chapters of Zechariah were actually written by Jeremiah.

    6. Matthew is using the well-establishe rabbinical formula of referring to a

    collection of books by the first book in the collection. Jesus used a similar

    formula in Luke 24:44 when he referred to, Writings section,

    of the Hebrew scriptures, as "Psalms", this can include

    other writings such as Proverbs.

  • Bobcat
    Bobcat

    MP:

    You are of course assuming that the gospels are in complete harmony which is of course garbage.

    That's true MP. I am assuming that Matthew tried to write a harmonious account. And the NICNT is arguing that Matthew was not trying to say that Jesus was a nazirite based on the premise that the Matthew who wrote Mt 2:23 was also the Matthew who wrote Mt 11:18-19.

    If the book of Matthew were a book of disjointed accounts, then, the argument in the NICNT volume would breakdown.

    *******************************

    Terry:

    If there is any validity to the NICNT view expressed by R. T. France, it actually makes your somewhat dismissive view fit in line with what was predicted by Matthew's "He will be called a Nazarene."

    MP:

    Im confused given Matthew was written after Jesus, how is this a prediction after the fact ?

    Bobcat:

    MP, what is attributed to "Terry" above is actually my words. Since you mentioned confusion over "what was predicted by Matthew's . . .", I can see that I should have reworded things better. Rather than Matthew predicting anything, the NICNT is suggesting that Matthew is trying to say that the OT prophets predicted the Messiah arising out of unexpected origins. So, "predicted by Matthew" should read "predicted by the OT prophets."

    Thanks for pointing that out.

    Take Care

  • lovecoogee
    lovecoogee

    Terry

    A long time ago in a discussion about the Bible, someone posed the question 'what was the big deal about Jesus' so called sacrifice?'. I replied oh the greatest sacrifice that any one could give was their life and Jesus' life was perfect so no greater sacrifice could be given. 'But wasn't Jesus sitting at God's right hand in perfection before he came to earth?, and isn't 31 years or whatever it was supposed to be just a blink in infinity?, so if he knew he only had to endure suffering for a blink and then he's get back to perfection, what was the greatest sacrifice he gave? It really is no big deal anyway surely?'

    I am so grateful for this logical grounded open minded person who was brought up as a JW but who used her intellectual reasoning to set herself free.

  • Larsinger58
    Larsinger58

    REGARDING "Three days and three nights": Since we are paying such close attention to detail, please note that the Israelites made a national holiday out of the night the Israelites left Egypt. They celebrate that national holiday, that is, an annual high-sabbath day on Nisan 15th, the night they left. Now, if about the time Jesus was arrested, which was after midnight, was about the time the Israelites were leaving Egypt, then Jesus was arrested on Nisan 15th, not Nisan 14th. Regardless, the same night the passover is eaten is the same night they leave Egypt, so passover is eaten on a special sabbath day as well! That means Jesus could not have died the same day he ate passover. "Three nights" are simple to calculate. He rose on a Saturday night, so he must have died on a Thursday: Saturday night, Friday night, Thursday night. Simple. Meaning? Meaning that JWs and many others out there are not paying attention to Scripture! Exodus 12 clearly shows that the first day of UFC begins on the 14th in the evening. That merely confirms that when the Israelites first left Egypt, they used Egyptian custom of changing the calendar date at midnight. Thus the date was still Nisan 14th until midnight, but after midnight it changed to the 15th. When you understand this, then you understand why the Bible always speaks of eating passover on the 14th, but celebrating the day the Israelites left on the 15th. Fact is, it is still the same day. Bottom line is, Jesus died on Thursday, Nisan 20th and not Friday, Nisan 14th, which only provides for two nights and not the three required by scripture. So for those so anxious to find error in scripture, please immediately correct the false teaching that Jesus died on Nisan 14th and correct that to Nisan 20th and THEN proceed from there to find fault or inconsistency.

    REGARDING PROPHECY OF "THIRD DAY" RESURRECTION: I myself was surprised there was no specific reference to a prophecy about rising on the third day. But there is actually a prophecy that would require Jesus to rise on the third day based on Bible chronology. That reference is founded in the "7 times" prophecy, which represents a period of 2520 days of absence of a living king/representative in the earth. This is customarily applied in the "day for a year" formula where you have 2520 years from the fall of Jerusalem until the 2nd coming. But as Timothy says, a day for Jehovah is like 1000 years. So when you apply that formula, this absence becomes 2.5 days. With all the multiple applications, this also finds relevance for the time of Jesus' death. This is relevant because the precise times of Jesus' death are provided! That is, he dies around 3 p.m. on the afternoon of Thursday, Nisan 20th and rises just before 3 a.m. on early Sunday morning. The precise time Jesus was actually dead, therefore, is 2.5 days. That is, from 3 p.m. to 3 p.m. Thursday to Friday, from 3 p.m. to 3 p.m. Friday to Saturday, and from 3 p.m. to 3 a.m., a period of 12 hours, which is a half day. So even the "7 times" prophecy shows Jesus would be dead 2.5 days and that means he would suffer and rise on the "third day."

    REGARDING JEREMIAH'S PROPHECY OF THE 30 PIECES OF SILVER: I know that sometimes books of the Bible were combined under a single names, such as Ezra/Nehemiah are under "Esdras." So one explanation is that all the prophets were generalized under Jeremiah unless otherwise specifically stated. Another possibility is that Zechariah was also known as Jeremiah, which could have been a second name. Some might think this is just making execuses, but the gospels are quite cryptic once you get to know some of the deteails. For instance, there were three different Mary Magdalenes that came to the tomb after Jesus died, three different times and under three different circumstances. One of the gospels could have mentioned this coincidence but instead, each gospel describes one of the three different encounters. The result is that some think that the gospel writers couldn't get their story straight, supposing the reference to Mary Magdalene was to the same individual, when it is not.

    REGARDING JESUS BEING CALLED A "NAZARENE" -- This is a play on words, because "Nazareth" is a reference to a branch and thus "branch town." A branch or a twig is a reference to a eunuch, that is, someone we would claim was "gay." So it would appear that Jesus would be known as a eunuch which is exchangeable for being called a "Nazarene." So this is a clever play on words. It's the gospel's way of confirming that per the OT, Jesus was supposed to be a eunuch/nazarene. Interesting.

    Even so, this is an interesting topic. Clearly, there is some suggestion that there were other writings available that might not be part of the current canon. We know there were many other writings around.

    So this was a good topic! It's good someone is paying closer attention to the details of scripture, but you have to do a good job at this and first determine precisely what detail is involved before jumping to the conclusion that there is a congregation.

    Even so, the gospels and the OT deliberately try to be cryptic. Notice how you have two versions of most history in the OT but the gospels do the same thing. It provides different versions of the same event. Well, this allows you to hide certain details that are missed by most who have a casual reading, but amaze those who require "inerrancy." Case in point Jesus telling Peter he would deny him three times before a cock crowed (once) and also before a cock crowed twice. Some thing there is a loose conflict, when, in fact, Jesus said both. That is, that Peter would deny him three times before a cock crowed the first time and another three times before the cock had time to crow twice. When you check the details, we find indeed, Peter denied Jesus three times before the cock first crowed. Peter then began to leave the compound when this was fulfilled. But a girl was following him, accusing him of being one of Jesus' followers which required him to deny this another three times in front of the various people he was passing as he tried to exit the compound. When he finally got outside the cock crowed a second time, thus he had denied Jesus up to six times in rapid succession. Most miss this!

    So I'm very much applauding this close examination, not that some issues might remain a mystery. But this is an opportunity to get some misconceptions cleared up, including the misconception that Jesus died on Friday, Nisan 14th. WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! Passover is always eaten on a sabbath day so Jesus could not die that day! He had to die on a Thursday for the "three nights" to be true, and that works for Thursday, Nisan 20th! But the "7 times" prophecy also applies to the time Jesus was in the grave, which was specifically 2.5 days reflecting the 2520 years which is 2.5 days when a day is 1000 years.

    But perhaps the critical observation here, is that I, as an apologist, see no technical contradiction but I see many others who will easily claim a contradiction. What they don't realize is that some of these "contradictions" are intentional. That is, the gospels and the OT do not make the details easy to understand. But Christ has always said that, that is, that those on the "inside" were meant to understand these things, but those on the outside would remain in the dark and confused. Those with much will be given more, like myself, but those with nothing will have even that taken away. So the closer we look, the more impressed I am with fulfillment of scripture, but the closer others look who would criticize, the more convinced than ever they are the scriptures are not true. That's by divine design.

    It's sort of like you hearing about a big party being planned at some mansion of someone you don't like and you hear that everybody in town will be invited. So you rush up there and tell them you're not coming, you don't want to be any part of it! But in fact, you were the only one in town that wasn't going to get an invitation! Naysayers are like the unvited uninviting themselves! They never were invited in the first place. Getting the details right are important to those in the kingdom, not for those outside the kingdom, so what does it matter they are confused over the details?

    Good topic, though. I like seeing THINKERS discuss these things, even if they get a negative result!

  • Larsinger58
    Larsinger58

    LOVER:

    A long time ago in a discussion about the Bible, someone posed the question 'what was the big deal about Jesus' so called sacrifice?'. I replied oh the greatest sacrifice that any one could give was their life and Jesus' life was perfect so no greater sacrifice could be given. 'But wasn't Jesus sitting at God's right hand in perfection before he came to earth?, and isn't 31 years or whatever it was supposed to be just a blink in infinity?, so if he knew he only had to endure suffering for a blink and then he's get back to perfection, what was the greatest sacrifice he gave? It really is no big deal anyway surely?'

    I am so grateful for this logical grounded open minded person who was brought up as a JW but who used her intellectual reasoning to set herself free.

    LARS

    you bring up a good point. But the reference is relative. That is, soldiers go to war all the time and make the ultimate sacrifice. Firefighters and policemen put their lives on the line all the time. Parents sacrifice themselves for their children. So giving one's life for a cause is common. So in what way was Jesus' sacrifice so significant. Well, it is significant because in Jesus' case, it saves YOUR NECK! No one else is there to save you. So that means it is significant for you personally. Plus, Christ's sacrifice saves BILLIONS of people, so it is more significant from that point of view.

    So don't focus on the small amount of relative "suffering" Jesus might have gone through to make the sacrifice, but how SIGNIFICANT that specific sacrifice was to save mankind. That's what makes it significant, not the degree of suffering, which really many go through or worse in times of war, etc.

    Now, sure Jesus suffered and had to go through all of this, but really, when he asked to have God remove this cup, it reflected one of his special issues, which was he was very modest. When these men are impaled, their dignity is removed since they are up there naked. All his acquaintances and everybody would see him naked. That was the one thing he didn't want to give up. So by the time he died, he had to give up EVERYTHING, including his very much cherished personal dignity and privacy.

    So presuming Jesus' sacrifice was not that significant when it saves ALL OF MANKIND, simply is missing the point.

  • Terry
    Terry

    I wish I had the mental energy of Larsinger58!

    It is like lifting boulders to write those long paragraphs!

    You must drink a lot of coffee.

  • Larsinger58
    Larsinger58

    I wish I had the mental energy of Larsinger58!

    It is like lifting boulders to write those long paragraphs!

    You must drink a lot of coffee.

    Well, I do sort of have an advantage as I was a medical transcriptionist for most of my life. After a while you end up typing almost as fast as people talk (i.e. over 120 wpm).

    When the Bible speaks of Christ striking the nations with the "LONG" sword of his mouth, it is a reference to my tendency to be very long-winded. So it is sort of an inside joke in the Bible about the lengthy nature of my posts/teaching style. Coffee or drugs have little to do with it, I'm afraid.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit