Christ and OT prophecy

by SwedishChef 38 Replies latest watchtower bible

SwedishChef

Seedy,

I mainly got this information from a book called "The New Evidence" by Josh McDowell. In his book he quotes Edward Hindson who wrote "Isaiah's Immanual", which I quoted above.

"It is also important to notice that the sign is directed to "you" (plural) and is not evidently directed to Ahaz who rejected the first offer. Isaiah said: "Hear ye now, O house of David" and it is apparent that the plural "you" in v. 14, is to be connected to its antecedent "ye" in v. 13. Since the context tells us that the dynasty of David is what is at stake in the impending invasion, it would seem proper to interpret the plural "you" as the "house of David" which is the recipient of the sign."

Isaiah 7:13,14 "And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; Is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

Sounds like he's talking to the house of David to me.
rem

SC,
You are no Hebrew scholar, and you were not living at the time of Isaiah, therefore you have no idea the definitions that certain words had taken on.
Neither are you a Hebrew scholar. That is why we can only go by what the experts agree on. The experts agree that almah does not mean virgin.
And according to the Bible, it had taken on a meaning of virginity.
What does that mean? According to the Bible? The Bible itself did not decide the connotations of the words within it. Translators and linguists try to reconstruct the original meanings of the words. The experts agree that the word almah never meant virgin.
"then why was not the actual word for virgin used?"If I was a Hebrew living around 2,600 years ago, I could probably tell you the answer to that. The word used probably had overtones of virginity.
Since this ad hoc hypothesis is not backed by evidence it can easily be discarded. A more plausible theory is that the Bible writer wrote what he meant and that virginity was not a necessary component of the sign. By reading the rest of the chapter this becomes extremely clear. To suppose any further fulfillment other than what is written is not only to 'go beyond what is written', which is condemned by Bible, but is also to engage in intellectual dishonesty of the highest degree.
All one has to do is read the chapter (notice it is talking about the 'Sign of Immanuel' and not a 'Messianic Prophecy') Notice verses 15 and further - the account is obviously referring to a contemporaneous event, not a prophecy of events far in the future:
Isaiah 7The Sign of Immanuel

1 When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it.
2 Now the house of David was told, "Aram has allied itself with [1] Ephraim"; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind.
3 Then the LORD said to Isaiah, "Go out, you and your son Shear-Jashub, [2] to meet Ahaz at the end of the aqueduct of the Upper Pool, on the road to the Washerman's Field. 4 Say to him, 'Be careful, keep calm and don't be afraid. Do not lose heart because of these two smoldering stubs of firewood-because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and of the son of Remaliah. 5 Aram, Ephraim and Remaliah's son have plotted your ruin, saying, 6 "Let us invade Judah; let us tear it apart and divide it among ourselves, and make the son of Tabeel king over it." 7 Yet this is what the Sovereign LORD says:

" 'It will not take place,
it will not happen,
8 for the head of Aram is Damascus,
and the head of Damascus is only Rezin.
Within sixty-five years
Ephraim will be too shattered to be a people.
9 The head of Ephraim is Samaria,
and the head of Samaria is only Remaliah's son.
If you do not stand firm in your faith,
you will not stand at all.' "

10 Again the LORD spoke to Ahaz, 11 "Ask the LORD your God for a sign, whether in the deepest depths or in the highest heights."
12 But Ahaz said, "I will not ask; I will not put the LORD to the test."
13 Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you [3] a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and [4] will call him Immanuel. [5] 15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah-he will bring the king of Assyria."
18 In that day the LORD will whistle for flies from the distant streams of Egypt and for bees from the land of Assyria. 19 They will all come and settle in the steep ravines and in the crevices in the rocks, on all the thornbushes and at all the water holes. 20 In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the River [6] -the king of Assyria-to shave your head and the hair of your legs, and to take off your beards also. 21 In that day, a man will keep alive a young cow and two goats. 22 And because of the abundance of the milk they give, he will have curds to eat. All who remain in the land will eat curds and honey. 23 In that day, in every place where there were a thousand vines worth a thousand silver shekels, [7] there will be only briers and thorns. 24 Men will go there with bow and arrow, for the land will be covered with briers and thorns. 25 As for all the hills once cultivated by the hoe, you will no longer go there for fear of the briers and thorns; they will become places where cattle are turned loose and where sheep run.
rem
Edited by - rem on 21 January 2003 0:3:46
gumby

So.....Jesus is waiting and has waited 2000 years for the Jews to straighten up and accept Christ?
You think the time will come and is here when the Jews and Gentiles together will accept Christ and live happily ever after?
Why are these folks so important. God isn't partial......anymore. He proved that with peter in the vision.
Here is your scripture you quote to prove where Jesus has been and some commentary notes on them.
Romans 11:25....."So that you will not be conceited, brothers, I do not want you to be unaware of this secret: a partial hardening has come to Israel until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.
A little tidbit from Matt. Henry;
The scattered Jews around us preach the truth of Christianity; and prove, that though heaven and earth shall pass away, the words of Jesus shall not pass away. They also remind us to pray for those times when neither the real, nor the spiritual Jerusalem, shall any longer be trodden down by the Gentiles, and when both Jews and Gentiles shall be turned to the Lord
Heres another commentary
Until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled. By comparing this passage with Romans 11:1-36, we find that the times of the Gentiles signify that period wherein the church is made up of Gentiles to the almost exclusion of the Jews. The same chapter shows that this period is to be followed by one wherein the Jew and the Gentile unite together in proclaiming the gospel. This prophecy, therefore, declares that until this union of the Jew and the Gentile takes place, the city of Jerusalem shall not only be controlled by the Gentiles, but shall be trodden under foot--that is, opposed--by them.
So here t is Swedish Chef,
I guess soon, most all the Jews in Jerusalem today are going to reconcile with the Gentiles.....I guess that would be their adversaries.....the muslims.......and start believing in Jeus and that he came and died for them. What do you suppose will bring this about? How soon? The we can rest assured Isreal will have peace and not be ruled by the Gentiles?
BTW.....I understand the reasoning about immanuel and my argument was weak.You can have that one
Gumby
seedy3

Is that the 2 volume set "New Evidence that Demands a Verdect"? I have read some of this book, it is pretty much a remake of his earlier works with some updated topics.
Seedy
Realist

what exactly is the evidence that any of these prophecies was fullfilled? show any document outside the new testament (which was written at least 50 years after jesus had died) that verifies these claims.
thanks,
realist
seedy3

Realist,
I assume you mean "written with in 50 years of Jesus death?? If so the real problem is and the contorversy is that there are none, well none that have any verification, there are many that have been forged. The first real reference to any Christ named Jesus was written by Josephus and was not until around 90 ad or later, but even that is VERY highly suspect of forgery and added later after Josephus had died.
Seedy
SwedishChef

One example of an account which speaks of Christ was written by Cornelius Tacitus (A.D. 55-120), a Roman historian (who was not a Christian) who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors, and has been called "greatest historian" of Rome. While writing of the reign of Nero, Tacitus wrote this: (His misspelling of Christ--"Christus"--was a common error made by pagan writers)

"But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also. (Annals XV,44)"

"but even that is VERY highly suspect of forgery and added later after Josephus had died."

I know which account this is, and I believe it to be a forgery as well. Well, a partial one. From what I have read this account was added to but not a complete forgery.

Seedy posted a thread off of something I had written on another thread, which is in reference to the earthquake and darkness at Jesus' death.

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=44274&site=3
Edited by - SwedishChef on 21 January 2003 22:29:12
rem
SC,
That alleged quote of Tacitus is quite controversial. Even if we do accept it as authentic, what does that mean? It means that there were Christians who had a leader named 'Christus', probably referring to a man named Jesus. This provides no evidence corroborating the various prophecies that you have put forward. There were many sects and cults springing up at the time and many would-be messiahs too.
Apparently, though, the text is suspect. It appears to be an exact copy of another work and seems to be factually incorrect in some of its statements. It is written in a way that appeals to existing Christians (assuming the knowledge of Pontius Pilate) which is highly unusual of a secular source. Notice also that the passage was written at least 70 years after the alleged events.
Here are some problems with the text:
There is no evidence that Nero ever persecuted the Christians
There were not a great number of Christians in Rome at the time
The term "Christian" was not in common use in the first century
Nero was indifferent to various different religions in the city and he almost certainly didn't start the fire, so there was no need for a scapegoat
It seems Tacitus is not writing from official records because he does not use Jesus' name and writes as if the reader would know Pontius Pilate's name, as if writing for a Christian audience
A passage in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus is an almost word for word copy of the text in question (among other fake tales). It is extremely unlikely that Sulpicius could have copied it since none of his contemporaries mention the Tacitus passage, meaning the text was probably not in the Tacitus manuscripts at that date. It is likely that a copyist in the Dark ages copied Sulpicius' story into the manuscript of Tacitus that they were reproducing (a seemingly common practice at the time)
But, again, even if the passage is authentic, it still doesn't shed any light on the supposed messianic prophecies fulfilled by Jesus or even mention his resurrection, the foundation of Christianity.
rem
rem

SC,
Seedy posted a thread off of something I had written on another thread, which is in reference to the earthquake and darkness at Jesus' death.
There are no first-hand accounts of darkness or earthquakes coinciding with the supposed crucifixion of Jesus. The only spurious accounts are written second hand much later by Christian apologists who quote earlier sources. Interestingly, the sources they breifly quote (Phlegon and Thallus) do not agree with their interpretation of the events. For instance, Phlegon spoke of an eclipse, not a total darkness. Eclipses only last minutes, not hours. Africanus, who quotes Phlegon, tries to pooh pooh Phlegon's account saying that it wasn't really an eclipse. He is clearly engaged in wishful thinking. It is quite evident that Thallus and Phlegon's accounts did not corroborate the story, otherwise earlier Christian apologists would have been sure to preserve those writings as evidence.
rem
hooberus

rem said:
"Hooberus,
Read the scripture again:
Matthew 1:21-23
21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, [3] because he will save his people from their sins."
22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" [4] --which means, "God with us."
Jesus' name is not Immanuel. Nowhere is Jesus called Immanuel in the NT. Even the writer of Matthew is not calling Jesus Immanuel in this scripture."
rem, your comments regarding Matthew 1:21-23 show you to be so blinded that you can't even realistically discuss what the scriptures say, let alone what they mean.

Christ and OT prophecy

Share this