Messianic Prophesies

[Robertsxxx]

Alrighty, we were discussing some prophesies with another member & I received a long list which I’m thankful for. Sadly, I do not have enough time to discuss all, but I’ve started looking at some of the prophesy claims & questions arose.

“The Messiah will be the offspring (descendant) of the woman (Eve) Genesis 3:15 Galatians 4:4”

Are there any other options?

“The Messiah will be the Son of God Psalm 2:7 Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22”

When we were discussing the member mentioned that Biblical prophesies of the messiah are unique, yet a hero, leader, emperor being of Godly descend is not unique to the Bible & was a very prevalent theme in other beliefs.

“The Messiah will be a born of a virgin Isaiah 7:14 Matthew 1:18-25 and Luke 1:26-35”

We still have no evidence of Mary’s virgin birth, furthermore, the original Hebrew texts when referring to her using a word for a “young woman” not a virgin; the “virgin” appeared in Greek Bible version.

“The Messiah will be born in Bethlehem Micah 5:2 Matthew 2:1 and Luke 2:4-7”

it is interesting, since:
“In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan (Mark 1:9)” Those two claim different places. Which one was it?

“Furthermore, the purpose of the NT is to “fulfill” the prophesy: highly biased, you need to prove that a divine Jesus existed, the only source for this character is in the biased Bible. “ Response: “darwin wrote the origin of the species to describe the process of evolution that he saw, he didn’t write it to make evolutionary processes a fact. they already were, he noticed and described them.”

That’s true; nevertheless, even after his death we can still see the processes, test his theories (some of which were shown to be incorrect later on); however, we can not do that when it comes to testing Jesus or his Divinity & whether the prophesies were actually fulfilled or not. There are no valid evidence outside the Bible that Jesus existed.

I’m trying to keep it short & even now failing -_-

 

[ConallCernach]

We still have no evidence of Mary’s virgin birth, furthermore, the original Hebrew texts when referring to her using a word for a “young woman” not a virgin; the “virgin” appeared in Greek Bible version.

That’s very interesting considering that the New Testament was written in Greek originally…

 

[Robertsxxx]

That’s very interesting considering that the New Testament was written in Greek originally…

Sorry, I was mainly refering to the book of Isaiah which is in the OT if I’m not mistaken.

 

[ConallCernach]

it is interesting, since:
“In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan (Mark 1:9)” Those two claim different places. Which one was it?

Jesus was born in Bethlehem, He was then taken by His family to Egypt, after the death of king Herod, they returned and settled in Nazareth.

You should also note the prophecy “Out of Egypt I will call my son”

 

[ConallCernach]

Sorry, I was mainly refering to the book of Isaiah which is in the OT if I’m not mistaken.

It would be, but the New Testament is where you have Mary giving birth to Christ whilst being a virgin.

EDIT:

You’re also going to have Hebrew idioms one example that can be seen is “uncovering the nakedness of” instead of “having sex with.”

Pax

 

[NotWorthy]

It would be, but the New Testament is where you have Mary giving birth to Christ whilst being a virgin.

EDIT:

You’re also going to have Hebrew idioms one example that can be seen is “uncovering the nakedness of” instead of “having sex with.”

Pax

Well, yes, but the NT is fulfilling a prophecy from the OT. Isaiah was written in Hebrew originally. The term used was basically “young maiden”. Though this is not technically a word for Virgin, the word does imply “young” and “unmarried”. 99.99% of the time, in Ancient Israel, that would mean “virgin”.

When the OT was translated into Greek, 300 years prior to Jesus (and this is very important), the word was translated to the more accurate term, “Virgin”. Remember, it was the Jews who translated it to Greek so that more Jews could read it. The Greek OT was overwhelmingly the most commonly used Scripture texts during Jesus time. Think of the way Latin is today, only used by a small group of religious and academia. That’s what Hebrew become by the time of Jesus.

So, the fact that “virgin” is used in Matthew’s text is very appropriate because its what most Jewish scholars would have been cross-checking. When they crossed it to Hebrew, they wouldn’t have raised concerns for the same reasons I explained above.

And sit back and think about it. What kind of a “sign” is a young woman conceiving. But a **Virgin **conceiving? Now THAT’S a Sign!!!
Sadly, today we don’t construe “young maiden” to mean virgin…

 

[ConallCernach]

Well, yes, but the NT is fulfilling a prophecy from the OT. Isaiah was written in Hebrew originally. The term used was basically “young maiden”. Though this is not technically a word for Virgin, the word does imply “young” and “unmarried”. 99.99% of the time, in Ancient Israel, that would mean “virgin”.

When the OT was translated into Greek, 300 years prior to Jesus (and this is very important), the word was translated to the more accurate term, “Virgin”. Remember, it was the Jews who translated it to Greek so that more Jews could read it. The Greek OT was overwhelmingly the most commonly used Scripture texts during Jesus time. Think of the way Latin is today, only used by a small group of religious and academia. That’s what Hebrew become by the time of Jesus.

So, the fact that “virgin” is used in Matthew’s text is very appropriate because its what most Jewish scholars would have been cross-checking. When they crossed it to Hebrew, they wouldn’t have raised concerns for the same reasons I explained above.

And sit back and think about it. What kind of a “sign” is a young woman conceiving. But a **Virgin **conceiving? Now THAT’S a Sign!!!
Sadly, today we don’t construe “young maiden” to mean virgin…

I hope that’s to him, I know about the Septuagint. =D

 

[NotWorthy]

I hope that’s to him, I know about the Septuagint. =D

That’s to anyone who is reading this thread. We are not all experts like you , and we err in thinking that everyone reading this thread is. Sometimes its nice to be a little too informative. The experts can gloss over, but the less knowledgable can learn without having “to raise their hand in class” (so to speak) and risk ridicule.

But yes, the way I understood your statement,

It would be, but the New Testament is where you have Mary giving birth to Christ whilst being a virgin.

it implied that it didn’t matter that the prophecy was mentioned in the OT. When in actuality, that’s really the main point!

 

[ConallCernach]

That’s to anyone who is reading this thread. We are not all experts like you , and we err in thinking that everyone reading this thread is. Sometimes its nice to be a little too informative. The experts can gloss over, but the less knowledgable can learn without having “to raise their hand in class” (so to speak) and risk ridicule.

But yes, the way I understood your statement, it implied that it didn’t matter that the prophecy was mentioned in the OT. When in actuality, that’s really the main point!

Yeah, I guess that sounded pretty stupid of me. =p

Yeah it is the main point that it is in the OT. It’s weird that for all the prophecies there are, he hasn’t mentioned very many. Let alone he wants us to prove the virginity of Mary?

Let’s go and dig her up… oh wait…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

That’s true; nevertheless, even after his death we can still see the processes, test his theories (some of which were shown to be incorrect later on); however, we can not do that when it comes to testing Jesus or his Divinity & whether the prophesies were actually fulfilled or not.

faith is not a science, Christ didn’t offer testable theories that wasnt the purpose of the Eternal Sacrifice.

the analogy is only to point out that you cannot assume the new testament was written in order to prove the old testament

There are no valid evidence outside the Bible that Jesus existed

.

then what about the secular evidence? he is refferd to by several historians of the times.

the Catholic church traces the faith all the way to Christ, from the bones of Peter, which we have, on through history, all these people wrote about the events, and the disciples of the apostles wrote about them outside the bible.

further why would the apostles or their disciples allow themselves to be tortured to death, crucified for a story they made up?

because they were crazy? would then their disciples not realize that the apostles were crazy? why would they follow them into the torture chamber?

i dont know of any serious atheist who truly doubts the existence of Christ, though i am sure some do

the documented evidence bears this out, from both secular and biblical sources.

as to the prochecies, you said we needed to prove the existence of Christ first, lets keep things separate and examine 1 prophecy at time. but first the historicity of Christ

but be forewarned ive never heard anybody but first year philosophy student try this tact, you are wasting your time but i am happy to comply if it will bring you closer to G-d

 

[Robertsxxx]

Jesus was born in Bethlehem, He was then taken by His family to Egypt, after the death of king Herod, they returned and settled in Nazareth.

You should also note the prophecy “Out of Egypt I will call my son”

Thanks, that would make sense.

It’s weird that for all the prophecies there are, he hasn’t mentioned very many.

Because there was a really huge list & it would take forever to adress all in one thread.

Let alone he wants us to prove the virginity of Mary?

That wasn’t exactly the point.

 

[ConallCernach]

Thanks, that would make sense.

=D

Glad that helped.

 

[Robertsxxx]

=D

Glad that helped.

Though then it’s weird why Jesus was constantly reffered to as the Nazarene, not that of Bethlehem, even though that would carry much greater importance linking ancestry to David.

 

[ConallCernach]

Though then it’s weird why Jesus was constantly reffered to as the Nazarene, not that of Bethlehem, even though that would carry much greater importance linking ancestry to David.

But he was raised in Nazarene, though I was born in Hillsborough I am a Charlottetowner (poor example, but still).

Pax

 

[Robertsxxx]

further why would the apostles or their disciples allow themselves to be tortured to death, crucified for a story they made up?
because they were crazy? would then their disciples not realize that the apostles were crazy? why would they follow them into the torture chamber?”

Even today we see nutcases of end of time cults locking themselves with their followers in the basements & dying. Why? They probably sincerely believe or are crazy.

“as to the prochecies, you said we needed to prove the existence of Christ first, lets keep things separate and examine 1 prophecy at time. but first the historicity of Christ”

I don’t have a problem with a figure of Jesus existing; even though, besides Biblical there are barely any historical references to him (if you know of some that would be helpful), what bothers me are the divine aspects of it.

 

[ConallCernach]

Even today we see nutcases of end of time cults locking themselves with their followers in the basements & dying. Why? They probably sincerely believe or are crazy.

I don’t have a problem with a figure of Jesus existing; even though, besides Biblical there are barely any historical references to him (if you know of some that would be helpful), what bothers me are the divine aspects of it.

Josephus is one, people will complain that his account was altered, but regardless of whether it was altered, there was a statement about the person of Christ. Remember that Jesus was living in Palestine and appealed to the poor, and the weak. These weren’t rich people who could afford papyrus.

Pax

 

[Robertsxxx]

Josephus is one, people will complain that his account was altered, but regardless of whether it was altered, there was a statement about the person of Christ. Remember that Jesus was living in Palestine and appealed to the poor, and the weak. These weren’t rich people who could afford papyrus.

Pax

Concerning Josephus, his Testimonium Flavianum is still questionable; furthermore, was largely based on Christian sources. The second source, which some argue to be forged as well, just mentions the accused James as a brother of Jesus & later even refers to Jesus as the son of Damneus; however, the real Jesus was the son to Joseph.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Even today we see nutcases of end of time cults locking themselves with their followers in the basements & dying. Why? They probably sincerely believe or are crazy.

i have to say there is a huge difference between what has happened at places like jonestown, waco, and southern california,

in most cases of cults, if the leader died, all his followers died with him, or around the same time. they mostly did so by poison or gunshot, quick methods.

the Apostles suffered lives as fugitives and outcasts from place to place apart from other Apostles who were physical witnesses to the miracles, Death, and Resurrection of Christ, most people would have begun to question what they had really seen, they didn’t, they persevered in the face of prison, deprivation, derision, beatings and the threat of Death, but Jesus had told them that they would be hated for His sake, and they were. then, decades later these men allowed themselves to be tortured to death rather than recant their belief.
then their followers suffered the same fates for 300 some odd years until Christianity became the official religion of the empire.

i wonder at what they must have experienced in those short three years with Christ, what wonders they must have seen in that time that gave them such great faith

no, that is nothing like any other cult of modern crazies

I don’t have a problem with a figure of Jesus existing; even though, besides Biblical there are barely any historical references to him (if you know of some that would be helpful), what bothers me are the divine aspects of it.

i would be greatly suprised if some common criminal, a carpenter from the backwoods of Galilee were mentioned at all.

Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger these are non-secular historians

but remember the bible is a collection of works written over the course of centuries, it is many books by many different people, it is a collection known by the name ‘Bible’

that said lets then not dispute if He existed, but rather the question of His Divinity

we say that He is Divine based on the meeting of these prophecies, His witnessed miracles, and his Death and Ressurection.

there is a reason we believe. we just dont pick it out of then air