Jesus Christ and OT prophecies...

by mP 17 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  Deputy Dog

  mP

  You said:

  Its funny how honest christians tell damn right lies all the time with a straight face.

  I'm asking you what " damn right lies " are? You've said lies aren't damnable ( as long as they're not in court).
• 

  Phizzy

  The ever educational and erudite and lovely Leolaia had this to say on the forcing of "prophecy" to make it seem to fit the Jesus character :

  "The writers of the gospels were creative and constructed meaning out of old rituals without slavishly following them with precision. It is in the fourth gospel where paschal christology is especially overt. There Jesus is killed on noon of Passover eve (John 18:28, 39, 19:14), at the same time the paschal lamb is slaughtered, hyssop plays a role as in the Passover rite (19:29, cf. Exodus 12:42), Jesus pours out blood like the paschal lamb (19:34, cf. Exodus 12:22), and most obviously Exodus 12:46 is quoted in 19:33, 36 as having relevance to Jesus' unbroken legs. The paschal sacrifice is not expiatory and atoning, but it does within the exodus story guarantee salvation from death. The evangelist however does present the lamb as expiatory in referring to Jesus as "the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (1:29). Here we have an instance of cross-pollination of intertexts that is very common with the gospels. The motif of expiation comes not from paschal rites but from Deutero-Isaiah's Suffering Servant songs, wherein he compares the servant whose life is given as a guilt offering to cover for the sins of many to a "lamb" led to the slaughter (53:7). This text was explicitly applied to Jesus' passion by early Christians (cf. Jesus' silence before Pilate in Mark 15:3-5). So it is in association withIsaiah 53:7 that paschal imagery became colored with expiatory implications. Paul also referred to Jesus as the paschal lamb in 1 Corinthians 5:7 but no expiatory application is made here. Paul is instead concerned with the liturgical eucharistic meaning of Passover, which is very much in keeping with the paschal rite. It is through the eucharist that Christians partake the "body of Christ" and the "blood of Christ" (10:16-17). The eucharist bread (which corresponds to the body of Jesus) replaces the unleavened bread eaten with Passover, hence the injunction to put away the yeast of leavened bread for "Christ our Passover lamb has been sacrified" (5:7).

  The scapegoat ritual as delineated in Leviticus 16, Barnabas, and the Mishnah was also utilized in gospel narratives about Jesus' passion. The abused goat was crowned with red wool on its head, put among thorns, spat upon, pierced, and nudged with a reed. The ritual is explicitly applied to the abuse of Jesus in Barnabas 7:6-11, and the gospels develop the allegory into detailed narratives relating the abuse. A third sacrifice ritual that became a narrative source for the gospel accounts of Jesus' passion is the heifer sacrifice from Deuteronomy 21:6-8. This became the source of Pilate's handwashing scene and the crowd's acceptance of Jesus' blood on them and on their children (cf. Matthew 27:24-25), in conjunction with Psalm 26:5-6."

  Good eh ?
• 

  mP

  DD:

  Lets continue this in the other thread. Ask there and i will reply.
• 

  mP

  Phizzy:
  Its obvious that the gospel writers were trying to make Jesus better than all the other major characters in the OT. I think it was Elijah feed a small crowed with a dozen fish and bread, jesus does 5000 with less. Many of his parables are simply an OT story enhanced and improved to show jesus is better(tm). The same goes for the virgin birth. Because nearly all heroes and many greats like Alexander the Great claim a god as their father they all claim their mother was raped by a God which is why our hero Jesus needs a virgin mother. Thefact the OT doesnt make this claim is immaterial.
• 

  Larsinger58

  This is a very interesting thread. A couple of things strike me almost immediately though.

  One is the fact that so much in the Bible is figurative and with double meanings. For instance, "Nazareth" likely was a nick-name for some town, like we call New York the "Big Apple." Nazareth means branch-town and a branch or a twig is a figurative term for a eunuch. Thus when the Bible says he will be called a "Nazarene" it is a play on that concept that he would be known as a eunuch. This was something that was open in that culture and often two men who were eunuchs paired up in an aesexual relationship and openly displayed their love for each, much like two cousins who become very close. Thus when the NT refers to John as the "disciple Jesus loved" it has a lot more meaning. John and Jesus had a special relationship. Now I don't see many of these critics trying to look deeper into this meaning, but once you know Jesus was openly a "eunuch", it is safe to say Jesus and John were in love with each other, but in an appropriate cultural relationship between two eunuchs.

  The other thing is this, particularly in mentioning some of the heavies and intellectuals that post here. Some of this stuff is well researched and verey technical. But what immediately strikes me is why if you go to this level to dissect the Bible, you don't know about the pagan revisionism during the 5th Century BCE? I mean, why not dissect the pagans as much as you do the Bible? So I tend to find a bit of dishonesty with some of these discussion because they are not across the board. They are hard-hitting challenges to the Bible, which is fine, but if they did as much research and investigation of pagan history, they would know about revisions and the original timeline. But when that comes up, they pretend to be deaf, dumb and blind.
  
  Case in point, is the fall of LBA Jericho between 1350-1325 BCE. This is the destructive level linked with the Israelites by the archaeologist Dame Kathleen Kenyon. But is because the previous destruction at the MBA level was clearly the work of the Egyptians when the Hyksos were expelled. The Egyptians burned the outside of the walls which were superheated and then caught the inner city on fire. Point is, once you date the only time the Israelites could have possibly destroyed Jericho, which is the LBA town followed by a long period of 400+ years of desolation, then it automatically tells you who was ruling at the time of the Exodus, which was Amenhotep III. Once you investigate him fully and his successor, Akhenaten, it is clear this is the time the Exodus and the 10 plagues occurred. Now this is very basic. So where are the smart people who are developing this?

  I'll tell you where they are: they are no where to be found, because so much of the focus is on proving the Bible wrong and nothing else. But occasionally when something really obvious occurs that actually supports the Bible, everyone pretends to be dumb.

  But even so, it is known that "interpretation belongs to God" which means out of several possible interpretations, God chooses the one he wishes. Some try to find a contradiction in just one potential interpretation and that makes them happy and assures them the Bible is incorrect. Well God allows for that stumbling block for them to take place. But in the end, God might have a unique interpretation of prophecy that gets fulfilled.

  For instance, "out of Egypt I called my son" has a double fulfillment. First, it refers to Jesus at the 1st coming being taken down to Egypt when he was fleeing from Herod. But since Christ is born through the tribe of Josephus/Ephraim at the 2nd coming, since Joseph's sons were half Egyptian, then "out of Egypt I called my son" is fulfilled by Christ being born through the tribe of Joseph at the second coming.

  Now one one place the Bible says "there are many gods and many lords" and in another that there is just "one god and one lord." That looks like a direct contradiction to me!

  So I love this focus and intensity of criticism, but let's apply the same to the pagans!! Let's figure out why it is said that Plato was consulted in year 2 of the Peloponnesian War, now dated to 430 BCE and he wasn't even born until 428 BCE. Let's try and have some really smart people here comment on that!
• 

  mP

  Lars:

  This is a very interesting thread. A couple of things strike me almost immediately though.

  MP:

  I note that you mentioned the true meaning of Nazarene, and that is one aspect of Bible study that most people are not aware of. They simply do not appreciate the meaning of the names in the stories. These names have a very deep meaning which is extremely important to the story and almost always gives the audience a completely different view.

  However back on topic, how do you explain the fraud for the prophecies that i have poiinted out ?
• 

  mP

  DeputyDog:

  Why do Christians lie and say the prophecy of being born from a virgin is in the OT ? Read the srciptures. Isaiah does not say virgin but maiden.

  Thats a downright lie.
• 

  mP

  DeputyDog:

  mP

  So you know lies condemn you!

  What are "damn right lies"?

  You said ealier they aren't sins, let alone damnable.

  MP:

  Im only saying be honest about jesus. Why lie about it if you want to know or seek is the truth. I just labelling some of the prophecies as lies, because they are. I dont have to believe in jesus dying for me to spot a lie. People without jesus in the past could tell a lie from the truth about a matter, you dont need Jesus for that.

  Why make such a claim when reading a dozen words show it to be a lie ? Its not like being born not of a virgin changes the story, the rest of the text remains. Just because you or me werent born from virgins doent make us less worthy as people, we are the same iether way. Thats thought is just as garbage as judging someone because of race and so on. You should judge people for their actions which they can change , not nonsense like their origins of ancestry.