Did Jesus really fulfill Old Testament prophecies?

[brandx1138]

{This thread is inspired by a recent conversation I was having with Easyrider. But everyone is welcome to chime in.}

My attempt here is to look at the most widely cited Judaic and Christian prophecies that Christians claim Jesus had fulfilled, and see whether or not the character of Jesus as portrayed in the NT actually met the requirements of these prophecies.

As a starting point, I took the strongest passages from this list on Wikipedia.

1. Isaiah 52:13-53:12. This is one of the strongest examples for Christians of proof of Jesus' prophecy. And I will admit that quite a lot of the descriptions associated with the Passion of the Christ and Jesus's character in the New Testament are here. It's almost too good to be true...and maybe it is.

First, there are 3 issues that need to be said about this passage. 1.) Even if we interpret the chapter as the Christians do, the most that could be said is this: Isaiah 53 is about someone who dies for the sins of others. People may have seen Jesus die, but did anyone see him die as an atonement for the sins of others? Of course not; this is simply the meaning which the New Testament gives to his death. Only if you already accept the New Testament teaching that his death had a non-visible, spiritual significance can you than go back to Isaiah and say, "see - the Prophet predicted what I already believe." Isaiah 53, then, is in reality no "proof" at all, but rather a contrived confirmation for someone who has already chosen Christianity. 2.) Even Jesus didn't see Isaiah 53 as crucial to his messianic claims - why did he request that God "remove this cup from me" (Mk. 14:36) - didn't he know that a "removal of the cup" would violate the Gentile understanding of Isaiah 53, not to mention his own (since he is also God) plan for the salvation of Humanity? Why does Jesus even pray to God (himself)? 3.) Even if we accept the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53, where is it indicated (either in Isaiah 53 or anywhere else in the Jewish Scriptures) that you must believe in this "Messiah" to get the benefits? In fact, there is no mention of the burial and resurrection after three days, which is the crux of the Christian faith. "If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." (1 Cor. 15:13-14)

Next, let's look at the context of the passage. If we read a little further back, we'll notice that the LORD of Israel is consoling the Jews about relieving them from their oppressors, and bringing Zion (the promised land) back to the Jews. If you are Jewish, you'll interpret this to mean that Yahweh is protecting his people. If you don't believe in gods, you'd probably interpret this as an oppressed people trying to lift their spirits, much like how the African-American slaves sung songs in the cotton fields to alleviate their horrible situation. Which interpretation is more likely? That's going to be a common theme throughout this thread. We have to use Occam's Razor: The simplest (and usually most mundane) assumption is likely to be the correct one. So chapter 52 is speaking about Yahweh predicting the restoration of Israel as a vindication of their status as his chosen people, and chapter 54 describes an unequivocally joyous fate for the Jewish people. Speaking clearly of the Jewish people and their exalted status, it ends as follows: "'This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and this is their vindication from me,' declares the LORD." Most scholars (Christian and Jewish) agree that Chapter 53 is actually a continuation of the prophecy which begins at 52:13 (as the original text didn't have chapters).

So could it be that the "servant" in 53 is the tribe of Israel, and not a messiah? Many Christian scholars claim that most ancient Jewish priests claimed it was a bout a messiah up until the 11th century when the "Israel" theory was introduced. However, Origen, an early Christian writer in 248 C.E. wrote differently: "I remember that once in a discussion with someone whom the Jews regard as learned I used these prophecies [Isaiah 52:13-53:8]. At this the Jew said that these prophecies referred to the whole people as though of a single individual, since they were scattered in the dispersion and smitten, that as a result of the scattering of the Jews among the other nations many might become proselytes. In this way he explained the text: "Thy form shall be inglorious among men"; and "those to whom he was not proclaimed shall see him"; "being a man in calamity."

I could make a whole thread about this one passage, but I suggest you read more here about the answers to the Christian claims.

Obviously, the text can be interpreted in whichever way your bias allows it, Jewish OR Christian. But if we apply Occam's Razor, which is the simplest explanation: That some Jewish songwriter magically foretold the coming of Jesus, who did not become the Jewish messiah as any OT text would require, but that he was crucified and with that became the savior of mankind as the Christians proclaim? Or that Christians created the stories in their gospels to fulfill the well-known Jewish prophecies after the fact. A closer examination of the Gospels may help us answer this mystery. More on that later.

2. Zechariah 12:10 - "And they shall look upon him whom they have pierced; and they shall mourn for him as one mourneth for an only son; and they shall grieve over him, as the manner is to grieve for the death of the firstborn."
This is another well-cited passage by Christians, because John cites it in 19:32-37: "These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: "Not one of his bones will be broken," and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced." Okay, so what do we have here? Is it a case of an apostle (John) writing down what he had witnessed, realizing that this action had fulfilled a prophecy? Or could it be that the author (who is actually unknown) was writing of an event that was purely hearsay (60-90 years after the fact) and creating specific events out of whole cloth so that he could persuade others what he already believed, that this man was truly the messiah? Which is more likely? What's the simplest explanation? What do we have more evidence of happening in similar circumstances? I would say the answer to all those questions is the latter decision. Most of the Christian references to the OT are like this. Many of them even point it out like John does, as to attract attention to the purported events. Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

3. Isaiah 7:14 - "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."
Another famous quoted passage by Christians of Jesus' messiahship foretold. But is this "virgin" supposedly talking about Mary, and why is his name Immanuel, and not some form of Jesus (Yeshua or Joshua)? Many scholars will claim that "virgin" has been mistranslated by the Greek Septuagint (Greek OT), and since the Christians used the Septuagint, they naturally had to make Mary a virgin to fulfill this prophecy. In the original Hebrew of the OT, the word is "almah" which loosely translates to young maiden. Isaiah actually uses a more specific word for virgin (bethulah) later in 23:12. Almah is a more general term meaning "a girl of marriageable age, who may be a virgin, but that is not her definable nature. In other words, an author who uses "almah" is using it as a general term (like girl), and an author who uses "bethulah" is using it to spotlight her virginity. But this is still debatable, so let's move onto the next problem.

The "virgin" will give birth to a son named Immanuel, which means "with us is God". Christians will cite this as a poetic term for Jesus as he is a god among men, a divine human, both man and God. But that's a blatant interpretation. Christians seem to take the rest of the passage literally (a virgin will bear a son) and then switch into metaphor-mode and say that Immanuel means Jesus, too! Well, there's no reason that it should be taken metaphorically (or literally for that matter). Nowhere in the NT is Jesus referred to as Immanuel except in Matthew who quotes this Isaiah passage to "fulfill" yet another amazing prophecy once again. One more time where it looks like the Gospel writer is trying too hard to make his case: "But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, 'Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.' [Jesus is Greek for Joshua, which means "the LORD saves"] All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel'which means, 'God with us.'" So in the very same breath, Matthew contradicts himself, or he tries to mesh an OT passage with his messiah, either way it sticks out like a sore thumb. And just how did the Gospel writers know for sure that Mary was a virgin? Did they just take her word for it? It just seems to have been the rumor that was going around. This is another problem with the "evidence" for Jesus. All the writings of the Bible are copies of copies of copies of mistranslations of written hearsay decades after the events were supposed to have happened. How can any of this be reliable in the least? But that's a topic for another discussion.

One last thing to put the final nail in the coffin of this passage. We must always look at the context of these so-called prophecies. Read the entire chapter of Isaiah 7. Two Kings of neighboring lands are amassing to take over Judah and her king, Ahaz. The LORD tells Isaiah to go up to Ahaz and tell him that he has nothing to fear because Yahweh's got his back. Then Yahweh himself tells Ahaz to ask Him for a sign. Ahaz doesn't want to test his LORD. So, for some reason, Isaiah speaks for Yahweh and says He will give Ahaz a sign anyway and it will be the birth of Immanuel to a virgin. Immanuel will eat curds and honey when he's old enough to know right from wrong. But before he will get to that age, Yahweh will make sure that the land of the two kings Ahaz fears will be destroyed. That's all this passage is talking about. It has nothing to do with a messiah or with Jesus.

4. Micah 5:2 - "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."
One more seemingly powerful piece of evidence in favor of Christianity in the OT. Bethlehem-Ephrathah is the tiny city and clan from which comes the ancient Davidic dynasty with its messianic King. Hence the debate recorded in the book of John: "Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Is the Christ to come from Galilee? Has not the scripture said that the Christ is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was? So there was a division among the people over Jesus" (John 7:41-43). Luke 2:1-7 and Matthew talk about it too: "Assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, king Herod inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. They told him, In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it is written by the prophet: And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will govern my people Israel" (Matthew 2: 4-6). But strangely, both Matthew and Luke tell two very different stories about why Jesus of Nazareth came to be born in Bethlehem, 70 miles south of Nazareth. Luke says that the Caesar Augustus issued a decree for a census to be taken of all his lands while Quirinius was governor of Syria, but everyone had to go to their birthplace to register, which makes no sense for a census whose sole purpose is to count the number of people in the towns they live in, not where they were born. So Joseph takes his 9-month pregnant wife on a mule 70 miles south to Bethlehem because that's where he is from. While there, Mary gives birth to Jesus. One might ask, "Couldn't they have forgone the census just this once?" I mean, how many pregnant women who could give birth at any moment want to spend days in the desert on the back of a donkey just because of some silly census? Matthew comes up with something different. He says that Joseph & Mary were already living in Bethlehem and then fled to Egypt after the birth because Herod had tried to murder Jesus. Then they returned from hiding and instead of going back home to Judea (Bethlehem) where Herod's son was now king, they went to Nazareth instead. And there's certainly no mention of a census. So which is more likely, that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem to fulfill a prophecy (that wasn't even about a messiah but a military leader who is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did), or that the Gospel writers made it up, especially since they don't even agree with each other on how it happened?

And with that, I shall leave it there, because I could easily write a 10-20 page essay on the topic, but I'll give you guys a chance to comment.

[Easyrider]

Brandx - I don't have time to answer your dissertation in it's fullest, but over time I will provide a number of arguments why your various (biased) conclusions are problematic for you. First:

BrandX1138 wrote: Nowhere in the NT is Jesus referred to as Immanuel except in Matthew who quotes this Isaiah passage to "fulfill" yet another amazing prophecy once again. One more time where it looks like the Gospel writer is trying too hard to make his case: "But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, 'Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.' [Jesus is Greek for Joshua, which means "the LORD saves"] All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel'which means, 'God with us.'" So in the very same breath, Matthew contradicts himself, or he tries to mesh an OT passage with his messiah, either way it sticks out like a sore thumb.

This whole argument fails to take into consideration a very important element: the Hewbrew custom (arguably derived from God) of providing numerous "names" for God. This was done so that a "profile" of sorts is created whereby people have a deeper understanding of just who God is and what he does. Examples from the OT:

JEHOVAH-JIREH: "The Lord will Provide." Gen. 22:14. From "jireh" ("to see" or "to provide," or to "foresee" as a prophet.) God always provides, adequate when the times come.

JEHOVAH-ROPHE: "The Lord Who Heals" Ex. 15:22-26. From "rophe" ("to heal"); implies spiritual, emotional as well as physical healing. (Jer. 30:17, 3:22; Isa. 61:1) God heals body, soul and spirit; all levels of man's being.

JEHOVAH-NISSI: "The Lord Our Banner." Ex. 17:15. God on the battlefield, from word which means "to glisten," "to lift up," See Psalm 4:6.

JEHOVAH-M'KADDESH: "The Lord Who Sanctifies" Lev. 20:8. "To make whole, set apart for holiness."

JEHOVAH-SHALOM: "The Lord Our Peace" Judges 6:24. "Shalom" translated "peace" 170 times means "whole," "finished," "fulfilled," "perfected." Related to "well," welfare." Deut. 27:6; Dan. 5:26; I Kings 9:25 8:61; Gen. 15:16; Ex. 21:34, 22:5, 6; Lev. 7:11-21. Shalom means that kind of peace that results from being a whole person in right relationship to God and to one's fellow man.

SHEPHERD: Psa. 23, 79:13, 95:7, 80:1, 100:3; Gen. 49:24; Isa. 40:11.

JUDGE: Psa. 7:8, 96:13.

JEHOVAH ELOHIM: "LORD God" Gen. 2:4; Judges 5:3; Isa. 17:6; Zeph. 2:9; Psa. 59:5, etc.

JEHOVAH-TSIDKENU "The Lord Our Righteousness" Jer. 23:5, 6, 33:16. From "tsidek" (straight, stiff, balanced - as on scales - full weight, justice, right, righteous, declared innocent.) God our Righteousness.

JEHOVAH-ROHI: "The Lord Our Shepherd" Psa. 23, from "ro'eh" (to pasture).

JEHOVAH-SHAMMAH: "The Lord is There" (Ezek. 48:35).

JEHOVAH-SABAOTH: "The Lord of Hosts" The commander of the angelic host and the armies of God. Isa. 1:24; Psa. 46:7, 11; 2 Kings 3:9-12; Jer. 11:20 (NT: Rom. 9:29; James 5:4, Rev. 19: 11-16).

http://www.ldolphin.org/Names.html

So, from the information above, the names of God show that he is a provider, a shepherd, our righteousness, God our peace, our sanctifier, and one who heals, etc. And that's just a short list. Now, does Brandx go to the Jews and try to tell them they're all screwed up because their prophets have a dozen + different names for their God? I don't think so. It's a custom, Brandx, and it continues with Christ (see names / titles in the following link):

The Names and Titles of Christ

http://www.embassyofheaven.com/catalog/ ... outk3a.htm

Next, does Brandx want us to think Matthew is some kind of psycho who was totally unaware that in the space of 1 chapter of his Gospel he didn't know he was alluding to two separate names of Christ (Jesus and Immanuel)? Or, like the OT writers, inspired by God, was he trying to reveal something more to us as I alluded to above? The latter seems more logical to me.

Finally, Matthew doesn't say he had to be called Immanuel by others during his incarnation on earth. Most of them didn't even know he was "God with us" until after his resurrection, and the accounts of that 40 day period are very limited. However, Jesus is known and called Immanuel in churches all over the earth, so I think that's perfectly satisfactory as a fulfillment of the prophecy.

BrandX1138 wrote: And just how did the Gospel writers know for sure that Mary was a virgin? Did they just take her word for it?

Probably. What's wrong with that? You want to make Mary out to be a liar? They also had God (Jesus) with them who surely ought to have known, and they Had the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (God) to teach them all truths (John chapter 14) and guiding them through their writings.

More coming in future posts.

Jesus IS Lord!

[Easyrider]

Brandx wrote: But strangely, both Matthew and Luke tell two very different stories about why Jesus of Nazareth came to be born in Bethlehem, 70 miles south of Nazareth. Luke says that the Caesar Augustus issued a decree for a census to be taken of all his lands while Quirinius was governor of Syria, but everyone had to go to their birthplace to register, which makes no sense for a census whose sole purpose is to count the number of people in the towns they live in, not where they were born. So Joseph takes his 9-month pregnant wife on a mule 70 miles south to Bethlehem because that's where he is from. While there, Mary gives birth to Jesus. One might ask, "Couldn't they have forgone the census just this once?" I mean, how many pregnant women who could give birth at any moment want to spend days in the desert on the back of a donkey just because of some silly census? Matthew comes up with something different. He says that Joseph & Mary were already living in Bethlehem and then fled to Egypt after the birth because Herod had tried to murder Jesus.


Point # 1: When you say, " Matthew comes up with something different. He says that Joseph & Mary were already living in Bethlehem and then fled to Egypt after the birth..." that's a gross error of chronological events. It assumes, for instance, that the events in Matthew and Luke cannot possibly be complimentary (it has to be "either / or"). The following harmonizations of the Gospels (Nativity Accounts in chronological order) provide a much different summary of events than Brandx presents:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/harmnatv.html

Point # 2: And there's certainly no mention of a census (in Matthew).

An argument from silence. Based on your criteria for making that claim, the following can also be entirely correct: Matthew does not deny the census of Quirinius.

Point # 3: The census makes no sense.

Census:

The Deeds of the Divine Augustus

By Augustus

Written 14 A.C.E.

Translated by Thomas Bushnell, BSG

8. When I was consul the fifth time (29 B.C.E.), I increased the number of patricians by order of the people and senate. I read the roll of the senate three times, and in my sixth consulate (28 B.C.E.) I made a census of the people with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague. I conducted a lustrum, after a forty-one year gap, in which lustrum were counted 4,063,000 heads of Roman citizens. Then again, with consular imperium I conducted a lustrum alone when Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius were consuls (8 B.C.E.), in which lustrum were counted 4,233,000 heads of Roman citizens. And the third time, with consular imperium, I conducted a lustrum with my son Tiberius Caesar as colleague, when Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius were consuls (14 A.C.E.), in which lustrum were cunted 4,937,000 of the heads of Roman citizens. By new laws passed with my sponsorship, I restored many traditions of the ancestors, which were falling into disuse in our age, and myself I handed on precedents of many things to be imitated in later generations.

You see there was a census taken of the entire roman empire. This census was taken in 8 BCE. Evidence doesn't get any stronger than this.

http://classics.mit.edu/Augustus/deeds.html

Papyri collected in Egypt, have shown that the Romans undertook periodic censuses throughout their empire. In Roman Egypt, for example, from A.D. 33 until 257 A.D., 258 different censuses were taken at 14-year intervals. This evidence has been known for a number of years, and substantiates Lukes reference to Augustus census, but it seems to work against the Lucan account in terms of the year when Jesus was born. Why? Because the 14-year intervals do not intersect with the year of Jesus birth in 4 B.C.

But concerning that problem, the Dictionary of New Testament Background [Craig Evans and Stanley Porter, eds., InterVarsity, 2000] states: "Evidence indicates that Egyptian censuses were taken at 7-year intervals during the reign of Augustus and can be established with indirect and direct evidence for the years of 11-10 B.C., 4-3 B.C., A.D. 4 and 5, and A.D. 11 and 12." This information is based on documentation presented in The Demography of Roman Egypt by Bagnell and Friar, a book published by Cambridge University Press in 1994.

Next, what about the criticism that in a Roman census Joseph would not have been required to travel to Bethlehem and he would not have been required to bring Mary with him? Well, now historians have found that in A.D. 104, Vivius Maximus issued an edict that states, "It is essential for all people to return to their homes for the census."

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/edito ... 205W3C.htm

The term Luke uses for Quirinius' 'governorship' is the VERY general term hegemon, which in extra-biblical Greek was applied to prefects, provincial governors, and even Caesar himself. In the NT it is similarly used as a 'wide' term, applying to procurators--pilate, festus, felix--and to general 'rulers' (Mt 2.6). [The New Intl. Dict. of New Test. Theology (ed. Brown) gives as the range of meaning: "leader, commander, chief" (vol 1.270)...this term would have applied to Quirinius at MANY times in his political career, and as a general term, Syria would have had several individuals that could be properly so addressed at the same time. Remember, Justin Martyr called him 'procurator' in Apology 1:34, which is also covered by this term.]

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

[brandx1138]

This whole argument fails to take into consideration a very important element: the Hewbrew custom (arguably derived from God) of providing numerous "names" for God. This was done so that a "profile" of sorts is created whereby people have a deeper understanding of just who God is and what he does.

This is a debatable interpretation. One more way the Bible is not a clear-cut document. But his name is irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with a messiah. It's about a boy who is born to a virgin who will be the sign of the two King's lands being destroyed by Yahweh. Nothing about the savior of humanity.

[Goat]

This whole argument fails to take into consideration a very important element: the Hewbrew custom (arguably derived from God) of providing numerous "names" for God. This was done so that a "profile" of sorts is created whereby people have a deeper understanding of just who God is and what he does.

This is a debatable interpretation. One more way the Bible is not a clear-cut document. But his name is irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with a messiah. It's about a boy who is born to a virgin who will be the sign of the two King's lands being destroyed by Yahweh. Nothing about the savior of humanity.

Begging your pardon, but it will be a boy that is born to a young maiden.

And, indeed, Isaiah told how he made sure this boy would be born. In Isaiah 8:3-4,
he went to the prophetess and insure she would conceive. Now, to me, for a man in that time frame going to a woman to insure she would conceive only means one thing.. and it certainly isn't a 'virgin birth'. This shows Isaiah was talking about his own son.

Indeed, this is confirmed in Isaiah 8:18, where he procliamed himself and is sons the signs of God to King Ahaz.

[brandx1138]

Brandx wrote: But strangely, both Matthew and Luke tell two very different stories about why Jesus of Nazareth came to be born in Bethlehem, 70 miles south of Nazareth. Luke says that the Caesar Augustus issued a decree for a census to be taken of all his lands while Quirinius was governor of Syria, but everyone had to go to their birthplace to register, which makes no sense for a census whose sole purpose is to count the number of people in the towns they live in, not where they were born. So Joseph takes his 9-month pregnant wife on a mule 70 miles south to Bethlehem because that's where he is from. While there, Mary gives birth to Jesus. One might ask, "Couldn't they have forgone the census just this once?" I mean, how many pregnant women who could give birth at any moment want to spend days in the desert on the back of a donkey just because of some silly census? Matthew comes up with something different. He says that Joseph & Mary were already living in Bethlehem and then fled to Egypt after the birth because Herod had tried to murder Jesus.


Point # 1: When you say, " Matthew comes up with something different. He says that Joseph & Mary were already living in Bethlehem and then fled to Egypt after the birth..." that's a gross error of chronological events. It assumes, for instance, that the events in Matthew and Luke cannot possibly be complimentary (it has to be "either / or"). The following harmonizations of the Gospels (Nativity Accounts in chronological order) provide a much different summary of events than Brandx presents:

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/harmnatv.html

Point # 2: And there's certainly no mention of a census (in Matthew).

An argument from silence. Based on your criteria for making that claim, the following can also be entirely correct: Matthew does not deny the census of Quirinius.

Point # 3: The census makes no sense.

Census:

The Deeds of the Divine Augustus

By Augustus

Written 14 A.C.E.

Translated by Thomas Bushnell, BSG

8. When I was consul the fifth time (29 B.C.E.), I increased the number of patricians by order of the people and senate. I read the roll of the senate three times, and in my sixth consulate (28 B.C.E.) I made a census of the people with Marcus Agrippa as my colleague. I conducted a lustrum, after a forty-one year gap, in which lustrum were counted 4,063,000 heads of Roman citizens. Then again, with consular imperium I conducted a lustrum alone when Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius were consuls (8 B.C.E.), in which lustrum were counted 4,233,000 heads of Roman citizens. And the third time, with consular imperium, I conducted a lustrum with my son Tiberius Caesar as colleague, when Sextus Pompeius and Sextus Appuleius were consuls (14 A.C.E.), in which lustrum were cunted 4,937,000 of the heads of Roman citizens. By new laws passed with my sponsorship, I restored many traditions of the ancestors, which were falling into disuse in our age, and myself I handed on precedents of many things to be imitated in later generations.

You see there was a census taken of the entire roman empire. This census was taken in 8 BCE. Evidence doesn't get any stronger than this.

http://classics.mit.edu/Augustus/deeds.html

Papyri collected in Egypt, have shown that the Romans undertook periodic censuses throughout their empire. In Roman Egypt, for example, from A.D. 33 until 257 A.D., 258 different censuses were taken at 14-year intervals. This evidence has been known for a number of years, and substantiates Lukes reference to Augustus census, but it seems to work against the Lucan account in terms of the year when Jesus was born. Why? Because the 14-year intervals do not intersect with the year of Jesus birth in 4 B.C.

But concerning that problem, the Dictionary of New Testament Background [Craig Evans and Stanley Porter, eds., InterVarsity, 2000] states: "Evidence indicates that Egyptian censuses were taken at 7-year intervals during the reign of Augustus and can be established with indirect and direct evidence for the years of 11-10 B.C., 4-3 B.C., A.D. 4 and 5, and A.D. 11 and 12." This information is based on documentation presented in The Demography of Roman Egypt by Bagnell and Friar, a book published by Cambridge University Press in 1994.

Next, what about the criticism that in a Roman census Joseph would not have been required to travel to Bethlehem and he would not have been required to bring Mary with him? Well, now historians have found that in A.D. 104, Vivius Maximus issued an edict that states, "It is essential for all people to return to their homes for the census."

http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/edito ... 205W3C.htm

The term Luke uses for Quirinius' 'governorship' is the VERY general term hegemon, which in extra-biblical Greek was applied to prefects, provincial governors, and even Caesar himself. In the NT it is similarly used as a 'wide' term, applying to procurators--pilate, festus, felix--and to general 'rulers' (Mt 2.6). [The New Intl. Dict. of New Test. Theology (ed. Brown) gives as the range of meaning: "leader, commander, chief" (vol 1.270)...this term would have applied to Quirinius at MANY times in his political career, and as a general term, Syria would have had several individuals that could be properly so addressed at the same time. Remember, Justin Martyr called him 'procurator' in Apology 1:34, which is also covered by this term.]

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

Isn't it amazing how much work you have to do to prove the Bible is true? Shouldn't it be easier? Why does God make it so difficult?

Let's talk a little bit about Typology. Typology is a Christian method for synthesizing the discontinuities between the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and the Christian Bible (New Testament). The development of this as a systematic view of the Hebrew Bible was influenced by the thought of the Hellenistic Jewish world centered on Alexandria, where Philo and others viewed the Bible in Platonic terms as essentially an allegory. Now what is allegory? Allegory is a story, poem, or picture that can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one. Of all the allegories that have been created throughout history and are made to be known as allegories have been created as fiction, not historical fact. This is why poetry and stories hold our attention, because we enjoy the deeper meanings of things, secret knowledge. This is why there were so many "secret religions" in the ancient world like Mithraism and Gnosticism. Now we are told to believe that the only allegorical collection of writings in history that WASN'T mostly fiction are those of the Bible? How can this be? Isn't it more likely that these stories are nothing but creations in the minds of the authors, perhaps centered around historical activities, but more fiction than fact, so that they are able to make allegorical connections and super-secret messages? We are a species that is so caught up in "meaning", that we forget to stop and smell the rose for what it is: an aromatic flower evolved in such a way as to attract pollinating insects to further the rose's propagation.

But let me tackle these tedious claims...

Perhaps the problem with the Nativity story isn't its "hybrid-ability", but the dates that it supposedly uses. Here's the problem with the dating:
http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/jesus/quirinius.htm

The Gospel of Luke mentions the census taken by Quirinius when he was governor of Syria, as part of a census of the "whole world", in connection with the birth of Jesus. However Luke and the Gospel of Matthew date the birth to the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 B.C.E., nearly ten years before Quirinius became governor. Your claim about "hegemon" is purely speculative. If Quirinius was less than a governor, why make a point to mention him? But as you can see, this is all very debatable.

Also "Reference is occasionally made to a census around the year 3 B.C.E. The fifth century historian Orosius mentions it. But the census taken was of Roman citizens. The people of vassal kingdoms may have been requested to swear allegiance to Caesar (See Josephus, Antiquities 17.2.4 #42), but even this would have raised objections among the Jews. This enrollment or registration of Roman citizens would not have applied to Joseph of Nazareth, who was not a Roman citizen. Nor was Jesus, since had he inherited this legal status from Joseph, he would not have been crucified, since crucifixion was not a punishment that would be carried out against a Roman citizen [See the discussion in chapter 6 of Martin Hengels book Crucifixion, SCM, 1977]. So reference to this empire-wide registration of Roman citizens has no relevance to Jesus, and no link whatsoever to Luke 2:1, which refers to a decree regarding taxation."

"The impression one gets from reading Matthews Gospel is that Bethlehem is the home of Joseph, Mary, and Jesus. It is the place where they are found, it is the place the Magi find them roughly two years after Jesus is born, it is the place they would return to had not fear of Herods son Archelaus forced them to seek refuge in Galilee instead (Matthew 2:22). In Lukes Gospel, on the other hand, Joseph and Mary are from Nazareth, and it is only the census that forces them to Bethlehem (Luke 2:1-5). Luke 2:39 says that once they had done everything the Law required, they went back to Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth'. Not only did the Law of Moses not require a two-year stay for them to do everything it required, but it is unlikely that Mary would have had to accompany Joseph to register. Indeed, Joseph himself would not have been required to register in Judea, since Galilee was not affected by the census in 6 C.E."

As to your comment about Vibius Maximus (not Vivius), this may very well have been, in 104 A.D., but what about in 4-6 B.C. when Jesus is supposed to have been born? And let's say that it was so then. How do we know that Joseph actually existed and that he was from Bethlehem, the house of David. His lineages don't match between Luke and Matthew. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus)
If they can't even get the genealogy right, how can we trust them that he's even David's heir.

But not only that, how do we even know that a King David existed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David#Historicity_of_David
"The Bronze and Iron Age remains of the "City of David" were investigated extensively in the 1970s and 1980s under the direction of Yigael Shiloh of Hebrew University. Fieldwork there and elsewhere in Jerusalem failed to discover significant evidence of occupation during the 10th century BCE: not only are there no signs of monumental architecture, but even distinctive 10th century pottery shards are absent. Elsewhere in the territory of biblical Judah and Israel, no royal inscriptions exist from the 10th century BCE, nor evidence of a royal bureaucracy (the equivalents of the LMLK seal attached to oil jars associated with the Judean royal bureaucracy of the late 8th century BCE), nor the inscribed potshards which would provide evidence of widespread literacy. Surveys of surface finds aimed at tracing settlement patterns and population changes have shown that between the 16th and 8th centuries BCE, a period which includes the biblical kingdoms of David and Solomon, the entire population of the hill country of Judah was no more than about 5,000 persons, most of them wandering pastoralists, with the entire urbanised area consisting of about twenty small villages."

The whole foundation of Judaic Davidic kingdom, and therefore Christianity's reliance upon it to "prove" Jesus' due kingship, is illegitimate. And besides, Jesus never became King as the Jews were working so hard to predict for themselves. He was crucified, according to the story, and therefore interpreted by his followers to be a divine "king" of humanity. They didn't get what they wanted, so the theology kept evolving. This continually occurred with the Jews. Every time something bad happened to them or they didn't get what they were expecting, they changed their theology to "make sense" of their reality.

I'm still not convinced. You guys have to work really hard to make the Bible make sense for you. It's an effort. If it was the word of a perfect being, it should be beautifully logical and easy for anyone to understand, like simple mathematics. If math is the language of the universe, then God should have made his word just as logical. The big stumbling block is not all these little details that we must nitpick over in the Bible. The big problem is that there is no credible evidence that can be empirically and independently tested by ANYONE that a God exists. You either have to have a personal revelation, apparently, or you have to forgo reason and rely on faith. The end.

[Easyrider]

This whole argument fails to take into consideration a very important element: the Hewbrew custom (arguably derived from God) of providing numerous "names" for God. This was done so that a "profile" of sorts is created whereby people have a deeper understanding of just who God is and what he does.

This is a debatable interpretation. One more way the Bible is not a clear-cut document. But his name is irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with a messiah. It's about a boy who is born to a virgin who will be the sign of the two King's lands being destroyed by Yahweh. Nothing about the savior of humanity.

Begging your pardon, but it will be a boy that is born to a young maiden.

And, indeed, Isaiah told how he made sure this boy would be born. In Isaiah 8:3-4,
he went to the prophetess and insure she would conceive. Now, to me, for a man in that time frame going to a woman to insure she would conceive only means one thing.. and it certainly isn't a 'virgin birth'. This shows Isaiah was talking about his own son.

Indeed, this is confirmed in Isaiah 8:18, where he procliamed himself and is sons the signs of God to King Ahaz.

Well first, name this "son" you're talking about. Who is it specifically? There's no great Immanuel seen in Judaism as a fulfillment of this prophecy. And if you say it's Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, then you're saying that person now has two names: Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz AND Immanuel. Brandx says Matthew "contradicts" himself by saying Christ was Jesus and Immanuel both. Now you're going to tell Brandx and I this kind of a thing is no big deal. Well, if it's not a big deal for you then it's not a big deal for Matthew. You guys can't have it both ways.

Second, At the time of chapter 7, Isaiah had been a prophet for at least 17 years. He already had one son, Shear Yashuv. The mother of Shear Yashuv could not be indicated by almah in Isaish 7:14, because she would already have given birth. You effectively create a new miracle and a new meaning for Almah.

Third, the "sign" was for the House of David (7:13), not specifically Ahaz or Isaiah.

Fourth, the prophecy of 7:14 is future tense:

"Moreover, the condition of pregnancy, which is here designated by the participial adjective hara (cf. 2 Sam xi.5), was not an already existing one in this instance, but (as in all probability also in Judg. xiii. 5, cf. 4) something future, as well as the act of bearing, since hinneh is always used in Isaiah to introduce a future occurrence. This use of hinneh in Isaiah is a sufficient answer to Gesenius, Knobel, and others, who understand ha almah as referring to the young wife of the prophet himself, who was at that very time with child." (KD, Isaiah, p.216).

The famous Jewish commentator Rashi, although holding the woman to be Ahaz's wife, nonetheless states that the phrase means FUTURE:

"The Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign He will give you a sign by Himself, against Your will. is with child This is actually the future, as we find concerning Manoahs wife, that the angel said to her (Judges 13:3): "And you shall conceive and bear a son," and it is written, "Behold, you are with child and shall bear a son." the young woman My wife (tn: Ahaz' wife) will conceive this year. "

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/is714tense.html

[Easyrider]

Isn't it amazing how much work you have to do to prove the Bible is true?

Seems like you're the one spending numerous hours and working up a lather trying to disprove it.

But let me tackle these tedious claims...

Perhaps the problem with the Nativity story isn't its "hybrid-ability", but the dates that it supposedly uses. Here's the problem with the dating:
http://blue.butler.edu/~jfmcgrat/jesus/quirinius.htm

The Gospel of Luke mentions the census taken by Quirinius when he was governor of Syria, as part of a census of the "whole world", in connection with the birth of Jesus. However Luke and the Gospel of Matthew date the birth to the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 B.C.E., nearly ten years before Quirinius became governor. Your claim about "hegemon" is purely speculative. If Quirinius was less than a governor, why make a point to mention him? But as you can see, this is all very debatable.

Also "Reference is occasionally made to a census around the year 3 B.C.E. The fifth century historian Orosius mentions it. But the census taken was of Roman citizens. The people of vassal kingdoms may have been requested to swear allegiance to Caesar (See Josephus, Antiquities 17.2.4 #42), but even this would have raised objections among the Jews. This enrollment or registration of Roman citizens would not have applied to Joseph of Nazareth, who was not a Roman citizen. Nor was Jesus, since had he inherited this legal status from Joseph, he would not have been crucified, since crucifixion was not a punishment that would be carried out against a Roman citizen [See the discussion in chapter 6 of Martin Hengels book Crucifixion, SCM, 1977]. So reference to this empire-wide registration of Roman citizens has no relevance to Jesus, and no link whatsoever to Luke 2:1, which refers to a decree regarding taxation."

Did you read what I presented? It doesn't seem so. Here it is again:

The term Luke uses for Quirinius' 'governorship' is the VERY general term hegemon, which in extra-biblical Greek was applied to prefects, provincial governors, and even Caesar himself. In the NT it is similarly used as a 'wide' term, applying to procurators--pilate, festus, felix--and to general 'rulers' (Mt 2.6). [The New Intl. Dict. of New Test. Theology (ed. Brown) gives as the range of meaning: "leader, commander, chief" (vol 1.270)...this term would have applied to Quirinius at MANY times in his political career, and as a general term, Syria would have had several individuals that could be properly so addressed at the same time. Remember, Justin Martyr called him 'procurator' in Apology 1:34, which is also covered by this term.]

And who says it's a tax of just Roman citizens? That's your reach. Are you really trying to tell us that the Romans didn't seek to tax the peoples and nations they conquer? That's one heck of a fantastic belief!

I see nothing in your arguments that negates what Luke wrote.

But not only that, how do we even know that a King David existed?

Ever heard of the 8th century BC Tel Dan Tablets which mention him? Ever read the OT? Here's more:

Until very recently, there was no evidence outside the Bible for the existence of King David. There are no references to him in Egyptian, Syrian or Assyrian documents of the time, and the many archaeological digs in the City of David failed to turn up so much as a mention of his name. Then, on July 21, 1993, a team of archaeologists led by Prof. Avraham Biran, excavating Tel Dan in northern Galilee, found a triangular piece of basalt rock, measuring 23 x 36 cm. inscribed in Aramaic. It was subsequently identified as part of a victory pillar erected by the king of Syria and later smashed by an Israelite ruler. The inscription, which dates to the ninth century BCE, that is to say, about a century after David was thought to have ruled Israel, includes the words Beit David ("House" or "Dynasty" of David"). It is the first near-contemporaneous reference to David ever found."

King Davids Palace

"Very few personalities in history stir our imagination as that of David, son of Jesse," says historian, M. H. Leon. For decades," says Leon, "and despite much effort by scholars and archaeologists, the location of King David s palace has remained a mystery."

But recent discoveries and research by Hebrew University archaeologist, Dr. Eilat Mazar, the granddaughter of the renowned archaeologist, the late Prof. Benjamin Mazar, has unveiled convincing evidence that pinpoints the exact location of this most important biblical structure.

"One of the main clues in finding King Davids palace," says Mazar, "was surprisingly from the Bible itself." 2 Samuel 5:17 states: "When the Philistines heard that David had been anointed king over Israel, they went up in full force to search for him, but David heard about it and went DOWN [from his palace] to the [citadel]."

And there it was, just "up" from the citadel.

Today, there is growing evidence for the validity of King David and related Biblical accounts. No doubt the skeptics will need to rethink or modify their positions. (righterreport.com)

[Easyrider]

This whole argument fails to take into consideration a very important element: the Hewbrew custom (arguably derived from God) of providing numerous "names" for God. This was done so that a "profile" of sorts is created whereby people have a deeper understanding of just who God is and what he does.

This is a debatable interpretation.

Maybe for you. It's right there throughout the Bible, though. I provided numerous examples to boot. What have you got besides denial?

One more way the Bible is not a clear-cut document. But his name is irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with a messiah. It's about a boy who is born to a virgin who will be the sign of the two King's lands being destroyed by Yahweh. Nothing about the savior of humanity.

Matthew and Luke say otherwise. Also review the following:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html

http://www.messiahtruth.com/isa714o.html

[Goat]

This whole argument fails to take into consideration a very important element: the Hewbrew custom (arguably derived from God) of providing numerous "names" for God. This was done so that a "profile" of sorts is created whereby people have a deeper understanding of just who God is and what he does.

This is a debatable interpretation. One more way the Bible is not a clear-cut document. But his name is irrelevant, because it has nothing to do with a messiah. It's about a boy who is born to a virgin who will be the sign of the two King's lands being destroyed by Yahweh. Nothing about the savior of humanity.

Begging your pardon, but it will be a boy that is born to a young maiden.

And, indeed, Isaiah told how he made sure this boy would be born. In Isaiah 8:3-4,
he went to the prophetess and insure she would conceive. Now, to me, for a man in that time frame going to a woman to insure she would conceive only means one thing.. and it certainly isn't a 'virgin birth'. This shows Isaiah was talking about his own son.

Indeed, this is confirmed in Isaiah 8:18, where he procliamed himself and is sons the signs of God to King Ahaz.

Well first, name this "son" you're talking about. Who is it specifically? There's no great Immanuel seen in Judaism as a fulfillment of this prophecy. And if you say it's Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, then you're saying that person now has two names: Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz AND Immanuel. Brandx says Matthew "contradicts" himself by saying Christ was Jesus and Immanuel both. Now you're going to tell Brandx and I this kind of a thing is no big deal. Well, if it's not a big deal for you then it's not a big deal for Matthew. You guys can't have it both ways.

Second, At the time of chapter 7, Isaiah had been a prophet for at least 17 years. He already had one son, Shear Yashuv. The mother of Shear Yashuv could not be indicated by almah in Isaish 7:14, because she would already have given birth. You effectively create a new miracle and a new meaning for Almah.

Third, the "sign" was for the House of David (7:13), not specifically Ahaz or Isaiah.

Fourth, the prophecy of 7:14 is future tense:

"Moreover, the condition of pregnancy, which is here designated by the participial adjective hara (cf. 2 Sam xi.5), was not an already existing one in this instance, but (as in all probability also in Judg. xiii. 5, cf. 4) something future, as well as the act of bearing, since hinneh is always used in Isaiah to introduce a future occurrence. This use of hinneh in Isaiah is a sufficient answer to Gesenius, Knobel, and others, who understand ha almah as referring to the young wife of the prophet himself, who was at that very time with child." (KD, Isaiah, p.216).

The famous Jewish commentator Rashi, although holding the woman to be Ahaz's wife, nonetheless states that the phrase means FUTURE:

"The Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign He will give you a sign by Himself, against Your will. is with child This is actually the future, as we find concerning Manoahs wife, that the angel said to her (Judges 13:3): "And you shall conceive and bear a son," and it is written, "Behold, you are with child and shall bear a son." the young woman My wife (tn: Ahaz' wife) will conceive this year. "

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/is714tense.html

Your source in partly correct, but also very incorrect.

There is no 'future and past' tense per say. What Hebrew has is perfect vs inperfect tenses. The 'Perfect tense" is a completed action, and Isaiah 7:14 is in the perfect tense.

http://www.ancient-hebrew.org/37_lesson03.html