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.

[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.

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

It's not just denial, it's plausible denial. And that is enough to suspect falsehood. Tell me where the word "hegemon" is, and I'll take a look at it.

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

Well, of course Matthew and Luke would say otherwise. They're WORKING FOR THE GUY!! Come on, let's stop this whole charade.

The whole entire religion of Christianity is based upon accepting the notion of a God. Genesis starts right off with saying that God created the heavens and the earth. Woah woah wait a minute, who's this God guy? We have to just assume there IS a god so that we can accept the rest of the tripe that comes afterward.

So, first you have to prove the foundation that all your claims are predicated upon. Prove there is "a" god, before you prove that he is both Yahweh and Jesus and some kind of Holy Breath that gets inside you and makes you jump for Jesus. You're trying to sell me a glass of wine while arguing about what kind of wine it is. But the glass looks empty. In fact, the closer I look, the more I notice there isn't even a glass! And now that I think about it, nobody really even knows what this "glass" you keep talking about is!!!

When you can prove to me that a god, not just YOUR God, but A god exists, then we can talk more about the particulars. Because so far, your particulars are not holding much water....or wine.

[Easyrider]

Come on, let's stop this whole charade.

The whole entire religion of Christianity is based upon accepting the notion of a God. Genesis starts right off with saying that God created the heavens and the earth. Woah woah wait a minute, who's this God guy? We have to just assume there IS a god so that we can accept the rest of the tripe that comes afterward.

So, first you have to prove the foundation that all your claims are predicated upon. Prove there is "a" god, before you prove that he is both Yahweh and Jesus and some kind of Holy Breath that gets inside you and makes you jump for Jesus. You're trying to sell me a glass of wine while arguing about what kind of wine it is. But the glass looks empty. In fact, the closer I look, the more I notice there isn't even a glass! And now that I think about it, nobody really even knows what this "glass" you keep talking about is!!!

When you can prove to me that a god, not just YOUR God, but A god exists, then we can talk more about the particulars. Because so far, your particulars are not holding much water....or wine.

That's your opinion, which I know is wrong.

You'll need to start a different thread for whether there's a God or not. That isn't the subject of this debate.

[brandx1138]

Come on, let's stop this whole charade.

The whole entire religion of Christianity is based upon accepting the notion of a God. Genesis starts right off with saying that God created the heavens and the earth. Woah woah wait a minute, who's this God guy? We have to just assume there IS a god so that we can accept the rest of the tripe that comes afterward.

So, first you have to prove the foundation that all your claims are predicated upon. Prove there is "a" god, before you prove that he is both Yahweh and Jesus and some kind of Holy Breath that gets inside you and makes you jump for Jesus. You're trying to sell me a glass of wine while arguing about what kind of wine it is. But the glass looks empty. In fact, the closer I look, the more I notice there isn't even a glass! And now that I think about it, nobody really even knows what this "glass" you keep talking about is!!!

When you can prove to me that a god, not just YOUR God, but A god exists, then we can talk more about the particulars. Because so far, your particulars are not holding much water....or wine.

That's your opinion, which I know is wrong.

You'll need to start a different thread for whether there's a God or not. That isn't the subject of this debate.

You're right, that isn't the subject of this debate. But I've realized that nitpicking these details with you is getting us nowhere. When you can't accept what people understand to be credible testimony and reliable authorship, when you don't understand how "iffy" ancient history is and that you're making leaps of faith to believe what you want to believe, then we have nothing further to discuss. You and I will just have to agree to disagree, because trying to reason with you is exhausting for me. It's not because you're right, it's because you can't reason. You're gonna find criticisms and apologetics on Christian sites, and I'm gonna find criticisms to those on Wikipedia and other sites. And we're just going to go back and forth and get lost in the minutiae of all of this, when the real problem is what I stated earlier: You have no foundation for any of this. You have delivered up zero evidence for a god, let alone your SPECIFIC KIND of god. I don't know if there's a god or not, and neither do you. So you cannot say that you KNOW my opinion is wrong. Because if that were true, you'd either BE God, or you'd have some way of proving God, both of which you haven't displayed evidence for. I commend you on your efforts, but I've come to the conclusion that this battle is not going anywhere. And because I just don't care about your opinion. You're not a nice person. You're smug and it shows. You think you KNOW for certain what's true, but you don't. It's one more strike against the dogma of religion. It makes people rigid. At least I'm not claiming to have all the answers. I'm just trying to keep things honest and grounded. Sure I can get polemic at times, but at the end of the day, I know I'm just a human who's only been around the sun 30 times. I can't possibly have all the answers. And neither can anyone else. We're all in the same boat lost at sea, trying to get our bearings. You're in that boat too, but you still think we haven't left the shore.

Dontcha just love it when I get all metaphorical? I know I do.

[Easyrider]

But I've realized that nitpicking these details with you is getting us nowhere. When you can't accept what people understand to be credible testimony and reliable authorship, when you don't understand how "iffy" ancient history is and that you're making leaps of faith to believe what you want to believe, then we have nothing further to discuss. You and I will just have to agree to disagree, because trying to reason with you is exhausting for me. It's not because you're right, it's because you can't reason.

Your Achille's Heel is that the historical accounts have confirmed the fulfillments of the prophecies. Show me where Christ never fulfilled the ones concerning his first Advent and then your arguments will have more weight.

You're gonna find criticisms and apologetics on Christian sites, and I'm gonna find criticisms to those on Wikipedia and other sites. And we're just going to go back and forth and get lost in the minutiae of all of this, when the real problem is what I stated earlier: You have no foundation for any of this.

Once again, I have the confirmed fulfillments attested to (in numerous instances) by multiple sources. You've got squat.

And because I just don't care about your opinion. You're not a nice person. You're smug and it shows. You think you KNOW for certain what's true, but you don't. It's one more strike against the dogma of religion. It makes people rigid

You think you KNOW for certain it's not true. And that's not being smug and rigid?

Anyway, thanks for the debate!!

[Goat]

But I've realized that nitpicking these details with you is getting us nowhere. When you can't accept what people understand to be credible testimony and reliable authorship, when you don't understand how "iffy" ancient history is and that you're making leaps of faith to believe what you want to believe, then we have nothing further to discuss. You and I will just have to agree to disagree, because trying to reason with you is exhausting for me. It's not because you're right, it's because you can't reason.

Your Achille's Heel is that the historical accounts have confirmed the fulfillments of the prophecies. Show me where Christ never fulfilled the ones concerning his first Advent and then your arguments will have more weight.

There were no 'prophecies' that were fullfilled. There were a bunch of out of context quotes that some people wrote to as if they were prophecies decades later, but those were not considered propehcies BEFORE the new testament was written.

Shoe horning odd phrases into a new context after the fact, mistranslations,and writing TO scripture is not prophecy.. it is deception.

[Fallibleone]

brandx, I'm glad you made that post. And if you needed any further proof of the veracity of some of your points, you need look no further than Easyrider's response after you make it perfectly clear to anyone who can read that you do not know all the answers -

You think you KNOW for certain it's not true. And that's not being smug and rigid?

[Easyrider]

But I've realized that nitpicking these details with you is getting us nowhere. When you can't accept what people understand to be credible testimony and reliable authorship, when you don't understand how "iffy" ancient history is and that you're making leaps of faith to believe what you want to believe, then we have nothing further to discuss. You and I will just have to agree to disagree, because trying to reason with you is exhausting for me. It's not because you're right, it's because you can't reason.

Your Achille's Heel is that the historical accounts have confirmed the fulfillments of the prophecies. Show me where Christ never fulfilled the ones concerning his first Advent and then your arguments will have more weight.

There were no 'prophecies' that were fullfilled. There were a bunch of out of context quotes that some people wrote to as if they were prophecies decades later, but those were not considered propehcies BEFORE the new testament was written.

That's your theory.

Shoe horning odd phrases into a new context after the fact, mistranslations,and writing TO scripture is not prophecy.. it is deception.

No foundation.

The NT refutes you.

[opus49]

And we're just going to go back and forth and get lost in the minutiae of all of this...

Great word! Did you have to look up the spelling? Because if you didn't, I must confess, I'm a bit jealous.

Sure I can get polemic at times...

Another great word! I actually had to look up the meaning. Although, I feel duty bound to point out that upon looking up the definition, I discovered that polemic is a noun for which polemical is the adjective. So, being somewhat of a polemic, you can get polemical at times.

Now that I've scratched my grammar-nazi itch, I have to say I completely agree with Fallibleone with respect to your ability to admit you don't know everything. Anyone who says that they KNOW if God exists or doesn't exist is fooling themselves.

[opus49]

The NT refutes you.

In Soviet Russia, the bible refutes you!

But seriously, could you imagine Jesus (we're talking Westernized, all-loving buddy Jesus here) saying to someone, "Wrong. The scriptures refute you. No go away or I shall taunt you a second time?"

Strikes me as... umm... not very Christian-like?

[Easyrider]

The NT refutes you.

In Soviet Russia, the bible refutes you!

But seriously, could you imagine Jesus (we're talking Westernized, all-loving buddy Jesus here) saying to someone, "Wrong. The scriptures refute you. No go away or I shall taunt you a second time?"

Strikes me as... umm... not very Christian-like?

Hey, come to Christ and the truth will set you free too!