Corrupting the Old Testament at all costs?

No, quite the opposite. I see what the text actually says, not what I want it to say.It had never occured to me, but Brian is exactly right. There is no direct to line from Jesus to David is the bible, given a virgin birth. Yet, the OT prophecy calls for someone from the line of David. How can this be called an accurate prophecy? It isn't, so there you have it. Yes. The child was not "of your body". Or, apparently, actually using language to accurately transmit ideas.

Paul, your personal analysis is bankrupt. Moreover, there was never a case - in which prophecy could be deciphered through rational endeavour.The irrational position of you and Mike Hager - is to instantly buy what Brian says - as a full refutation of Christ in the NT. This has to be looked upon, according to the biased welcoming of it's nature. One can only be too quick - to write off the many with the few, or even the one, as you have absurdly and automatically done.It's the same as if a creationist would say that stuck-in-a-rut species prove evolution wrong. WRONG. The one case won't upset the many cases. Simply observe your own reasoning. I advise caution. To write off Christ through personal feelings and a vague quote from an early book, is to remove rational thoughts with haste. This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-07-2005 12:21 AM

Hi Mike, If they are true positions then you should be able to demonstrate that. Oh, and it isn’t a few verses it is literally hundreds of verses, as will be seen as the thread unfolds. He clearly wasn’t the messiah that the Old Testament speaks of. What do you expect it to say? They are selling a product they are going to make it sound good. It shouldn’t bother you, do you think that my musings will affect what a Christian thinks? But it is handpicked, as the messianic prophecies need to be mutilated to fit Jesus. Your theology cannot be located? I have no idea where you get this from Mike, I know it isn’t based on Isaiah alone, I was a Christian for a long time and know the score. My OP says that I will be posting other mutilated texts. You can tell me where I am mistaken in the prophecies that I post here. I welcome any criticism of my posts as I can amend any errors I make. Some NT ones maybe. But Jesus is invisible in the OT. Don’t panic, I will be mentioning them and explaining the real meaning of the texts. I would be wrong IF I had said such a thing, but I haven’t said it and have no idea where you are getting this from. We will see as the thread develops exactly what verses can only pertain to Jesus. It’s no big deal that almost al the prophecies concerning Jesus are false, excellent. You aren’t a lesser being. You believe what you want to believe, that’s fair enough. That it has little to do with the Old Testament is a different matter. Good. No one? I do understand it, I just don’t agree with it. The thread is about how the NT authors have corrupted the Old Testament texts, if you believe that they haven’t then you could show me where I am going wrong.Cheers.Brian

Mike, the rules of this forum call for reasonable discussion and respect.I do not think that lying about me because you personally dislike the conclusions I have reached falls within either category.My position is not irrational nor is it based on simply following what Brian has said (indeed my views on the text had largely formed before coming to this forum and so far as I know I am the first here to emphasise the significance of "curds and honey" - I certainly do not remember seeing it in any of Brians posts).And let me say that no matter how many lies you tell about me it will not convert me to your religion. Indeed on the basis of "by their fruti you shall know them" the best thing you could to to support Christianity would be to deny that you are a Christian at all.

You see Brian, your problem is that many OT prophecies DO DESCRIBE Christ - and very few you pick can actually prove otherwise - or come close to being persuasive compared to the ones I can show.Just because Mary's lineage isn't mentioned, doesn't evidence anything - with the vast weight of other scriptures that describe Christ in the OT; Isaiah; He was wounded and crushed because of our sins;
by taking our punishment
he made us completely well

​

All of us were like sheep that had wandered off
We had each gone our own way
but the Lord gave him
the punishment we deservedDoes this describe Solomon? Does it not describe Christ? Tell me how it doesn't describe Christ.Extra-biblical sources;Excerpt from Peter-'We have been made suffer thus because of the wrong that we have done; but this one, having become Savior of men, what injustice had he done to you?'Excerpt from Peter-And they brought two wrongdoers and crucified the Lord in the middle of them.Excerpt from Peter- 'If at his death these very great signs happened, behold how just he was,'

Hi Mike,I will be posting on the suffering servant soon, and demostrate yet again that Jesus was not and cannot have been the suffering servant, so watch this space.You seem to be unaware that I am only discussing one prophecy at a time and will eventually explain why over 200 OT prophecies have nothing to do with Jesus, so please do not think that these two examples are all that there is.Cheers.Brian.

And this is why the prophecy is meaningless to non believers and from a "logical" point of view.If the Creator of the Universe DID in fact appear on earth among us in the flesh and died and rose from the dead 33 years later, this event would be so all inclusive as to define meaning into life as we know it. For a non-believer, the event itself is not even newsworthy or certain. How then can we expect you to see meaning in a text? This is a clash of world views. To those who need human derived logical "proof" and who see human wisdom as the yardstick and arbitrator of truth,religious belief is philosophy subjected to critique.I suppose if nothing else you can say that belief is faith...circular reasoning, and non provable. Very well. Next scripture, please? But Brian, don't you see.
While human wisdom and logic can or may "disprove"miracles, supernatural events, and the person of Jesus Christ as written, faith and belief can never be disproven.Try telling a Jehovahs Witness that the Watchtower organization is a business and a cult.Try telling a Catholic that Mary was as sinful as you or I.Was not Jesus as historically portrayed a servant? Did He not suffer?
The basic question that Jesus asked Peter is "Who do you say that I am?" If He was not a suffering servant, who was He? A cult leader?
Why? What defines a cult? What is the standard of wisdom upon which to base popular opinion?Were I asked to define Christianity under either religion or cult, I would say cult. Quite a cult, I might add! So why am I a cult member? I believe that God was among us in human form, died, and rose from the dead. You can prove nothing greater.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 01-07-2005 11:58 AM

Hi Bri. The problem is Brian, you haven't done that. There was no other servant who captured the aspects and requirements like Jesus did. You haven't answered how Solomon fulfilled the requirements of my quote. So please, who was the Messiah to you? Did he fit my quote?If no evidence of Mary's lineage proves something of significance to you, then I think you're being unkind to yourself, in not realizing that there are many things not mentioned in the NT texts. Essentially - you're saying that no evidence evidences something.Christ suffered like the quoted Isaiah text says. Straining at nats and swallowing camels doesn't mean that Christ can't have been the Messiah. You're going to have to show a lot more to convince me.

Hi Mike, Yes I have, you just don’t acknowledge it. Other people have acknowledged it. So you say, but hang around. I said in the OP that I would address one prophecy at a time, I don’t want this to get dragged all over the place. I will address your quote when I come to that prophecy, don’t worry about it. Mary’s lineage is immaterial. Bloodline doesn’t go through mothers. Many people have suffered, Jesus’ few hours on a cross isn’t that big a deal, relatively speaking. Hey Mike LOL nothing I write would convince you, do you think I am unaware of that?My intent is to show how the OT has been corrupted by NT authors and I have quite clearly shown that.Tell you what, I will make the suffering servant the next corruption to be examined. I’ll post it on Sunday as I will not be posting tomorrow because I have a football game to go to and drinks after that.Cheers.Brian.

I am not claiming that faith can be disproven. The aim is to show that the OT texts have been corrupted. I have LOL, that was a hard shift for that poor guy! But histories can be completely false Phat. Portraying someone as a servant doesnt mean he was. Feck, we all suffer Phat.Try teaching 32 13 year olds about the resurrection when all they want to do is get out of school.Jesus was lucky, he only had to go through the crucifixion once, I have to do it 3 or 4 times a year. But Christianity is a cult.Anyway, there are other things that Jesus could have been. A revolutionary for example, or a con man. Indeed, and not always a blessing on mankind I may add.Brian.

It is not the case that prophecies "must" be meaningless to non-beleivers. If we could confirm that some of Daniels predictions (those of a Greek conquest of the Middle East, followed by a division of the Empire) were written before the fact they would certainly present a strong case for fulfilled prophecy.But in this case the only reason for reading any of Isaiah 7 as referring to Jesus is the claim in Matthew to that effect. But it is not a viable reading of the text of Isaiah - Isaiah's child is only a temporal marker and the events he is supposed to mark are part of the context that has been discarded. It is not that prophecy must be unreasonable to unbelievers - it is that only believers are unreasonable enough to accept such a "prophecy".

Okay Brian, you win - I'll concentrate on message 1. Brian, what christians say that Samuel prophecizes Christ? Did I? I might possibly acknowledge that Samuel pertains to Solomon. But does that mean my quote in Isaiah does? If you say Solomon fullfilled this - did Solomon fulfill those things in Isaiah? If not - who did? Can you quote Jesus please. Required? Please quote specifically the passage, and why it must be taken literally.I also have another question or two. Who did Jesus say his brother or sister is? What did John the Baptist say about raising children to Abraham from rocks? What does the NT say about who the children of Abraham are - by faith?IMHO, your quote from Samuel mentions one thing which for me - meaning I personally wouldn't use it as a Messianic prophecy personally (not that others can't - tis just my opinion). It says that he will do "wrong" and be corrected. Jesus didn't do wrong IMO.I personally have only ever used Isaiah for prophecies about Christ, and haven't used the Samuel one yet. That's just me though - and I hope you can answer my questions so that we can see where this goes.Enjoy your time at football and drink.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 01-07-2005 14:46 AM

Paul, where did I lie about you? Why have you taken offense at my warning for objective endeavours?I think maybe you ought to calm down take a stress pill and think things over. Apparently you think me a liar and not a true christian (scotsman fallacy).

Since I already pointed out the lies in the message you were replying to (and you can add the fact that you called by analysis bankrupt without identifying ANYTHING that was wrong with it) it seems pointless to repeat the information.That you could call your response "objective" when it consists of fabrications cncocted as an excuse to deny the truth is just another lie.I'm sorry that your religion drives you to lying to suppress the truth, but it's hardly a good advertisement for Christianity, is it ? But all too typical of creationism.

I think maybe too much of the anti-messianic argument is based upon Matthew's claim that Mary's baby Jesus was of Divine conception thereby negating a Davidian bloodline, rather than arguing that such a conception is impossible and therefore erronious, so that in fact, Jesus can claim Davidic heritage via Joseph's sperm thereby enabling potential messiahship.This message has been edited by Abshalom, 01-07-2005 16:06 AM