Jesus; the Torah, Nevi'im, and Psalms (Part 2)

i think we should give the fundamentalists a little more chance to answer. i'm SURE they object this reading of the verse regarding bethlehem.

---

אָרַח

hey jar, if you're paying attention, shall we move on to isaiah then?(last chance for replies to the micah and malachi verses. i'm sure some fundamentalist here wants to debate bethlehem)

---

אָרַח

Go for it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What would this require? How would one show this? If a verse can't stand alone as prophecy, then you can dismantle the New Testament writings and throw them away, because they're almost exclusively based on verses standing alone.Just a thought on the whole context of this thread. For the NT Christian, the proof is the pudding, not in the context. Jesus said, "You will know a prophet by his fruit," not "You will know a prophet by studying context." In the early days of Christianity, this thought would be at the forefront. Their thought would be, "Either what we preach is so powerful and life-transforming that people will marvel, or else everyone is going to think we're stupid."I don't think anyone studied Micah 5:2 and said, "I think this will be fulfilled by a carpenter from Bethlehem, who will preach poverty and humility, and then be crucified by the Romans." I think a carpenter from Bethlehem preached poverty, humility, and a very radical approach to the Law, and then was crucified by the Romans. His followers were somehow so impressed by him (maybe because he really believed he rose from the dead?) that they continued to preach in his name.There's two reasons they would find Micah 5:2 leaping out at them. One, they were expecting his return to rule Israel. ("Wow, look at this. See, it even says right here that someone from Bethlehem will be a ruler over Israel!!!). Or two, in the Gentile churches they were preaching a new Israel, made up of those who are children of Israel by faith (Rom 9). And over that Israel, Jesus is spiritually already ruler.

How would one show that verses are able to stand alone as prophecy?Show that one sentence prophecies came true for something or someone other than Jesus. Alone this sentence doesn't say anything specific. Someone born in Bethleham (Which I think Arach will argue that one) will rule Israel.Jesus was supposedly born in Bethleham, but he didn't rule Israel.

quote:

---

Or two, in the Gentile churches they were preaching a new Israel, made up of those who are children of Israel by faith (Rom 9). And over that Israel, Jesus is spiritually already ruler.

---

Only by redefining the nation of Israel and ruler are they able to fit the supposed prophecy.

quote:

---

For the NT Christian, the proof is the pudding, not in the context.

---

We are testing the pudding. If the pudding tastes a little off, then we check the recipe.

quote:

---

Jesus said, "You will know a prophet by his fruit,"

---

Which to me means the fruit of the prophet is within the lifetime of the prophet.No one has shown me that God intended the fruit of the prophets to show up centuries later instead of for the audience listening.IMO, the NT writers did their homework.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

Good, that's what I was recommending. Really? I've missed too much of the other thread's discussion, I guess. I thought I read every message in this one.They did their homework in the sense of putting verses in context when they used them as prophecy? Can you show me any examples of that? Is there something in Micah to provide a context for Micah 5:2 to explain why the Gospel writer would apply it to a Jewish prophet who had been dead for at least 30 years and lived while Israel was under foreign rule?I wish I'd have had time to suggest in the other thread that someone read Dialogue with Trypho, a Jew, by Justin Martyr, c. AD 150. It is the ultimate example of Christian use of the Hebrew Scriptures as prophecy. It's pretty long, pulls together just about every use of the Hebrew Scriptures as a prophecy for Christ by the church, and gives a tremendous feel for the approach Christians had to prophecy. It certainly doesn't leave you with the feeling they cared about context! (It's available on the web at Early Church Fathers - Christian Classics Ethereal Library ). Hmm. It doesn't seem to me that anyone is going to be able to show that Micah meant Jesus when he wrote Micah 5:2. Jesus himself used Isaiah 61:1 about himself, yet just two verses before that it says, "Thy people shall be righteous; they shall inherit the land forever." Yet the very same Gospel that has him quoting Isaiah 61 also has him saying that not one of the temple's stones would be left on another. So was he considering context and saying about himself that Israel would "rebuild the old wastes" (Is 61:4), or was he foreseeing the destruction of Jerusalem that would happen in a generation.My point here is this. Let's assume Jesus really existed when it's said he did, and that he really quoted Isaiah 61 out of his own mouth (which would be rejected my a lot of EVC posters). Even if that is true, I don't see that Jesus would have argued that Isaiah had Jesus or anyone like Jesus in mind when he wrote Isaiah 61. Jesus is clearly pulling Isaiah 61 way out of context, because it talks about rebuilding, and Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple not too long later. My point is that it would be hard to "prove" prophecies came true in the sense they're used in the New Testament. As an example, our village was begun with a rather spectacular outpouring of the Spirit at a park called Standing Stone in Tennessee. It was begun at a town called Bethel Springs. When we later noticed the story about Jacob having a dream of a ladder stretching from earth to heaven, then arising and standing a stone upright and pouring oil on it, then calling the place Bethel, we were a little shocked at the "coincidence." We would refer to that as a prophecy, and it obviously "came true." It's also obvious that the writer of the story did not mean it as a prophecy about Tennessee some 27 or 28 hundred years in the future.However, I believe both Isaiah 61 and the Jacob story in Genesis were prophecies.

quote:

---

They did their homework in the sense of putting verses in context when they used them as prophecy?

---

No, they pulled out one-liners that fit the Jesus they wished to portray. They don't seem to have anything to do with the original context.As for the rest of your post, maybe I inhaled too many fumes while cleaning the tub today, but I'm confused. I have no idea what you are getting at in relation to my posts.Maybe you can give a summary of the Christian approach to prophecy. The link didn't work for me.

---

"The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France

heh, nevermind.

---

אָרַח

kind of a problem, isn't it?but your analysis is probably correct. this seems like something changed and taken out of context after both facts to make them fit, not one thing predicting the other.

---

אָרַח

It's pretty much the same folk talking amongst themselves.But it is interesting to learn what others know. I know I learn something new with each of these threads.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

i'l go a step further -- not only did they not do their homework, but they did't understand the material either. so many of these are taken so far out of context we can only assume one of two things: either they're being purposefully deceptive in misrepresenting the meanings of these texts, or they just don't know any better. i'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt.

---

אָרַח

I don't know that it has to be a problem. If you believe that God works in mysterious ways, then why shouldn't he drop prophecies into the midst of paragraphs that don't seem to be prophecies? Why shouldn't they be found as encouragement to later generations that are experiencing his guidance that they have not lost the way, but are on the same ancient path of the prophets before them?Now, if prophecy is supposed to be given so that unbelievers will be converted by the amazing fulfillments they see, then, yes, this is a problem. But if prophecy is given for the purpose stated above, then it's no problem at all.

I think my suggestion in my last post is a third alternative.

Except of course, when you read the passage in context, the 'prophecy' as quoted by those hundreds of years later is not there to be found.What good is a dual prophecy is you have to take things out of context, and it can't be known to be a sign until hundreds of years after it happens?

Didn't I answer that in message 27?