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

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.

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.

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.

Didn't I answer that in message 27?

This is actually the most obvious use for a prophet. Several hundred years later, after the prophet is dead, it is also the most obvious use for his writings. However, the prophet, when alive, can see what's going on around him and address things directly.His writings, obviously, cannot. If it is possible for them to be breathed into by God, as 2 Timothy claims, then it is also possible for God to have left messages in those writings, whether to encourage later believers, or hidden prophecies that the prophet could never have known about. Well, that's all I can see, too, because that's all it is. The point, however, is whether he is right about anything he says.

Well, yes, that's true. That still doesn't have to be a problem if God is real. If God is not real, and the goal is to be an excellent interpreter of writings that are centuries old, then we shouldn't approach the Scriptures the way I talked about.I think God's real. I also think people interpret writings any way they want all the way down to the constitution and Robert Frost's poems, not just the Hebrew Scriptures. However, if God is real, and if God has put hidden prophecies in the messages of the prophets, then it's a good thing for the followers of God to look for those prophecies and to be encouraged by them.In the end, I believe it is the event, not the interpretation that matters. If Jesus was born of a virgin, then Isaiah 7 was most likely a prophecy of that virgin birth, even if the prophecy only arose upon translation into Greek by Jews in Egypt several centuries later. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, then obviously Isaiah 7 is not a prophecy of anything. It's all the fanciful imaginations of 1st century Christians.If there's a real spiritual kingdom and a real Spirit that transforms those possessed by this Spirit, and Jesus either sends or is that Spirit, and if he was born in Bethlehem, then Micah 5:2 is almost surely a prophecy of him as king of that spiritual kingdom. ("If my kingdom were of this earth, then would my servants fight, but now my kingdom is not from here.")If that's all a fantasy, then surely the interpretations of Micah 5:2 are a fantasy as well.Because y'all are posting more often than me, let me give a quick reminder of why I wrote that. My point is simply that pulling one verse out of its context in the Hebrew Scriptures could have a valid purpose. Thus, your

quote:

---

"transposing a later meaning onto an earlier text, where it just was never there to begin with"

---

could indeed be prophecy. It would not be the kind of prophecy that would stunningly prove something to an unbeliever, but it could encourage, strengthen, and affirm a believer, especially if it happened repeatedly.But it can only happen repeatedly if there are events occurring that are turning out to be hinted at or directly described, but out of context, in the Scriptures. It is the events first, then the finding, not the finding first and then the creation of events.

Ok, I have to address one more thing: Um, is this true? Do you believe in prophecies? You've seen straightforward prophecies given, to the point, that were then fulfilled? This occurs regularly enough to say that this is what prophecies are like?Because if that's true, then you're right, everything I'm saying is hogwash.I think, however, that I caught that the underlying argument in the complaint that these prophecies are pulled out of context is that this is not how prophecy works. I'm trying to argue that maybe that is how prophecy works, at least sometimes. I don't think we're talking about force fits at the time of the "supposed" fulfillment. If God had a son on the earth, born of a virgin, then it would be amazing--and obvious, not at all a force fit--to read "A virgin will give birth to a son and call his name "God with us."Again, it's the event that matters. If the event didn't happen, then just making the event up based on the passage would be every bit as foolish as y'all are describing.

This is from back at post 48, which is where we were the last time I looked at this thread. To all readers, EVCForum has this great feature in which you link right to the post I'm responding to at the bottom of my post. Well, I didn't say he would only keep part of his word. Using Isaiah 7:14 as an example, the direct prophecy and fulfillment would have happened back in Ahaz' time within a few years of the prophecy. A maiden would have to have a child, name him Emmanuel, and then, before that child gets too old, Syria and Israel (IIRC) would have to both lose their kings.I'm just saying that there's nothing stopping God from dropping a sentence in there that would later be changed into Greek, and then rather amazingly applied to a rather amazing incident (assuming that incident happened).Again, my one point being that taking one sentence out of context as a prophecy is not intrinsically bad, as has been suggested in this thread. Ok, I missed the usually. I thought you were suggesting that if a prophecy didn't fit your description, then there was automatically a problem with it. That's great. I know you don't agree, and I want you to tell me why. I understand that we are arguing (in a nice way, I hope), and I want that to happen. However, the very reason I made the above statement is that I felt like my side of the argument was being assumed away, not argued away.So, please hear me. I'm feeling like I'm shouting in a hurricane. Here's my example, because immediately after saying you don't agree, you did it again. Of course, I addressed this above, but I think you can only make this argument, because you're not looking at what I'm saying. I never said He would only keep part of his word. I said that there might be a good reasons for a part of it to hang around for centuries and be encouraging and useful to those who discovered it, even if it isn't the sort of thing that could "prove" God fulfilled a prophecy.I don't feel like anyone has directly answered it (unless it got covered in posts 50-72, by someone who didn't reply to me), or even really tried to. This is in reference to the virgin birth. Um, uh...well, let's see...uh; ok, I'll just say it. I live in a religious community, ok, so this is difficult, but I don't really believe in the virgin birth, anyway, so I definitely wasn't arguing that it happened.Hopefully, then, we can set that aside, and address what you said after, which is right on what I was arguing. It DOES say virgin in the Septuagint. You're right. Isaiah did not say virgin, but the Jews of Alexandria who translated Isaiah into Greek DID say virgin. And the kid born of the virgin would be called "God with us," which is what Emmanuel means. If you believed God's Son was born of a virgin, and you read that in the Scriptures that belong to the physical race of God's Son, then you would be amazed and you would point that out. You would! I'm telling you. And it would encourage you, and it would make you excited, and you would be more affirmed in your faith than ever. No, I'm not. I am carefully avoiding addressing the direction you attacked this from, and I approached the issue from the side. That is why I have twice said, "My one point is that a one-line prophecy, pulled out of context, centuries after the prophecy was given, can have a purpose and could be of God."I have also carefully granted that the reason I am giving that a one-line, out of context prophecy could be useful would never be proof to an unbeliever that God gave the prophecy.I am not arguing that y'all should drop your point. I am arguing that you have to revise it. I am perfectly okay with you saying, there is no proof whatsoever that Isaiah 7:14 was fulfilled in Jesus. There is no proof whatsoever that Isaiah 53 was fulfilled in Jesus. There is no proof that Prov 8:22 or Ps 45:1 or the passage where God promised David a house long into the future through his Son (one of my favorites, and one I definitely believe was an on-purpose prophecy of Christ by God) was fulfilled in Jesus.Ok, great. You're right. No proof.But when you say, "It could not have been a prophecy. It makes no sense, and serves no purpose," then I say you've gone too far, and I'm arguing that you've gone too far, but I don't think you've heard me yet. If you're looking for proof it's true, then you're right, that's the way you should attack it. However, if you're trying to prove it is not a prophecy and cannot be a prophecy, then that is not the way we should attack it.If I'm trying to prove something, that it's true, then I have to address your "what if's." I especially have to address your "that's not normal" arguments. However, if the burden of proof is on you, which it is because you're saying it is definitely not true, then you have to address my what if's.And my what if is this. If the event is true, and the people who experienced that event find a remarkable reference to the event, out of context, in ancient writings, then then it is reasonable to think that God might have put it there for the encouragement of those who experienced the remarkable event. Are they? I don't think they are. I think the writers of the Gospels are describing events first and foremost. They are trying to convert you by the events they describe, and they are adding to the events the prophecies they have found. But the events are first and foremost as proof for them, not the prophecies.The letters, on the other hand, are written to believers, and they are not being offered as proof of anything. As an aside, I think this has no merit, because it makes no sense historically. If it was a satire, then NO ONE got it, because no enemies of Christianity picked it up to use it against them, and Christians made it one of their cornerstone books. It would make it the most unsuccessful satire in history.

The earlier books say Moses is more than a prophet.

quote:

---

Num 12:6,7: If there be a prophet among you, I, Yahweh, will make myself known to him in a vision and will speak to him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so...with him I will speak mouth to mouth, apparently, and not in dark speeches, and he will behold the likeness of Yahweh.

---

Ok, your post was very clear. I'm willing to leave things where they are, because we're not going to convince each other, and that's not necessarily what we're trying to do, anyway. I think my case is stated as thoroughly as I can, and I'm not giving any new arguments in this post.I do want to highlight what I think the major disagreements were, though, and what I'm "resting my case" on, without rehashing any of the arguments. I didn't read the other thread, so I didn't know that. Sorry. However, my point would be unchanged if Parthenos even could mean virgin as one of its meanings at the time that Christians were using it as prophecy. Well, this isn't what I'm talking about, so it wouldn't matter. I'm talking about a major event (like a virgin birth!) being described, out of context in just one sentence, and it being noticed AFTER the event happened. Right, I guess we leave it there, because I think it is. To you, that's common sense. To me, and to the thousands of people who comprised the early church, it's not common sense. But again, I think we've presented our cases as thoroughly as we're going to on that. If you thought it was necessary, which is what we're disagreeing on.side notes not on main subject Surely at least 25 times, probably more. You don't agree describing events is his primary purpose? It's a biography, basically. Aren't all biographies descriptions of events primarily? You think he's manipulating events to fulfill prophecy. A lot of people would agree with you. I don't, but since that has nothing to do with anything I'm discussing, I'll just stay out of that. This isn't what I was talking about. I was talking about an opponent of Christianity near the time of Matthew using Matthew as an argument against Christians by saying, "This book is a satire, and these stupid Christians can't tell." If it's a satire, no one noticed for centuries and centuries. No one.

I couldn't remember where it was, and the others I knew by heart.The direct quote that's in Hebrews is in Heb 1:5, and it's from 1 Chronicles 17:13. The whole chapter, though, is what I'm referencing. It wasn't a topic for this thread to me. It might seem like it, but since my argument was that God drops prophecies into writings that even the writer didn't know about, and that this was a legitimate form of prophecy, and no one appears to agree with that here, why debate a specific prophecy when the form of prophecy I have suggested has been rejected? The specific prophecy has to be rejected with the form it belongs to.I only mentioned believing that prophecy, because I had already said I doubted the virgin birth. I didn't want to sound like I was just discussing a form of prophecy even I didn't believe. I do believe in the prophecy I was discussing, and 1 Chr 17 is a place I think it happened. It seems right to let those I am debating know where I'm coming from so they can better assess my arguments, especially across internet where we can't see each others faces & body language.

I'm terribly sorry; I missed your post 55. Never saw it. Maybe. But maybe not. Matthew's writing maybe sixty years after the events, assuming they happened. If they happened, then a lot of little children were killed in Bethlehem. The death of the children would arouse enough why questions for the story to be public. And if yours aren't, then I would add that to my case. We are discussing history, and we are discussing prophecy. There have been statements by Arach about what is and isn't prophecy, but who can define prophecy authoritatively.I'm sorry, but I think the if's and maybe's are, more often than not, the only appropriate way to discuss history and prophecy. We're not talking about taking 200 sentences out of context. We are talking about one verse, and we are ignoring its context.Oh, wait. Do you mean all the things Christians call prophecy that are one liners pulled out of context? I don't know if there are 200 of them that I would consider out of context, but since I think pulling a sentence out of context when it's fulfilled centuries later is perfectly okay, then whether 1 or 200, it's no problem to me. I don't understand your point here. I quite agree with this. If a person believes that all prayers prayed in what we think is faith are answered, then that person is wrong. No if's or maybe's there. Children die of head injuries while we pray our guts out for them, in as much faith as we can. Been there, done that, have the scars on my heart. I totally agree that's proof in the pudding.On the other hand, I've also prayed for a child with an eye infection who had already lost sight in one eye and was losing sight in the other at my sister's request and been answered. Months in the hospital reversed in a couple days after our prayer. My nephew, Joseph Wood. Not something that happened somewhere to someone else. Proof's in the pudding there, too.I think we have a King, Jesus Christ, and a spiritual kingdom. I think it is awe-inspiring, and I'm confident I'm right, because it does inspire awe in almost everyone who experiences it. Proof's in the pudding. It's small, so that won't convince the whole world right now, because it's just a village; just 200 people. It's in a growth spurt again, though, and time will let us test the pudding.I mention that, because I think he's a king, and I think he has a legitimate kingdom, which applies to Micah 5:2. Micah 5:2 means something to me, because I believe in a spiritual Israel, and I believe in it's spiritual king.Where his kingom appears, it's pretty extraordinary. Of course, that means I also believe that the church on the street corner has nothing at all to do with the king or his kingdom, because it's not extraordinary at all. I would never cite it as proof of anything, because the proof is indeed in the pudding. No, not necessarily. None. The prophecies I'm talking about are for believers, and they are for after the events. Christ's deeds showed them what he would be doing after he was born. This is a very good point. This sort of argument matters to me a lot.

Of course, the two things have nothing to do with one another. Ok, great. I'm not up to taking on the probability of Jesus being who Paul and others of his time said he was. That's an incredibly long discussion, that concerns far more than the verses from the OT quoted in the NT. It involves history and personal experience.That's a legitimate discussion. But I didn't volunteer for it, because it's more than I can take on. I only addressed one thing, which is pertinent to this thread, which is your statement that it is intrinsically wrong to pull a verse out of context and use it as prophecy.I have presented my case for that, and I think I presented it pretty thoroughly. Y'all didn't accept it, but for me, I'm happy enough that it's out there, and I think my argument has validity. That's the only argument I wanted to present.Unfortunately, that meant I spoke only of historical possibilities, not probabilities. Moving them to probabilities in your mind is probably impossible. Explaining why they are probabilities in my mind for others who might be convinced is a bigger task than I can take on right now.So, just possibilities being mentioned here, and I think they were valid to my one point (that pulling one-liners out of old books can be legitimate prophecy, if there are current events that match those one liners), and I think my point was on topic. I don't want to move on to another point.You said, "Evidence so far doesn't support the probability of these one-liners having a second meaning outside the main prophecy." Ok, I'll leave it at that.

This is why I figured we wouldn't discuss specifics. This is your argument against it, to which I can only say what I've been saying. It doesn't matter that it applied to Solomon then. It also applies to Jesus centuries later. I'm surprised to hear you suggest Paul wrote Hebrews, but whether he did or didn't, the writer of Hebrews believes far more than that all kings are sons of God. He's saying Jesus specifically outranks angels, and not all kings. Let's see:"Also I will ordain a place for my people Israel, and will plant them, and they shall dwell in their place, and shall be moved no more; neither shall the children of wickedness waste them any more, as at the beginning."You're right, that hasn't happened yet. I have reason to believe it will, but I won't ask you to believe that till you see it.