Bible Prophecies Discussion

[jlay]

In this case we are dealing with a reverse.

That He was buried, that He was raised the 3rd day according to the scriptures.
For a 1st century Jew, certainly there was an expectation of Messiah. What was not so clear is that the Messiah would be a suffering servant. Instead most saw Messiah as a conquering King, restoring the Earthly throne of David. Why? Messianic language speaks to both, but obviously having been in captivity and under foriegn control, Jews saw Messiah as their deliverer from such oppression. Obviously there was not a clear idea among those contemporaries that the Messiah would be raised on a specific day. As my brothers have pointed out there are hidden hints. Even Hebrew scholars up until the 11th century interpreted Isaiah 53 as Messiah taking the punishment for the sins of Israel.

Obviously it would be nice if we could ask Paul. We can presume that He was perhaps only speaking of the resurrection in general, as Peter and Paul both quote Psalm 16 as a promised resurrection. Acts 2:24-32 and Acts 13:29-37. And, that although the 3rd day is listed in this creed, it wasn't specific to 'according to the scriptures.' A lot of scholars think that Paul was quoting an established creed, which raises another question. Was there already a finished written Gospel considered scripture at that time? 1 Corinthians is usually dated between 53-57 A.D., some 20+ years after the crucifixion. We can pretty well exclude John's Gospel from this, and I think we can safely exclude Luke's since he was a contemporarary of Paul. But since Luke was actively researching these things during his time with Paul, it seems there was some official canon already in place either written or oral. It is really hard to imagine that a culture that was so invested in the written tradition would wait 20-40 years before officially writing down such things.

Think about this way, Jesus Himself is recorded as quoting the book of Jonah as a prophetic type of the death, burial and resurrection. Would anyone draw this conclusion on their own?
The Bible also states that Jesus, after the resurrection, opened the disciple's minds so they could understand the OT law and prophets. (Luke 24:45) Thus, one would have to infer that some things are veiled to the normal reading.

As a believer, I would take this verse as a creed, and in the larger context of what is being conveyed to the Corinthian church. We have several examples in the NT (specifically by Paul) where the OT verse is sited. This is NOT such a case with 1 Cor. 15:4. So, to say that this is a failure is bit of begging the question.

[BryanH]

Sorry guys that I haven't been able to respond earlier. I appreciate all your answers and I want to thank you all for taking the time to answer.

Unfortunately the discussion got deviated to a place of interpretation which is good of course because we can learn a lot, but I prefer to be a little more factual.

Coming back to the prophecy issue:

You do have one big issue: both Luke and 1 Corinthians are written after it all happened.

In terms of chronology if you claim a prophecy after it happened, well, it's kind of easy...


No offense to anyone, but I did read all your comments and some of you said that the HS inspired the apostles so they can understand the scriptures in a new way. Maybe, but I prefer the simple approach on the issue.

The prophecy was written after it actually happened.

Waiting for feedback.

[Byblos]

Sorry guys that I haven't been able to respond earlier. I appreciate all your answers and I want to thank you all for taking the time to answer.

Unfortunately the discussion got deviated to a place of interpretation which is good of course because we can learn a lot, but I prefer to be a little more factual.

Coming back to the prophecy issue:

You do have one big issue: both Luke and 1 Corinthians are written after it all happened.

In terms of chronology if you claim a prophecy after it happened, well, it's kind of easy...

No offense to anyone, but I did read all your comments and some of you said that the HS inspired the apostles so they can understand the scriptures in a new way. Maybe, but I prefer the simple approach on the issue.

The prophecy was written after it actually happened.

Waiting for feedback.

The fact that the prophecies were written after the events doesn't mean 1) that the prophecies were not in fact made before the events, and 2) that the events did not occur as described, chronologically. You are simply assuming as much. Do you have any proof of that? The Gospel writers were so convinced by what they witnessed that they staked their lives on it (and actually did die for their belief). If they did not see in Jesus the perfect fulfillment of all these prophesies they and their ancestors had been waiting for their entire history, do you really think they would have given Jesus even a second thought? Particularly after he died and if they did not see him alive after that? The Disciples were Jewish men who knew full well what the OT claimed. Another point to consider, the Gospels were not written contemporaneously yet the events recounted remarkably align with one another. Not perfectly so as to be looked upon as carbon copies but with enough similarities to dispel any notion of inconsistencies and with enough differences to dispel any notion of collusion. There is simply much too much OT prophecies fulfilled in NT events to claim they are self-fulfilling ones or some kind of incredibly orchestrated conspiracy theory that perfectly aligned the events of the NT with the OT prophecies. Anyone who thinks that is not being, well, intellectually honest (I told you Bryan, you will hear this term a lot ).

[BryanH]

The fact that the prophecies were written after the events doesn't mean 1) that the prophecies were not in fact made before the events, and 2) that the events did not occur as described, chronologically. You are simply assuming as much. Do you have any proof of that? The Gospel writers were so convinced by what they witnessed that they staked their lives on it (and actually did die for their belief). If they did not see in Jesus the perfect fulfillment of all these prophesies they and their ancestors had been waiting for their entire history, do you really think they would have given Jesus even a second thought? Particularly after he died and if they did not see him alive after that? The Disciples were Jewish men who knew full well what the OT claimed. Another point to consider, the Gospels were not written contemporaneously yet the events recounted remarkably align with one another. Not perfectly so as to be looked upon as carbon copies but with enough similarities to dispel any notion of inconsistencies and with enough differences to dispel any notion of collusion. There is simply much too much OT prophecies fulfilled in NT events to claim they are self-fulfilling ones or some kind of incredibly orchestrated conspiracy theory that perfectly aligned the events of the NT with the OT prophecies. Anyone who thinks that is not being, well, intellectually honest (I told you Bryan, you will hear this term a lot

You do the math and and count how many prophecies were actually written before they happened... On our last discussion you told me that the Bible prophecies are 100% accurate.

A prophecy is something that is predicted before an event happens. The only proof you have for the prophecies is what it is written in the Bible.

I don't say that all prophecies are bogus or something like that, but many of them were actually written after they happened.

If you want to be intelectually honest, that you can't say that the Bible is 100% accurate on its prophecies.

The fact that the prophecies were written after the events doesn't mean 1) that the prophecies were not in fact made before the events, and 2) that the events did not occur as described, chronologically. You are simply assuming as much. Do you have any proof of that? The Gospel writers were so convinced by what they witnessed that they staked their lives on it (and actually did die for their belief).

Assuming or not, the only proof you have for that prophecy is written in the Bible and the actual writting took place after the prophecy happened.

Another issue is that you don't actually know who wrote Luke's gospel. Although Luke couldn't possibly lie in thoery anyways, the people who wrote it, might have done that.

So you have a prophecy written after it happened and you don't know for sure who wrote it in the first place. I consider this to be enough proof to at least raise some important doubts.

Now I have to make appeal for you to be intelectually honest.

[B. W.]

You do the math and and count how many prophecies were actually written before they happened... On our last discussion you told me that the Bible prophecies are 100% accurate.

A prophecy is something that is predicted before an event happens. The only proof you have for the prophecies is what it is written in the Bible.

I don't say that all prophecies are bogus or something like that, but many of them were actually written after they happened.

If you want to be intelectually honest, that you can't say that the Bible is 100% accurate on its prophecies....

Subject - Nation of Israel - found in Dead Sea Scroll which were dated way before any of what Isaiah wrote about happened a second time.

Nation of Israel defeated and captives sent into Babylonian Captive - nation re-gathered evidence by the cylinder of Cyrus who granted permission for them to return - that was the first re-gathering. Not Isaiah text mentions two…

Second time - 70 AD Nation of Israel was defeat and all remnants finally scattered out of country by 135 AD and Nation of Israel was re-gathered beginning 1917 and after WW 2 a great influx of Jews again returned to Israel and it became a Nation in one day in May 1948

Before the second scattering the Messiah would appear and draw the Gentiles to become his people as well... This happened... just as the text stated as verified by the dated Dead Sea scrolls written in the BCE era..

Isa 11:10 "And in that day there shall be a Root of Jesse, Who shall stand as a banner to the people; For the Gentiles shall seek Him, And His resting place shall be glorious."
Isa 11:11 It shall come to pass in that day That the Lord shall set His hand again the second time To recover the remnant of His people who are left, From Assyria and Egypt, From Pathros and Cush, From Elam and Shinar, From Hamath and the islands of the sea.
Isa 11:12 He will set up a banner for the nations, And will assemble the outcasts of Israel, And gather together the dispersed of Judah From the four corners of the earth.

You tell me – how many times was the Nation of Israel was re-gathered back into their-own country and boarders?

You comments are spurious...
-
-
-

[PaulSacramento]

RE: the prophecies were written AFTER the events.
The copies we have were written after the events, yes.
Much like everything we have from the ancient world.
That Jesus made the prophesy about the destruction of the temple ( for example) was so because he was accused of it.
Of course we only have evidence of that in the writings written AFTER his death, which is the case with pretty much almost every historical figure.
Of course IF the prohecies were written after the fact and WERE MADE after the fact then why word them in such a way that makes it a bit, well..."interpretative"?
Why not make them more clearer? if one is gonna pass of a prophecy after the fact as one before the fact ( commit fraud, lets call it by what it would be), then why be so vague or colorful as to have them mis-interpreted by your own followers ???

[jlay]

Bry,

Maybe I'm mistaken and I can't speak for all here, but I would not refer to 1 Cor. 15:4 to make a case for specific fulfilled prophecy. As I said, Paul doesn't actually reference a specific OT scripture. As I said before, this appears to be a creed. And thus the creed was an established position in the church, which alludes to more specific prophecies. In my study of Messianic prophecy I don't ever recall seeing this verse represented as such. Now Isaiah 53 and Isaiah 9:6, yes. Both of which are specifically quoted as such in the NT regarding Jesus being the fulfillment.

So, in this case, beleivers are being asked to defend something they don't necessarily hold to. A strawman. Sorry for not making this clear in my previous post. If we are going to examine prophecy then it only goes to reason that we would want to know what these verses meant to whom they were written. The case for Messianic prophecy also is built around the fact that Jewish people already had established positions regarding Messiah. Prophecy was something woven into the fabric of scripture. So, before we challenge this verse, we ought to make sure that the case 'for specific fulfillment' is built on this verse to begin with. And, did 1st century readers of this verse take it to be such. I don't see it.

I can only assume when you mention 'Luke" that you are referring to my note of it in my previous thread. Although I'm confused as to why? I was not presenting this verse as a case for prophecy. Not in the least.

[BryanH]

@Paul Sacramento

Why not make them more clearer? if one is gonna pass of a prophecy after the fact as one before the fact ( commit fraud, lets call it by what it would be), then why be so vague or colorful as to have them mis-interpreted by your own followers ???

Are you familiar with the concept of "cold reading"? Making it too obvious would have been quite easy to spot and refute. Leaving room for interpretation means that you can spin it around when someone tries to argue with you. Does that make sense now?

@jlay

Ok.

Even if you present Isaiah 53 and 9:6 that doesn't change anything.

Isaiah 53 is debatable because not all people agree on the fact that the chapter relates to Jesus. The chapter is also using past tense as I have read the translation. Prophecy and using past tense? All I am saying that is written in the past tense and not all people agree that chapter 53 is related to Jesus. So again there is so much room for interpretation.

Let's take a look at what follows after 9:6

Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the Lord Almighty
will accomplish this.

When did that happen?


@B.W.

A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
2The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him—
the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and of power,
the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord—
3and he will delight in the fear of the Lord.
He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes,
or decide by what he hears with his ears;
4but with righteousness he will judge the needy,
with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth.
He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth;
with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked.
5Righteousness will be his belt
and faithfulness the sash around his waist.
6The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearlinga together;
and a little child will lead them.
7The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8The infant will play near the hole of the cobra,
and the young child put his hand into the viper’s nest.
9They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea.
10In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious. 11In that day the Lord will reach out his hand a second time to reclaim the remnant that is left of his people from Assyria, from Lower Egypt, from Upper Egypt,b from Cush,c from Elam, from Babylonia,d from Hamath and from the islands of the sea.

12He will raise a banner for the nations
and gather the exiles of Israel;
he will assemble the scattered people of Judah
from the four quarters of the earth.
13Ephraim’s jealousy will vanish,
and Judah’s enemiese will be cut off;
Ephraim will not be jealous of Judah,
nor Judah hostile toward Ephraim.
14They will swoop down on the slopes of Philistia to the west;
together they will plunder the people to the east.
They will lay hands on Edom and Moab,
and the Ammonites will be subject to them.
15The Lord will dry up
the gulf of the Egyptian sea;
with a scorching wind he will sweep his hand
over the Euphrates River.f
He will break it up into seven streams
so that men can cross over in sandals.
16There will be a highway for the remnant of his people
that is left from Assyria,
as there was for Israel
when they came up from Egypt.

I quoted all the chapter because when you read it in full, it doesn't necessarily relate to Israel becoming an independent country in 1948.
Anyways, now sticking to the prophecy itself, Israel didn't lay its hand on Moab.
So if you read the prophecy in full, it is not yet fulfilled.

[PaulSacramento]

@Paul Sacramento

Why not make them more clearer? if one is gonna pass of a prophecy after the fact as one before the fact ( commit fraud, lets call it by what it would be), then why be so vague or colorful as to have them mis-interpreted by your own followers ???

Are you familiar with the concept of "cold reading"? Making it too obvious would have been quite easy to spot and refute. Leaving room for interpretation means that you can spin it around when someone tries to argue with you. Does that make sense now?

Don't try to to put 21st century mentality into 1st century writings, it won't work.
The prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem is a perfect example:
The fact that SOME ( typically those that didn't understand jewish apocolyptic writings/sayings/imagery) thought that the end OF THE WORLD would be in their live times, shows that writers wrote what was prophesied and not after because if they wrote AFTER, when those very issues were still around, they would have made it far clearer, rather than makingit sound like a FAILED prophecy as some saw it to be.

[jlay]

Isaiah 53 is debatable because not all people agree on the fact that the chapter relates to Jesus. The chapter is also using past tense as I have read the translation. Prophecy and using past tense? All I am saying that is written in the past tense and not all people agree that chapter 53 is related to Jesus. So again there is so much room for interpretation.

Of course it's debatable. No one has to believe it. It is odd that Jews looked to 53 as a Messianic passage until about the 11th century. The obvious parallels to Christ took their toll. Not sure how the past tense has any bearing, since that is a common theme in prophecy, meaning it is decreed and will happen as if it already has. Also note Rev. 13:8. In fact take all of Revelations as an example.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

[jlay]

gooder point FL

[Byblos]

You do the math and and count how many prophecies were actually written before they happened... On our last discussion you told me that the Bible prophecies are 100% accurate.

A prophecy is something that is predicted before an event happens. The only proof you have for the prophecies is what it is written in the Bible.

Oh I have much more than that but let's say all I have is what is written in the Bible, does that corroborate your mere opinion that these prophecies were written after the fact? Of course not, it's just an assertion. What you do not have with this assertion is any corroborating evidence. For example, if you can produce a single contemporaneous writing that disputes these prophecies that would be a start. Remember that the OT was written by different prophets over many years, and yet we do not see a single piece of evidence that says 'you know what, this Moses or this Isiah or this Jeremiah or this John or this Paul or Mark or Luke guy is crazy. Things didn't actually happen the way they describe, here's how they happened'. That would be a nice corroborating evidence for your assertions but alas you will not find any.

I don't say that all prophecies are bogus or something like that, but many of them were actually written after they happened.

If you want to be intelectually honest, that you can't say that the Bible is 100% accurate on its prophecies.

Not a single shred of evidence to back this up, only mere assertions. On the other hand, we have historical, archaeological, anecdotal, traditional, evidence to support the claims of the Bible.

The fact that the prophecies were written after the events doesn't mean 1) that the prophecies were not in fact made before the events, and 2) that the events did not occur as described, chronologically. You are simply assuming as much. Do you have any proof of that? The Gospel writers were so convinced by what they witnessed that they staked their lives on it (and actually did die for their belief).

Another issue is that you don't actually know who wrote Luke's gospel. Although Luke couldn't possibly lie in thoery anyways, the people who wrote it, might have done that.

A little proof would be nice.

So what we have so far is that you ignore the multitude of prophecy regarding the Messiah and get hung up on the fact that there is no direct OT prophecy that he will rise in 3 days, and a claim that the prophecies were written after the fact when there is not a shred of evidence to back this claim up. That's about it.

[BryanH]

@Byblos

Not a single shred of evidence to back this up, only mere assertions. On the other hand, we have historical, archaeological, anecdotal, traditional, evidence to support the claims of the Bible.

Do you have proof that the prophecy was written before it happened? Of course you have historical and archeological proof of claims made in the bible, but the issue remains the same: many prophecies were written after they actually happened. Now if you want to believe that those were actual prophecies it's ok, but don't tell me that I have just assertions.

I said that some prophecies in the Bible were written after they happened and I have proof for that because of the dating of the Books that make the Bible.
You on the other hand have no proof that the prophet made the prophecy before it happened.
If you can offer any evidence that the prophecy was made before that would be nice.

So what we have so far is that you ignore the multitude of prophecy regarding the Messiah and get hung up on the fact that there is no direct OT prophecy that he will rise in 3 days, and a claim that the prophecies were written after the fact when there is not a shred of evidence to back this claim up. That's about it.

The discussion moved forward and there are other comments... You might want to read those as well. The prophecy with the 3 days it's just one small bit of this discussion.

Not a single shred of evidence to back this up, only mere assertions. On the other hand, we have historical, archaeological, anecdotal, traditional, evidence to support the claims of the Bible.

I like it when the roles change. Now who is the one who doesn't use logic and reason?
What possible historical, archaeological, anecdotal, traditional evidence you have that the prophecy was made before it happened? Do you have other reliable sources where the prophecy was written (before it happened of course)?

@Paul Sacramento

Don't try to to put 21st century mentality into 1st century writings, it won't work.
The prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem is a perfect example:
The fact that SOME ( typically those that didn't understand jewish apocolyptic writings/sayings/imagery) thought that the end OF THE WORLD would be in their live times, shows that writers wrote what was prophesied and not after because if they wrote AFTER, when those very issues were still around, they would have made it far clearer, rather than makingit sound like a FAILED prophecy as some saw it to be.

As you might have noticed, many if not the majority of Bible prophecies are using metaphors. So none of it is quite clear, false or true. And think about it: the people who wrote some of the prophecies after they happened knew exactly what they were doing.

The FAILED in the prophecy is simply an implication of the fact they were written afterwards. It doesn't relate to the prophecy being clear or not.

Don't try to to put 21st century mentality into 1st century writings, it won't work.

What 21st century mentality? "Cold reading"? That's quite an old technique and it has been used for thousands of years. It's not something new if that is what you implied.
You have to understand that people back then were mainly "uneducated" so it was easier to fool/trick/lie/manipulate them.

[BryanH]

I made this comment separately because I want some feedback on this specific quote.

Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the Lord Almighty
will accomplish this.

Isaiah 9:6-7

If this is a prophecy about Messiah, besides the fact that it didn't happen, it actually invalidates the end of days.
Can someone explain please?