Evidence for God from Science

Forgive me if I am blind, but I do not see the prophecies often used which you have referred to have been taken out of context. I see very good reasons (and links have been provided) for taking them as prophetic, not to mention that many such passages have also realised as being Messianic prophecies by Jewish rabbis.

I'm sure disagreement could be offered over just about any prophecy, yet there is "Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion! Shout, daughter of Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you! righteous and having salvation, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey." (Zechariah 9:9) This was fulfilled in John 12:12-14—'The next day the great crowd that had come for the Feast heard that Jesus was on his way to Jerusalem. 13They took palm branches and went out to meet him, shouting, “Hosanna!” “Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!” “Blessed is the King of Israel!” Jesus found a young donkey and sat upon it, as it is written, “Do not be afraid, O Daughter of Zion; see, your king is coming, seated on a donkey's colt.”'

vvart wrote:By the way 2 Peter isn't a first century document, for one. That is a post-temple document, so many had come to those conclusions.

2 Peter is believed to have been written prior to Peter's death about mid-60's AD. It is indeed a first century document.

vvart wrote:The Tanach as we know it did not exist during Jesus' time, and the law, writings, and prophets were regarded by every sect as being three distinct sets.

(sorry for laughing), but how could Jesus then confuse the Torah with the Tanakh if the Tanakh did not exist during Christ's time? Unless of course you wish to debate Christ's existence within the first century after Christ's birth?

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo see your doing what every single site does, you taking a part of Zechariah and not reading the rest of it. Now we all know Jesus didn't fulfill the rest of what Zechariah is saying so are you going to have us believe just because someone rides a donkey it means they are the Messiah?

That's my point the Tanach didn't exist yet, He called the Psalms 'your law' when the law was the Torah. The Psalms didn't have the status of 'law', nor did the people view it as law.

No, 2 Peter isn't even credited to Peter. However, apologists tend to accept the tradition surrounding the documents like that. good website that provides a wide range of dates (conservative to liberal) is earlychristianwritings.com. The span they gave it is 100-160.

Zechariah 9:9 is an obvious prophecy regarding the Messiah (and I know has been acknowledge as such at least in the Babylonian Talmud), which Jesus has fulfilled. Verse 10 will not come true until Christ returns, yet you said to only point to one prophecy and I did.

vvart wrote:That's my point the Tanach didn't exist yet, He called the Psalms 'your law' when the law was the Torah. The Psalms didn't have the status of 'law', nor did the people view it as law.

Refer back to what I previously wrote. I still see no problems here, and it seems more the case as evidenced by Jewish tradition (refer to my quote of John Gill) that books outside the Pentateuch such as Psalm and the prophets, were often considered along side the Pentateuch as law. On the other hand, you've provided nothing but your word that it wasn't at Christ's time. So it seems the best argument that can be made here against Jesus is an implied conclusion that is shaky at best, that Jesus who was given the status of rabbi and clearly well-versed, did not know what the Torah was.

vvart wrote:No, 2 Peter isn't even credited to Peter. However, apologists tend to accept the tradition surrounding the documents like that. good website that provides a wide range of dates (conservative to liberal) is earlychristianwritings.com. The span they gave it is 100-160.

It is true some do no believe Peter wrote both 1 Peter and 2 Peter, but to declare outright that 2 Peter is not credited to Peter is to jump the gun a bit. Such is to declare you've won the argument surrounding the authorship of 2 Peter without arguing (and perhaps even understanding) the issue involved.

Kurieuo.

No for the Peter thing, i'm not, i'm just saying its not clear cut.

As for the Donkey thing, i meant a fully complete fulfillment of a prophecy. Zechariah had much more to say and if you want to use what he said to show someone as the messiah you don't just take parts of what is said, but the whole thing. Look the Donkey thing isn't the main focus of what Zechariah was saying because he later says what the Messiah will actually do. Noone in their right mind would identify the Messiah using the Donkey portion as many people rode Donkey's back then, its a common thing, some people in Israel now i'm sure ride Donkey's, it doesn't mean they are the Messiah. Can you provide something better?

Ok, perhaps John Gill is right, I'll admit that, it doesn't matter all to much really because the main point here is that Jesus was no different then the other rebels except he attacked Pharisees. They all attributed messianic prophecies to themselves just like the one you noted, i'm sure many of em rode Donkey's.

From Zech 9 as well.

10: I will cut off the chariot from E'phraim and the war horse from Jerusalem; and the battle bow shall be cut off, and he shall command peace to the nations; his dominion shall be from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth.

Did Jesus command peace? It sounds like it. Is his dominion from sea to sea? It is, and this prophecy will finally be fulfilled at the same time the one in the Gospel is about it being preached to all the nations(depending on whether you think one was fulfilled is the fulfillment of the other, as they are basically the same thing as far as I'm concerned).

11: As for you also, because of the blood of my covenant with you, I will set your captives free from the waterless pit.

I think this talks about Jesus's sacrifice.

I have no idea what exactly the rest of Zech means so I'll leave it alone.

Finally Isaiah 53 & 52 really don't seem to be talking about Jesus:

Isaiah 52:14 states, “So marred was his appearance, unlike that of a man, his form, beyond human semblance”
-Even though Jesus was whipped and crucified, his form was not marred beyond human semblance. He still resembled a human being, and his form was still like that of a man.

I'm afraid we would require to see what Jesus looked like, because I'm fairly sure the romans messed him uip prettybad.

-Israel was marred beyond this symbolism, however, when the entire nation was taken into captivity. Israel 1, Jesus 0.

Ignoring the fact that the idea that Isaiah 53 talks about Israel is a medieval invention, israel was hardly "marred" until they chose to revolt and basically did it with their own hand. The romans didn't give a damn about local culture and as long as people paid their dues and didn't cause trouble they were left alone. This was the case in most roman colonies, so to claim Israel was "marred" by the occupation is ridiculous.

Isaiah 53:4 states, “Yet it was our sickness that he was bearing, our suffering that he endured, we accounted him plagued, smitten and affected by God.”
Isaiah 53:3 contains, “A man of suffering, familiar with disease.”
Isaiah 53:10 states, “But the Lord chose to crush him by disease”
-Now, these passages tell us that the suffering servant being described was not only familiar with disease, but also afflicted with it, and crushed by it. It may be argued that Jesus was familiar with disease; however, he was not crushed by disease. There is no record of Jesus being sick in his life, much less diseased. And he certainly was not 'crushed' by disease.
And no, disease does not mean sin or anything else. It is a very specific word, which refers to physical sickness. The words sickness, plagued, smitten, affected, and diseases are all quite clear references that demonstrate physical illness and disease. Basically, Jesus didn't match up with any of these. Thus, he isn't the suffering servant.
-Israel, on the other hand, was afflicted, smitten, and plagued with disease and sickness multiple times. Once again, Israel fits, Jesus doesn't. Israel 2, Jesus 0.

It could be referring to the sick that Jesus spent time with. Empathy anyone? And what makes you think Jesus was not physically sick? Just because the bible doesn't mention it does not mean it never happened. I have further suspicions that this is talking about Jesus in the garden before he was arrested, but I shall discuss that after I have looked into it in more detail.

Isaiah 53:10 also states, “That, if he made himself an offering for guilt, he might see offspring and have long life”
-Note, this says long life, not eternal life. Jesus supposedly lived forever; so long life means that the person will die at one point. This also states 'if he made himself an offering for guilt'. We have no record of Jesus ever making any guilt offerings. And no, this does not refer to Jesus himself being an offering for guilt. It states that the suffering servant would make an offering for guilt. It also says, 'he might see offspring'. Yes, this refers to PHYSICAL offspring. 'Born again' Jesus cult followers are not offspring. They are followers, or disciples. If it had meant disciples, it would have said that. But it didn't, it said offspring, physical children.

Where does it say Jesus WILL make himself an offering for guilt? It says that IF he does, then he will have a long life and offsprings. he died at 33 and rised to heaven and had no offsprings. If anything, it matches the prediction perfectly.

Jesus said he was the Messiah. He clearly saw his life, mission and destiny as the fulfillment of prophetic scripture. He underscored his identity for us through His death and resurrection.

Agree with DIP. Without the resurrection there would be no reason to accept Christ as the Messiah. Fulfillment of prophecies just add an extra factor, but are not the major thing that establishes Christ as the Messiah.

For evidence on the resurrection please refer to William Lane Craig's Argument for Jesus' Resurrection on the old board.

Kurieuo.

How many times do I have to say that Jesus fulfilled not one single Messianic prophecy (Donkey thing doesn't count as noone would use that to identify Messiah). Until someone show's me one messianic prophecy fulfilled, I see no reason Jesus should be considered the messiah.

As for the Isaiah 52/53, Mastermind you do a good job of trying to make Gospel account fit with what Isaiah is saying, but it really isn't possible as its not what Isaiah is talking about, in fact Isaiah isn't even talking about the Messiah.

This should explain it all: http://www.geocities.com/~alyza/Jewish/Isaiah53.html
Kurieuo: Please reference your material, and links are better than massive pastings

I think you need to deal more with the evidence surrounding Christ's life, death and resurrection. Such is Christianity at its core, and is the major difference between Christ being the Messiah, and any false messiahs.

Anyway, when did you convert to Judaism vvart?

As for Zechariah 9:9 it is a complete prophecy, and one Jesus clearly fulfilled. Yet, I can provide something better.

vvart wrote:2) The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth. Hence, this prophecy could not have been fulfilled.

Don't you know both Mary and Joseph were from the lineage of David? It is generally accepted that Matthew's relates to Joseph, and Luke's to Mary. Perhaps you are also unaware to the TONS of references to Jesus from David's lineage? Luke 1:27,69; Matthew 9:27; Mark 10:47, Matthew 15:22, Matthew 12:23, Matthew 21:15, Acts 2:25-30, Acts 13:22-23, Romans 1:3, 2 Tim 2:8, Revelation 5:5,22:16

Worth noting is that the issue of Christ being a descendant of David was never raised as an issue for the first several centuries! The local genealogical records would have been easily accessible to those wanted to silence Christ's claims.

Additionally, I will quote rather than waste my time writing out information you could sought out quite easily if so desired:

Matthew and Luke present different genealogies of Jesus--one through David's son Solomon (the royal line) and the other through David's son Nathan (the non-royal line). The royal line is traced in Matthew; the "natural" line in Luke. Matthew's genealogy goes only back to Abraham (to show the Jewish character of the King); Luke's goes back to Adam (to show the universal aspect of the Savior). Matthew's emphasizes Jesus' royalty; Luke, his humanity.
It is generally accepted (but not unanimously) that the genealogy in Matthew belongs to Joseph's family, and the one in Luke applies to Mary's line. (The historical evidence is fairly strong that both Mary and Joseph were of the house of David.)
Both genealogies are 'aware' of the virgin birth: Luke adds the phrase "He was the son, SO IT WAS THOUGHT, of Joseph" (3:23) and Matthew switches verbs from "X begat Y" to "Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom (feminine pronoun) was born Jesus".
So, how does Joseph 'step into' Mary's lineage? How does he 'pick up' her legal heritage?
...
The Jewish folk had numerous provisions for cases of inheritance-transfer in extreme cases. One of the more frequent situations that had to be covered (in a land-based, clan-ownership system) was that of childless marriages, or in some cases, of son-less marriages.
One of the more concise statements of how this would apply here, is by J. Stafford Wright in Dict. of New Test. Theol., III. 662:
"Mary's father (Heli?) had two daughters, May and the unnamed wife of Zebedee (John 19:25; Matt 27:56). If there were no sons, Joseph would become son of Heli on his marriage, to preserve the family name and inheritance (cf. Num 27:1-11; 36:1-12, esp. v. 8, which accounts for Mary marrying a man of the family of David.)"
[The main passages in the OT that refer to these various laws are Num 7:1-11; Num 36:1-12; Lev 25:25; Dt 25:5-10. These practices were widespread in the Ancient Near East, and a good discussion of the details in Israel and differences from the ANE can be found in Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Vol 1--Social Institutions. Two famous cases, for good or ill, of these practices are in the story of Ruth (Book of Ruth) and in the story of Tamar (Gen 38:6ff).]
What this 'nets out to' is that Joseph 'married into' Mary's gene-pool...and hence, the virgin birth doesn't stop the lineage "transfer".

In other words, the the physical-gene did NOT come FROM JOSEPH was IRRELEVANT in this case. Legal standing was related to EITHER 'genes' OR to 'marriage'. (Although it should be pointed out that levirate arrangements like this required close kinship already, and hence, quite a number of overlapping genes.).

So, strictly speaking, Jesus got his genes from Mary and his legal standing (in the royal heir line) from Joseph (thru the marriage of M+J). Now, as a practical matter, I consider the gene-issue to be important, simply because there were NUMEROUS other indications that the Messiah WOULD BE from the 'stock of Jesse' etc--images and phrases that DO put more emphasis on the blood-line that does simply 'legal lineage'--but I am persuaded that these requirements were adequately satisfied from Mary's side.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html

Kurieuo.

vvart;....here is the lineage of Jesus the Christ. Christ is biologically related to King David through Mary. Christ through adoption is related to King David by way of Joseph.

An old thread of mine that's easy to understand
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... .php?t=395

More in depth website.
http://www.threemacs.org/themes/jewish/cursedline.htm

vvart wrote: As for the Isaiah 52/53, Mastermind you do a good job of trying to make Gospel account fit with what Isaiah is saying, but it really isn't possible as its not what Isaiah is talking about, in fact Isaiah isn't even talking about the Messiah.

This should explain it all: http://www.geocities.com/~alyza/Jewish/Isaiah53.html
Kurieuo: Please reference your material, and links are better than massive pastings

I would accept their explanation if Isaiah 53 hadn't been falsely reinterpreted in the middle ages to make it look like it is talking about Israel instead of the messiah. Can you find me a reference from around Jesus's time(within a couple hundred years will do) in which Jews discuss that verse as being Israel rather than the messiah? And as I read through Isaiah 52-53 right now, I have no idea where you got the idea that it is not talking about the messiah. Yes, Israel is mentioned at the beginning of 52, but that's because God is talking TO them, not ABOUT them! How can this verse be talking about Israel, for example?

5: But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed.

Who is we? The jews!(duh) It is clear that SOMEBODY(and from the context it clearly talks about a specific person) was to suffer for their sins, Unless it is referring to the jews from Bizarro world suffering for the jews in our world.

I've went over that link you sent me in more detail and the twisting of scripture, taking verses out of context and downright ineptitude about Jesus's life(he wasn't shunned? Gimme a break.) is downright disgusting.

Ok mastermind i'll give you a much better source to look at, this guy pretty much uses the Tanach, basically the english bible has been tweaked a little bit to make it sound like its Jesus:

http://www.messiahtruth.com/onslaught.html

There are quite a few parts to this (links at bottom/top to next part), so you should read all of it before jump to a misinformed conclusion.

Also your mistaken about the Isaiah talking about Israel being a medieval creation, that site above explains this in the last section.

Kurieuo, i never converted to Judaism, I would be considered a Noahide. One who follows the covenant God made with Noah and his offspring, the gentiles, are explained in this site:

http://www.wordspider.net/no/noahide-laws.html

Also I find no problems with Jesus's geneology as I don't believe Jesus was born of a virgin, so as far as i'm concerned he fulfilled that Prophecy, however all we have is he rode on a donkey and he's a descendant of David. I'm sorry but many people at the time of Jesus could easily fulfill these two requirements.

Also Kurieuo, you can't simple use the resurrection to mean someone is the messiah. Elijah asked God to resurrect a dead boy and God did, does this mean that boy is the messiah? NO, in fact i really have no problem with Jesus resurrecting, it just means God used Jesus for a purpose. This purpose obviously is multi-faceted, but part of it would be to bring the gentiles closer to the Truth being the Torah/Tanach.

Also let me explain how the Gospels aren't really reliable:

they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written: 6“ ‘But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.’[d]”

Ok lets examine and compare this with the Tanach version:

"Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek. But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me [that is] to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting....And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth. And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land....and they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword..." (Micah 5:1-6)

Also here is how the NIV translates that Micah verse: "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans (or, rulers) of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel..." (Micah 5:2)

Ok here we see Bethlehem Ephrathah most likely referring to a clan. Micah is really talking about a person who will save them from the Assyrians. Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, was destroyed and Assyrian power ceased to exist 606 years before Jesus was born. Jesus had nothing whatsoever to do with the Assyrians. This is not a messianic prophecy!!

I can't say how reliable christian think tank is as it fails to realize that this prophecy is not of messianic nature. Apologists also claim that Matthew the apostle was an eye-witness to many of the events in the life of Jesus, but a substantial body of scholarly work strongly indicates that the book of Matthew was not authored by apostle Matthew. So frankly, Christians need to stop linking every prophecy ever told in the Tanach to Jesus, its quite misleading.

Ok mastermind i'll give you a much better source to look at, this guy pretty much uses the Tanach, basically the english bible has been tweaked a little bit to make it sound like its Jesus:

I should have stopped reading it the moment I saw this:

All quotes are from the King James Bible.

You're going to have to do much better than that. There is nothing on that page I haven't seen before. There is nothing you haven't showed us before that isn't a pathetic twist of the bible or long shot misinterpretations from the mouth of desperation.

Also let me explain how the Gospels aren't really reliable:

they replied, “for this is what the prophet has written: 6“ 'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.'[d]”

Ok lets examine and compare this with the Tanach version:

"Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek. But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, [though] thou be little among the thousands of Judah, [yet] out of thee shall he come forth unto me [that is] to be ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting....And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth. And this man shall be the peace, when the Assyrian shall come into our land....and they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword..." (Micah 5:1-6)

Also here is how the NIV translates that Micah verse: "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans (or, rulers) of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel..." (Micah 5:2)

Ok here we see Bethlehem Ephrathah most likely referring to a clan. Micah is really talking about a person who will save them from the Assyrians. Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, was destroyed and Assyrian power ceased to exist 606 years before Jesus was born. Jesus had nothing whatsoever to do with the Assyrians. This is not a messianic prophecy!!

Actually, all I see is your interpretation of it. Again, you'll have to do much better than this.

I can't say how reliable christian think tank is as it fails to realize that this prophecy is not of messianic nature. Apologists also claim that Matthew the apostle was an eye-witness to many of the events in the life of Jesus, but a substantial body of scholarly work strongly indicates that the book of Matthew was not authored by apostle Matthew. So frankly, Christians need to stop linking every prophecy ever told in the Tanach to Jesus, its quite misleading.

Actually, I see no reason not to think the think thank is reliable as I agree with their interpretation of the prophecy, after I read it in context, and your jewish sites are doing an awful job convincing me. All they're giving me is their interpretation and misleading comments.