Evidence for God from Science

Recently I was reading some stuff against the Gospel and I came upon this, would you guys read it over and tell me what you think:

Prophecies to Identify the Messiah, Which Jesus Does Not Fulfill:

1) Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus (the messiah) would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Yet no one, not even his parents, call him Immanuel at any point in the bible.

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.

3) Isaiah 7:16 seems to say that before Jesus had reached the age of maturity, both of the Jewish countries would be destroyed. Yet there is no mention of this prophecy being fulfilled in the New Testament with the coming of Jesus, hence this is another Messiah prophecy not fulfilled.

Prophecies Christians Use to Verify Jesus as the Messiah, Yet Clearly Fail:

4) The gospels (especially Matthew 21:4 and John 12:14-15) claim that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. But the next few verses (Zechariah 9:10-13) show that the person referred to in this verse is a military king that would rule "from sea to sea". Since Jesus had neither an army nor a kingdom, he could not have fulfilled this prophecy.

5) Matthew (Matthew 2:17-18) quotes Jeremiah (Jeremiah 31:15), claiming that it was a prophecy of King Herod’s alleged slaughter of the children in and around Bethlehem after the birth of Jesus. But this passage refers to the Babylonian captivity, as is clear by reading the next two verses (Jeremiah 31:16-17), and, thus, has nothing to do with Herod’s massacre.

6) John 19:33 says that during Jesus’ crucifixion, the soldiers didn’t break his legs because he was already dead. Verse John 19:36 claims that this fulfilled a prophecy: "Not a bone of him shall be broken." But there is no such prophecy. It is sometimes said that the prophecy appears in Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12 & Psalm 34:20. This is not correct. Exodus 12:46 & Numbers 9:12 are not prophecies, they are commandments. The Israelites are told not to break the bones of the Passover lamb, and this is all it is about. And Psalm 34:20 seems to refer to righteous people in general (see verse Psalm 34:19, where a plural is used), not to make a prophecy about a specific person.

7) "When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." Hosea 11:1. Matthew (Matthew 2:15) claims that the flight of Jesus’ family to Egypt is a fulfillment of this verse. But Hosea 11:1 is not a prophecy at all. It is a reference to the Hebrew exodus from Egypt and has nothing to do with Jesus. Matthew tries to hide this fact by quoting only the last part of the verse ("Out of Egypt I have called my son").

"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." Micah 5:2 The gospel of Matthew (Matthew 2:5-6) claims that Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem fulfils this prophecy. But this is unlikely for two reasons.

A) "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb’s second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chronicles 2:18, 2:50-52 & 4:4).

B) The prophecy (if that is what it is) does not refer to the Messiah, but rather to a military leader, as can be seen from Micah 5:6. This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did. It should also be noted that Matthew altered the text of Micah 5:2 by saying: "And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah" rather than "Bethlehem Ephratah" as is said in Micah 5:2. He did this, intentionally no doubt, to make this verse appear to refer to the town of Bethlehem rather than the family clan.

And finally, Jesus makes a lot of mistakes and he has a couple of prophecies that didn't happen:

If the prophet speaks in the name of the Lord and the oracle does not come true, that oracle was not spoken by the Lord – Deut 18:22

What does this mean? It means that if a prophet makes prophecies that do not come true, then they are not one of God’s prophets. It doesn’t matter how many miracles they do. It doesn’t matter how many nice things they say, or how many good teachings they have. It doesn’t matter if they feed the starving and heal the sick. The scripture is quite clear, if a prophet speaks in the Name of the Lord, and it does not come true, then the oracle is not from the Lord.

Matt 10:23 – Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the son of man has come.
This is the first false prophecy Jesus makes in Matthew. Speaking to his apostles, he tells them that he will return before they are able to spread the word throughout all of the cities in Israel. Well, the word was spread all throughout Israel, and Jesus still hasn’t returned.
Matt 12:39 – An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall be no sign given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.
Now, who asked him for a sign? The people he was speaking to. So which generation wanted to see the sign? The present generation, of course. And the sign of the prophet Jonas, three days in the belly of the whale, is clarified in the next verse as being his three days in the tomb before the resurrection. Now, Jesus said that this would be a sign for the generation. Yet, the entire generation didn’t see it. It was to be a sign unto the Pharisees, yet they didn’t see it. Only his followers supposedly saw it. Thus, there was no sign, and it was a false prophecy.
Matt 12:41 – The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it
Now, during the time of Jesus, Nineveh had not existed for almost 600 years. It was a pile of rubble. This prophecy states that the dead shall rise in judgment with this generation. Which generation? The one that Jesus referred to as a ‘wicked and adulterous generation that sought a sign’. And who was seeking the sign? The Pharisees. That was the generation he was referring to, that was the generation he was speaking to. Generation has a very special and specific meaning in the original Greek, and cannot possibly refer to a future generation in any tense that could be translated as ‘this generation’. More on the word ‘generation’ and ‘this generation’ will be covered at the conclusion of the four sets of false prophecies in the gospel, since it is the word most twisted by Christians to justify why Jesus has not returned yet, like he said he would. False prophecy number three.
Matt 16:4 “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall be no sign given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.”
Here Jesus makes the same false prophecy that doesn’t come true. He told the Pharisees that his resurrection would be a sign for them. But it wasn’t. The Pharisees simply never received that sign. False prophecy four.

Matt 23:36 “Verily I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation”
Here, Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees again. He directs every comment made toward them, and ends with ‘these things shall come upon this generation’. There is no possible context where ‘this generation’ could refer to a future generation. The original Greek simply doesn’t allow it, and even in English, there is no context that would allow it in this chapter. These things didn’t happen – false prophecy #6
Matt 24:14 “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come”Well, the gospel has been preached in every nation in the world. Yet, the end still hasn’t come. If you don’t believe that the gospel has been preached in the every nation, then you are probably naí¯ve. Paul actually stated that it had ALREADY been preached all over the entire world in Romans. So I guess Paul lied too. False prophecy #8.
Matt 24:33-35 “So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, until all these things be fulfilled.”
Ok, in this situation Jesus is speaking to his apostles again. He tells them that they will see ALL of the things that he mentioned, which include the stars falling out of the sky, and the son of man coming in the clouds. Now, the apostles obviously didn’t see all of these things before they passed. Again, the idea that they have ‘everlasting life’ still doesn’t apply, because he says that the generation will not pass until those things are fulfilled. That means that after they are filled, the generation will pass. Thus, no everlasting life. So the everlasting life excuse just isn’t going to cut it. Anyway, the apostles didn’t see any of it, the generation passed, and we have false prophecy #9.
Matt 26:64 “Hereafter shall ye see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven”
In this instance, Jesus is on trail, and speaking to the High Priest. He told the High Priest that he would see all of this. This simply never happened, the High Priest 2000 years ago has been dead a long, long time. False prophecy #10.

Also how can Jesus be God:

Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent."

Hosea 11:9 "For I am God, and not man"

Psalm 146:3 "Do not put your trust in princes, nor in a son of man, in whom there is no help."

Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord, I do not change"

So what have we learned? God is not human, not a man. Not even 100% divine and 100% man. All of those concepts violate scripture. God also never changes, so he couldnt 'become' a son of man later. God said so. Furthermore, there is no salvation in a son of man. Jesus used this title constantly. If jesus called himself son of man, and scripture states that there is no salvation in a son of man, how can jesus save? Simple - he can't. The scripture above states that only HaShem saves.

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.
-Israel was marred beyond this symbolism, however, when the entire nation was taken into captivity. Israel 1, Jesus 0.
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.
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.
-So, Jesus didn’t have a long life. Jesus didn’t ever make any guilt offerings. Jesus also didn’t have any offspring. Israel, however, did all of these things. Israel 3, Jesus 0.
Now, I know there are lots of “what about…” statements about oth er parts of Isaiah that seem to refer to what Christians think Jesus did. Basically, it doesn’t matter how many parallels can be drawn between Christian opinion of Jesus and this passage, for the simple reason that Jesus does not match every detail of the scripture. If even ONE thing is off, for example Jesus being diseased, then Jesus doesn’t fit the scripture. Israel, however, fit the descriptions of everything perfectly.


“He was despised, shunned by men” – Israel was despised
“He was wounded because of our sins” – Israel was wounded
“He bore the chastisement that made us whole” – Israel bore it
“By his bruises we were healed” – By Israel’s bruises
“The Lord visited upon him the guilt of all of us” – Upon Israel
“He bore the guilt of the many, and made intercession for sinners” – Israel did this. It made sin atonement for the many on a daily basis. It should also be noted that this was much more than just animal sacrifice.


It is important to note that the ‘us’ and ‘we’ and ‘our’ is referring to the people of Israel, as individuals, and as spoken by Isaiah. The ‘him’ is referring to Israel as a nation, and the people as a collective nation. So to clarify further, it would look something like this…
“By his (the nation of Israel’s) bruises we (the people of Israel) were healed”
The important part to remember, however, is that Jesus did not fit the scripture in its entirety. Thus, it was not about Jesus.

Also Jesus makes a mistake here:

34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’[e]? 35If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came–and the Scripture cannot be broken– 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God's Son’? 37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp. (john 10)

Jesus here is referring to Psalm 82, but the problem is he says "is it not written in your law" when Psalm 82 isn't even part of the Torah. Psalm is not included in the Law.

This is a lot to take in, but i would like people to look over it and address some of the stuff here.

I don't have time to go through all of this, but I will address the ones that seem suspicious(and I honestly hope you didn't take these off some atheist site, because atheist scholarship is only one step up from kindergarten kids doodling on walls with crayons. In general, I recommend you head to either http://www.christian-thinktank.com or http://www.tektonics.org for answers.

1) Matthew 1:23 says that Jesus (the messiah) would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us." Yet no one, not even his parents, call him Immanuel at any point in the bible.

Omission does not mean it never happened, and one may have more than one name and it not be used often (like Solomon, for example).

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html

Look for this part:

"Another problem is that nowhere in the New Testament does Mary, Jesus' mother, refer to him as "Immanuel." Thus we have no evidence that one of the conditions of the prophecy was ever fulfilled."

in bold and read from it onward. I think it adresses 1 and 3.

Anything I do not reply to is likely something I am not familiar with, so search the think tank and Holding's site for answers.

4) The gospels (especially Matthew 21:4 and John 12:14-15) claim that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. But the next few verses (Zechariah 9:10-13) show that the person referred to in this verse is a military king that would rule "from sea to sea". Since Jesus had neither an army nor a kingdom, he could not have fulfilled this prophecy.

God is not a king with an army? And what makes you think it is a physical conquest? Like Jesus told Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world"

6) John 19:33 says that during Jesus' crucifixion, the soldiers didn't break his legs because he was already dead. Verse John 19:36 claims that this fulfilled a prophecy: "Not a bone of him shall be broken." But there is no such prophecy. It is sometimes said that the prophecy appears in Exodus 12:46, Numbers 9:12 & Psalm 34:20. This is not correct. Exodus 12:46 & Numbers 9:12 are not prophecies, they are commandments. The Israelites are told not to break the bones of the Passover lamb, and this is all it is about. And Psalm 34:20 seems to refer to righteous people in general (see verse Psalm 34:19, where a plural is used), not to make a prophecy about a specific person.

I'm not familiar with this, but simply because we may be missing a part of the prophecy that might have been available to John is enough reason to dismiss it as another unknown, simply because we cannot know.

Matt 10:23 — Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the son of man has come.
This is the first false prophecy Jesus makes in Matthew. Speaking to his apostles, he tells them that he will return before they are able to spread the word throughout all of the cities in Israel. Well, the word was spread all throughout Israel, and Jesus still hasn't returned.

Or perhaps it is referring to an actual CONVERSION of Israel. Or perhaps the apostles did not even teach every city in israel, and thus, being a conditional prophecy, has no reason to be fulfilled.

Matt 12:39 — An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall be no sign given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.
Now, who asked him for a sign? The people he was speaking to. So which generation wanted to see the sign? The present generation, of course. And the sign of the prophet Jonas, three days in the belly of the whale, is clarified in the next verse as being his three days in the tomb before the resurrection. Now, Jesus said that this would be a sign for the generation. Yet, the entire generation didn't see it. It was to be a sign unto the Pharisees, yet they didn't see it. Only his followers supposedly saw it. Thus, there was no sign, and it was a false prophecy.

His followers did not see the ressurection. If anybody saw it, it was the guards of the tomb and that's it. It would be downright stupid for Jesus(assuming he was a fraud) to claim the entire population of Israel would see the ressurection with their very eyes. In addition, how do we know they did not hear of it? The fact that His body was gone would have likely "made the news" simply because of his claim.

Matt 12:41 — The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it
Now, during the time of Jesus, Nineveh had not existed for almost 600 years. It was a pile of rubble. This prophecy states that the dead shall rise in judgment with this generation. Which generation? The one that Jesus referred to as a 'wicked and adulterous generation that sought a sign'. And who was seeking the sign? The Pharisees. That was the generation he was referring to, that was the generation he was speaking to. Generation has a very special and specific meaning in the original Greek, and cannot possibly refer to a future generation in any tense that could be translated as 'this generation'. More on the word 'generation' and 'this generation' will be covered at the conclusion of the four sets of false prophecies in the gospel, since it is the word most twisted by Christians to justify why Jesus has not returned yet, like he said he would. False prophecy number three.

Bad logical connectin. Jesus said that it would happend during the pharisees generation. It does not have to be the pharisees. In fact, I am farily certain I know nothing of this, and even so, I can see a hint to a solution.

22: Jesus said to him, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!"
23: The saying spread abroad among the brethren that this disciple was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?"

It is basically stating that one member of the generation(John) could still be alive, and thus Jesus's prophecy would not yet need to be fulfilled. The apostles suspected it, and Jesus basically tells them "If He is not to die is my affair, mind your own business".

Matt 16:4 “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall be no sign given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.”
Here Jesus makes the same false prophecy that doesn't come true. He told the Pharisees that his resurrection would be a sign for them. But it wasn't. The Pharisees simply never received that sign. False prophecy four.

We don't know if they recieved the sign, and even if they recieve it, there is no guarantee that they would accept Jesus as the Messiah.

Matt 23:36 “Verily I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation”
Here, Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees again. He directs every comment made toward them, and ends with 'these things shall come upon this generation'. There is no possible context where 'this generation' could refer to a future generation. The original Greek simply doesn't allow it, and even in English, there is no context that would allow it in this chapter. These things didn't happen — false prophecy #6

No, not number 6, it's the exact same prophecy quoted for the 3rd time. see above.

Matt 24:14 “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come”Well, the gospel has been preached in every nation in the world. Yet, the end still hasn't come. If you don't believe that the gospel has been preached in the every nation, then you are probably naí¯ve. Paul actually stated that it had ALREADY been preached all over the entire world in Romans. So I guess Paul lied too. False prophecy #8.

Where does it say that Jesus has to come EXACTLY AFTER this has happened? If Jesus had came BEFORE it, then it would have been a broken prophecy. Jesus can come a billion years from now for all I care, and this prophecy would still be fulfilled.

Matt 24:33-35 “So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. Verily I say unto you, this generation shall not pass, until all these things be fulfilled.”
Ok, in this situation Jesus is speaking to his apostles again. He tells them that they will see ALL of the things that he mentioned, which include the stars falling out of the sky, and the son of man coming in the clouds. Now, the apostles obviously didn't see all of these things before they passed. Again, the idea that they have 'everlasting life' still doesn't apply, because he says that the generation will not pass until those things are fulfilled. That means that after they are filled, the generation will pass. Thus, no everlasting life. So the everlasting life excuse just isn't going to cut it. Anyway, the apostles didn't see any of it, the generation passed, and we have false prophecy #9.

Ignoring the fact that nobody actually takes the falling stars literally, if John is immortal, this holds. Of course, I am sure both Miller and Holding actually have a better explanation than "John is immortal" but this is good enough to dismiss this as more nonsense.

Matt 26:64 “Hereafter shall ye see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven”
In this instance, Jesus is on trail, and speaking to the High Priest. He told the High Priest that he would see all of this. This simply never happened, the High Priest 2000 years ago has been dead a long, long time. False prophecy #10.

Because clearly the High Priest has to be alive to see it.

Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent."

Sounds like more atheist drivel. I bet whoever made this actually thinks it's our flesh that makes us human.

Hosea 11:9 "For I am God, and not man"

See above.

Psalm 146:3 "Do not put your trust in princes, nor in a son of man, in whom there is no help."

See above.

Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord, I do not change"

What does this have to do with anything?

Nah i get this from Jews, however Jesus did say he "all these things would come in this generation".
If it didn't happen in that generation, then the prophecy is already false. If I say "something will happen in my lifetime" and I die, and it doesnt happen, there is no chance for it happening later.

New interpretations of the end, and his return, didn't come until post-temple and members of that generation started to die. Many early christians thought the end would come in their lifetime.

Also for one the Isaiah 52/53 prophecy isn't talking about the messiah at all. In fact you couldn't say that fully any of the OT prophecies are talking about Jesus. Sure Jesus fits in some parts, but to fulfill a prophecy, you have to fit all the parts.

Also Jesus called himself son of man, but Psalms say's not to trust in a son of man plus that God is not a son of man thus how could Jesus be God.

Also, Jesus stated. The generation would have a sign. When God sent signs to Pharoah, the entire nation saw it, the Israelites, Egyptians, everybody. If God came down in human form, and stated that they would have a sign, why didn't he appear to everybody? Why did he only appear to a few folks afterwards? Plus making the news isn't really a sign.

In fact, it was a common belief at the time, and the gospels record this, that the disciples simply stole the body.
The gospels of course brush this off as a 'rumor' - but the gospels are also apologetic tracts attempting to support the resurrection. So its quite possible that they did steal the body
Because the gospels even mention such a rumor is evidence that it was widespread and a problem, and the authors of the gospels obviously felt threatened by it enough to attempt to refute it in the gospels.

And no, it is much more likely that the disciples stole the body than a massive conspiracy against Jesus. The Talmud says next to nothing about Jesus, and if they had gone out of there way to spread such a rumor, it probably would have leaked into the gamara or other Jewish sources.

Finally how come Jesus makes a mistake in differentiating between the Torah and the Tanach?

vvart wrote:Nah i get this from Jews, however Jesus did say he "all these things would come in this generation".
If it didn't happen in that generation, then the prophecy is already false. If I say "something will happen in my lifetime" and I die, and it doesnt happen, there is no chance for it happening later.

New interpretations of the end, and his return, didn't come until post-temple and members of that generation started to die. Many early christians thought the end would come in their lifetime.

People die every second. By this definition of generation, Jesus would have to die and come back in a fraction of a second to fulfill the prophecy. Again, if John is still alive, then so is his generation.

Also for one the Isaiah 52/53 prophecy isn't talking about the messiah at all. In fact you couldn't say that fully any of the OT prophecies are talking about Jesus. Sure Jesus fits in some parts, but to fulfill a prophecy, you have to fit all the parts.

Also Jesus called himself son of man, but Psalms say's not to trust in a son of man plus that God is not a son of man thus how could Jesus be God.

And you'd think Jesus would at least read the scriptures before trying to trick them, eh? I'm afraid I'd have to do some research about the meaning of the words first. Have you checked either of the two sites I suggested?

Also, Jesus stated. The generation would have a sign. When God sent signs to Pharoah, the entire nation saw it, the Israelites, Egyptians, everybody. If God came down in human form, and stated that they would have a sign, why didn't he appear to everybody? Why did he only appear to a few folks afterwards? Plus making the news isn't really a sign.

Did Jesus say He would give a sign to EVERYBODY? "This Generation" does not have to include every single person. And news like "some dude came back from the dead" is certainly enough of a sign. In addition, one has to wonder WHY would the apostles do all this? Especially since most of them died for their beliefs. The only way you can recouncile the apostle's fanatical beleif that they had been the apostles of the son of God is if Jesus worked independently of them and had His own secret aides to help him. Either that or Jesus was an alien.

In fact, it was a common belief at the time, and the gospels record this, that the disciples simply stole the body.
The gospels of course brush this off as a 'rumor' - but the gospels are also apologetic tracts attempting to support the resurrection. So its quite possible that they did steal the body
Because the gospels even mention such a rumor is evidence that it was widespread and a problem, and the authors of the gospels obviously felt threatened by it enough to attempt to refute it in the gospels.

How exactly would a bunch of prisoners steal a body from trained soldiers is beyond me. And from a point of view, yes, you could say they felt "threatened by it". Or they could simply think that the readers would be curious what the pharisees did after this, and they mentioned it to show what happened. Yes, the disciples could have stolen Jesus's body. But there is no evidence that they did.

And no, it is much more likely that the disciples stole the body than a massive conspiracy against Jesus. The Talmud says next to nothing about Jesus, and if they had gone out of there way to spread such a rumor, it probably would have leaked into the gamara or other Jewish sources.

Christianity was an extremely small sect at the time. The jews to mention anything about Jesus would be like scientists wasting their time refuting the flat earth society.

Finally how come Jesus makes a mistake in differentiating between the Torah and the Tanach?

And why didn't the jews call him on it on the spot? And why wouldn't the apostles cover up such a mistake to keep their master's integrity? And does Jesus actually say it was part of their law in the original greek or is it based on another English translation?

In additiou you might want to read this. http://www.tektonics.org/esch/olivet01.html

Search the Think Tank and Tektonics for answers. I never take anybody's word for it(especially regarding my faith) until I have verified for myself that they are telling the truth.

well maybe the Pharisees did call it on him, i mean as you stated the Gospels don't tell us every single itty bitty thing that happened in fact it would be to the writers benefit to omit stuff like that. All i know is it's a clear mistake. Also why wouldn't Apostles cover it up, well your assuming the Gospel's were written by the Apostles and not to mention most of the Apostles aside from Paul weren't highly educated.

The Apostles didn't really have to be fanatical, even if came out and said Jesus never resurrected, it wasn't like Romans were gonna spare em.
Also majority of early Christians didn't believe in a literal resurrection, it was more symbolic.

Yes I looked at think-tank and it makes lots of errors so its not all too credible. One error is regarding the Bethlehem issue, they have it all wrong cause its not even a Messianic prophecy.

I mean i'd like to see one Prophecy fully fulfilled by Jesus. You can pretty much take snipets of the OT and then apply it to someone and say they fulfilled what the Prophet was saying when that's not the case.

vvart wrote:well maybe the Pharisees did call it on him, i mean as you stated the Gospels don't tell us every single itty bitty thing that happened in fact it would be to the writers benefit to omit stuff like that. All i know is it's a clear mistake. Also why wouldn't Apostles cover it up, well your assuming the Gospel's were written by the Apostles and not to mention most of the Apostles aside from Paul weren't highly educated.

Yet they decided to write books(a skill few had in that day).

The Apostles didn't really have to be fanatical, even if came out and said Jesus never resurrected, it wasn't like Romans were gonna spare em.

Romans usually just sneered at other religions. It is exactly because they were so fanatical that they were percieved as a social threat and (ineptly) hunted down.

Also majority of early Christians didn't believe in a literal resurrection, it was more symbolic.

Proof?

Yes I looked at think-tank and it makes lots of errors so its not all too credible. One error is regarding the Bethlehem issue, they have it all wrong cause its not even a Messianic prophecy.

Email them then.

I mean i'd like to see one Prophecy fully fulfilled by Jesus. You can pretty much take snipets of the OT and then apply it to someone and say they fulfilled what the Prophet was saying when that's not the case.

I'd like to see one person that fully understands the prophecyes. I know I don't, and I doubt you do either. Have you done any research about the Christian reply to these? Other than what I gave you?

Jews usually take a different opinion to how the Messianic prophecies should be interpreted. They tend to believe that the Messiah to come would be more militant, and lead Israel out of bondage once and forall. So as a Christian, Jews seem to miss all the signs and implications behind their prophecies, rituals and laws and even the story God is telling through them.

I've read many of the Matthew passages you cited and many are quite easy to resolve. With regards to the coming kingdom, amillenialists have no issue with this as they believe the kingdom came when Christ ascended and the Holy Spirit was received. Such helps to resolve some of the issues relating to the kingdom in the passages quoted. Now I could go over each passage with correction, but I'd be interested in hearing your own responses to them?

Kurieuo.

Well i'd like to see one Messianic Prophecy that you could say Jesus fully completes, I mean the Bethlehem thing which Matthew talks about is way off because its not even a messianic prophecy at all. As for Isaiah, sure Jesus could be said to have fulfilled some parts but he doesn't fulfill all of it and thus you can't really say he's the messiah.

I mean there were tons of Jewish sects/cults at the time of Jesus and i'm sure a lot of them attributed various messianic prophecies to their leader, now doesn't mean they were the Messiah does it?

Jesus also makes a simple mistake regarding the difference between Tanach/Torah, I mean when someone pointed that out to me, it got me to really thinking and looking this over.

Plus Deutermony states that God would send false prophets who could do miracles to test the Jews, so I mean the fact that Jesus can do miracles isn't a big deal. Yet the Torah clearly states how Jews can point out a false prophet in that if they mess with the Torah then they aren't the real deal.

Also amillenialists and other christians have been interpreting those passages however they want for hundreds of years. However, it doesn't change the fact that fist century Christians interpreted them as Jesus coming back, and the end of the world, new kingdom, etc. happening in their lifetimes.

Something on the Son of Man.

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/sonofworm.html

vvart wrote:Well i'd like to see one Messianic Prophecy that you could say Jesus fully completes, I mean the Bethlehem thing which Matthew talks about is way off because its not even a messianic prophecy at all. As for Isaiah, sure Jesus could be said to have fulfilled some parts but he doesn't fulfill all of it and thus you can't really say he's the messiah.

See Who's the Subject of Isaiah 53? You Decide!

vvart wrote:Jesus also makes a simple mistake regarding the difference between Tanach/Torah, I mean when someone pointed that out to me, it got me to really thinking and looking this over.

Come on vvart... surely from posting here you should have observed people providing advice on how to equip yourself. Get a copy of e-Sword, and download some commentaries and dictionaries. I want to see you taking it to them, rather than just rolling over and playing dead. Most problems that stump people can usually be resolved with such theological resources. This is one such case as John Gill writes in his commentary:

In the law which was given unto them, of which they boasted, and pretended to understand, and interpret, even in Psa_82:6; for the law includes not only the Pentateuch, but all the books of the Old Testament: it is an observation of one of the Jewish doctors (R. Azarias in Meor Enayim, c. 7. fol. 47. 1.), that

"with the wise men of blessed memory, it is found in many places that the word law comprehends the Prophets and the Hagiographa.''

Among which last stands the book of Psalms; and this may be confirmed by a passage out of the Talmud (T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 91. 2.); it is asked,

"from whence does the resurrection of the dead appear, מן התורה, "out of the law?"''

It is answered,

"as it is said in Psa_84:4, "Blessed are they that dwell in thy house, they will still praise thee, Selah; they do praise thee", it is not said, but "they will praise thee"; from hence is a proof of the resurrection of the dead, "out of the law".''

The same question is again put, and then Isa_52:8 is cited, and the like observation made upon it. Moreover, this is a way of speaking used by the Jews, when they introduce another citing a passage of Scripture...

It seems your Jewish friend is unaware to certain things about his own faith.

Kurieuo.

vvart wrote:Also amillenialists and other christians have been interpreting those passages however they want for hundreds of years. However, it doesn't change the fact that fist century Christians interpreted them as Jesus coming back, and the end of the world, new kingdom, etc. happening in their lifetimes.

Yeah, well you know we amillenialists do like to interpret passages however we like . If anything I think amillenialists follow a more consistent exegetical approach to Scripture, but such is not for this thread.

And the fact that many first century Christians realised Jesus wouldn't be coming back in their lifetime (as is evident in 2 Peter 3), and were able to come to grips with their misunderstanding isn't changed also.

Kurieuo.

Look i'd like to see one verse in Tanach that someone can fully relate to Jesus, cause on the web, i get nothing but snipets and taking parts out of context.

that's all i need, I'm tired of seeing scripture taken way out of context.

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.

Kurieuo what you are talking about was the post-Tanach. 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.
Saducees didn't even accept the writings and prophets, only the Torah. During Jesus' time period, that was the only thing referred to as the law. The rest would be referred to respectively as the prophets and writings, until the compilation of them all near 100ad when some would view it all to be the law.

Just one comment:

Saducees didn't even accept the writings and prophets, only the Torah.

Saducees went extinct around the rise of islam after having their beliefs shattered by the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD. If they had actually known what they were talking about, it wouldn't have happened. If Saducees say something is wrong, there is good reason to believe it is actually right. Anyway, I should be going to bed. One piece of advice: reading the english bible will never give you a full understanding of complex parts like why Jesus fulfills the prophecies. You'll need to do a lot of digging.

And personally, I couldn't care less if Jesus didn't fulfill even a fraction of one of the OT prophecies. He fulfilled the one prophecy that matters to me and that is more than enough.