Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jamey who wrote (32869)	9/28/2001 3:38:50 AM
From: Mitch Blevins	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 39621

Was the entire New Testament written after the fact to match prophecies made in earlier scripture? Of course not... if it was, then it would match much better than it does! There was alot of source material and popular beliefs that had to be satisfied and prevented any full-scale editing. And we are not just dealing with redactions, but with original creations also. Some things can be taken at face value, such as (most of) Paul's letters. But the Gospels deserve further scrutiny, and the Acts of the Apostles is particularly suspect. As an example, let's look at the birth narrative stories. Both Luke and the author of Matthew (whom we'll call "Matthew" for convenience) had certain prophecies and popular beliefs that they had to satisfy: from Nazareth, born in Bethlehem, virgin birth, come out of Egypt (but only Matthew picked up this one), etc. But Luke and Matthew picked two entirely different (and irreconcilable) stories to account for this. Matthew had Mary and Joseph starting out in Bethlehem, fleeing to Egypt to escape Herod the Great, then later going to Nazareth. Luke had them start in Nazareth, come to Bethlehem for a census (which occurred 11 years after Herod's death, BTW), then returning to Jerusalem yearly despite the danger that Matthew portrays from Herod and his successor. Only somebody who has seen these two stories blended in Christmas pageants over the years could believe them to be the same story. But what about Isaiah 53? A Jewish person would tell you that the prophecy refers not to the messiah (do you see it mention the messiah anywhere?), but to the Nation of Israel. It actually starts at 52:13, according to the divisions used prior to the christian chapter/verse scheme. But suppose you want to interpret this passage to mean the messiah. And suppose you had a potential messiah such as Jesus who ended up dying before being able to establish the new, sovereign Israel. How many details would need to be added to his life to make it match Isaiah 53? The gospel writers were obviously aware of the prophecies and ofter referred to them as they recounted Jesus fulfilling them. Would it be much of a stretch to add a rich man into the story (from out of nowhere) called Joseph of Arimathea to fulfill verse 9? Does it matter that the first part of that verse doesn't match? (Jesus was not buried with criminals). Would it be much of a stretch to add Jesus being silent before his accusers (Mt 27:12) to fulfill verse 7 even though this is in contrast to the many times he answered his accusers in other passages? Would it be a stretch to say that Jesus was wounded for the transgressions of others? (to fulfill verse 5) No, that is just an interpretation.... easy to add. Did Jesus really make intercession for his persecutors to fulfill verse 12? Or is Luke 23:34 just a creation? In the end, I would say that Isaiah 53 was a passage that almost matched the life of Jesus, so the details were filled in by the gospel authors to make it more "clear". The author's awareness of these prophecies and desire to show them as fulfilled is clear their writings.