Fulfilled Prophecies from Isaiah

[StewartP]

With all due respect Stew, but what makes you an authority on the gospels that you don't even believe in to claim that they were embellished. Not every single passage has a prophecy attached to it. And Jesus was born in Nazareth which would appropriately align Him as a baby as a Nazarene. The prophecy that was fulfilled was that Christ was born. Later to be called Jesus of Nazareth. When it was time, Jesus did preach to gentiles as well.

I was referring to:

Matthew 2:23

and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."

Matthew is saying it was to fulfill a prophesy. But there is no such prophesy in the OT. Thus I conclude Matthew took a scattergun approach to prophesy regarding Jesus

Are you claiming that Herod did not kill all the male babies?

No, I believe that this account is only in Matthews's Gospel and not the others because Matthew has taken the Romulus and Remus myth and added it in.

It all takes us back to your original Post about fulfilled Isaiah prophesies in the Gospels. If you are a Christian then it is a wonderful affirmation of the Word of God.

However just 2 of many examples to me indicate that there are many fulfilled prophesies because:

a: The OT is CHOCK FULL of prophesies. Some will come to pass because there are just so many. We count the hits and ignore the misses.

b: Many prophesies are not. For example in John's gospel he says that jesus legs were not broken to fulfill a prophesy. But the wholness of the Passover lamb isn't a prophesy, it's a correlation.

c: The Gospel writers added stuff to make Jesus a more credible Messiah.

[cjrose]

With all due respect Stew, but what makes you an authority on the gospels that you don't even believe in to claim that they were embellished. Not every single passage has a prophecy attached to it. And Jesus was born in Nazareth (corrected below) which would appropriately align Him as a baby as a Nazarene. The prophecy that was fulfilled was that Christ was born. Later to be called Jesus of Nazareth. When it was time, Jesus did preach to gentiles as well.

I was referring to:

Matthew 2:23

and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."

Matthew is saying it was to fulfill a prophesy. But there is no such prophesy in the OT. Thus I conclude Matthew took a scattergun approach to prophesy regarding Jesus

Are you claiming that Herod did not kill all the male babies?

No, I believe that this account is only in Matthews's Gospel and not the others because Matthew has taken the Romulus and Remus myth and added it in.

It all takes us back to your original Post about fulfilled Isaiah prophesies in the Gospels. If you are a Christian then it is a wonderful affirmation of the Word of God.

However just 2 of many examples to me indicate that there are many fulfilled prophesies because:

a: The OT is CHOCK FULL of prophesies. Some will come to pass because there are just so many. We count the hits and ignore the misses.

b: Many prophesies are not. For example in John's gospel he says that jesus legs were not broken to fulfill a prophesy. But the wholness of the Passover lamb isn't a prophesy, it's a correlation.

c: The Gospel writers added stuff to make Jesus a more credible Messiah.

I know which passage in Matthew you referred to and I believe I answered it appropriately. Christs birth was fulfilled and Jesus was called Jesus of Nazareth.

Matthew

Firstly, Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea and it wasn't until later that the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream to take the child to Israel and after Herod's death, Archelaus, Herod's son was reigning over Judea, Joesph again warned by a dream , he turned aside into the region of

Galilee and came to dwell in a city called Nazareth. The fulfillment of prophecy was not that Jesus would not be born in Nazarene but would be called Jesus of Nazareth, therefore, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, "He shall be called a Nazarene."

Though the author of this gospel is unnamed, the early church consistently considered it to be the work of the apostle Matthew (also known as Levi). Though a Jew by birth, his duties as a Roman tax collector would have made fluency in Greek necessary as a complement to his Aramiaic. Recent literary critics have argued that the writer of Matthew used Mark as his source. However, the early church, together with many evangelical scholars through the generations, has argued for the priority of Matthew.

The evidence for the date of Matthew is inconclusive. Because the book was written primarily to the Jews, many scholars feel it was written before the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. The purpose of the Book of Matthew is the author sought to show that the Messiah, whom the prophets predicted in the Old Testament, had come in the Person of Jesus.

The Gospel of Matthew, though one of four accounts covering the life and ministry of Jesus, was written especially for the Jews, who knew the OT prophecies. The promised kingdom was first offered to them, and they were foremost among those responsible for spreading the Good News. Matthew is the bridge between the OT and the NT. It contains more than 50 direct quotations from the Old Testament more than the other three gospels combined, as well as many other affirming statements such as "you have heard", "it is written," and "that which is spoken."

The major theme is that what the OT foretolds about the Mesiah has been fulfilled in Jesus, and thus the book pays detailed attention to the lineage of Christ. Because the lineage of royalty was important to the Jews, Matthew traced Jesus not only to Abraham, the father of the Jews, but also to the kingly lineage of David.

Matt. 2-1: The account of the Magi is found only in Matthew, the book that presents Jesus as the Jewish King. The "wise men" [Gk. magoi] were magicians or astrologers. They probably came from Persia or Babylon (where wise men were part of a priestly order). Historians had predicted a world ruler from Judea at this time. The belief that a phenomenon of stars announced the special births was widely held. The manmes of the wise men were not given, but three gifts are mentioned: gold, associated with royalty; frankincense, a costly incense; and myrrh, a prized perfume.

These men viewed the phenomenon of stars at the time of Jesus' birth in a distant land, and years to reach Judea. The wise men came to the house not the stable and saw the child, not the baby. The chief priests and scribes were the ones watching for this event for hundreds of years. Scribes practiced the highly prized skill of writing nd specialized in copying official records. Scripture, and commentaries on Scripture. They had developed additional laws and traditios first to explain Scripture and ultimately to be obeyed as Scripture. For them Jesus did not qualify as the Messiah because He did not fit these new laws and traditions. They were numbered among the chief opponents to the One about whom Scripture sopoke.

Matt. 2-16: Herod the Great built the temple in Jerusalem and also completed various palaces and numerous public works projects. His love for power and heavy taxation pleased Rome but alienated the Jews. A man of terrible paranoia, he did not hesistate to eliminate anyone who might threaten his position. Slaughtering a group of Jewish toddlers in a small town would have been typical of Herod.

So as you see, Herod was not as significant as he is mentioned only in Matthew. And it makes sense to me that someone in such high power who is threatened would do anything, even the slaughter of Jewish toddlers, to keep his place for you see because of this even Herod showed some faith that if this child was born, it would directly affect him.

[StewartP]

Christs birth was fulfilled and Jesus was called Jesus of Nazareth.

Very well. Which is the specific OT prophesy that states "He shall be called a Nazarene."

Matthew 2:23 (NIV)

and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."

Note that he uses the plural. This was apparantly said by more than 1 prophet.

I tried a search on BibleGateway.com and cannot find any OT reference.

The point is that Matthew makes stuff up.

We have here a claimed prophesy not that does not exist. I am NOT saying Jesus was not born/lived in Nazareth.

I am saying there is no such prophesy in the OT.

Where did Matthew get it from?

How can we be sure that Matthew's source for this prophesy was "God breathed"?

Let's look at another bit of cherry-picking by Matthew:

Matthew 1: 21. The virgin birth. Matthew claims it is to fullfil Isaiah7:14 "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."

We will ignore the issues of translation of the word "virgin" or that Jesus was never called Immanuel.

I want to point out that prophesy fulfillment from Isaiah is cherry-picking because there is so much of it.

This same child, Immanuel, according to the next verse in Isaiah -

"But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste."

"In that day" Isaiah writes, meaning, sometime during the lifetime of the boy Immanuel - "In that day the LORD will whistle for flies from the distant streams of Egypt and for bees from the land of Assyria. 19 They will all come and settle in the steep ravines and in the crevices in the rocks, on all the thornbushes and at all the water holes. 20 In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the River

[Openly Curious]

There are many instances in the Gospels when Jesus does something or says something and the writer adds "This was done to fullfil the prophesy...." And yet there is no equivalent prophesy in the OT.

Example Matthew 2:23 ""He shall be called a Nazarene." This prophesy does not exist.

Matthew was writing his gospel some 70 years after the birth of Jesus. He was convinced Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah, and so added things to his Gospel to support that view. It is thought too, that as Matthew was writing for a Roman, gentile audience, he embillished his gospel with details that would appeal to them, like virgin birth, guiding star, Herod killing the male babies.

Another example of Matthew "making stuff up" are in the details he gives about the crucifiction and resurrection of Jesus. In Matthew there is an earthquake, and dead people coming alive again out of their tombs and wandering around the city.

It says in Matthew 2:23- that Jesus went and dwelt in Nazereth meaning he left his parents and took up residence in the town of Nazereth he started living in this place. And over time he had gotten to be known as Jesus of Nazereth and naturally the people would come to call him a Nazarene when someone was addressing him in conversation. This is no different from Tom from Alaska or Tom the Alaskian or Sue a South Carolinian or Sue from Columbia. If you are dwelling someone you will be linked to that place which was the case in this verse as you can see in John 1:45 Jesus being referred to Nazereth and he was a Nazerene.

John 1:45--"Philip findeth Nathanael and saith unto him We have found him of whom Moses in the law and the prophets did write Jesus of Nazereth the son of Joseph."

Genesis 3:15--"And I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed it shall bruise thy head and thou shall bruise his heel."

Genesis 49:10-11--"The sceptre shall not depart from Judah nor a lawgiver from between his feet until Shiloh come and unto him shall the gathering of the people be. Binding his foal unto the vine and his ass's colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine and his clothes in the blood of grapes."

Isaiah 7:14--"Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel."

Micah 5:2; Zech 6:12

OC

[Floatingaxe]

Another example of Matthew "making stuff up" are in the details he gives about the crucifiction and resurrection of Jesus. In Matthew there is an earthquake, and dead people coming alive again out of their tombs and wandering around the city.

How do you know it was made up?

It happened. The Word is true.

Re: Jesus being a Nazarene, fulfilling prophecy: Matthew recorded that Jesus fulfilled the spoken prophetic word from the prophets old. Many things would have been handed down by word of mouth, as was tradition.

Matthew 2:23

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

[cjrose]

As I stated, Matthew is the bridge between the Old Testament and the New Testament and contains more than 50 direct quotations from the Old Testament which is more than the other three gospels combined.

The major theme of Matthew is what the Old Testament foretold about the Messiah has been fulfilled in Jesus and thus the book pays detailed attention to the lineage of Christ. Because the book of Matthew was directed towards the Jews, lineage of royalty was important to them.

The gospel of Mark is usually uniquely associated with Rome where a sizable Christian community was located. Mark wanted to tell the Good News of Jesus . Unlike the gospels of Matthew and Luke, which begin with Jesus' birth, or John, which opens with the presentation of the pre-incarnate Christ, the Gospel of Mark begins with Jesus' ministry. Essentially evangelistic, the events and teachings of Mark present the Cross and Resurrection as central.

Mark was written primarily for Gentiles, especially Roman believers. Unlike the Gospel of Matthew, written especially for Jewish readers, few references to the Old Testament appeare in Mark. The prominance given to the persecution and martydom would also hae appealed to the Roman Christians who had suffered greatly under Nero and other emperors.

So, as you see, each gospel has a purpose, is different as they are written for different audiences and yet all speak of the Good News and preach of Jesus as the Son of God who came here in the flesh, was cruicified, died on the cross, and was resurrected. Each book is filled with the miracles Jesus performed, the messages Jesus preached to multitudes as parables so His word can be understood and sometimes not understood. But always a message.

Matthew is different because it is more as I see it, chroniological, technical written specicially to reach a specific audience and to get so hung up on one small part of a much larger picture, perplexes me. Believers understand and accept. That's the plain truth of it.

[Hypathia]

Actually I'm not "hung up" on the mistranslation of the word "virgin" (I do believe it was a mistranslation on the part of whoever authored the book of Matthew) but to get hung up on that point is like not seeing the forrest for the trees. Go back and reread my post, with your bible open to follow along.

The thing that I find most important is that the prophesy occurs in chapter seven but the fullfillment of that prophesy occurs in chapter 8 but Christians miss that part; I think we're taught to miss it to be quite frank. Let me repost the last part of what I wrote; this is very significant.:

In addition to this is the problem that the prophecy was framed in such a way that for it to be true, it would need to occur in the time of King Ahaz. Lastly, we see that the child is indeed born during Ahaz's time as chapter 8 shows us.Far from being a prophecy of a virgin birth, we find a regular pregnancy some 700 years prior to the birth of Jesus and that this

[billie]

How can one be both author and translator?

[cjrose]

Actually I'm not "hung up" on the mistranslation of the word "virgin" (I do believe it was a mistranslation on the part of whoever authored the book of Matthew) but to get hung up on that point is like not seeing the forrest for the trees. Go back and reread my post, with your bible open to follow along.

The thing that I find most important is that the prophesy occurs in chapter seven but the fullfillment of that prophesy occurs in chapter 8 but Christians miss that part; I think we're taught to miss it to be quite frank. Let me repost the last part of what I wrote; this is very significant.:

In addition to this is the problem that the prophecy was framed in such a way that for it to be true, it would need to occur in the time of King Ahaz. Lastly, we see that the child is indeed born during Ahaz's time as chapter 8 shows us.Far from being a prophecy of a virgin birth, we find a regular pregnancy some 700 years prior to the birth of Jesus and that this

[cjrose]

c: The Gospel writers added stuff to make Jesus a more credible Messiah.

Jesus didn't need anyone to make Him look more credible. He is credible all on His own. All He wants is for us to come to Him and be filled with His abundant love and His gifts we are so undeserving of. God sent Jesus in the flesh to the world so that we can be saved and that salvation is a gift by our own choice to be His child by accepting the Truth.

How can you be so absolutely positively sure that "stuff" was added? And another perspective, if "stuff" was added, why can't you believe that God has control and allowed it to be added for His benefit? You can't answer these questions anymore than I can. And you are focused on what's wrong with God's Word, you're distracted from what is right and true of God's Word. That leads to disbelief, separation, rejection of His love.

It could then become a downward spiral of discouragement, disillusionment and then disinterest (stop caring)

Disbelief can filter out Gods love, care, revelation and empowerment. Choose God's plan. He can reverse that downward spiral. "I do believe; help my disbelief!"

Peace