Question for atheists

Hey guys, sorry for the confusion. I got suspended (at a bad time) for two days due to a minor offense unrelated to this thread.

 

Fair enough, although its easy to be accused of the opposite as well ("Why don't you back up your claims with sources?").

So since I listed a bunch of examples of prophecies fulfilled off the web why don't you choose one or several and give me a reason that it wasn't referring to Jesus.

 

Isaiah 7:14: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel

Allleged prophecy of virgin birth (claimed by Matthew 1:23)

1) Original Hebrew word in text for virgin is "Alma". Alma means young woman. Every other use of the word Alma is translated as young woman. Isaiah uses the word "bethula" which means virgin 4 times so he knows the difference between the words Alma and Bethula.

2) Never is Jesus anywhere referred to as Emmanuel - prophecy debunked.

3) Read all of Isaiah 7. The child in question is to be born as a sign to Ahaz, King of Judah, that he will not be defeated in battle by Rezin, King of Syria. In Isaiah 8:3-4, a prophetess gives birth to a son--Maher-shalal-hash-baz--who is clearly described as the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14

Not a messianic prophecy, not considered one by most Biblical scholars, Matthew misquoting Isaiah, Jesus never called Immanuel, child in question a sign to Ahaz, not the messiah.

Done.

Shall I do another one for you?

 

Another quickie before i go to bed:
"So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: 'Out of Egypt I called my son." Matthew 2:14
Errrr...no. Whole text of Hosea 11:1 - "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son." The "person" being called out of Egypt is Israel, not the messiah. Not a prophecy. Not a messianic prophecy.

 

I haven't fact checked this but assuming you are correct:
Almah does mean "young woman", however, in the anicent hebrew culture "young woman" was often assumed to mean "virgin". When the hebrew was first translated into greek before Christ was born they used the greek word "parthenos", meaning, specifically, virgin, which would suggest that they viewed it this way.

Emanuel means "God is with us". Therefore Jesus's coming in itself is emanuel, he doesn't need to be called that.

"And [the Lord] said: 'Listen now, oh house of david!...'"
The Lord was addressing both Ahaz and the House of David. The prophecy was given to the house of david.

Long story short: Israel, despite being the "chosen people" was pretty messed up. There was a strong hope for redemption and sort of a second chance, so to speak. The redemption of Israel was fulfilled in Christ. Notice also Exodus 4;22: Israel my son, my fistborn...

In all of these cases it is important to note that there is no conclusive evidence either way in any specific prophecy that I am aware of. In focusing on one individual prophecy, the main strength--the number of them-- can be taken away. But when we examine the hundreds of prophecies, the likely-hood of there being another more accurate explaination is significantly reduced. That being said, it is fairly insignificant to me whether or not you succeed in disproving selected individual prophecies.

 

Yes, you will believe what you want to believe no matter how implausible those beliefs are. The "more accurate explanation" is that apologists have trawled through every word of the OT, pulled out anything which seems to similar in anyway to the life of Jesus, proclaimed "look it was foretold!" when the alleged prophecies are nothing of the sort - not prophecies, not messianic prophies, too vague, no relevant context, misquotations, mistranslations and so on.

 

Let's not forget that many works of fiction can inspire us to deep thoughts. That doesn't make them true.

 

The "prophecy" stuff is also sad. Why isn't it obvious that the only thing it proves is that the authors of the New Testament read the Old Testament?

 

Neither are smarter than the other, as religion or being an atheist have no bearing on a persons intelligence. There are a multitude of reasons that make up why a person is or isn’t.

 

I don't disagree that the apologists new the old testament forwards and backwards, but the last part of your statement is a little bold for not having dissected and disproved every prophecy in the old testament.

There are other reasons to believe that Jesus fulfilled prophecies as well. For example, the Jews knew the scriptures very well and were on the alert for the Messiah (who they believed would free them from Rome), if Jesus had not matched the prophecies, He would not have had a following. Even His enemies had to disprove Him by killing Him, they couldn't find enough biblical evidence to prove Him false.
For another example, the Gospel writers recorded the fulfillments publicly. If they themselves had been lying, they would likely have been caught.
There are more reasons as well, but it will always be matter of faith. In the abstract, God isn't provable, nor is He disprovable. And I believe that the Bible is purposely written so as to have a choice of whether to believe. If it was too clear, faith would become a scientific fact and our free will would be in question, if it was too unclear it would not provide enough substance to have a significant following.

 

Oh please. Compared to the ancient world we live in the age of extremely advanced knowledge of our world and the access to that information is nearly universal. Despite that you get millions of people believing in flat earth, chemtrails, illuminati, alien abductions, horoscope, ... Elections around the world are won by demagogues who lie to and steal from their voters who absolutely love them regardless.

If the modern human is as fucking stupid as he is, I can't even imagine the depths of gullibility of an average 1st century person. The fact that some of them put their trust into supernatural claims by someone seeking influence over them means absolutely nothing. What's more likely? That superstitious idiots got duped by a made up story or that magic happened? The fact that I have to spell this out should be alarming.

Good that you admit that. In fact, that's how all "debates" like this should begin and end. "I believe because I want to" is a completely valid reason so why pretend that there's anything else. The nice bonus is that it doesn't insult the intelligence of the person you're talking to.

 

Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, and a hoard of others would probably find this statement amusing.

 

That's like saying Germans are smart because Einstein.

Btw Plato would probably get kicked out if he studied philosophy today since his arguments are filled with straw men and many prepubescent children understand physics better than Aristotle. Not to mention the fact that Israel in the times of Jesus was far behind classical Greece in terms of culture and civilization.

 

Well obviously I'm not saying everyone was smart back then, but it is equally absurd to generalize the whole 1st century generation.

Ehh Plato is still studied today. Sure some of his views on things like physics would be modified though.

 

They were caught and made to look a bit stupid, and its there in the bible for everyone to see - this is regarding Judas returning his 30 pieces of silver
Matthew 27:9-10 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
9 Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: “they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of the one whose price had been set by the sons of Israel; 10 they gave them for the Potter’s Field, as the Lord directed me.”

Problem is, there is no such story Jeremiah. There is a passage in Zechariah 11:12-13:
Zechariah 11:12-13 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
12 I said to them, “If it is good in your sight, give me my never mind!” So they weighed out thirty shekels of silver as my wages. 13 Then the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter, that magnificent price at which I was valued by them.” So I took the thirty shekels of silver and threw them to the potter in the house of the Lord.

Like the other stuff, the passage from Zech is not about the Messiah. It contains a reference to 30 pieces of silver - thats it. So, the writer of Matthew (you do know it was not written by the apostle Matthew right?) misquotes the scriptures, and even the passage he failed to reference correctly is completely irrelevant because it is not a prophecy, and certainly not a prephecy about the messiah.

Also note the differences between what Matthew quotes, and the actual passage in Zech that he is referring to. They are significantly different.

To summarise - 1) Matthew doesnt know where this "prophecy" comes from 2) he doesnt know the text of the passage and 3) the passage itself is irrelevant and not a messianic prophecy in the first place.

If this is the quality of alleged prophecies in the BIBLE for crying out loud then its no wonder that what modern apologists present is verging on laughable.

 

The text from Zech does not mention the "children of Israel" or the "field".
"And I said unto them, If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the LORD said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the LORD." (Zechariah 11:12-13)

Jeremy, on the other hand:
"And Jeremiah said, The word of the LORD came unto me, saying, Behold, Hanameel the son of Shallum thine uncle shall come unto thee, saying, Buy thee my field that is in Anathoth: for the right of redemption is thine to buy it. So Hanameel mine uncle's son came to me in the court of the prison according to the word of the LORD, and said unto me, Buy my field, I pray thee, that is in Anathoth, which is in the country of Benjamin: for the right of inheritance is thine, and the redemption is thine; buy it for thyself. Then I knew that this was the word of the LORD. And I bought the field of Hanameel my uncle's son, that was in Anathoth, and weighed him the money, even seventeen shekels of silver. And I subscribed the evidence, and sealed it, and took witnesses, and weighed him the money in the balances." (Jeremiah 32:6-10)

We don't know how many pieces of silver is equal to seventeen shekels. It may or may not have been thirty.
My Bible references me to both passages.

Another possibility is that the prophecy that mathew refers too was not written in the bible at all. Jews had very strong oral traditions and it is quite possible that they would have known the prophecy that mathew referenced. Notice that mathew says, "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet".

 

And so you think no, Matthew was correct, he was quoting Jeremiah 32:6-10 as the prophecy?

 

I think its a possibility as I said in my post.

 

It doesnt bother you that the quote from Matthew, apart from mentioning 17 sheckles and not 30 pieces, bears no resemblance whatsoever to Jeremiah 32:6-10?