Bible Rejecter’s Question: Messianic prophecies or wishful thinking?
Bible Rejecter’s Question: Part A)
Referring to Herod's murder of the children of Bethlehem Matt.2:17-18 says "Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by the prophet, Rachel weeping for her children ...because they are not." This is taken from the Book of Jeremiah and seems like an impressive prediction. However, the next line in Jer.31: 15-17 says "Thus saith the Lord [to Rachel] refrain thy voice from weeping, thy children shall COME AGAIN TO THEIR BORDER...they shall come again from the land of the enemy". How could dead children return to their borders? The "prophecy" refers to children taken into exile in the Old Testament, not the children of Bethlehem. The "Weeping Rachel" cannot be Rachel the mother of some of the Tribes of Israel because Gen.29:35 shows that Leah not her sister Rachel was the female ancestor of the inhabitants of Bethlehem
Bible Believer: What Brian doesn’t get here is that all the prophecies about Jesus’ life aren’t like clues in a children’s board game. When God speaks, His words can have fulfilment in the past, present and future and can have a literal, historical, practical and doctrinal application all at the same time.
Matthew’s gospel emphasises that the history of the Jewish nation as a whole was a prophecy of Jesus’ life. The Jeremiah passage does refer to Rachel weeping for those taken into exile, Matthew is not trying to deny this! His point is that just as the then mothers in Israel/Rachel were weeping for those taken into exile, so did the mothers in Israel in Herod’s time weep for their dead children. And just as the children returned again to their borders (Israel) so did Christ come back from Egypt. The fact that there are different details between the New Testament incident and the Old Testament passage it points back to means nothing! Jonah’s body was in the belly of a WHALE not a TOMB for 3 days, but the similar detail of 3 days means it was a “sign of things to come”, a PROPHECY (Matt 12:39-40).
It’s called a FORESHADOWING. Any unbiased person can see that Matthew’s interpretation of the Jeremiah passage and assertion that the verse would find fulfilment in Jesus life as well as Israel’s history is completely honest and legitimate.
The fact that Rachel is not the mother of the inhabitants of Bethlehem matters nothing and Matthew was not claiming this. It is probable that Jer 31:15-17 is not literally referring to Jacob’s wife Rachel (who was long dead) but rather using the name Rachel to describe Jacob’s female descendants (the women of Israel) just like the name Jacob/Israel in the singular refers to the Jews, Jacob’s descendants (not the actual man himself) in countless Bible passages (see Jer 30:10). Also there almost certainly were inhabitants of Bethlehem descended from Rachel, not everyone who lived in Bethlehem in those days were from the tribe of Judah. And the massacre wasn’t only restricted to Bethlehem, but also “all the coasts thereof”.
Bible Rejecter’s Question: Part B) Out of Egypt
Matt 2:15 says “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying “Out of Egypt have I called my son”. But the “prophet” actually said in Hosea 11:1 “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt”. The author of Matthew left out the first part of the verse because it destroys his “prophecy”! Exod 4:22 says “Thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first born” reinforcing the fact that the “son” referred to is Israel, not Jesus.
Bible Believer: Again Brian is misunderstanding the point completely. Matthew left out the first part of the verse because only the SECOND PART was fulfilled in the event he is currently describing in chapter 2 (Jesus coming out of Egypt). Matthew is not trying to say Hosea 11:1 is ONLY about Jesus’ future coming out of Egypt and this baseless assumption is what causes Brian to lose track straightaway.
The point is that God speaks about calling HIS “SON” out of “EGYPT” when he was a “CHILD” in Hosea. His “son” is indeed referring to Israel in the context. However the verse had a future fulfilment too because God again called HIS literal SON (Jesus Christ) out of EGYPT when He was a CHILD in Matthew chapter 2! Hosea 2:11 and the calling out of Egypt of Israel in their YOUTHFUL days as a nation can most certainly be seen to be a prophecy of the childhood of God’s only begotten SON. God even makes it easier for us by using the terms SON and CHILD in the Old Testament for Israel whenever He speaks of them going through something that Jesus (His Son) would go through as a child! This is the prophecy that Matthew is explaining.
Bible Rejecter’s Question: Part C)
Gen 49:10 "The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come". But the sceptre DID depart from Judah, 588 years before the birth of Jesus (2 Kings 25:5-8). The last king from the Tribe of Judah, Zedekiah, was taken captive by Nebuchadenezzar. Thus there were 600 years prior to the birth of Christ, during which the sceptre of leadership had departed from the Tribe of Judah. Again, the "prophecy" cannot apply to Jesus. In addition verse 12 says of Shiloh (Jesus?) that, “His eyes shall be red with wine”! Can this be applied to Jesus? (Prov 23:29).
Bible Believer: First off, Brian writes on the premise that the sceptre is the symbol of ‘literal leadership’ rather than the ‘right of leadership’ but subsequent Jewish history from Gen 49:22 suggests that the sceptre represents the ‘right of leadership’. After Jacob gave this promise (Gen 49:10) there wasn’t a leader that came from the tribe of Judah for hundreds of years. Before David Israel had no leader from the tribe of Judah. Its first leaders were Moses (of the tribe of Levi) then Joshua (Ephraim) then the Judges (from various tribes) and then King Saul of the tribe of Benjamin.
Secondly Brian writes on the premise that the sceptre is the symbol of ‘kingship’ rather than ‘leadership’ when he makes the claim that the last King from the tribe of Judah was carried to Babylon 588 years before Jesus. There is no basis whatsoever for this premise, and Brian fails to give historical evidence in his booklet that leadership had departed from Judah. After Zedekiah there were governors from the tribe of Judah such as Zerubbabel and Gedaliah. And the Sanhedrin (“lawgivers”) consisted mainly of the tribe of Judah and were always led by someone from that tribe.
Lastly even a superficial reading of the passage under discussion in Genesis 49 will show that it is one of figurative prophecy. It is highly doubtful that verse 12 refers to literal wine. The “wine” more likely refers to its Biblical figurative meaning of God’s wrath (see Jer 25) and this matches perfectly with the prophecies of Christ’s second coming in the New Testament (Rev 19:15).
Bible Rejecter’s Question: Part D)
The Suffering Servant of Isaiah
1.Isa.52:15 says "Kings shall shut their mouths at him". But when did this happen to Jesus? Pilate, King Herod and the chief priests all spoke with Jesus. 2. Isa.53:7 says "He was oppressed...yet he opened not his mouth ". How can this be applied to Jesus? It directly contradicts John 18:21-23 and 33-37 and Matt.27:46 which show that Jesus not only opened his mouth, but presented a clever verbal defence before Pilate and the priests. He also spoke on the cross. 3. Isa.53:9 says "He made his grave with the wicked and with the rich in his death ". But this is a reversal of what happened to Jesus. Christ made his GRAVE with the RICH [actually he wasn’t with anyone; Jesus was the first to be placed in the tomb (Luke 23:53) as it was brand new (Matt 27:60)] by being buried in the sepulchre of the rich Joseph of Arimathaea, and was with the wicked, the crucified thieves, in his death. 4. Isa.53:3-7 "He WAS despised", "he HAS borne", "he WAS wounded", "he WAS bruised" and "he WAS afflicted". These are all past tense, showing reference to that which already happened. Only by playing with words in a very dishonest fashion can this be turned unto a prophecy about the future. 5. Isa 53: 9 says “Because he had done no violence”. But Jesus committed violent acts in John 2:15 and Mark 11:15. He might have been right but he was still violent; the prophecy can hardly refer to Jesus. 6. Isa.53:12 "Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great and he shall divide the spoil with the strong ". But when did Jesus ever divide a portion with the great or spoil with the strong? Would a perfect being ever gain spoils, much less divide them? Clearly the "prophecy" cannot apply to Jesus.
Bible Believer: Firstly Isa 52:15 speaks of Christ’s second coming when He takes over all the kingdoms of the world (Rev 1:7,11:15) and many kings will certainly shut their mouths at Him. And secondly, Jesus didn’t open his mouth when He was “OPPRESSED”. None of the gospels record Jesus saying anything while he gets the nails driven into His flesh or the crown of thorns beaten into His head or when He is spat on and hit or when He is scourged by Pilate or when He is mocked. Thirdly, Isaiah 53:9 says “he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death”. In other words Jesus was buried with the rich and wicked, AFTER He died. Jesus was both with (there were other tombs in the garden) and without (he was alone in his tomb) other dead folk in His death just like dead people in graves today that are buried in graveyards are both with and without other dead people in their physical place of rest. Fourthly, when Brian makes his “past tense” argument he is just plain fooling around. John 12:41 tells us that Isaiah saw Jesus life in a vision. Isaiah 53 is about a revelation; a report (see verse 1) given (past tense) to Isaiah. Isaiah then, has to describe what he saw in this “vision of the future” in the past tense because he SAW (past tense) it! That is not complicated. This revelation Isaiah received was to be fulfilled in the future “He SHALL grow up”, “when we SHALL see him” (verse 2). God sums up the chapter by saying that all these sufferings are for the future “he SHALL bear their iniquities” (verse 11).
On Brian’s fifth point, the first half of the sentence in Isa 53:9 tells us that Jesus had an honourable burial (with the rich), which was because he had done no violence. The verse clearly refers to the fact that Jesus was executed for something other than a violent act and is not referring to His life in general as being completely free from violence. Besides, in God’s eyes an act is only “violent” when it is wrong (Luke 3:14). And lastly, Jesus will fight a war at the battle of Armageddon and will inherit the whole earth (spoil). Jesus taking the earth, after a war with its wicked rulers is not something a perfect being couldn’t accomplish. Overall, part d) has been an incredibly desperate and flimsy attempt by Brian to discredit a clear and obvious Old Testament prediction of Jesus’ life.
Bible Rejecter’s Question: Part E)
Daniel’s Seventy Weeks
Dan 9:25-26 says “From the Going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven WEEKS, and threescore and two WEEKS [69 weeks]: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times. And after threescore and two WEEKS [62 weeks] shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself, and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary and the end thereof shall be with a flood.” Not only can this “prophecy” not apply to Jesus but it is further proof (see page 15) that he was not the Messiah.
To make this “prophecy” applicable to Jesus, Christians have turned each week
into seven YEARS rather than days, making a total of 483 (69x7) years. There is
no justification for this and when people try to turn the seven days of creation
into seven “periods of years” Christians say the very thing i.e., that’s not
what the Bible says. The rest of Daniel shows this very clearly: Dan 10:3 says
“I Daniel was mourning three full weeks” (was he mourning 21 years?), Dan 10:3
says “I ate no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine in my mouth… till
three full weeks were fulfilled” (he ate nothing for 21 years?!?) and Dan 10:4
says “In the four and twentieth day of the first month”; would he talk about the
24th day after just talking about 21 days (3 weeks), if these 3 weeks
meant anything other than 21 days?
2. The words “week” and “weeks” come from the same Hebrew word that means 7 normal days. Says one thing but means another again?!?
3. How could Dan 9:26 say that the Messiah would be cut off 62 weeks after the decree when Dan 9:25 just said that he would not appear until 69 weeks after the Decree was issued?
4. When did Jesus’ people destroy Jerusalem and the sanctuary? Why would Jews or Christians destroy God’s Temple? When was Jerusalem destroyed with a flood?
5. After 434 “years” the Messiah would be cut off. 434 years after Cyrus’ decree in 536 BCE (Isa 44:28, 2Chron 36:22-23 and Ezra 1:1-4)? Jesus supposedly died between 27 and 33 CE. That’s 569 years (536+Jesus’ 33 years) years from the decree to the Crucifixion minus 434 years = over 100 years short. Even if you dishonestly change the very words on the page to suit yourself (turning weeks into years) the “prophecy” still doesn’t work!
1. There IS indeed justification to turn the weeks into sets of seven years. But this has nothing to do with the creation events described in Gen 1, The Bible never means anything other than 24 hour days when it says “days”. The Bible however can mean either a set of seven “years” or a set of seven “days” when it uses the term WEEKS.
2. The Hebrew word used in the Old Testament translated “week” can mean seven YEARS. Brian is wrong. This is plainly demonstrated in Gen 29:20-30 where Jacob has to work two sets of seven YEARS for Laban, and the Bible calls each a “week”. Daniel 9 doesn’t specify whether we are supposed to take the term “weeks” to be sets of seven days or sets of seven years. Well, nobody claiming to be the Messiah came 483 days after the commandment to restore Jerusalem so if “weeks” in Dan 9 meant seven days the Bible has to be discredited. However someone did come 483 YEARS after, who made a claim to be Messiah, He was even born in the right place, fulfilled all the prophecies, met all the criteria, and suffered and died as prophesied. His faith was spread and changed the world. Can Christians really be faulted for going with the 483 years interpretation? Also Brian is wasting his ink going through the rest of Daniel’s usage of the term weeks. In all these instances Daniel is speaking in normal, everyday language about everyday things. In Daniel nine Daniel is not even speaking! An ANGEL from heaven is speaking and revealing to him a complex prediction of the future.
3. Daniel 9:26 Verse 26 is NOT speaking of 62 weeks after THE DECREE but rather 62 weeks after the “7 weeks” of verse 25, these two numbers were already added in verse 25. So altogether it is still 69 weeks after the decree that the Messiah both appears in Jerusalem and is cut off.
4. Jesus’ people never destroyed the Temple and the flood didn’t come yet. Dan 9:26 says the people of the “prince that shall come” will destroy Jerusalem and the Temple after the Messiah had been killed. This requires a little background, Jesus came 69 weeks after the decree but Dan 9:24 said that it would be 70 weeks until ALL things were to be fulfilled and the beginning of Christ’s reign over the earth. Thus 7 more years (1 week) were left to fulfil after Jesus had come and died. According to Daniel and Revelation these are the 7 years when the Antichrist will have full power on the earth and these 7 years are known as “the Tribulation” (Mark 13:34). If the Jews had accepted Jesus then the final 7 years would’ve taken place right then and the millennial reign of Christ would have taken place from about 40 AD till 1040 AD. However the Jews rejected Jesus when He was on earth (Matt 23:37-39). The first century was actually meant to be the end of the world (Matt 22:2-10) but because of the Jew’s hardness God put things on hold (with regard to Daniel’s seventy weeks) until the fullness of the Gentiles is come, the end of the Church age (Luk 21:24). This interval is still taking place today. This interval “mystery” wasn’t revealed in the Old or New Testament until after Jesus’ ascension. It was revealed eventually to Paul (Rom 11:25) the apostle to the Gentiles and the book of Revelation explains how the final 7 years of Daniel’s prophecy will yet happen in the future. This is why in the Old Testament details about Christ’s first coming and second coming appear side by side as if they were meant to happen simultaneously (which they were if the Jews had gone along with God’s plan).
So back to Brian’s question, the destruction of Jerusalem by the people of the prince (an event set for the final 7 year period of Daniel’s prophecy or the “tribulation”) after Jesus’ death would’ve happened straightaway if the Jews had accepted Jesus. However since the tribulation is yet to happen so is Jerusalem’s destruction by the people of the prince. By the way Jesus is not the only prince in the Bible, Satan is also a “prince” (John 12:31). The “prince that shall come” after Jesus had been cut off is the Antichrist. Revelation explains further how that in the tribulation period Satan will cause a flood in an attempt to destroy a woman clothed with the sun, (Rev 12:1-16). This woman represents Israel and the Jews (Gen 37:1-10). A little study and Brian would not have needed to ask this question.
5. As we have already explained in number 3 above the Messiah was to come 483 years (69 weeks) after the decree not 434 years (62 weeks) as Brian claims here. The 62 weeks (434 years) referred to in Dan 9:26 are 62 weeks (434 years) after THE FIRST 7 WEEKS (49 years) since the decree. There were four decrees made about Jerusalem after Daniel’s prophecy. Cyrus’ decree, which Brian speaks of, was in 536 BC but this decree was merely about building the Temple again (Ezra 1:1-4). The Messiah was to appear 483 years after the decree to build up the entire city of Jerusalem not the decree to build the Temple. The decree to build up the entire city was given by Artaxerxes in 444 BC and came exactly 483 years before Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem as Messiah in 33AD.
Bible Rejecter’s Question: Part F)
The Virgin Birth
Isa 7:14 says “Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”. This cannot refer to Jesus for several reasons.
1. Verse 7:15 says of the child “Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil and choose the good”. Col 2:9 says that the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Jesus bodily, yet here is an omniscient being has to eat butter and honey to learn the difference between good and evil!!! Since he is supposed to be God incarnate how can that be?
2. Verse 7:16 says “Before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land shall be forsaken of both her kings.” The whole chapter is addressed to King Ahaz. The birth under discussion is a sign to the king at a time when the Kingdom of Judah was threatened by a confederation of enemies from the north. The time frame of the child’s development is used as a chronological measurement. Before the time span would expire Judah’s current threat would dissipate. How much sense would it make for Ahaz to be concerned with a sign, supposedly the birth of Jesus, when that would not happen until centuries after the death of Ahaz? If the child is Jesus then where is the land and who are the kings referred to in the verse? 3. The Hebrew word used in this verse is “Almah” which means maid or damsel. If it always means virgin as Christians claim then why is this same word translated as damsel in Gen 34:3 to describe Dinah who has just been raped by Shechem?!? The Hebrew word for virgin is actually “Betulah” which the Hebrew Bible always uses in a legal context when precision is required as in Lev 21:3, Deut 22:19 and 22:28 ( in which both “Almah” and “Betulah” are used). In the Book of Isaiah itself the word “Betulah” appears four times (23:12, 37:22, 47:1 62:5) so the author was familiar with the word. According to Gesenius Hebrew-Chaldess Lexicon “Almah” means “ a youthful spouse recently married…the notion of unspotted virginity is not that which the word conveys.”
4. Jesus was never called Immanuel in the New Testament except in Matt 1:23 (and the author of Matthew’s speciality was turning the Old Testament into Messianic “prophecy”). Who calls him Immanuel Christ? No one! Matt 1:25 itself gives lie to Matt 1:23 as it says the child was called Jesus not Immanuel!
1. See the answer to “contradictions” nos. 9 and 10 in Section VI. The New Testament makes it plain that Jesus’ human nature needed to learn and grow like any other man (Luk 2:52) despite God dwelling in His body.
2 Yes, before the child (Jesus) reached the age of moral discernment, the land WAS forsaken of both her kings. It was forsaken of both her kings before He was even born. God included this statement in order to make Ahaz automatically think that this child would be born there and then, and the land would be forsaken of her kings before He grew. This was in order to communicate the immediacy of what was about to happen. But God DID NOT actually say that Immanuel would be born there and then. There was nobody born of a virgin in Ahaz’ time. God’s sign was to the whole tribe of David, not just Ahaz (see 7:13), from whence came Jesus 700 or so years later. If God actually told Ahaz when Immanuel would be born then Ahaz wouldn’t be concerned with the sign (as Brian says), instead He led Ahaz to conclude that the child would be born at that time (by not revealing when the child would be born), so that Ahaz would be concerned with the sign.
3. Brian is lying here! The word translated damsel in Gen 34:3 is “naarah” not “almah”. The word “almah” refers to a virgin on every occasion the word occurs in the Bible (see Gen 24:43, Song 1:3 and 6:8). Isaiah wasn’t speaking in a legal sense, he was talking about the actual person who possessed virginity rather than merely her virginity itself. He used the most precise term for a young UNMARRIED virgin. The word “betulah” is used to refer to a married woman in Joel 1:8. Brian unsurprisingly gives us a definition from a BIBLE REJECTER’S Hebrew dictionary. He attempts to convince us that this is the only authority on the word “almah” we have, which it obviously isn’t. According to a lot of other Hebrew dictionaries and most significantly the Apostle Matthew (a Hebrew) “almah” equals virgin. Besides what kind of a “sign” (see the whole of Isa 7:14) would it be for a “youthful spouse” to bear a child? This would be the farthest thing from a miracle!
4. Matthew 1:23 already gives us the answer. Immanuel means “God with us”. People obviously don’t call Jesus “Immanuel Christ” but they do and did call Him God, who came to live among us!
Bible Rejecter’s Question: Part G)
Birthplace of the Messiah
1. Micah 5:2 "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". But Micah 5:6 says of the same man "Thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian when he cometh into our land". When did Jesus save anyone from the Assyrians? The Assyrian Empire ceased to exist six hundred years before Jesus was born! The "prophecy" could not in all honesty be applied to Jesus.
2. When recounting the prophecy in Matt 2:5-6 the author drops the Ephratah part of the name because Bethlehem Ephratah refers to a man not the town of Bethlehem (1Chron 4:4, 2:50-51) and he did live at a time when the Assyrian Empire existed. The author “edited” the Old Testament to create a “prophecy” that was never there!
1. Jesus was to come twice, therefore not all the prophecies about him have taken place already. The verse says “thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian” not the Assyrian Empire. The Roman Empire ceased to exist over a thousand years ago, but there are still Romans around (people from Rome). The Turkish Empire collapsed in the 19th century but there are still Turks today. There are still Assyrians today too living in the Middle East.
2. This is almost too ridiculous to deserve an answer. Ephratah is just another name for the town of Bethlehem and is a PLACE (Gen 35:19,48:7, Ruth 1:2). The man that 1Chro 4:4 and 2:50-51 speak of was a son of Judah who would have lived around 1500 BC (the genealogy of 1Chro 4 goes right back to Judah). He was never even in the land of Israel and lived hundreds of years before any Assyrian Empire! Micah 5:2 is unquestionably referring to the town of Bethlehem! Matthew is absolutely correct.
Bible Rejecter’s Question: Part H)
Matt 2:23 says “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene”, but the words Nazareth or Nazarene are nowhere to be found in the Old Testament!
Bible Believer: Neither Nazareth nor Nazarene need appear in the Old Testament. Isaiah 9:1 revealed that Jesus would come from a town in Galilee beyond the Jordan river. Other prophets might have given extra details about Jesus’ hometown. Prophets may not have even written these things down but merely spoke them. Many extra Biblical traditions about the nature of the Messiah had been passed down from generation to generation. Some were true; some were not (see John 4:25 and 7:27).
Bible Rejecter’s Question: Part I)
Acts 1:16 says “Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was the guide to them that took Jesus”. Psalms 41:9 to which the author is referring says “Yea, mine own familiar friend in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heal against me.” But how could Jesus, being omniscient, have trusted Judas when he knew from the beginning that Judas would betray him? John 6:64 says that Jesus had foreknowledge of Judas’ betrayal, so how could he have trusted him? In addition the same speaker just five verses earlier in verse 4 says “…be merciful to me; heal my soul; for I have sinned against thee”. 1John 3:5 says that Jesus was not a sinner, how then can the “prophecy” of Psalms 41 be applied to Jesus?
Bible Believer: Brian’s misunderstanding of this prophecy follows the same pattern as A) and B) above. Brian again thinks that a New Testament author is trying to say an Old Testament passage is referring to events in Jesus’ life ALONE even though it is clearly relating events in someone else’s life too. Peter is speaking in the verse quoted above, it is certain that he knows well that Psalms 41 is written by David about David. He is not trying to say it isn’t about David as Brian assumes. The point Peter is trying to make is that Psalm 41:9 was fulfilled in David’s life but it was also a foreshadowing of what would happen in Jesus’ life. David is an important figure in Messianic prophecy, being born in Bethlehem, the first king of the messianic tribe of Judah, the one to whom God revealed most about the Messiah, the one whose throne God established forever, king in Jerusalem, father of the Messiah to come, a man after God’s own heart and so on. Peter says that David was betrayed, was inspired to write about it and so it was to happen to the Messiah his offspring. Jesus didn’t trust Judas (exact details don’t have to be the same) but the point was that just as David’s close friend betrayed him, so Jesus’ close friend betrayed Him. The scripture had a present and future fulfilment (see part a) above). Verse 4 is obviously not about Jesus but only David.
Bible Rejecter’s Conclusion on
As you can see from these few examples the much vaunted “messianic prophecies” are not nearly as impressive as Christians boast that they are. IN reality there is not one word in the Old Testament referring to Jesus in any way. The only way to prove this is whenever you find the words “that it might be fulfilled” or “which was spoken” turn to the Old Testament and find what was written and you’ll see that it has not the slightest reference to anything recounted in the New Testament. Amazingly given these facts, one of the most common responses by Christians to those who highlight problems in the Bible is that they are taking things “out of context”. If the phrase “taking things out of context” cannot be applied to the messianic prophecies of the Bible then the phrase has no meaning!
Bible Believer: Brian continues to ramble on from his mistaken assumption that every Bible verse can only have one superficial, shallow meaning just like any old book. Brian failed to realise that the New Testament authors are writing from the basis that scriptures can have multiple meanings and applications when studied because they are GOD’S words and that things in the Old Testament happened to show us things that would happen in the New Testament. There are literally hundreds of words that directly foreshadow and predict Jesus’ life in the Old Testament of which we can’t go into detail here. Christians rightly point out scoffers’ amazing tendency to take things out of context. Examples of Brian doing this can be seen throughout this page. We have seen that the New Testament authors were taking nothing out of context. They knew the context in which the verses were speaking; they were merely asserting another fulfilment for the verse outside of its immediate context, it’s called thinking outside the box and it’s the correct way to interpret scripture according to Jesus Himself (Matt 21:13, Mark 7:6).