Do you have any regard or belief in Messianic prophesy?

John 1720 · Mar 29, 2018

As a Christian I have always been humbled by the Passion of the Christ. When I was in the service and a long way from God our Chaplain spoke on a recent medal of honor recipient who gave his life for his brothers by covering an enemy grenade with his body. "Do you think his buddies will ever forget to honor him?" He then juxtaposed it with the story of Christ's passion from the Gospels, and included both Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 and opened my heart to the great sacrifice and love of Jesus for all sinners that finally brought me to my knees. I truly saw my lack of honor in not honoring what Christ did for me as a lost sinner. I also believe Psalm 22 is an especially powerful reminder of what the Lord was thinking and praying on the cross. Does it perhaps have the same impact and effect on you? What does Messianic prophesy mean to you as a believer, skeptic, or unbeliever in general? All responses positive and negative appreciated as I just want to gain a better understanding of how the general populace views Messianic prophesy. Using PS 22 as a starting baseline since it is one of the earliest OT prophesies on a suffering Messiah.
Jesus sufferings upon the cross
"Be not far from Me, for trouble is near and there is none to help. Many bulls have surrounded Me; Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled Me. They gape at Me with their mouths, Like a raging and roaring lion. I am poured out like water, and all My bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it has melted within Me. My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and My tongue clings to My jaws; You have brought Me to the dust of death. For dogs have surrounded Me and the congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me. They have pierced My hands and My feet; I can count all My bones. They look and stare at Me. They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.
The Lamb's prayer to the Father:
But You, O LORD, do not be far from Me; O My Strength, hasten to help Me! Deliver Me from the sword, My precious life from the power of the dog. Save Me from the lion’s mouth and from the horns of the wild oxen!
The Father did answer the Son and David also records this prophesy of his coming Christ/Messiah not only to Israel but all nations. This really mirrors Hebrews 12:2 "for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God." David also understands that the Son, His Christ would also complete the blessings of the nations given to Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob from Genesis. Genesis 12:1-3 ; Genesis 13:16 ; Genesis 15:5 ;
Genesis 17:6-7 ; Genesis 18:8 ; Genesis 22:17-18 ; Genesis 28:14 ; Psalms 2:7-8
You have answered Me. I will declare Your name to My brethren; In the midst of the assembly I will praise You. You who fear the LORD, praise Him! All you descendants of Jacob, glorify Him, and fear Him, all you offspring of Israel! For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; Nor has He hidden His face from Him. But when He cried to Him, He heard. My praise shall be of You in the great assembly; I will pay My vows before those who fear Him. The poor shall eat and be satisfied; Those who seek Him will praise the LORD. Let your heart live forever! All the ends of the world. Shall remember and turn to the LORD, And all the families of the nations shall worship before You. For the kingdom is the LORD’s, and He rules over the nations. All the prosperous of the earth shall eat and worship; All those who go down to the dust shall bow before Him, even he who cannot keep himself alive. A posterity shall serve Him. It will be recounted of the Lord to the next generation, They will come and declare His righteousness to a people yet to be born, it is He who has done this." - Psalm 22

I think the below is a faithful rendition of David's Psalm set to music if you'd rather not read it

gadar perets · Mar 31, 2018

Not only does the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy establish and strengthen my faith, but it is invaluable in establishing true doctrines. For example, Isaiah 53 not only teaches us of Yeshua's (Jesus') great sacrifice as he bore our sins and died for us, but it also teaches us that he is not YHWH who brought this plan of salvation to pass. Psalm 22 does the same. In verse 1, the Son cries out to his God who is YHWH (verses 8 & 19). That teaches us that the Son is not YHWH and that the Son is not the one true God. The one true God is Yeshua's God, his Father, Almighty YHWH as the Messianic prophecy of Psalm 2:7 teaches.

Silmarien · Mar 31, 2018

I'm more sympathetic to the concept of Messianic prophecy than I used to be, though I still have several concerns with it:

1. With the exception of the Crucifixion itself, it's impossible to really ascertain to what degree events in the Gospels were later inventions that worked their way into the oral histories because of how they would relate to prophecies instead of being genuine historical events.

2. Even if the Gospel accounts are reliable in this matter, it's very easy to retroactively read whatever you want into a prophecy so that it seems to be fulfilled (cf. Nostradamus). Creative reinterpretation of the original passages makes this an even bigger potential problem.

I haven't studied biblical prophecy as much as I'd like, but it's a very, very murky subject for me.

John 1720 · Apr 2, 2018

Silmarien said:
I'm more sympathetic to the concept of Messianic prophecy than I used to be, though I still have several concerns with it:

1. With the exception of the Crucifixion itself, it's impossible to really ascertain to what degree events in the Gospels were later inventions that worked their way into the oral histories because of how they would relate to prophecies instead of being genuine historical events.

2. Even if the Gospel accounts are reliable in this matter, it's very easy to retroactively read whatever you want into a prophecy so that it seems to be fulfilled (cf. Nostradamus). Creative reinterpretation of the original passages makes this an even bigger potential problem.

I haven't studied biblical prophecy as much as I'd like, but it's a very, very murky subject for me.

Hi Silmarien,
Thank you for responding to me on this new thread over the Easter weekend! When I read Nostradamus I really think they're quite a stretch. And yes I agree some modern day interpreters may be guilty of interpretation errors and realize not all prophesies are crystal clear. I'd even agree that one might believe in the probability that the apostles and scribes of the apostles sought to perhaps embellish or induce the fulfilment of OT prophecy into their testimony. But specific to Psalms 22, 53 and to a lesser extent 69 I think the text is tighter with respect to identifying Christ as the suffering servant. But I'd also like to address possible embellishments as well. Should we surmise that they are really a very likely hypothesis? That would mean that, more than likely, the apostles were motivated to deceive the populace, and aggrandize the crucifixion of Christ or as Tacticus, the Roman historian, calls Him "Christus". This naturally brings me to ask; to achieve exactly what motive? Motive combined with means can aid us with deducing the likely probability of something beling true or false. Now we know from external sources, who are either enemies of Christianity or simply non-Christians, hence no stakeholders in prophesy fulfillment with respect to Jesus, that He was indeed crucified as the NT also records. We also know partly from archeology and medical science how an individual suffered death by crucifixion as the two articles below detail and this also partly fulfills the prophesy.

The prophesy of Psalms 22 (no matter how you cut it) sounds an awful lot like what a crucified man would experience on a cross, even though it was written 700 years before crucifixion was even invented according to what we can trace historically. I think you were actually making that point if I discerned your response correctly.
14 I am poured out like water, and all My bones are out of joint;
My heart is like wax; it has melted within Me.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and My tongue clings to My jaws; You have brought Me to the dust of death.
16 For dogs have surrounded Me; the congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.
They pierced My hands and My feet;
17 I can count all My bones. they look and stare at Me.
18 They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.

In other words He was

pierced through both his hands and feet,
hung there naked,
gasped for breath,
became dehydrated,
till his heart exploded from the strain.

His congestive heart failure would also have produced both water and blood when a Roman soldier would have speared Christ's side as John adds in reporting His legs were not broken as the other 2 crucifixion victims experienced. So the portion of Psalms 22 above is very generic to crucifixion in and of itself and doesn't even really need Biblical support. I also think flexibility of interpretation leaves little room to see other than for what it is. However, one would be right in stating that the remainder of Psalm 22 and 53 depends on the integrity of apostolic testimony. That hypothesis is worth further consideration.

So I would say that the conjecture that apostolic writers and scribes of the apostle's purposefully deceived the masses in order to deceive and aggrandize the crucifixion may be a fairly weak conclusion to derive over other possibilities. I say this because historical traditions show us that early Christian testimony over the Gospel (For the love of God and humanity Jesus died for our sins and rose on the 3rd day) usually led directly to persecution and cruel deaths. Possibly all the apostles, with the notable exception of John, who died in Ephesus in modern day Turkey about the turn of the 2nd century, were executed for the transmission of the Gospel. Would they truly have desired to build up a cult following with the full knowledge that their testimony was built on fabricated lies and deceit? That would be rather strange knowing, as Jesus prophesied, that it would bring them persecution, sufferings and death and not money, worldly power and esteem. If one knows something is a lie you might propagate the lie for self gain but it is unlikely you would persist in propagating your testimony knowing it would definitely bring you persecution, suffering and even your eventual demise. Conversely many men and women, even children, have been willing to forego the risk of persecution and death for the truth, or what they believed to be the truth. Those two possibilities of motivation therefore make for a stronger conjecture. But again, I come back their accounts as being eyewitness events not imaginative accounts of prophesy to conveniently add up to fulfillment; for if they embellished their testimony then they would obviously also know they were lying. Hence they, unlike an ISIS zealot, could not have been deluded to its truth since they themselves both originated it as eyewitness account and believed it to be gospel truth. Do you see my point why I'm therefore left with the most probable conclusion is that the reason the authors, scribes and early disciple believed and were willing to suffer and die for their testimony is that they knew they were telling the truth.

Anyhow that my 2 sense worth on what is a more probable hypothesis with respect to Ps 22 & 53 trustworthiness as well as interpretational variances.
Sincerely, Pat

PS: I may be answering a question you didn't ask so apologize if I was overly verbose in my response. I just ant to add one more thing to the record regarding probabilities and motivations.
Telling the truth in the apostle's testimony was also a directive and a prayer recorded in the Gospel. In John chapter 17 John records Jesus' prayer for Himself, His Disciples, and us. The prayer for us - the late comers in the age of Divine mercy is actually my handle here on the forum John 17:20

Jhn 17:20 "I do not pray for these alone, (i.e. His apostle and disciples) but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; (their words happens to be recorded within the New Testament) that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, (the indwelling of the Holy Spirit comes only from repentance and trust in Christ) that the world may believe that You sent Me. (Every nation - the Greek word is ethne meaning every ethnic people will believe the Gospel)
I also believe this prayer is still being actively fulfilled which I also a prophesy that would have seemed unlikely 2000 years ago.
Mat 24:14 "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, (ethne') and then the end will come.
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.
So the Great Commission, a command from Christ to all Christians, was a directive or mandate to cover the entire planet with the testimony of the Gospel. The interpretation would seem clear and not prone to subjective reassessment but I also believe that holds true for Psalms 22 and Isaiah 53 as well - not a whole lot of room to spin it to fit one's preconceive jello mold. So the great Commission and its fulfillment is also prophesy and is still being fulfilled even as we speak. Statistically it may have seemed improbable that Jesus' prophesy would be fulfilled 1988 years ago when it was given to maybe 12 individuals. But here we are almost 2000 years later and we are now on the verge of having the Gospel in all the ethnic nation (ethne) of the eart (6500 languages). Our goal is to complete NT's in all languages by the year 2025. In addition we are penetrating almost every people group (every representative ethne' ethnic nation, who knows but in a dozen years we may be done! Our outreach in these later days happens to be expanding at an exponential rate so I personally believe we could reach every people group by the year 2030 tin order o fulfill Matthew 24:14 and 18-20.

John 1720 · Apr 2, 2018

In addition to my original question on this thread are there any other prophesies about Christ you find compelling?
Thanks, Pat

2PhiloVoid · Apr 2, 2018

Silmarien said:
I'm more sympathetic to the concept of Messianic prophecy than I used to be, though I still have several concerns with it:

1. With the exception of the Crucifixion itself, it's impossible to really ascertain to what degree events in the Gospels were later inventions that worked their way into the oral histories because of how they would relate to prophecies instead of being genuine historical events.

2. Even if the Gospel accounts are reliable in this matter, it's very easy to retroactively read whatever you want into a prophecy so that it seems to be fulfilled (cf. Nostradamus). Creative reinterpretation of the original passages makes this an even bigger potential problem.

I haven't studied biblical prophecy as much as I'd like, but it's a very, very murky subject for me.

Well......................................it wasn't murky for Pascal. If anything, it was kind of "misty" for him.

John 1720 · Apr 2, 2018

gadar perets said:
Not only does the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy establish and strengthen my faith, but it is invaluable in establishing true doctrines. For example, Isaiah 53 not only teaches us of Yeshua's (Jesus') great sacrifice as he bore our sins and died for us, but it also teaches us that he is not YHWH who brought this plan of salvation to pass. Psalm 22 does the same. In verse 1, the Son cries out to his God who is YHWH (verses 8 & 19). That teaches us that the Son is not YHWH and that the Son is not the one true God. The one true God is Yeshua's God, his Father, Almighty YHWH as the Messianic prophecy of Psalm 2:7 teaches.

Thank you for responding on the edification of Prophesy. Doctrine is probably another thread but tangentially I agree that Jesus is not the Father - that would be confusion. Present day Oneness theology or ancient Modalism makes and made that mistake but I will say the Trinity means something quite different than that. I also agree Jesus called His Father both Father and God. Christ used that term with His Father and expression twice, as recorded by the Gospels. The other instance where Jesus also called His Father "God" is below - it was after His resurrection while appearing first to Mary Magdalene.
Jhn 20:17 Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’
However that does not mean the Son of God is not part of the Godhead or should not be called God by us as well as Son of Man.

The Concept of God as Elohiym is as Old Testament as it gets. There is One God in three persons.
Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the
earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.
us being 'Elohiym
Gen 1:26
וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֔ים נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה אָדָ֛ם בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ וְיִרְדּוּ֩ בִדְגַ֨ת הַיָּ֜ם וּבְעֹ֣וף הַשָּׁמַ֗יִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה֙ וּבְכָל־הָאָ֔רֶץ וּבְכָל־הָרֶ֖מֶשׂ הָֽרֹמֵ֥שׂ עַל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
But of course we understand Jesus was with the Father and was God

The Eternal Word

(Gen. 1:1—2:3 )

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend

While the Godhead is both personified and unified, Christ being the exact image of the Father, there is distinction between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Note that it is nothing new and that Scripture clarifies that the Son, in the eternal sense as well as in the temporal sense, will always subject Himself to the Father.

1 Colossians 1:13-17

He (the Father) has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, (Christ) in whom we have redemption through His (Jesus) blood, the forgiveness of sins.
15 He (Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him (Christ) all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him (Christ) and for Him (Christ). 17 And He (the Son- the Word) is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He (Christ) is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He (Jesus) may have the preeminence.
Now the Son came to do the Will of the Father and not the Will of the Son. And the Son will come to reign but He will also turn the Kingdom over to the Father - which Paul alludes to in 1 Corinthians 15:27
if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.
The Last Enemy Destroyed
20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ’s at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He (Christ) must reign till He (the Father) has put all enemies under His (Christ) feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For “He has put all things under His feet.” But when He says “all things are put under Him,” it is evident that He (the Father) who put all things under Him (Christ) is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him (Christ) , then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him (the Father), that God may be all in all.

Probably should go to another thread if you want to carry on the discussion.
Thanks, Pat

Silmarien · Apr 2, 2018

John 1720 said:
But I'd also like to address possible embellishments as well. Should we surmise that they are really a very likely hypothesis? That would mean that, more than likely, the apostles were motivated to deceive the populace, and aggrandize the crucifixion of Christ or as Tacticus, the Roman historian, calls Him "Christus". This naturally brings me to ask; to achieve exactly what motive?

Well, there are a couple things that would need to be pointed out here.

1. The Gospels weren't written until at least 30-50 years after the events, which means we're dealing with oral traditions and not the actual accounts of the apostles. Legends do grow over time--you can see even further development with some of the early extra-biblical Christian literature. Embellishment to one degree or another is almost inevitable.

2. Eyewitness accounts are far from foolproof in the first place. Memories are changeable over time, so it's possible that the apostles began to remember things in a certain way because they were influenced by the belief that the old prophecies had to have been fulfilled.

John 1720 said:
So I would say that the conjecture that apostolic writers and scribes of the apostle's purposefully deceived the masses in order to deceive and aggrandize the crucifixion may be a fairly weak conclusion to derive over other possibilities. I say this because historical traditions show us that early Christian testimony over the Gospel (For the love of God and humanity Jesus died for our sins and rose on the 3rd day) usually led directly to persecution and cruel deaths. Possibly all the apostles, with the notable exception of John, who died in Ephesus in modern day Turkey about the turn of the 2nd century, were executed for the transmission of the Gospel. Would they truly have desired to build up a cult following with the full knowledge that their testimony was built on fabricated lies and deceit?

Well, this part I do agree with. Even setting aside the fact that we don't really have extra-Christian accounts of what happened to most of the apostles, Peter's story in particular I have trouble reconciling with someone who didn't actually undergo a transformative event, since he's not exactly depicted in a flattering light in the Gospel accounts.That would be a strange lie for the leader of a religious movement to tell about himself, and a strange story for his followers to start spreading of their own accord.

I'm on the conservative side when it comes to my assessment of the origins of Christianity. I do accept that the Crucifixion occurred and even that the apostles likely had some sort of experience that at the very least made them believe that the Resurrection had taken place. (Beyond that, I don't know. I'm not entirely sure what to make of miracle claims in general, of which there are many. Just look at the Catholic Church.)

But when it comes to the Messianic prophecies in specific, I think that there are only a couple that merit serious consideration at all--the ones potentially related to the Crucifixion. Even there, when it comes to the interpretation of ancient Jewish poetry, which is what the Psalms are, I would be very leery of saying anything at all without working knowledge of Hebrew and a proper understanding of the cultural context. The debate between Christians and Jews over this stuff is interesting, but I don't know enough to have an opinion one way or the other.

John 1720 · Apr 2, 2018

Silmarien said:
Well, there are a couple things that would need to be pointed out here.

1. The Gospels weren't written until at least 30-50 years after the events, which means we're dealing with oral traditions and not the actual accounts of the apostles. Legends do grow over time--you can see even further development with some of the early extra-biblical Christian literature. Embellishment to one degree or another is almost inevitable.

Hi Silmarien,
The Bombing of Pearl harbor occurred 76 years ago. At the 75th anniversary we heard from several eyewitnesses who were there.

Seems like their recall was like the attack just happened yesterday. That's not uncommon in periods of intensity. I would be the last to say the memory of one of the most intense periods of their life is defective.
That would beg the question as to why anyone would think that only 3 decades after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection there could not be eyewitness accounts. Why exactly should anyone believe that hypothesis?

Silmarien said:
2. Eyewitness accounts are far from foolproof in the first place. Memories are changeable over time, so it's possible that the apostles began to remember things in a certain way because they were influenced by the belief that the old prophecies had to have been fulfilled.

I can recall exactly where I was when I heard that JFK was shot and recount most of what I did and said before finding out he had died. I was merely 11 but can recount every detail of when it was announced over the school PA till I heard from my coach practice was canceled because he died. The same holds true for the men above. I'd be more inclined to believe their accounts then some reporter who happened to sketch out a report from December 8th 1941.

Silmarien said:
Well, this part I do agree with. Even setting aside the fact that we don't really have extra-Christian accounts of what happened to most of the apostles, Peter's story in particular I have trouble reconciling with someone who didn't actually undergo a transformative event, since he's not exactly depicted in a flattering light in the Gospel accounts. That would be a strange lie for the leader of a religious movement to tell about himself, and a strange story for his followers to start spreading of their own accord.

I'm on the conservative side when it comes to my assessment of the origins of Christianity. I do accept that the Crucifixion occurred and even that the apostles likely had some sort of experience that at the very least made them believe that the Resurrection had taken place. (Beyond that, I don't know. I'm not entirely sure what to make of miracle claims in general, of which there are many. Just look at the Catholic Church.)

But when it comes to the Messianic prophecies in specific, I think that there are only a couple that merit serious consideration at all--the ones potentially related to the Crucifixion. Even there, when it comes to the interpretation of ancient Jewish poetry, which is what the Psalms are, I would be very leery of saying anything at all without working knowledge of Hebrew and a proper understanding of the cultural context. The debate between Christians and Jews over this stuff is interesting, but I don't know enough to have an opinion one way or the other.

Don't know exactly what you are referring to or how to respond with regard to Peter, the orgin of Christianity. The Psalms are much more than some ancient Jewish poetry - that much I can answer.

Silmarien · Apr 2, 2018

John 1720 said:
That would beg the question as to why anyone would think that only 3 decades after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection there could not be eyewitness accounts. Why exactly should anyone believe that hypothesis?

That seems irrelevant. It doesn't really matter if eyewitnesses existed elsewhere if Mark were working off of the oral traditions of a particular Christian community.

John 1720 said:
I can recall exactly where I was when I heard that JFK was shot and recount most of what I did and said before finding out he had died. I was merely 11 but can recount every detail of when it was announced over the school PA till I heard from my coach practice was canceled because he died. The same holds true for the men above. I'd be more inclined to believe their accounts then some reporter who happened to sketch out a report from December 8th 1941.

This doesn't mean that your memory of it matches up perfectly with what actually happened. It's a well known fact that memory is malleable--this has serious ramifications for law enforcement. Eyewitness testimony can be contaminated, especially if considerable time has passed.

John 1720 said:
Don't know exactly what you are referring to or how to respond with regard to Peter, the orgin of Christianity. The Psalms are much more than some ancient Jewish poetry - that much I can answer.

My point isn't that they are "just" poetry, but that they're written in a style that makes them difficult both to interpret and to translate.

As for Peter and the origins of Christianity, I'm sympathetic to Christian claims. Just not because of the Messianic prophecies.

John 1720 · Apr 3, 2018

Silmarien said:
That seems irrelevant. It doesn't really matter if eyewitnesses existed elsewhere if Mark were working off of the oral traditions of a particular Christian community.

Hi Silmarien,
Where is the proof for your hypothesis that Mark was working off the oral traditions of a "particular" Christian community? My support that Mark directly worked with Peter is rather overwhelming and not irrelevant.

Extra Biblical Support that Mark was the scribe of Peter the Apostle and source for the Gospel called by his name said:
Papias said Mark scribed Peter’s teachings
Bishop Papias of Hierapolis (60-130AD) repeated the testimony of the old presbyters (disciples of the Apostles) who claimed Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome as he scribed the preaching of Peter (Ecclesiastical History Book 2 Chapter 15, Book 3 Chapter 30 and Book 6 Chapter 14). Papias wrote a five volume work entitled, “Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord”. In this treatise (which no longer exists), he quoted someone he identified as ‘the elder’, (most likely John the elder), a man who held considerable authority in Asia:

“And the elder used to say this, Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them.”

Irenaeus said Mark wrote his Gospel from Peter’s teaching
In his book, “Against Heresies” (Book 3 Chapter 1), Irenaeus (130-200AD) also reported Mark penned his Gospel as a scribe for Peter, adding the following detail:

“Matthew composed his gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel in Rome and founded the community. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed on his preaching to us in written form”

Justin identified Mark’s Gospel with Peter
Early Christian apologist, Justin Martyr, wrote “Dialogue with Trypho” (approximately 150AD) and included this interesting passage:

“It is said that he [Jesus] changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and it is written in his memoirs that he changed the names of others, two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means ‘sons of thunder’….”

Justin, therefore, identified a particular Gospel as the ‘memoir’ of Peter and said this memoir described the sons of Zebedee as the ‘sons of thunder’. Only Mark’s Gospel describes John and James in this way, so it is reasonable to assume that the Gospel of Mark is the memoir of Peter.

Clement said Mark recorded Peter’s Roman preaching
Clement of Alexandria (150-215AD) wrote a book entitled “Hypotyposeis” (Ecclesiastical History Book 2 Chapter 15). In this ancient book, Clement refers to a tradition handed down from the “elders from the beginning”:

“And so great a joy of light shone upon the minds of the hearers of Peter that they were not satisfied with merely a single hearing or with the unwritten teaching of the divine gospel, but with all sorts of entreaties they besought Mark, who was a follower of Peter and whose gospel is extant, to leave behind with them in writing a record of the teaching passed on to them orally; and they did not cease until they had prevailed upon the man and so became responsible for the Scripture for reading in the churches.”

Eusebius also wrote an additional detail (Ecclesiastical History Book 6 Chapter 14) related to Mark’s work with Peter:

“The Gospel according to Mark had this occasion. As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out. And having composed the Gospel he gave it to those who had requested it. When Peter learned of this, he neither directly forbade nor encouraged it.”

This additional piece of information related to Peter’s reaction to Mark’s work is important, because it demonstrates that Clement is not simply repeating the information first established by Papias, but seems to have an additional source that provided him with something more, and something slightly different than Papias.

Tertullian affirmed Peter’s influence on the Gospel of Mark
Early Christian theologian and apologist, Tertullian (160-225AD), wrote a book that refuted the theology and authority of Marcion. The book was appropriately called, “Against Marcion” and in Book 4 Chapter 5, he described the Gospel of Mark:

“While that [gospel] which Mark published may be affirmed to be Peter’s whose interpreter Mark was.”

The Muratorian Fragment confirmed Mark’s relationship to Peter
The Muratorian Fragment is the oldest known list of New Testament books. Commonly dated to approximately 170AD, the first line reads:

“But he was present among them, and so he put [the facts down in his Gospel]”

This appears to be a reference to Mark’s presence at Peter’s talks and sermons in Rome, and the fact that he then recorded these messages then became the Gospel of Mark.

Origen attributed Mark’s Gospel to Peter
Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History Book 6 Chapter 25) quoted a Gospel Commentary written by Origen (an early church father and theologian who lived 185-254AD) that explains the origin of the Gospels. This commentary also attributes the Gospel of Mark to Peter:

“In his first book on Matthew’s Gospel, maintaining the Canon of the Church, he testifies that he knows only four Gospels, writing as follows: Among the four Gospels, which are the only indisputable ones in the Church of God under heaven, I have learned by tradition that the first was written by Matthew, who was once a publican, but afterwards an apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism, and published in the Hebrew language. The second is by Mark, who composed it according to the instructions of Peter, who in his Catholic epistle acknowledges him as a son, saying, ‘The church that is at Babylon elected together with you, salutes you, and so does Marcus, my son.’ 1 Peter 5:13 And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.”

An Anti-Marcionite Prologue affirmed Peter’s connection to Mark
There are three Gospel ‘prologues’ that appear in many Latin Bibles from antiquity. Known as the “Anti-Marcionite Prologues”, they date to the 4th century or earlier. The prologue for the Gospel of Mark is particularly interesting:

“Mark declared, who is called ‘stump-fingered,’ because he had rather small fingers in comparison with the stature of the rest of his body. He was the interpreter of Peter. After the death of Peter himself he wrote down this same gospel in the regions of Italy.”

Now, it can be argued that Papias’ description of Mark’s collaboration with Peter in Rome is the earliest description available to us. In fact, skeptics have tried to argue that later Church sources are simply parroting Papias when they connect Mark to Peter. But there is no evidence to suggest that Papias is the sole source of information related to Peter and Mark, particularly when considering the slight variations in the subsequent attributions (such as Clement’s version). The subtle differences suggest that the claims came from different original sources. In addition, Justin Martyr’s tangential reference to the ‘sons of thunder’ strengthens the support for Peter’s involvement coming from a source other than Papias (who never makes this connection). In essence, a claim of dependency on Papias lacks specific evidence, and even if this were the case, there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of Papias’ original claim in the first place. The consistent record of history identifies Mark’s Gospel as a memoir of Peter’s life with Jesus.

Silmarien said:
This doesn't mean that your memory of it matches up perfectly with what actually happened. It's a well known fact that memory is malleable--this has serious ramifications for law enforcement. Eyewitness testimony can be contaminated, especially if considerable time has passed.

Well eyewitness testimony is still very much accepted in a court of law. If 4 people saw you commit a crime you would be hard pressed to be found not guilty. Conversely if 4 witnesses verify someone else committed the crime you are going to be set free.

Silmarien said:
My point isn't that they are "just" poetry, but that they're written in a style that makes them difficult both to interpret and to translate.

As for Peter and the origins of Christianity, I'm sympathetic to Christian claims. Just not because of the Messianic prophecies.

Personally I have no problem understanding poetry or the psalms. In many way they communicate more to me than standard prose.
Thank you, Pat

ananda · Apr 3, 2018

John 1720 said:
What does Messianic prophesy mean to you as a believer, skeptic, or unbeliever in general? All responses positive and negative appreciated as I just want to gain a better understanding of how the general populace views Messianic prophesy. Using PS 22 as a starting baseline since it is one of the earliest OT prophesies on a suffering Messiah.

Prophecies and their alleged fulfillment does not impress me at all, since it does not necessarily suggest that the source must be Almighty.

Silmarien · Apr 3, 2018

John 1720 said:
Where is the proof for your hypothesis that Mark was working off the oral traditions of a "particular" Christian community? My support that Mark directly worked with Peter is rather overwhelming and not irrelevant.

There are concerns regarding the reliability of Papias going all the way back to Eusebius, and most modern scholars dismiss his work. I'm personally aware of only one scholar (Richard Bauckham) who defends the thesis that Papias ought to be taken seriously, and that's really not overwhelming at all.

John 1720 said:
Well eyewitness testimony is still very much accepted in a court of law. If 4 people saw you commit a crime you would be hard pressed to be found not guilty. Conversely if 4 witnesses verify someone else committed the crime you are going to be set free.

It is admitted, yes, but it's also notoriously unreliable. I never studied Evidence, but if four people think they saw a crime and the opposing attorney can impeach all of their testimonies, you don't have all that much.

John 1720 · Apr 3, 2018

Silmarien said:
There are concerns regarding the reliability of Papias going all the way back to Eusebius, and most modern scholars dismiss his work. I'm personally aware of only one scholar (Richard Bauckham) who defends the thesis that Papias ought to be taken seriously, and that's really not overwhelming at all.

Hi Again Silmarien,
I'm not really sure you expanded the quote I posted. The overwhelming support for Mark as Peter's scribe was not simply Papias. I said overwhelming because we have at least 6 ancient witnesses who attest to it. How can one have an issue with the Gospels being written 3 decades after the crucifixion and accept scholarship 1980 years afterwards over ancient testimony?

Papias said Mark scribed Peter’s teachings
Irenaeus said Mark wrote his Gospel from Peter’s teaching
Justin identified Mark’s Gospel with Peter
Clement said Mark recorded Peter’s Roman preaching
Origen attributed Mark’s Gospel to Peter
An Anti-Marcionite Prologue affirmed Peter’s connection to Mark

John 1720 said in a previous post:

Well eyewitness testimony is still very much accepted in a court of law. If 4 people saw you commit a crime you would be hard pressed to be found not guilty. Conversely if 4 witnesses verify someone else committed the crime you are going to be set free.

Silmarien said:
It is admitted, yes, but it's also notoriously unreliable. I never studied Evidence, but if four people think they saw a crime and the opposing attorney can impeach all of their testimonies, you don't have all that much.

If eyewitness testimony truly was as notorious as you claim they would have extricated it from the judicial system. I don't think that is ever going to happen.
Neither should we extricate the testimony of ancient witnesses to favor historical revisionists; just my two sense worth.

So while we seem to disagree greatly on our standards for the empirical measurement of ancient testimony and have vastly opposing ideas for the criteria regarding the chain of evidence forthwith I do sincerely appreciate your posts and rebuttals. So thank you for your responses.
Cheers, Pat

2PhiloVoid · Apr 3, 2018

Silmarien said:
I'm more sympathetic to the concept of Messianic prophecy than I used to be, though I still have several concerns with it:

1. With the exception of the Crucifixion itself, it's impossible to really ascertain to what degree events in the Gospels were later inventions that worked their way into the oral histories because of how they would relate to prophecies instead of being genuine historical events.

2. Even if the Gospel accounts are reliable in this matter, it's very easy to retroactively read whatever you want into a prophecy so that it seems to be fulfilled (cf. Nostradamus). Creative reinterpretation of the original passages makes this an even bigger potential problem.

I haven't studied biblical prophecy as much as I'd like, but it's a very, very murky subject for me.

That's completely understandable, Sil! Biblical prophecy is one of those topics that could be read a dozen different ways. Also, how one approaches and understands prophecy will, of course, depend on the kinds of Christian books and articles one chooses to read in this area. Moreover, both Jewish literary study AND Hermeneutics need to come to play in how we attempt to interpret prophecy. Once this kind of study is in place, then I think the reading of prophecy becomes a tad bit more plausible.

Come to think of it, just by looking at the books on my book shelf, I'm pretty sure the sources I have aren't the more "popular" prophecy and/or eschatological material being sold in the typical, Protestant based bookstores.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

John 1720 · Apr 4, 2018

ananda said:
Prophecies and their alleged fulfillment does not impress me at all, since it does not necessarily suggest that the source must be Almighty.

Thank you Ananda as that's somewhat useful to me in trying to understand the wider variance of belief and unbelief associated with divine prophesy. The three monotheistic religions put a great deal of emphasis on it from the prophet Abraham onward, although there is variance with regard to the magnitude of its internal emphasis. I am also curious about the agnostic, atheist and Eastern religionist viewpoints as well. When you say "not necessarily", however, that sort of leaves the door slightly ajar, as it possibly infers that perhaps sometimes it does infer the source may be from the Almighty. Am I categorizing your statement correctly? If so, when would it suggest the source is from God?
Thanks, Pat

John 1720 · Apr 4, 2018

2PhiloVoid said:
That's completely understandable, Sil! Biblical prophecy is one of those topics that could be read a dozen different ways. Also, how one approaches and understands prophecy will, of course, depend on the kinds of Christian books and articles one chooses to read in this area. Moreover, both Jewish literary study AND Hermeneutics need to come to play in how we attempt to interpret prophecy. Once this kind of study is in place, then I think the reading of prophecy becomes a tad bit more plausible.

Come to think of it, just by looking at the books on my book shelf, I'm pretty sure the sources I have aren't the more "popular" prophecy and/or eschatological material being sold in the typical, Protestant based bookstores.

Peace,
2PhiloVoid

While I would also agree with 2PhiloVoid that some prophecies are not clear (even the apostles didn't get Jesus' prophecy about His crucifixion and resurrection until after its fulfillment) I would also suggest that a good many of them are. I would further add that discussing them can also help clarify variances in our understanding.
Thanks, Pat

2PhiloVoid · Apr 4, 2018

John 1720 said:
While I would also agree with 2PhiloVoid that some prophecies are not clear (even the apostles didn't get Jesus' prophecy about His crucifixion and resurrection until after its fulfillment) I would also suggest that a good many of them are. I would further add that discussing them can also help clarify variances in our understanding.
Thanks, Pat

I'd say that more biblical prophecies rather than less of them remain unclear to the average, English American reader. And this is mainly because much of the language used in prophecy is cloaked in Ancient Jewish literary idiom, involving inferences to inter-textual meanings in Scripture that, on face level, can easily be read to mean something other than what they do mean.

Moreover, even IF we do get the meaning correct, this doesn't guarantee we'll understand it all since God has not seen fit to give us a comprehensively perspicuous picture of prophecy. Sure, we have Daniel and the Book of Revelation, but since these books are again veiled in prophetic Jewish idiom, we're not necessarily going to understand everything God intends to do even though His Plan is staring us in the face from off the page.

Peace

ananda · Apr 4, 2018

John 1720 said:
Thank you Ananda as that's somewhat useful to me in trying to understand the wider variance of belief and unbelief associated with divine prophesy. The three monotheistic religions put a great deal of emphasis on it from the prophet Abraham onward, although there is variance with regard to the magnitude of its internal emphasis. I am also curious about the agnostic, atheist and Eastern religionist viewpoints as well. When you say "not necessarily", however, that sort of leaves the door slightly ajar, as it possibly infers that perhaps sometimes it does infer the source may be from the Almighty. Am I categorizing your statement correctly? If so, when would it suggest the source is from God?
Thanks, Pat

I say "not necessarily" in the sense that I hold a Buddhistic stance in being agnostic towards things I have not known directly for myself, including prophecy: prophecy may come from someone almighty, or may not.

The idea that prophecy "may not (come from an almighty source)" I base on this reasoning: A powerful being, but not necessarily an almighty being, can create circumstances that appear to be prophecy, and also fulfill it. E.g. Let's say I manage to find a way to communicate effectively with dolphins. I "prophesy" to them that a calamity will happen to their people in three generations. Sixty years later, I return to fulfill that calamity myself. Does that make me the Almighty?

The Buddha affirmed the existence of long-lived devas (god-like beings in relation to us humans) in various heavens with lifespans extending into the millions of years or aeons, and possessing powers far exceeding our own - yet they are not almighty nor eternal. Is it not possible that prophecy can come from these beings?

It is a possibility, in my view, and so prophecy cannot be used to prove almightiness.

John 1720 · Apr 4, 2018

2PhiloVoid said:
I'd say that more biblical prophecies rather than less of them remain unclear to the average, English American reader. And this is mainly because much of the language used in prophecy is cloaked in Ancient Jewish literary idiom, involving inferences to inter-textual meanings in Scripture that, on face level, can easily be read to mean something other than what they do mean.

Thanks PV. While I understand your point sir, my opinion would be that on average more prophecies are clear than not. However, in making that assessment, I believe we are both being somewhat subjective. But to my point the thread was more specifically and generally speaking to Messianic prophesy and not the entire bandwidth of Biblical prophesy. For example, I don't believe you need to be a Hebrew literary scholar to see that Psalm 22 matches up fairly well with the crucifixion of Jesus. It may be that if you happen to be a Hebrew scholar you may have an added perspective but it may also be that if you are a medical doctor your education and training may also provide you with a deeper perspective.

2PhiloVoid said:
Moreover, even IF we do get the meaning correct, this doesn't guarantee we'll understand it all since God has not seen fit to give us a comprehensively perspicuous picture of prophecy. Sure, we have Daniel and the Book of Revelation, but since these books are again veiled in prophetic Jewish idiom, we're not necessarily going to understand everything God intends to do even though His Plan is staring us in the face from off the page.
Peace

While God may not have given us a guarantee I believe He intended to increase our faith by prophecy, so some will provide us with a perspicuous picture for our edification. I would not consider Daniel nor Revelation to fall into that category. Instead I believe those force us to search the Scriptures deeply, an exercise He desires of us to edify our walk with Him. I would agree that reading ancient texts in the contemporary language of the day provides insight, as well as understanding the historical context but more importantly is allowing the wealth of supporting Scripture to better define our understanding of hard passages, not only prophecies.
Peace to you as well sir!

Do you have any regard or belief in Messianic prophesy?

Harvest Worker

Messianic Hebrew

Existentialist

Harvest Worker

Harvest Worker

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Harvest Worker

Existentialist

Harvest Worker

Existentialist

Harvest Worker

Early Buddhist

Existentialist

Harvest Worker

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Harvest Worker

Harvest Worker

Get my point, Web-Maker ???

Early Buddhist

Harvest Worker

Similar threads