How do Christians reconcile their faith with prophecies that Jesus didn't fulfill?

[dcalling]

These don't seem like very strict criteria. Someone who isn't the Messiah could teach exactly these things.

This is to answer your question of, which I replied below. So far no one has tought those ideas and claim he is the messiah except Jesus, and survived this long with those ideas, even flourish under persecution. It is all because God is behind all this. Can you find any other religion that survived to this day, given those teachings that is not related to Jesus?

To you it may not seem that way, but to an outsider that's what it seems like. Imagine if someone came along and claimed to be the second coming of Christ, despite only fulfilling some of the prophecies. Would you believe them?

Need to see what their teachings are.
Do they teach to Love God with all and Love your neighbor as yourself? Do they teach not to revenge? Do they teach that we are all sinners and can only be saved by God's grace? Should be easy to distinguish.

 

[samir]

I am looking into Christianity but can't get past some of these unfulfilled prophecies.

Here's a list of a few: https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/thelist

The idea that Jesus is the Messiah rests on Him having fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament. If He didn't fulfill some, doesn't that exclude Him from being the Messiah?

Excellent question! Jews asked the same question and an early Christian apologist in the second century named Justin Martyr answered a long list of Jewish objections in detail in his writing "Dialogue with Trypho." You can find it at either of the following two sites:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0128.htm
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/justinmartyr-dialoguetrypho.html

 

[miamited]

Hi unsure one,

Believing that there is a God who created us and loves us seems to obviously not be something that everyone will believe. The Scriptures tell us that spiritual things can only be known with the aid of the Spirit. After all, the Scriptures tell us that we are all sinners. Even when Jesus was with us, most people didn't understand and believe that He was who God said that He was.

You responded a while back:

But wasn't the day of the Lord supposed to occur when the Messiah came? Wasn't that the point of the prophecy?

I'm curious where you gathered this kernel of understanding? The new covenant speaks quite a bit about the 'day of the Lord' and quite a few of these comments seem to make quite clear that it is a future event to the days in which the new covenant was written. For example:

The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.

This is written in the book of the Acts of the Apostles and covers the period of just a few short years after Jesus' death. Peter is speaking to a crowd here and mentions the 'day of the Lord'. Peter tells them that these are the 'last days' and gives a few examples of things that the Scriptures have foretold about this period of the last days. However, he winds up telling them that the sun is going to be dark and the moon appear as blood - before the day of the Lord.

In the writings of the words we refer to as 1 Corinthians we read this:

He will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This seems to clearly explain that the 'day of the Lord' is some time at the end, wouldn't you agree?

So, I'm just curious where you're getting your knowledge and wisdom of the things of God and whether you are even the least impressed that it may be a seriously flawed source? It would seem fairly clear to me that if your understanding of something as seemingly clear as the timing of the 'day of the Lord', which is mentioned dozens of times in the Scriptures, is likely not based on the truth, what else might you not be understanding? Are you at all willing to believe the Scripture's claim that you're not going to understand the things of God until you have the Spirit of God to give you discernment of these things?

If you're really interested in looking into the truth of the Scriptures, I'll be happy to help. But you do need to be honest with yourself and willing to listen to sound reason. Based on your belief that the 'day of the Lord' was when Jesus first walked among us in spite of the evidence that it's still a future day, I'm not sure you really have that desire. If you're honestly serious about wanting to investigate christianty I'll be happy to help.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I am looking into Christianity but can't get past some of these unfulfilled prophecies.

Here's a list of a few: https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/thelist

The idea that Jesus is the Messiah rests on Him having fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament. If He didn't fulfill some, doesn't that exclude Him from being the Messiah?

I've got a question about all of this. Is there some universal and absolute criteria by which any person, who happens to be interested in biblical prophecy regarding "the Messiah," should be able to identify: 1) what constitutes a valid prophecy, 2) what any specific prophecy's exact semantic references actually are, AND 3) where exactly these said prophecies are in the Bible.

Somehow, I get the sense that the reddit link you've given infers that all of the above is as easily accomplished as child's play. And somehow, I don't think it is .... not even for Jews or Christians.

2PhiloVoid

 

[dougangel]

I've got a question about all of this. Is there some universal and absolute criteria by which any person, who happens to be interested in biblical prophecy regarding "the Messiah," should be able to identify: 1) what constitutes a valid prophecy, 2) what any specific prophecy's exact semantic references actually are, AND 3) where exactly these said prophecies are in the Bible.

Somehow, I get the sense that the reddit link you've given infers that all of the above is as easily accomplished as child's play. And somehow, I don't think it is .... not even for Jews or Christians.

2PhiloVoid

Ok well that is a very complex question. That's like asking to understand the whole bible. People spend a life time trying to do that. Christians don't all agree whats going to happen when Christs comes back and what he is going to fulfill and there have been debates on the prophecies since they have been written.

you can study it yourself. Read the bible, read books on the subject, Internet and u tube. have an open mind and check everything they are saying with the bible. Don't confirm anything until you have a strong consensus from a few sources is best.

 

[graceandpeace]

So you're saying it wasn't exactly a prophecy in the first place?

With that specific example, as far as it being an exact future prediction of Jesus, I would say that's correct. The same could apply to other commonly cited passages (not necessarily all, but some).

 

[Curious Mind]

The unfulfilled prophecies are one of many reasons I no longer identify as a Christian. After examining my faith I saw it for what it really was: blind faith in something I wanted to be true just because it was more comfortable to believe. The same may go for you, or you may have a different reason for wanting to believe. Either way, I'm not here to tell you what to think. The best way to find truth is to discover it yourself. Research different world-views and then weigh your evidence for each. If I confused you in any way or you want to chat more, just let me know.

 

[o2bjenni]

Hey, I've always wondered about the genealogical rules surrounding Jesus too. I am a Christian and I believe it's the truth, but it doesn't make sense necessarily. It's probably the only thing on that list you cited that I can't reconcile in my brain. Whenever the bible mentions the loodline it always goes by the father. Abraham-Isaac etc. So how does it make sense to have one exception? Unless God sees adoption the same as if the child had really come from the earthly father. Is that what happened? God told Joseph to marry Mary so he would then be born into a union of man and wife, so was his son? Interest in topic.

 

[dougangel]

The unfulfilled prophecies are one of many reasons I no longer identify as a Christian. After examining my faith I saw it for what it really was: blind faith in something I wanted to be true just because it was more comfortable to believe. The same may go for you, or you may have a different reason for wanting to believe. Either way, I'm not here to tell you what to think. The best way to find truth is to discover it yourself. Research different world-views and then weigh your evidence for each. If I confused you in any way or you want to chat more, just let me know.

Hi,
Have you seen my post 52 ?
The fulfilled posts are really amazing when you know when they were written. They really make no doubt Jesus was who he said he was. If the Israelite's knew scripture well. They should of known him.
The reddedit site unfulfilled prophecies are obviously taken from a zealous Jewish site where they don't believe the messiah has come or believe in the New Testament. As others have said Jesus has fulfilled many of those things spiritually through the Christian church which some people from Israel don't accept. That reddit site is trying to say the Messiah hasn't come.

 

[dougangel]

Hey, I've always wondered about the genealogical rules surrounding Jesus too. I am a Christian and I believe it's the truth, but it doesn't make sense necessarily. It's probably the only thing on that list you cited that I can't reconcile in my brain. Whenever the bible mentions the loodline it always goes by the father. Abraham-Isaac etc. So how does it make sense to have one exception? Unless God sees adoption the same as if the child had really come from the earthly father. Is that what happened? God told Joseph to marry Mary so he would then be born into a union of man and wife, so was his son? Interest in topic.

Hi
The genealogy in Matt. 1:1f is traced through Joseph, Jesus’ legal (though not natural) father, and it establishes His claim and right to the throne of David (v. 6). The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 is evidently that of Mary and traces a physical claim to the the throne of David. This is why Jesus said he was the king of Jews.

This explains many of the uninformed comments contradiction sites say about it.

 

[Winken]

I am looking into Christianity but can't get past some of these unfulfilled prophecies.

Here's a list of a few: https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/thelist

The idea that Jesus is the Messiah rests on Him having fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament. If He didn't fulfill some, doesn't that exclude Him from being the Messiah?

He fulfilled all of them in His coming. He came as THE fulfillment of all the prophecies, all those of God throughout the Bible, the Abrahamic Covenant, all those concerning Jesus, all of the Spiritual identifiers of Jesus throughout Matthew through Revelation. HE is the fulfillment. He Spiritually embodies every message set forth in the Bible. He closed the door on additional prophetic utterances, in revealing everything that each of us can read about, culminating in His sacrifice on the Cross. That was the trigger! He was Spiritually birthed by the Holy Spirit, acquiring human form, while remaining Himself, Spiritually. We aren't waiting for anything! Every jot, every title of the Hebrew Bible, all of he Law and the Prophets, came to rest in Jesus, the Messiah of the Hebrew Nation and the Savior of EACH of us since then. The contract, if you will, was dated and signed before the foundation of the universe! "Future" fulfillment is already with us in the Person of Jesus.

Every person in history could, can and will proclaim something Messianic, something fraudulent. WE have the Bible, the revealed Word of God, and we have the One Most Holy Interpreter, the Holy Spirit, who teaches us how to implement and apply God's Truth.

Read Post #4 in this thread......vinsight4u, Thursday at 8:31 AM. He lays it out. Nothing can change it. We simply need to open up to the Spiritual understanding of it all. Again, "future" fulfillment is already with us in the Person of Jesus, the Messiah.

 

[hedrick]

I don’t agree with the way the OP deals with Jesus as the Messiah. It leads to long lists of passages taken out of context, and invites forced exegesis.

The OT writers expected God to respond to the Exile by restoring Israel. Commonly, a Messiah was associated with this. Since Messiah means literally anointed, this was normally thought of as a king.

Jesus said that he was sent by God to bring God’s rule (the Kingdom of God). That is by definition the restoration that OT writers were looking for. He was also of Davidic lineage. Furthermore, the use of the title “Son of God” references Ps 2:7 which is a royal Psalm. So that title implies that Jesus is King, i.e. Messiah.

You can find plenty of places in the NT where Jesus is seen as King. You’re on safer ground there than with long lists of OT passages.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

More probaganda BS. Really? When did you announce Christ dead?

 

[Winken]

More probaganda BS. Really? When did you announce Christ dead?

Your cite?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I am looking into Christianity but can't get past some of these unfulfilled prophecies.

Here's a list of a few: https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/thelist

The idea that Jesus is the Messiah rests on Him having fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament. If He didn't fulfill some, doesn't that exclude Him from being the Messiah?

As far as I'm aware there is no definitive list of prophecies for the Messiah--or at least no such thing existed two thousand years ago.

There were broad ideas, and there were certain passages which some took to be messianic and others didn't.

There simply couldn't have existed a definitive list of messianic prophecies within Judaism in the first century, if only because Judaism wasn't a monolith in the first century.

Christianity was form of Jewish messianism which confessed Jesus to be the Messiah, but for the most part Christians didn't appeal to some definitive list of messianic prophecies, but rather took the idea that Jesus was the Messiah as axiomatic on account of His resurrection from the dead; they then read Jesus backward into the Scriptures. So what even constitutes a messianic text is very much one of the significant differences between Jewish and Christian readings of the same Scriptures. Further, certain texts which would have been seen as perhaps intended as literal by many readers were understood in Christian circles as less than literal. That the nations would come to Zion to worship the God of Israel is understood in the preaching of the Gospel, the unity of Jew and Gentile in the one new man, the Church which is Israel.

Some Christians, both past and present, have sought more literal interpretations of some passages, and therein Millennialism has existed within some Christian circles since at least the 2nd century; while Amillennialism has also existed and frequently predominated historically. Thus Christian opinion has been divided on certain issues since nearly the beginning on such things.

The list as presented seems less like an interested investigation to the differences in the way Jews and Christians approach messianism, and more like a manufactured list intended as a "Silly Christians, you is dumbz"--I make that determination based on the commentary to the point about the knowledge of God spread across the earth where the commentator feels the need to employ a particular epistemology to indicate that "knowledge of God" must mean of a sort of definitive or even empirical sort; rather than what should arguably be a more common sense approach to mean "knowledge about God" that is, that the nations would learn of, hear about, Israel's God; not that individuals of any particular people would have empirical knowledge of the existence of the Deity in a way satisfying to the modern Rationalist or Empiricist.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[hedrick]

I am looking into Christianity but can't get past some of these unfulfilled prophecies.

Here's a list of a few: https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/wiki/thelist

The idea that Jesus is the Messiah rests on Him having fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament. If He didn't fulfill some, doesn't that exclude Him from being the Messiah?

I think that list raises a legitimate question, although I don’t see it as a problem.

One of the big debates about Jesus in the 20th Cent was whether he considered the Kingdom of God something he was establishing at the time, or something future that would only come at the End.

I think the consensus now is both. Jesus brought the Kingdom. But it’s currently like the seed growing secretly: it’s present among his followers. But there is also a future aspect where every knee will bow and every tongue confess.

The link points to passages that show the whole earth worshipping the Lord. These things certainly have not happened yet. But according to Jesus’ message you wouldn’t expect them to have.

I’m not aware of any explicit OT expectation of this kind of two-stage coming of the Kingdom. Perhaps it's there and I'm just not remembering it. But it’s not at all uncommon for God to do something but in a way that’s different from what we expected or asked for.

 

[o2bjenni]

Hi The genealogy in Matt. 1:1f is traced through Joseph, Jesus’ legal (though not natural) father, and it establishes His claim and right to the throne of David (v. 6). The genealogy in Luke 3:23-38 is evidently that of Mary and traces a physical claim to the the throne of David. This is why Jesus said he was the king of Jews. This explains many of the uninformed comments contradiction sites say about it.

 

[o2bjenni]

Dougangel, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you please explain? When I read Matthew 16 it looks like Mary doesn't have any blood relation to the house of David. Or it doesn't mention it anyway.

Matthan the father of Jacob,

16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

 

[o2bjenni]

My question is, is it enough to fulfill the prophecy of David's line becoming the king just because Joseph adopted Jesus? In God's eyes is an adopted child the same as a natural child? Would an adopted child born into a holy matrimony be enough to satisfy that criteria?

 

[dougangel]

Dougangel, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Could you please explain? When I read Matthew 16 it looks like Mary doesn't have any blood relation to the house of David. Or it doesn't mention it anyway.

Matthan the father of Jacob,

16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah.

Luke's genealogy
Based on the previous facts, Luke's genealogy must list Jesus' ancestors through his mother:

Jesus was the natural son of Mary, who conceived by the Holy Ghost and therefore He becomes the Son of God (Luk 1:34-35). Considering the fact that by the Jewish tradition women are never listed in the genealogical links, it is acceptable that Luke lists Joseph instead of Mary (as he was the "father" of Jesus) and thus Luke names Joseph as son of Heli. Further, since Heli had no sons but only daughters, we can find a precedent of the same type of name substitution in Num 27:1-11 and Num 36:1-12.

Reading through Luke's genealogy, we can see how Jesus, through his blood relationship with his mother and her ancestors, becomes the true son of God.
this website shows both the linages check it out
http://www.complete-bible-genealogy.com/genealogy_of_jesus.htm