Matthew and "prophecies"

[Nihilist Virus]

Just two chapters into Matthew we can see twice where, by modern standards, Matthew is outright lying to the reader. But what about ancient standards?

In another thread, in a comment that was not directed at me, this was said:

Don't make the mistake of thinking the Biblical writers wrote like modern historians. They had their own culture, their own way of thinking, and their own writing styles.

Very true. But Christians love to have their cake and eat it too. On the one hand they'll play this card to defend Christianity, but they then remain silent and refuse to correct some other ignorant Christian who says that prophecy in the Bible is strong evidence for God's existence because a prophecy is the accurate prediction of future events. Prophecy in the Bible is NOT a prediction of future events. I will allow Matthew to illustrate this.


Matthew 2:14-15 says,

And [Joseph] arose and took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt; and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt did I call my son.

This is a reference to Hosea 11:1, which says,

When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.


This is an illustration of Matthew's idea that the Christ-type existed all throughout the scriptures. But clearly Hosea is not predicting future events. Hosea is describing past events and making no comment about the future. The knowledgeable Christians know this, yet do not dispense the information.

Another obvious example from Matthew is Matthew 1:23, which says,

Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.


This is a reference to Isaiah 7:14, but a quick read of the context of that verse shows that Isaiah is not referring to an event that is hundreds of years in the future. I don't want to post it here because it will take up the whole page, but do I do encourage everyone to read Isaiah 7 in full context.


So it seems reasonable to say that Matthew cannot be taken at his word when it comes to prophecies.

 

[dysert]

Just two chapters into Matthew we can see twice where, by modern standards, Matthew is outright lying to the reader. But what about ancient standards?

In another thread, in a comment that was not directed at me, this was said:



Very true. But Christians love to have their cake and eat it too. On the one hand they'll play this card to defend Christianity, but they then remain silent and refuse to correct some other ignorant Christian who says that prophecy in the Bible is strong evidence for God's existence because a prophecy is the accurate prediction of future events. Prophecy in the Bible is NOT a prediction of future events. I will allow Matthew to illustrate this.


Matthew 2:14-15 says,

And [Joseph] arose and took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt; and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt did I call my son.

This is a reference to Hosea 11:1, which says,

When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.


This is an illustration of Matthew's idea that the Christ-type existed all throughout the scriptures. But clearly Hosea is not predicting future events. Hosea is describing past events and making no comment about the future. The knowledgeable Christians know this, yet do not dispense the information.

Another obvious example from Matthew is Matthew 1:23, which says,

Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.


This is a reference to Isaiah 7:14, but a quick read of the context of that verse shows that Isaiah is not referring to an event that is hundreds of years in the future. I don't want to post it here because it will take up the whole page, but do I do encourage everyone to read Isaiah 7 in full context.


So it seems reasonable to say that Matthew cannot be taken at his word when it comes to prophecies.

Congratulations! I think you deserve to win the poster child contest for 1Co 2:14 -> But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

(I must be one of those "ignorant Christians" you referred to.)

 

[Halbhh]

Just two chapters into Matthew we can see twice where, by modern standards, Matthew is outright lying to the reader. But what about ancient standards?

In another thread, in a comment that was not directed at me, this was said:



Very true. But Christians love to have their cake and eat it too. On the one hand they'll play this card to defend Christianity, but they then remain silent and refuse to correct some other ignorant Christian who says that prophecy in the Bible is strong evidence for God's existence because a prophecy is the accurate prediction of future events. Prophecy in the Bible is NOT a prediction of future events. I will allow Matthew to illustrate this.


Matthew 2:14-15 says,

And [Joseph] arose and took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt; and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt did I call my son.

This is a reference to Hosea 11:1, which says,

When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.


This is an illustration of Matthew's idea that the Christ-type existed all throughout the scriptures. But clearly Hosea is not predicting future events. Hosea is describing past events and making no comment about the future. The knowledgeable Christians know this, yet do not dispense the information.

Another obvious example from Matthew is Matthew 1:23, which says,

Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.


This is a reference to Isaiah 7:14, but a quick read of the context of that verse shows that Isaiah is not referring to an event that is hundreds of years in the future. I don't want to post it here because it will take up the whole page, but do I do encourage everyone to read Isaiah 7 in full context.


So it seems reasonable to say that Matthew cannot be taken at his word when it comes to prophecies.

The Hosea reference was to the Exodus, as you'd learn reading that book of that same name. Ergo, your premise is wrong.

 

[Hank77]

Types and shadows.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The Hosea reference was to the Exodus, as you'd learn reading that book of that same name.

Yes, that's my point.

Ergo, your premise is wrong.

Because why?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Congratulations! I think you deserve to win the poster child contest for 1Co 2:14 -> But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

(I must be one of those "ignorant Christians" you referred to.)

In other words, you have no reasonable response.

 

[Halbhh]

Yes, that's my point.



Because why?

Read through both Genesis from chapter 12 onward, then Exodus, and then Matthew, each sympathetically, and I think the seeming problem will disappear in your eyes. Here's a link Genesis 12 NIV

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Read through both Genesis from chapter 12 onward, then Exodus, and then Matthew, each sympathetically, and I think the seeming problem will disappear in your eyes. Here's a link Genesis 12 NIV

I've already read the entire Bible. If you don't care to spell out your point, we can just be done.

 

[Halbhh]

I've already read the entire Bible. If you don't care to spell out your point, we can just be done.

To understand better read humbly and sympathetically, expecting to learn new things.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

To understand better read humbly and sympathetically, expecting to learn new things.

Do you do that with the Koran? I think not.

 

[dysert]

In other words, you have no reasonable response.

Not true. My reasonable response is exactly what 1 Cor. 2:14 says. In case you missed it, you are unfortunately incapable of understanding spiritual things like "types and shadows" mentioned by Hank77 above.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Israel is a precursor for Christ. Born in the Promised Land, sojourned in Egypt, then 40 years (or days in Christ's case) in the Wilderness, before entering ministry. Israel failed, was destroyed and then redeemed from Exile. Christ likewise was destroyed and then rose from the exile of death, after 'failing' in the ways of the world; Etc. In that way, as the Suffering Servant, He properly submitted to God and redeemed the world.

So there are many types, much Anagogy, in the OT that is related to Christ - think Abel, Adam, Jonah, Israel itself, the Brazen Serpent, the Scapegoat, etc. This is all a form of prophecy, well in line with Second Temple and Mediaeval understandings of the term and its uses.
It is the modern people, stuck on a historical critical reading only, that fail to understand how Biblical prophecy actually operates (and operated in the past). It is this silly idea that texts aren't polysemous, which really is facile. Even secular texts we see different meanings being read from the same texts, without invalidating the previous reading - think of Falstaff as a comic character, a satire of Oldcastle, or a dystopian hero to Huxley; or Shylock as both tragic and comic figure.
Such multiple and still valid meanings, is even more important in seminal and central texts like the Bible, and is even clear at play in its internal structure.

 

[HypnoToad]

Just two chapters into Matthew we can see twice where, by modern standards, Matthew is outright lying to the reader.

Only if "modern standards" means not understanding what you're reading.

But what about ancient standards?
In another thread, in a comment that was not directed at me, this was said:
Very true. But Christians love to have their cake and eat it too. On the one hand they'll play this card to defend Christianity, but they then remain silent and refuse to correct some other ignorant Christian who says that prophecy in the Bible is strong evidence for God's existence because a prophecy is the accurate prediction of future events. Prophecy in the Bible is NOT a prediction of future events. I will allow Matthew to illustrate this.

Matthew 2:14-15 says,

And [Joseph] arose and took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt; and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt did I call my son.

This is a reference to Hosea 11:1, which says,
When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
This is an illustration of Matthew's idea that the Christ-type existed all throughout the scriptures. But clearly Hosea is not predicting future events. Hosea is describing past events and making no comment about the future.

Matthew doesn't say it is fulfilling what Hosea said. Matthew is saying it fulfills what God said through Hosea. Hosea didn't necessarily know that statement related to the future Messiah. Matthew is showing that Jesus parallels & fulfills the Old Testament. Much of the Old Testament foreshadowed Christ. God called His Son out of Egypt just like He called Israel out of Egypt.

Another obvious example from Matthew is Matthew 1:23, which says,
Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.
This is a reference to Isaiah 7:14, but a quick read of the context of that verse shows that Isaiah is not referring to an event that is hundreds of years in the future. I don't want to post it here because it will take up the whole page, but do I do encourage everyone to read Isaiah 7 in full context.

A quick read doesn't show what you claim at all. You're going to have to be more specific.

So it seems reasonable to say that Matthew cannot be taken at his word when it comes to prophecies.

Sure, according to you.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Not true. My reasonable response is exactly what 1 Cor. 2:14 says. In case you missed it, you are unfortunately incapable of understanding spiritual things like "types and shadows" mentioned by Hank77 above.

I'm not sure what makes you think that will fly in the apologetics forum.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Only if "modern standards" means not understanding what you're reading.

If you don't follow up the insult with the reason I'm wrong then you're just being childish.

Matthew doesn't say it is fulfilling what Hosea said. Matthew is saying it fulfills what God said through Hosea. Hosea didn't necessarily know that statement related to the future Messiah. Matthew is showing that Jesus parallels & fulfills the Old Testament. Much of the Old Testament foreshadowed Christ. God called His Son out of Egypt just like He called Israel out of Egypt.

The point is that it's *not a prophecy.* It is *not a prediction of future events.* Are we on the same page?

A quick read doesn't show what you claim at all. You're going to have to be more specific.

Isaiah was addressing a king. The king was in a predicament and didn't know what to do. Isaiah prophesied that a "virgin" would have a child and before the child grew up, the king's enemies would be defeated. So the birth of Christ being several centuries later would not be relevant. Like Hosea 11:1, Matthew takes Isaiah 7:14 out of context.

Sure, according to you.

According to reality as well.

 

[danny ski]

Just two chapters into Matthew we can see twice where, by modern standards, Matthew is outright lying to the reader. But what about ancient standards?

In another thread, in a comment that was not directed at me, this was said:



Very true. But Christians love to have their cake and eat it too. On the one hand they'll play this card to defend Christianity, but they then remain silent and refuse to correct some other ignorant Christian who says that prophecy in the Bible is strong evidence for God's existence because a prophecy is the accurate prediction of future events. Prophecy in the Bible is NOT a prediction of future events. I will allow Matthew to illustrate this.


Matthew 2:14-15 says,

And [Joseph] arose and took the young child and his mother by night, and departed into Egypt; and was there until the death of Herod: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt did I call my son.

This is a reference to Hosea 11:1, which says,

When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.


This is an illustration of Matthew's idea that the Christ-type existed all throughout the scriptures. But clearly Hosea is not predicting future events. Hosea is describing past events and making no comment about the future. The knowledgeable Christians know this, yet do not dispense the information.

Another obvious example from Matthew is Matthew 1:23, which says,

Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, And they shall call his name Immanuel; which is, being interpreted, God with us.


This is a reference to Isaiah 7:14, but a quick read of the context of that verse shows that Isaiah is not referring to an event that is hundreds of years in the future. I don't want to post it here because it will take up the whole page, but do I do encourage everyone to read Isaiah 7 in full context.


So it seems reasonable to say that Matthew cannot be taken at his word when it comes to prophecies.

Mat 2-23 is next. The famous phantom prophecy.

 

[cloudyday2]

So it seems reasonable to say that Matthew cannot be taken at his word when it comes to prophecies.

It's interesting to think about the beliefs and motivations of various Biblical authors.
- Did they intend to deceive?
- Did they respect Judaism/Christianity and intend to improve it through deception?
- Was the deception an open secret that was later forgotten?
- Was the deception intended only for the gullible little people while the insiders would know the truth?
- Was the deception incremental and unintentional as folktales somehow became confused with fact?

 

[Halbhh]

Ideas literally affect perception. Therefore to get what was meant, one needs to forget even preferred new ideas(!)... and truly read expecting to gain new understanding (Not to support an idea, not even the preferred). It's humble, and then one does get new understanding which is better than the mere abstraction. Like trading a gadget for a jewel.

 

[HypnoToad]

If you don't follow up the insult with the reason I'm wrong then you're just being childish.

My whole post gives the reason you're wrong.

The point is that it's *not a prophecy.* It is *not a prediction of future events.* Are we on the same page?

I understood your claim perfectly well the first time, yes.

Isaiah was addressing a king. The king was in a predicament and didn't know what to do. Isaiah prophesied that a "virgin" would have a child and before the child grew up, the king's enemies would be defeated. So the birth of Christ being several centuries later would not be relevant. Like Hosea 11:1, Matthew takes Isaiah 7:14 out of context.

Ah, yes, 'cause a prophecy can have exactly and only one meaning. There's no possible way a prophet of God could be speaking about two things inside one prophecy. Yep. Totally impossible. Totally.

According to reality as well.

Yeah, according to you.

You've solidly demonstrated you don't understand Matthew, the Bible, or prophecy at all. I'm done here.

 

[Steve Petersen]

The name of messiah being portended by interpretations of Scripture is not unique to Christianity. In fact, one could suggest that the disciples were not doing something unique.

11 Name of messiahs