Statistics about Jesus fulfilling prophecy

[charles brough]

Well, while it's a possibility, and the jews certainly were gradually getting unruly, I find that possibility somewhat improbable. And here's my reasoning why.

Pilatus had the unenviable position of being a governor of a very unruly province, but of not actually having an army to keep them in check. As one of the equites, he didn't even have the right to command a legion. The nearest legion was that of the legate of Syria. Pilatus seems to have had just a couple of locally-recruited auxilia cohorts as police, and that was it.

(Especially bear in mind the "locally recruited" part . Not necessarily soldiers you'd want to trust with your life, if the locals revolted.)

Worse yet, for the first six years of his office, the office of legate of Syria was vacant. So Pilatus basically was on his own, in case of a rebellion.

What I'm getting at is that several times he had to bend over backwards to please the locals and prevent a rebellion.

E.g., almost as soon as he got there, he ran into the first problem. He couldn't use the emperor's busts with his cohorts (by then one of the standard symbols of any roman army, to remind them who they serve), because the local were rabid iconoclasts and threatened with open rebellion if he showed the emperor's bust anywhere.

We have three surviving reports about that screw-up.

Next, Pilatus put up gilded shields, dedicated to Tiberius, the current emperor at the time. This time he refrained from actually showing the emperor's picture on them, or any symbolism, save for a small inscription dedicating them to the emperor. He gets another almost rebellion, and the Jewish leaders even wrote to Tiberius personally about it. Tiberius ordered Pilatus to take them down.

Etc.

The point is that we _know_ of a bunch of such incidents. Both from Pilatus, who never made a secret of the troubles he has as a governor without an army, and from other sources.

Some group actually taking up arms in Jerusalem? I believe that ought to heve been documented too, if that happened.

Now of course, we don't have complete records, so it's possible for it to have slipped through the cracks. But it's somewhat strange that more minor clashes were recorded, but an actual armed attack in the middle of Jerusalem would be forgotten.

thanks for the details of Pilatus' rule and problems. . . very interesting.

The Scriptures do not write of an armed clash. Jesus's cohorts did have arms, but the picture is that Jesus tore down the money-changer's stands.
He was supposedly arrested by "centurions" which may have been the local police and ordered not by Pilatus but by the local Jewish leadership that wanted him taken to Pilatus. The Scriptures mention one of His cohorts slicing an ear of the "police" who had come to arrest them. The indication of being armed itself supports the Schoernfeld-hypothesis.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

As far as I can see Jesus only does what the Father says at the moment he wants it done so if it wasn't yet time for his return then he would have to wait. At least this makes sense to me.

So do you have an explanation for why "the Father" wanted Jesus to lie about the end times?

 

[This Guy]

I suggest an interesting book "The Passover Plot" by Dr. Shoenfield. It gives a realistic portrail of what happened and is backed by extensive research. In it, Jesus is portrayed as an anti-Rome militant who tore up The Temple inside in expectation it would lead to more and extensive rioting and an uprising against Rome. It was premature and failed, he and his ARMED followers were surrounded and captured. He was executed. Two of his followers led Greeks into a version of him as coming back to save them from Rome. By that time, the Roman Empire was weakening, people were feeling the declining living standards, and longed for The End Times and "his return"

OK, I've Googled, and it seems the only mention of "ARMED followers" is in your post.

From here.

According to Schonfield's analysis, the events of the Passover, which are presented in all the Gospels, but inconsistently, are most accurately presented in the Gospel of John. His reading of that Gospel convinced him that John's account, though probably filtered through an assistant and transcription in John's old age, suggests that Jesus had planned everything. Among other things, so that he would not be on the cross for more than a few hours before the Sabbath arrived when it was required by law that Jews be taken down, so that one of his supporters, who was on hand, would give him water (to quench his thirst) that was actually laced with a drug to make him unconscious, and so that Joseph of Arimathea, a well-connected supporter, would collect him off the cross while still alive (but appearing dead) so that he could be secretly nursed back to health. Schonfield suggests that the plan went awry because of a soldier's actions with a spear. Schonfield gives evidence of a high ranking member of the Sanhedrin who was one of Jesus' followers, likely the Beloved Disciple who is otherwise obscure, and notes several instances in which knowledge of or access to the Temple was available to one or more of Jesus' followers. He identifies this follower as John, the source of the Gospel many decades later whilst living in Asia Minor. He suggests that this Apostle, and Joseph of Arimathea, were responsible for events following the Crucifixion, and that it might have been this Apostle (an 'undercover Disciple', as it were) who was seen (by those who did not know him) at the Tomb on the morning of the Resurrection.

Yes, this is from the Wiki, but it seems to agree with several reviews I've checked. No mention of arms or attempted revolts. Sure your talking about the right book?

 

[charles brough]

Many Christians claim that the Romans completely destroyed the Temple during the Jewish revolt of around 70 AD/CE. But you can go today and "wail" on the western wall of the same Temple that stood when Jesus made his prediction. Either he was wrong, or those that claim fulfillment of this prophesy are wrong.

The prophesy was probably matter of fact in hindsight, but please excuse me for being picky, but the "wailing wall" is only the side of the big level area that the Temple was built on. They wail at it only because the Temple itself is gone and thus, their Yahweh is forced to reside in the wall or foundation! Poor "God"! He's homeless! No wonder they "wail." I would too if I couldn't rebuild a home for my "god"---which, incidentally, has two mosques on it now! As soon as Israel thinks they can get away with it, you can bet your life they will tear down those two mosques.

We will never run out of problems in the Near East! I'm sure the military-industrial complex is hilariously happy over what good-old-boy Bush started for them---and the oil companies.

 

[HansMustermann]

Just as a matter of terminology, so we don't end up misunderstanding each other based on different semantics:

A centurion was a commander of a "centuria", which actually meant 80 men since the Marian reforms. Think somewhat the equivalent of a modern-day army captain.

A cohort was 6 centuries, or about 480 fighting men.

I doubt that Jesus had several cohorts with him, or it would have made a bit more of an impression there than one cut ear. Pilatus had one cohort total in Jerusalem. (Though he could have brought a couple more from elsewhere in a pinch.) So, you know, it would have been quite the clash there.

I also somewhat doubt that there would have been several centurions present for the arrest. The whole cohort there had 6 centurions total. You must be thinking of some other rank IMHO.

Though if indeed there was more than one centurion present there, I suppose it would indicate a bit more of a problem than a nutter upturning tables. I guess I'll have to read that book and find out.

 

[charles brough]

OK, I've Googled, and it seems the only mention of "ARMED followers" is in your post.

From here.



Yes, this is from the Wiki, but it seems to agree with several reviews I've checked. No mention of arms or attempted revolts. Sure your talking about the right book?

I seem to have been misunderstood---probably my fault since several have done so. No, the Scriptures do not portray and armed assault on the Temple. Jesus followers are depicted as armed but only that Jesus tore down the money-changers' stands. He hoped to just start riots that would lead to an insurrection.

Rioting was frequent in ancient times. We tend to think of it as something new. I lived through the rioting in Indonesia that resulted in the fall of the Suharto dictatorship. I saw smoke rising in 3 directions from the house that was rented for us. I have also lived through two riots in Los Angeles---one led to burning only 1 mile from home.

I have even observed the nature of riots. They have a structural pattern.

 

[This Guy]

The prophesy was probably matter of fact in hindsight, but please excuse me for being picky, but the "wailing wall" is only the side of the big level area that the Temple was built on. They wail at it only because the Temple itself is gone and thus, their Yahweh is forced to reside in the wall or foundation! Poor "God"! He's homeless! No wonder they "wail." I would too if I couldn't rebuild a home for my "god"---which, incidentally, has two mosques on it now! As soon as Israel thinks they can get away with it, you can bet your life they will tear down those two mosques.

We will never run out of problems in the Near East! I'm sure the military-industrial complex is hilariously happy over what good-old-boy Bush started for them---and the oil companies.

My understanding is that the surrounding walls were part of the Temple complex. The gates through the walls had special significance, and there were areas within the walls, but outside the Temple building that served special functions (one area for slaughtering of sacrifices, others for other things). All references of the Jewish Temples, all three that have existed on the traditional site, include the walls as part of the complex. I don't think the vendors and money changers that Jesus was so upset about were actually "in the Temple", they were in the complex. I believe, or understand, that Jesus was talking about the entire complex. I base this both on my reading of the New Testament, and references to the Temple complex.

For Wiki's take on the Temple see here.

All that being said, I always welcome correction of wrong ideas! I would be thankful if you would show me why I am wrong.

ETA: I was wrong to say "three temples" Herod only expanded the second Temple I believe. For some reason, when I was typing the above, I was thinking he had built a new temple. Sometimes it doesn't pay me to think.

 

[I Ratant]

When you're filling out the prospectus for your religion, how hard is it to mine the old books for "prophecy" and include these tales and allude to their "fulfillment" in your story that you hope will be a best seller?
Trolling for souls (money in the collection basket) as it were.

 

[HansMustermann]

Hmm, if I may comment about another aspect of that Wiki summary, though:

suggests that Jesus had planned everything. Among other things, so that he would not be on the cross for more than a few hours before the Sabbath arrived when it was required by law that Jews be taken down, so that one of his supporters, who was on hand, would give him water (to quench his thirst) that was actually laced with a drug to make him unconscious, and so that Joseph of Arimathea, a well-connected supporter, would collect him off the cross while still alive (but appearing dead) so that he could be secretly nursed back to health.

The Romans never took someone down alive. It was actually quite usual that someone couldn't be left on the cross for days, for whatever reason. So they also had a standard coup de grace procedure for when that happened, and any soldier involved in a crucifixion would have first been told what to do. A centurion doubly so. (Remember, these guys were pretty much captain rank.)

You'll notice the mention in the Bible that Jesus's 2 "companions" on the cross got their legs broken first. That was the standard coup de grace procedure. It caused death within minutes. _Then_ they'd take the bugger down.

At any rate, the regulations forbade leaving someone unattended on the cross. If the soldiers have to leave for any reason, they break his legs first.

There are records that sometimes the soldiers did that even just because they had enough of standing guard there.

So if Jesus had actually planned _that_... man, that has to be the most retarded plan in recorded history

 

[This Guy]

I seem to have been misunderstood---probably my fault since several have done so. No, the Scriptures do not portray and armed assault on the Temple. Jesus followers are depicted as armed but only that Jesus tore down the money-changers' stands. He hoped to just start riots that would lead to an insurrection.

Rioting was frequent in ancient times. We tend to think of it as something new. I lived through the rioting in Indonesia that resulted in the fall of the Suharto dictatorship. I saw smoke rising in 3 directions from the house that was rented for us. I have also lived through two riots in Los Angeles---one led to burning only 1 mile from home.

I have even observed the nature of riots. They have a structural pattern.

Well, the Passover was a prime time for problems. It was normal for extra Roman troops to be brought to Jerusalem during the Passover, and a few weeks before (Jews would show up a few weeks or so early for "purification" rites to allow them to enter the Temple during the Passover services or whatever). There had been problems during Passovers long before Jesus came on the scene. Jews from throughout the world would come together, and any of them with an agenda to push would have a shot at the largest Jewish audience they would likely ever have. Yes, riots are not new. And the Romans had a pretty good method of dealing with them

I still don't find support of your (revised) claim about the book though. From the reviews and little bit of information I can find on the book, no mention of violence is mentioned. The only recurring theme is that Jesus planned to present himself as the Messiah, and did everything in his power to appear to fulfill the prophecies. He intended to be "rescued" from the cross, placed in the tomb, where the drugs that made him appear dead would wear off, and then show himself "resurrected" from the dead. He miscalculated, and his plans were foiled by the Roman that stuck the spear in him.

I find this idea hard to swallow also, but that, I think is a better summary of the book.

 

[pgwenthold]

Maybe it's referring to when the Messiah was a child. Remember, the Jewish conception of the Messiah is all human, not a god-man.

But how does that apply to Jesus? That is the question (aside from the fact that the passage isn't even talking about the messiah, but is specific to Azah). Christians proclaim Jesus to be the messiah, and God, and the claim is that he fulfilled too many prophecies to be coincidence. However, even the most famous prophecy trotted out is clearly a case of selective quoting. If it is really a prophesy about the coming messiah, and it applies to Jesus, then it says that there was a time when Jesus did not know enough to chose good over evil.

So did Jesus fulfill the prophecy or not?

Remember, this is THE MOST FAMOUS of all prophecies that get presented. And yet, it fails to describe Jesus as the God-messiah.

 

[tsig]

Long ago, on another forum, a Jewish member put up a list of Messianic prophecy which Jesus didn't fulfill. One of the ones I remember was universal adherance to all 613 laws in the Torah (at least for Jews).

If I can find a similar list I'll post it here.

What would the Jews know about a Jewish Messiah or their own book? They need the Christian theologians to explain it to them.

 

[maddog]

What would the Jews know about a Jewish Messiah or their own book? They need the Christian theologians to explain it to them.

Well said. Too bad the people who NEED to understand this, won't.

 

[TheAnachronism]

Christians proclaim Jesus to be the messiah, and God, and the claim is that he fulfilled too many prophecies to be coincidence.

This is exactly what I was trying to convey in the OP. Thank you for summarizing so nicely.

Sometimes I wonder whether or not people understand what I am trying to convey, since I generally lack the ability to summarize succinctly.

 

[charles brough]

Well, the Passover was a prime time for problems. It was normal for extra Roman troops to be brought to Jerusalem during the Passover, and a few weeks before (Jews would show up a few weeks or so early for "purification" rites to allow them to enter the Temple during the Passover services or whatever). There had been problems during Passovers long before Jesus came on the scene. Jews from throughout the world would come together, and any of them with an agenda to push would have a shot at the largest Jewish audience they would likely ever have. Yes, riots are not new. And the Romans had a pretty good method of dealing with them

I still don't find support of your (revised) claim about the book though. From the reviews and little bit of information I can find on the book, no mention of violence is mentioned. The only recurring theme is that Jesus planned to present himself as the Messiah, and did everything in his power to appear to fulfill the prophecies. He intended to be "rescued" from the cross, placed in the tomb, where the drugs that made him appear dead would wear off, and then show himself "resurrected" from the dead. He miscalculated, and his plans were foiled by the Roman that stuck the spear in him.

I find this idea hard to swallow also, but that, I think is a better summary of the book.

The drugged case seems very unlikely.

Is Jesus stirring up trouble in the Temple (which is in the Scripture) that what you are calling "violence"? He HOPED it would lead to rioting and an insurrection, the theory goes, not that he and his few cohorts could or would attack the police themselves! He was captured and the scriptures describe only a scuffle in which one of his men swung at one of the centuries before Jesus surrendered. I guess that is the "violence" that some here seem obsessed with.

He wanted to present himself as "the Savior," but when he failed to get the insurrection going, Paul and Peter, later, in speaking to Greek audiences, changed the story to indicate that he was a god-like being who would come down from the sky and save even non-Jew Greeks themselves, even all mankind, etc., etc., etc. They were telling the Greeks what they wanted to hear, that is, that this god-being would end times this rotten Roman society they endured and bring about a Communist-style utopia in the sky. .. .

He was a rabble rouser who Peter and Paul made out to be a miracle-making bringer of love, peace and compassion.

 

[HansMustermann]

Actually, I think we're all going on about violence because you brought it up in that message.

Also, I still think you probably got a word wrong. A cohort was, pretty much, a regiment of 480 soldiers. I really don't think you mean that Jesus had several cohorts with him at the temple. Just because, you know, then he wouldn't need to incite violence, he could just take over the town with that kinda army

 

[charles brough]

Actually, I think we're all going on about violence because you brought it up in that message.

Also, I still think you probably got a word wrong. A cohort was, pretty much, a regiment of 480 soldiers. I really don't think you mean that Jesus had several cohorts with him at the temple. Just because, you know, then he wouldn't need to incite violence, he could just take over the town with that kinda army

Surely you are aware that the term "his cohorts" means "his followers" in this context! I am unable to understand whether you are so obsessed with the origin of the term that you are blind to its other uses or you are deliberately confusing it to keep up this discussion.

 

[Bikewer]

Wasn't the overriding purpose of the Jewish Messiah to re-establish the Jewish state, free them from occupation, re-establish the 12 tribes, etc, etc....?

Isn't that the primary reason Jesus was rejected by the Jews? That he obviously hadn't done any of that, and went and got himself arrested?

 

[This Guy]

The drugged case seems very unlikely.

Is Jesus stirring up trouble in the Temple (which is in the Scripture) that what you are calling "violence"? He HOPED it would lead to rioting and an insurrection, the theory goes, not that he and his few cohorts could or would attack the police themselves! He was captured and the scriptures describe only a scuffle in which one of his men swung at one of the centuries before Jesus surrendered. I guess that is the "violence" that some here seem obsessed with.

He wanted to present himself as "the Savior," but when he failed to get the insurrection going, Paul and Peter, later, in speaking to Greek audiences, changed the story to indicate that he was a god-like being who would come down from the sky and save even non-Jew Greeks themselves, even all mankind, etc., etc., etc. They were telling the Greeks what they wanted to hear, that is, that this god-being would end times this rotten Roman society they endured and bring about a Communist-style utopia in the sky. .. .

He was a rabble rouser who Peter and Paul made out to be a miracle-making bringer of love, peace and compassion.

I'm calling the desire to stir up a revolt a wish or desire for violence. Whether it is performed by, or only instigated by Jesus and his followers.

The only mention of "armed" followers of Jesus in the Bible, that I can think of, is Peter, in the Garden, as you mentioned. He did attack and cut the ear off someone (Or at least it is reported to have happened). Why Peter, who supposedly understood who Jesus was so well, would be carrying a sword is beyond me, and I question the validity of the report, but that's neither here nor there.

There is no indication I know of that Jesus wanted to stir up a revolt against the Romans. All his reported actions dealt with people obeying God. His statements were about an Earthly kingdom only after the Son of Man came down from Heaven in power and all that stuff. His actions in the Temple were directed at Jews. Nothing to do with Roman rule.

I agree that the religion most people call Christianity today is more the result of Paul's words than the words of Jesus though.

But I just don't see grounds for the claim that Jesus was trying for "rioting and an insurrection" against Rome. But I would like to see some of the evidence used in the book to support it.

 

[This Guy]

Wasn't the overriding purpose of the Jewish Messiah to re-establish the Jewish state, free them from occupation, re-establish the 12 tribes, etc, etc....?

Isn't that the primary reason Jesus was rejected by the Jews? That he obviously hadn't done any of that, and went and got himself arrested?

I think most Christians would say he was rejected by the Jews because it was foretold in the scriptures (Old Testament). The Jews did not really understand the scriptures. Which is understandable. I would argue that no one can understand the Old Testament as the unerring word of God, cept fundamentalist Christians. And I would argue that they only think they understand it because they make it read the way they want it to.

That's the long answer to your question (IMHO).

The short answer (again IMHO) would be :I think so, though I'm not really that up on Old Testament predictions about who/what the Messiah would be/do.