Talk:Old Testament messianic prophecies quoted in the New Testament

Title

Is the title a little POV in that it apparently takes sides on whether these prophecies were about Jesus. Shouldn't a more neutral title be Claimed Messianic prophecies of Jesus or Messianic prophecies (Christian) or something along those lines?--Andrew c 23:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, although I can't think of anything that isn't absurdly long. AdamBiswanger1 00:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I like Messianic prophecies (Christian). How do you change the name of an article? Ramsquire 17:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I moved it to 'Messianic prophecy in Christianity'. Bob A 17:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Any reason why it's no longer Messianic prophecy in Christianity? The current title is extremely POV.RWgirl 21:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What good is claimed? Everything is (unless, of course, you believe). vitiator (talk) 21:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on my reading of the article the title should be: Jewish arguments against Christian Interpretations of Messianic Prophecy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecs9 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge

I don't think a merge would be appropriate. A concise summary of this article ought to appear on the main article but this artcile is allready to big to fit into another IMO. Peace. --Home Computer 17:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

An article of missionary rants directed at Jewish scripture with the goal of conversion of Jews

The title "Messianic prophecy in Christianity" where Jewish texts are used as if they were all about Jesus is just as absurd as an article called "Jesus as a prophet only in Islam" instead of the current title Islamic view of Jesus which is NPOV. Obviously, this article would be titled "Christian view of Hebrew Scripture" if Wikipedia were truly NPOV. But I don't expect that to ever occur because the predominant view online is that Christians know more about Hebrew scripture than Jews do and google rules Wikipedia instead of the reality of plain words in their original context. 72.74.110.248 18:16, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• The titles are meant to be informative. "Christian view of Hebrew Scripture" would imply a discussion of exactly that. This instead describes the Christian view on supposed messianic prophecies. The OT is claimed as authoratative in Christianity, thus there is no bias in the title. Now if an article was to be made on Christian intepretation of Abrahman then it should be titles as "Christian perspective on Abraham" the same would be true for the Jewish intepretation(presumably including Jewish traditions). As such the title "Jewish perspective on Abraham". 74.137.230.39 21:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I see very little of the Christian views and rebuttals displayed in the article. It seems to be Jewish arguments against Christian views of Hebrew Scriptures, as if Christian aren't allowed to have informed opinions on these matters. Christians will agree with the Christian views, and Jews will disagree. This article should be predominantly Christian views of Jesus and Messianic Prophecy, otherwise its just a lot of nay saying. Jews (and I do have enormous respect for others peoples views as long as they respect mine) Jews could write a counter argument but it would just be: He wasn't the Messiah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecs9 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to split into two articles: A list of "prophecies" and an article about the prophecies

This article seems to be overly focused on examples of Messianic prophecy in Christianity to the exclusion of analysis of the topic itself (which seems to be relegated to the end of the article). I propose we split this article into two: one with a list of the "prophecies" and one that focuses on the role Messianic prophecy plays in Christianity and the various viewpoints on the accuracy of the Christian view of Messianic prophecy. Any thoughts, support, or opposition? johnpseudo 20:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you're saying and I think we should implement that plan-however I think we may have trouble with the uncertainty as to what a legitimate "prophecy" is, and the list might be a breeding ground for OR and POV. We just need to be careful. AdamBiswanger1 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we might have a problem finding any kind of "authoritative" source on what "Christians" claim to be a Messianic prophecy, but I suppose it's best to be as inclusive as possible and denote fringe opinions as being fringe. There are plenty of sources for Christian claims of Messianic prophecy, though- even just on the Internet. johnpseudo 21:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I just read the deletion nomination more thoroughly and am having second thoughts. Perhaps the non-list content of this article can be fleshed out a bit more before splitting. johnpseudo 23:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

delete per below this whole article merely lists verses without even listing the criticism of biblical scholars on each verse until this is done this is pov even tektonics.org admits the Hebrew Scriptures didn't predict Jesus but that the gospel authors took verses out of context don't believe me here is a good example

Matthew 2:15 where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."

Hosea 11:1 "When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

see http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=son+out+of+egypt&x=0&y=0

"Is OT prophecy fulfillment is a good apologetic? It actually isn't useful in the way it was at first. We need to understand (as do Skeptics) Jewish exegesis of the first century. It is not so much that the OT predicted the NT events as that the NT writers looked at history and sought OT passages that echoed what they had seen. This does not mean that there is not actual predictive prophecy at all (for even then God may have orchestrated the pattern) but rather that we cannot present an apologetic on this basis as we normally have; or else we are forced into a corner of explaining ie, why the NT allegedly uses OT passages "out of context"." source http://www.tektonics.org/af/christianmyths.html --Java7837 19:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason it is bias this article should not exist it should be deleted--Java7837 03:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not split otherwise it is hard for there to be rebuttals and the skeptic's view page will merely reproduce the list of prophecies page--Java7837 01:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Addition of Prophecies not fulfilled

While the article with just the "Claimed Prophecies" was definitely POV, it is still POV with the addition of the "Non-fulfilled" prophecies. Just because an article has two unchallenged rants on different sides of the issue does not make an article NPOV. All of the non-fulfilled prophecies can be explained to be explained to have been fulfilled as can all of the fulfilled be explain not to have been fulfilled. The "Christian" prophecies should have Jewish rebuttals under them and the "Jewish" ones should have Christians rebuttals. Currently it looks like the "Non-fulfilled" prophecies should be on the Rejection of Jesus or Criticism of Jesus page or even have there own page as long as it is POV with Christian rebuttals should have Jewish rebuttals. ChrisLamb 19:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Not even the New Testament claims that Jesus endorsed most (or any?) of these "prophecies", so this neither fits as Criticism of Jesus or Rejection of Jesus. Psysoph 06:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? The book of revelation fulfills the so-called unfulfilled prophecies. Jesus is gonna return again to fullfill the rest of the messianic prophecies according to New Testament scripture. Staraloy (talk) 12:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

External links

I've checked the recently added external link for "All about Jesus - Bible studies" and it doesn't seem to include studies that are specifically relevant to the article. Have the others been checked? - Fayenatic london (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Article quality

This is really very low-quality stuff - take for example the piece on the prophecy from Micah: it says:

While near the end of Micah's prophecy on the Babylonian captivity, Christian scholars have interpreted the text as a messianic prophecy that Christ would be born in Bethlehem.

"But you, O Bethlehem Ephrata, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose origin is from of old, from ancient days."

Bethlehem-Ephrata is the tiny city and clan from which comes the ancient Davidic dynasty with its messianic King. Hence the debate recorded in the book of John: “Others said, ‘This is the Christ.’ But some said, ‘Is the Christ to come from Galilee? Has not the scripture said that the Christ is descended from David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?’ So there was a division among the people over Jesus” (John 7: 41-43).

Yet the mother of Jesus gave birth to him in Bethlehem, as recorded at Luke 2: 1-7. That is why the Church of the Nativity is in Bethlehem; it was built on the site where Jesus was born.

"Assembling all the chief priests and scribes of the people, king Herod inquired of them where the Christ was to be born. They told him, ‘In Bethlehem of Judea; for so it is written by the prophet: And you, O Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you shall come a ruler who will govern my people Israel’" (Matthew 2: 4-6).

Really? Are you quite sure that "Bethlehem Ephrata" means the village of Bethlehem? Just what does the word "Ephrata" mean? For that matter, what does "Bethlehem" mean? "The tiny city and clan etc" eh? And the Mother of Jesus gave birth to him in Bethlehem did she? Are you quite sure of that? Any alternative opinions you're aware of about the origin of Luke 2:1-7? And Herod assembled the chief priests did he? How do you know this? Matthew 2 says so? Oh really!

Seriously, this article has to be upgraded beyond Sunday School standard.

PiCo 16:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it needs work. The debates on its continued existence acknowledged that. Please do contribute. I'm hoping to do so, but it deserves a big chunk of time.

This article is too long to go into detailed studies of individual words; please set up separate articles for detailed studies on individual notable passages, like the one on Isaiah 53.

You don't seem to accept Luke 2 and Matthew 2 as reliable sources, but at least the article states that those are the sources it is using for certain statements. By all means add references to other views, preferably concisely with links to longer articles elsewhere. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

13 September 2007

I agree with the above poster; this article has so many problems, where does one begin? As a Christian, I particularly object to the fact that Zechariah 13:6 is listed as a Messianic prophecy. Only Christians who are completely unfamiliar with Biblical Hebrew understand this to be Messianic. The actual Hebrew words used there are: וְאָמַר אֵלָיו, מָה הַמַּכּוֹת הָאֵלֶּה בֵּין יָדֶיךָ; וְאָמַר, אֲשֶׁר הֻכֵּיתִי בֵּית מְאַהֲבָי

The Hebrew word בֵּין יָדֶיךָ means "between," it does not mean "in." Therefore, the King James Version of the Bible is incorrect. Most other translations get it right. Contextually, Zech. 13:6 refers to someone who has been beaten on the BACK (the area that's "between the hands") because he's a FALSE PROPHET, which, as a Christian, I would never agree is truthful about Jesus. 207.239.111.117 17:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You're clearly right, so I have deleted that section. That's a quick win. Fayenatic (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that your editorial decision in understandable, but damages the POV. Is the attempt of this article to establish prophecies that the Nazarene DID fulfill (inappropriate for Wikipedia as I would understand) or passages which are used to support that belief. This passage IS one which some Christians use to support their beliefs. For example http://www.yahshuarevealed.org/Home/prophecy/zechariah-end-time-prophecy and apparently popular apologist Josh McDowell. http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep27.html)--Teshuvas HaMinim (talk) 04:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't Delete!!!

While this article does have a lot of flaws it just helped me a lot with a paper I had to write. Articles like these (no matter how controversial) are good! Perhaps to keep wikipedia controversial-free there could be a separate page explaining "the other side". But whatever you say these things are truly in the Christian's bible and Christians DO believe it. As long as this article contains facts about someone's beliefs it should be kept up for the greater knowledge of all.Meheren (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

We Need Similar Page Re: Israel

Many important prophecies in the Bible also relate to Israel and its future, some of which has come to pass. I'm not qualified to write such a page, but I really appreciate this one, as it adds to my knowledge various points of view of these things.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaronchall (talk • contribs) 05:07, 5 March 2008

Claimed? Neutrality?

Are you kidding me? Why was this ever moved to include "claimed" in the title? When it was title "Messianic Prophecy in Christianity" that already demonstrates the "claimed" nature since the whole world is not Christian. Furthermore, why is there a neutrality question? Are we making mountains out of mole hills or what here? This should be moved back to the former title and the neutrality dispute deleted. It goes without saying that something titled, "...in Christianity" is already a claim by those that follow such. Ugh, I guess I'm making it a mountain too, but we are far too PC today, walking on eggshells just because there are differences in beliefs and opinions. Get over it! T geier (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Claimed Messianic prophecies of Jesus to ensure that the article was kept, as another editor kept PRODding it. The discussion may or may not answer your question... As a Christian, I don't mind the title. The objective is to achieve an objective article, fully referenced, setting out both Christian and Jewish POV on the most relevant scriptures. It still needs work, I know... - Fayenatic (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It would help for 'better' neutrality if the terms "Old Testament" and "New Testament" were replaced by "Hebrew Bible (or Scripture)" and "Christian Bible (or Scripture)" respectively. From a Jewish perspective there is no "new" testament. Dori1951 (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

- the Wikipedia articles are entitled Old Testament and New Testament - the Christian Old Testament is not identical to the Hebrew Bible - both Christian Bible and Christian scripture redirect to the main article Bible - the Christian Bible contains both the Old and New Testaments - the article is about prophecies in the Christian Old Testament, not in the Hebrew Bible - Epinoia (talk) 19:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Wisdom of Solomon

I've included this passage but with a note that Jews and Protestants don't consider it Scripture, but most Christians do and it was written by a Jewish author, and thus to exclude it is to give the page a Protestant bias when it is far more explicit than most of the other examples. Maybe not got it completely NPOV but it's use by Matthew is well documented. 82.36.120.66 (talk) 10:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bible References

Before any more work is done reflecting a Jewish approach to the article, references to the scriptural citations need to be used. For example, are the references made to the KJV? If so, its outdated, the discussion should reach some concensus as to which Christian? translation they are going to use, and to please cite it clearly.

The Jewish position is a natural adoption of the actual Hebrew text as the ultimate source, together with the way classical commentators have understood these verses.Dannyza1981 (talk) 22:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is the King James Version outdated? CJB was translated by one man, Dr. Stern. Who reviewed him? No one. His perspective is all you get. KJV was written and compiled by the most respected English theologians of their time. Is the complaint that it is old? Sorry, get over it. The best source material is the oldest. You don't like "thy" and "thou". Sorry you're ignorant and your knowledge of English is weak. Shall we get Dr. Stern to translate Shakespeare for thou? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecs9 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe the preceding comment is unnecessarily abrasive in tone. The English represented in the Kings James Version may have emotional and or aesthetic appeal to many but it is antiquated. Educated, native English speakers have difficulty with the KJV without having a "weak" knowledge of English. The assertion that it is the "best source material" because it is old is incorrect since we are not dealing with a primary source but a translation, the fidelity of a translation to the original doesn't grow with age. The analogy to Shakespeare is poor since the language there is original while preference for the language of the KJV is arbitrary. Nevertheless, David Stern's translation leaves significant terms untranslated for stylistic reasons which may be justified for his purposes but inadequate for ours. Furthermore being the product of an attempt to introduce classically Christian beliefs among the Jewish population it implicitly damages the neutral POV of the article.--Teshuvas HaMinim (talk) 02:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Call for placing this article in wikisource

Honestly, though, I think the article is more a wikisource article, than a wikipedia article. Think about it. Would you expect to find this article in a regular DVD, or in an information portal? I think this is a good way of determining whether these articles are necessary. The Wikipedia forum is not a place for Christian-Jewish Missionary dialog. It need not even present every single prophecy. This is my take - this article needs to be put in a wikisource or portal, rather than an article on an encyclopedia. Dannyza1981 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In the Christian Bible

I have my doubts about this article. Christian contributors to this article should be very aware of the fact that what they read is with a NT Bias. And hence the neutrality of the article is heavily Questionable. For example: consider prophecies for Muhammed found in the NT. With the Quran as a starting point, you can probably find just as much information and hints to Muhammed in the NT, as you can Jesus in the Christian OT, by using the NT, and mistranslating?! passages. I'm questioning here the bias of the writers here. Before you think about providing a source here, what are you trying to convey? That Christians read the bible in this way? The Article should really be on Christian Messianism and how it views Biblical Prophecy. Dannyza1981 (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the last sentence. I'm not so sure about the rest. Peter Deer (talk) 11:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"In Galilee The Light Has Shined"

This subsection doesn't really make much sense currently. Can it be rewritten? --Dweller (talk) 09:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Trimming this article

This article is way too long, many sections have no citations and are largely original research, and has the same material presented, more or less, three times over - texts that have been cited as messianic; examples of messianic prophecy; table of messianic prophecies. I suggest reducing it dramatically and trying to present it in a more balanced and coherent way. First thing to go, I suggest, is the table at the end which appears to be just one person's original research. --Rbreen (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed this as it seems to be mainly a copyvio of this document.

The table is a more complete and condensed version of the content than is found in the text. The table is also sourced and not original. The pdf at cai.org comes from the Thompson Chain Reference Bible which was one of the sources but tables like this are found in several bible dictionaries and handbooks or could be derived independently. This article has had redundancies and quality issues. This article also needs distinctions made between fulfilled and unfulfilled prophecies; between prophecies of a suffering Christ (fulfilled) and prophecies of a glorified Christ (largely unfulfilled). There are exist public teachings of short term and long term fulfillments where the prophecy is believed to be partially fulfilled with a greater fulfillment still to come. The analogy sometimes given is that of seeing a near mountain with a more distant mountain right behind it and seeing both at the same time.

Itohacs 02:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itohacs (talk • contribs)

The table is the least of many problems with this article. I'm not a fan of littering pages with *unreferenced section* tags, but this article is ridiculous. There are entire sections that rely entirely on WP:OR. I'm sure this could all be referenced, but as it isn't much of it deserves either tags or the axe. I'm going to tag it where appropriate and give whoever wishes a chance to reference it. In it's current state it's entirely unacceptable. _Disarray^General 20:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Antichrist conspiracies

There is a popular view among certain Christians that the modern Jewish concept of Messiah actually corresponds to what the New Testament calls the Antichrist. For instance, some have interpreted passages of the Apocalypse in a way that suggests that Jews are awaiting a purely material reign of a false Christ that will serve their own interests. The fact that contemporary Jews want to rebuild the ancient temple of Jerusalem is interpreted as a sign of doom to come. ADM (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Christians believe that the Jewish Messiah will turn out to be the Antichrist. Portillo (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Don't delete!

I think this article is still encyclopedic and necessary for Wikipedia. Nashhinton (talk) 09:28, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

External link suggestion

I would like to suggest an addition which would be appropriate for the "External links-- Jewish analysis" section, but may not be best for me to add myself. http://www.teshuvashaminim.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teshuvas HaMinim (talk • contribs) 03:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for posting here rather than adding it yourself. It seems to be a thoughtfully compiled resource, but written in the first person without disclosing the author, and still under construction. WP:EL is the relevant policy page here. - Fayenatic (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"Christians Believe"

It is no secret in the discussion that this page suffers from many problems but one pervasive issue which does not seem to be brought up is the frequency with which a position is presented as "Christian" when it is not at all uncommon for even evangelical/fundamentalist Christians to take a different or more nuanced view of many passages under discussion. In other words, often times a position which is ascribed to "Jewish" or "secular" scholars are held largely or entirely by evangelical scholars when they attempt to explain the plain meaning of the passage in question. Taking this into account would go a long way in evening out the pov issues in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teshuvas HaMinim (talk • contribs) 05:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you mis-type that? I can't see any objection to adding "some" before "Christians" where applicable. But if you think evangelical Christian views are misleadingly presented as Jewish or secular, please tag them for sources (or just change anything that has patently been ascribed incorrectly). - Fayenatic (talk) 11:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

By presenting a view as Jewish or secular when it is shared by many evangelical scholars gives the false impression that the disagreement falls along ideological lines. It can likewise inflate the importance of some arguments which are common in popular outreach literature but not as much so in internal exegesis.--Teshuvas HaMinim (talk) 16:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand your point now. By all means set the record straight (with citations of course). - Fayenatic (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Section removed from article

(I have remove the following section from the article, as it was marked as unreferenced, and much of the information seems repetitive or irrelevant. I have cached it here in case any of it proves useful to be reintegrated into the article in the future.)

Claimed examples of prophecy

As examples, passages are listed below which many Christians consider to be messianic prophecies that refer to Jesus, who they believe is the Messiah. Moshiach Online has a set of articles on Jewish interpretations regarding the Messiah.

Ancestors of Messiah

• Isaiah 37:31 Once more a remnant of the house of Judah will take root below and bear fruit above.
• Isaiah 11:10 In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious.
• Isaiah 11:1 A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
• Isaiah 16:5 In love a throne will be established; in faithfulness a man will sit on it—one from the house of David--one who in judging seeks justice and speeds the cause of righteousness.

Nature of the Messiah

• Book of Proverbs 30:4 (NKJV)

Who has ascended into heaven, or descended?

Who has gathered the wind in His fists?

Who has bound the waters in a garment?

Who has established all the ends of the earth?

What is His name, and what is His Son's name, if you know?

Personality of the Messiah

• Isaiah 11:2-5 (2) The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him — the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD — (3) and he will delight in the fear of the LORD. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears; (4) but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked. (5) Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness the sash around his waist.
• Isaiah 16:5 In love a throne will be established; in faithfulness a man will sit on it—one from the house of David—one who in judging seeks justice and speeds the cause of righteousness.

Activities of the Messiah

• Isaiah 11:4 but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked.

Miracles of Messiah

• Isaiah 29:18 In that day the deaf will hear the words of the scroll, and out of gloom and darkness the eyes of the blind will see.
• Isaiah 35:5-6a (5) Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. (6a) Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy.

How the Messiah will come (style)

• Isaiah 49:7 This is what the LORD says—the Redeemer and Holy One of Israel—to him who was despised and abhorred by the nation, to the servant of rulers: "Kings will see you and rise up, princes will see and bow down, because of the LORD, who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you."

Results of the Messiah's coming (long-term)

• Isaiah 61:1-2 (1) The Spirit of the Sovereign LORD is on me, because the LORD has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for the captives and release from darkness for the prisoners, (2) to proclaim the year of the LORD's favor and the day of vengeance of our God, to comfort all who mourn,
• Isaiah 49:6 he (the Lord) says: "It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth."
• Isaiah 42:1 "Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations (Gentiles)."

Editor2020 (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Islamic doctrines should be included.

When (and if) I get time, I might add this, but probably will not have time soon. Somebody who is qualified and who can be objective needs to do so. In Islamic doctrine, Jesus is called the Messiah too, and the doctrine of the Second Coming also is shared with Christianity, as is that of the Virgin Birth. Muslims disagree with Christians, though, on Christ's divinity and death but believe He is one of the four Messengers of God, along with an unspecified number of other prophets. In many ways, Christianity and Islam are more similar to each other than are Christianity and Judaism--and also more similar to Judaism than to Christianity. As part of the same Judeo-Islamic-Christian tradition, Islam in many ways combines aspects of the other two faiths. 50.104.198.87 (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Staraloy (talk) 12:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Jesus and messianic prophecy. Favonian (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Jesus and Messianic prophecy → Jesus and messianic prophecy – There are some cases of respect-capitalization of this adjective in modern sources, however overall, per WP:CAPS and as per WP:RS usage an adjective should not be capitalized. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support, per Merriam Webster, American Heritage, and Oxford. Kauffner (talk) 20:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

365 Messianic Prophecies

Try 365 Messianic Prophecies --Quarantine Zone (talk) 15:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Parthenos

We have a source (Saldarini) saying parthenos is Greek for virgin, and Sweeney saying scholars agree that almah has nothing to do with virginity per se. What more is there to say? (Sweeney is probably the leading authority on the Old Testament prophetic books) PiCo (talk) 11:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Parthenos and almah both have roughly the same connection with virginity, that is to say that each can mean virgin, but that neither means virgin to the exclusion of other definitions. Both words could be more accurately translated as "maiden", which could mean a virgin, but not explicitly so.

The problem we have in the article is that you're trying to make it say that virgin is the only translation of parthenos, and Saldarini doesn't say that. Saldarini points out that parthenos provides the opportunity for the concept of virgin birth; NOT that pathenos dictates the virgin birth, which is what your version of the article tries to convey. That's a misuse of the source.

On another note, there are no "reasonable glosses" here. "Reasonable gloss" is just another way of saying "original research", and when your "reasonable gloss" attempts to impart meaning not found in your source, you should expect it to be challenged. ► Belchfire-TALK 11:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

If the sentence about Matthew taking an opportunity upsets you, I already removed it upsets you, I've already removed it. You need to quote some sources - for example, you say that both almah and parthenos "can" mean virgin (implying that they can mean other things as well, but you quote no support. My reading leads me to understand that this is wrong - almah means a young woman who has not yet born a child (not, as you said in an edit summary, an unmarried young woman), a concept for which there's no word in English or Greek, and parthenos means only virgin.PiCo (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Strong's Greek Dictionary is generally considered authoritative [1]

And here are some others: [2], [3], [4]

Note that virgin is only one meaning of the word. It may be considered the primary meaning, but it's not exclusive. It's important to understand this in cultural terms - a young, unmarried was presumed to be a virgin and expected to be a virgin and was generally referred to as a virgin, but that's not the same as our modern understanding which requires a strict interpretation of "virgin" in terms of sexual experience. Again, the best English translation is "maiden", which implies virginity without explicitly requiring it. Another way to think of it is that a virgin in ancient times was simply a woman who had never wed, whereas today we understand it to have a more narrow definition.

Nevertheless, Saldarini doesn't actually say what you imputed to him. Your most recent addition addresses the issue in a satisfactory way, and I'm happy with the current version. ► Belchfire-TALK 12:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you're happy with the current version. Just to clear up one minor point: an almah was not an unmarried woman, she was a woman of marriageable age who had not yet born a child. As such she might or might not be a virgin (she could be married and pregnant with her first child, as the almah in Isaiah is).PiCo (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Point taken. Translations can certainly be challenging sometimes. In this instance, we have the added wrinkle of dealing with the King James Version, which for all intents and purposes is really a third language, not strictly the same as the modern English you and I use to communicate. And of course, those who created the KJV were wanting to put rigid meaning into things, as opposed to, say, the authors of the New Living Translation, who were willing to provide a footnote where the word "virgin" appears in Isaiah 7:14: "Or young woman." ► Belchfire-TALK 13:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Existence of prophecy relating to Nazareth in Dead Sea Scrolls

As of at least 2006 (http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Messianic_prophecy&oldid=40382808), when the Messanic prophecy page was updated, and the Revision as of 20:48, 16 February 2007 (http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Jesus_and_messianic_prophecy&diff=prev&oldid=108686013) when it was moved back onto this page, it has stated "This theory is supported by the fact that such a verse exists in a copy of Samuel found among the Dead Sea Scrolls." - this was flagged for a citation in March 2010, and a citation was added in the Revision as of 23:40, 26 July 2015, listing David Keener's 1999 commentary on Matthew (https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sWzhEdBZOp4C&q=nazereth#v=onepage&q=nazereth&f=false) - this does *not* refer to any such verses and should not be considered a valid citation for this statement. The statement may be true, but I have not found any evidence for it so far - for such a difficult passage none of the following mention it; Tasker (1961), France (1985), Morris (1992) Green (2000), Wright (2002), Legg (2004). Epideme (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jesus and messianic prophecy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080529001843/http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/pdf/EnglishHandbook.pdf to http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/pdf/EnglishHandbook.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jesus and messianic prophecy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071011083916/http://deism.com:80/paine_essay03.htm to http://deism.com/paine_essay03.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Asserting facts, not opinions

According to WP:ASSERT we should not label facts as opinions or opinions as facts. It is misleading to attribute the view about those verses to "some scholars, like Bart Ehrman" when it is as objective fact as anything can be an objective fact about the Bible: those verses either aren't prophecies (fact, not opinion), or they make no mention of the word "Messiah" (again, fact, not opinion). The only exception is Zechariah 13:6, which is explicitly about the false prophet. Since there are no Christians prepared to claim that Jesus was a false prophet, Zech. 13:6 obviously isn't (in their view) a prophecy referring to Jesus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

So, compiling the list of all OT verses which are:

• explicitly prophecies
• explicitly messianic
• could apply to Jesus

We get a very short list of one prophecy, namely Zech. 13:6. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

One reason to trump them all

And the strongest argument about it is that post-Enlightenment historians do not work with precognition. So for historians, all prophecies about Jesus must be bunk, since the writers of the Old Testament had no interest of speaking about him, even if they would have known him. Hint: they weren't Christians.

Bart D. Ehrman (23 September 1999). Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Oxford University Press. p. 197. ISBN 978-0-19-983943-8. As I've pointed out, the historian cannot say that demons—real live supernatural spirits that invade human bodies—were actually cast out of people, because to do so would be to transcend the boundaries imposed on the historian by the historical method, in that it would require a religious belief system involving a supernatural realm outside of the historian's province.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

We should obey WP:YESPOV. Bona fide history departments have been wholly sold out to methodological naturalism. Post-Enlightenment historians think that supernatural prophecies are bunk. So, no, Ehrman is not alone in endorsing methodological naturalism. In fact, its opponents are WP:FRINGE/PS by our book.

The following are high-level (principal, methodological) WP:RS/AC claims:

• "boundaries imposed on the historian by the historical method"

• "the proper stance for historians to take"

• "Historical criticism, however, cannot"

(As quoted in our article.)

The problem at this article are POV-pushers who are unaware (ignoramuses) that the history has been purged of the supernatural. For these POV-pushers inside Wikipedia is Catch-22, if the source says those prophecies were genuine, it is not reliable, since it is WP:FRINGE/PS (pseudohistory). The claim of genuine prophecies about Jesus is methodologically unsound. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Thymes: The above is about your edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Suffering Servant

The Suffering Servant is Israel. There cannot be much doubt about that, since the Book of Isaiah makes it clear that the Servant is the people of Israel. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree here, and while I don't have an explicit scholarly source to back up my claim (though I will provide one if needed) a quick look at the text suggests something contrary to your point

"Surely he has borne our infirmities

and carried our diseases;

yet we accounted him stricken,

struck down by God, and afflicted." Isaiah 53:4 (Emphasis mine)

It would be odd for Isaiah to both refer to a group striking down Israel and including himself in that group. Unless he made some POV change I did not see in the text (perhaps associating the speaker with the nations) these particular pronouns wouldn't make sense if Israel were the suffering servant. 108.21.80.191 (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

According to Bart Ehrman NRSV is one of the least theologically biased English translations. But, anyway, you should read more than one chapter. It's not rocket science. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Just for the record, "Israel" is the name of the nation, but also a personal name (it's Jacob, in fact, per Genesis 35!). So the pronouns make sense in Hebrew for both the nation and a single male antecedent. The later Christian tradition is obviously (to me, anyway) playing upon that. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Original research

"Jesus of Nazareth - if a person of this name existed - would be among the many other Jewish messiah claimants." We cannot verify such statement to the citations from Ehrman. Further, Ehrman is not a Jew, so he does not speak in the name of Judaism, he speaks as a mainstream Bible scholar and sought to render the consensus among Bible scholars. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The sources quoted by the IP do speak in the name of Judaism, that is not the question; the question is whether they amount to WP:SCHOLARSHIP and are thus reliable sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 24 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Consensus here is that the proposed descriptive title is a better fit for the content. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

---

Christian messianic prophecies → Old Testament messianic prophecies quoted in the New Testament – An earlier RM in 2012 has meanwhile been boldly overturned without discussion. "Christian" messianic prophecies is clearly misleading, since these are Old Testament prophecies with Christian interpretation. The proposed title is more factual. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Old Testament messianic prophecies quoted in the New Testament" certainly fails the Conciseness requirement! (unless you invoke the "Descriptive title" exception) – I'm not so sure that "Christian messianic prophecies" is misleading as Christians regard the Old Testament as scripture, so although they were originally Jewish scripture, they are part of the Christian bible and thus are Christian texts – and the belief that these passages of the OT foretell the coming of Christ is as old as the Gospels themselves and central to Christian faith – it was Christians who saw these texts as prophetic of Jesus and therefore they are Christian prophecies, distinct from Jewish Messianiasm (whether the texts actually were prophecies of Christ is another question) – there are other articles that touch on this same topic, such as the Prophets of Christianity list and Bible prophecy#Jesus – it seems this article has been through name changes before – unless a more concise title can be proposed I don’t see any reason to rename the article – cheers –Epinoia (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment "with Christian interpretation" makes them Christian messianic prophecies they aren't just quoted, they're interpreted to say what Christians want them to say עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It not only fails the requirements, but obscures what Christians believe as the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies. Simbagraphix (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support good, clear descriptive name. Srnec (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support or Hebrew Bible messianic prophecies cited in the New Testament, but yes support a move. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support, as there are countless messianic prophecies that have been made by Christians that are not within the coverage of this article. bd2412 T 20:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"standing nearby"

User:PiCo, where do you get this claim that Immanuel's mother is "standing nearby" as the prophecy is given? Alephb (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

See Horst Dietrich Preuss's entry on eth (of all things) in Botterweck et. al., Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, page 461, where he explains that the correct translation is "Behold, the young woman is pregnant (etc)," and that it applies to a specific young woman known to the king. This is found in many other sources and can be regarded as the standard view, a point made by Marvin Sweeney in his commentary on Isaiah 1-39. As for "standing nearby", the prophet says, "Behold!", indicating that the young woman was in sight - and bear in mind that the "sign" is not the pregnancy nor the birth of the child, but its name and the fact (Isaiah promises) that the threat to the House of David will be lifted before it matures. You can delete it if you wish.PiCo (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I fully buy that it had to be a woman whose identity Ahaz would know without having it spelled out, and having her standing there is a plausible way to read it. I'd imagine it could be read other ways, too -- there's a particular young woman whom Ahaz has reason to believe might be pregnant, or what have you. I'm not going to step in and delete it. Reading hinneh ha-almah as "this young woman here" seems reasonable enough, even if it does go a step beyond what the cited sources specifically say. Alephb (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Format

The Bible verses are listed alphabetically. Should they be shown chronologically? Some original statements appear to be time-sensitive to contemporary events, and others appear to have been based on earlier ones. Asking for a friend. Mannanan51 (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest picking a canon and doing it in canonical order, but I would endorse a chronological order as an improvement over what we have now. Alephb (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

My immediate reaction on reading this article is to question the alpha ordering of the OT books. I agree that a canonical ordering would be much better than what we have at present. BobKilcoyne (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

When Jews read the Bible

When Jews read the Bible they think that the Bible is full of Judaism. When Christians read the Bible they think that the Bible is full of Christianity. When a modern Bible scholar reads the Bible he would say "I don't see Judaism, I don't see Christianity, I see the 8th century BCE."

— Shaye J. D. Cohen, http://ruml.com/thehebrewbible/

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Removing sources

@GoogleMeNowPlease: I am baffled that you have removed two of the three sources. The argument is that the methodological naturalism of the historical method does not allow for supernatural precognition as objective historical fact. All those three sources toe this line and you either remove all three of them or none of them. Besides, there was nothing inherently anti-Christian about the article: mainline Protestants and Catholics are not principally opposed to higher criticism. Only fundamentalist Christians play a find the heresy game, wherein they claim that mainline Protestants and Catholics aren't really Christians because they do not reject higher criticism out of hand. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

The sources were stuck at inappropriate places. The sources were NOT stuck at the place where methodological naturalism was discussed, but it was stuck at the place where we said that the prophecies are not prophecies. Again, our wording seemed more snarky than anything, and ignored people who disagree and even sources. Just from my memory, I could remember Dr Richard Carrier citing b.Sanhedrin 98b, which explicitly supports the idea that Isiah 53 was a messianic prophecy. See more of his discussion here. --GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I've moved them to a new section. Are you suggesting that there are historians who disagree with naturalism? Accepting supernatural intervention as a causative force in history would lead to some very odd results.Achar Sva (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I am fine with moving them to a new section. GoogleMeNowPlease (talk) 20:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Restructure article

Since the article is OT prophecy quoted in the NT, it would apparently make more sense to take the books of the NT and discuss the OT quotes they make (because they do make them). Ideas?Achar Sva (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Is methodological naturalism really an appropriate approach to Biblical Prophesy of the Messiah?

Dear Friends, I just read the article. It is interesting and thorough in many respects (although one or two more like "the Seed of the Woman" Prophesy in Gen 3:15 etc could be added), but I have a question on the "methodological naturalism" assumption. How can we apply such a methodology which both Jews and Christians reject as if it were "neutral" or universally accepted? Jews certainly believe the Prophetic Books (whose very name implies what they are believed to be) Prophesy the Coming of the Jewish Messiah. No question about that. Christians also believe the same, and further believe that Jesus Christ is that Jewish Messiah. Atheists or Secularists are the only ones who claim methodological or even metaphysical naturalism must a priori be assumed as either a necessary methodology or objective fact in order to do historical studies into the sacred Books. The Prophets didn't intend their Books to be treated as non-prophesies. They were called Prophets because they intended to deliver prophesies. A serious study of the prophesies can lead to a reasonable conclusion that (1) the Prophetic deadlines for the Messiah to come are past, and (2) therefore, the Messiah has already come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NishantXavier (talk • contribs) 13:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

the Prophetic deadlines for the Messiah to come are past is a biased and self-serving conclusion. Liberal theology agrees that history relies upon methodological naturalism. Yup, not all Christians are fundies, many denominations love historical criticism (as least as far as their divinity schools are concerned). So, yes, methodological naturalism is quasi-unanimously accepted by historians. If you don't accept it, you're not writing history, but you are writing theology. WP:MAINSTREAM Bible scholars have nothing against that, e.g.:

• Christine Hayes (Yale): "People who equate truth with historical fact will certainly end up viewing the Bible dismissively, as a naïve and unsophisticated web of lies, since it is replete with elements that cannot be literally true. But to view it this way is to make a genre mistake. Shakespeare's Hamlet, while set in Denmark, an actual place, is not historical fact."

• Shaye J. D. Cohen (Harvard): "Consequently MBS often reject the alleged “facts” of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?);"

MBS=Modern Bible scholarship/scholars.

The gist: you can't do history without objective evidence and the supernatural by definition isn't objective reality. People have faith in the supernatural, not knowledge of the supernatural.

Well, that presupposes a belief in God. Historians can't presuppose belief in God. Historians can only work with what we've got here among us. People who are historians can be of any theological persuasion. They can be Buddhists, they can be Hindus, they can be Muslims, they can be Christians, they can be Jews, they can be agnostics, they can be atheists, and the theory behind the canons in historical research is that people of every persuasion can look at the evidence and draw the same conclusions. But Bill's hypothesis requires a person to believe in God. I don't object to that as a way of thinking. I object to that as a way of historical thinking, because it's not history, it's theology.

— Bart Ehrman, Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Quite the unencyclopedic article!

Wikipedia's primary role, as an encyclopedia, is, well, to be encyclopedic. This article repeatedly cites only skeptical sources, which can be seen as not maintaining encyclopedic neutrality. Just because the editors of this page are skeptics does not mean the world is entirely skeptical of these prophecies. Please note that we should not be looking for journalistic neutrality, and I am not voicing for that. But for this article to be adherent to its purpose, it should not be presenting only one view. One example I choose to cite is the first prophecy from Isaiah: Isaiah 7:14. The statement "Scholars agree that almah has nothing to do with virginity" is erroneous. There are several Hebrew scholars who have a different view (which also makes more logical sense than the skeptics' point, but that has nothing to do with Wikipedia) including reputable ones like Dr. Zhava Glaser, who is an associate professor of the Old Testament and surely has some influence on this topic. Her view has been linked here..

This is not the only example. Almost all the prophecies have a more logical interpretation (please note that logical fallacies are independent of how much bearing they have on the world) and thus carry weight. Additionally, Christianity is the largest religion, so an argument for a skeptic-only article has no encyclopedic grounds. The skeptics' view should not be the only one highlighted here.

Please respect the view of the whole world, and not the little community of watchers and persistent editors of this page. Willcmc (talk) 05:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Historians have to be skeptics by definition, see Mertonian norms and Historical method#Source criticism. The scholar who does not convince the skeptics is a loser (or a crank). According to Merton, "The scientific investigator does not preserve the cleavage between the sacred and the profane, between that which requires uncritical respect and that which can be objectively analyzed."

... Wikipedia, as usually, prefers its narratives and its ivory tower snobbery over any serious attempt to listen to the common man ... --2600:1700:9190:5DF0:F58B:D8E3:5BC7:9C99 (talk) 01:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

... which is of course an odd argument: Wikipedia has decided that it only listens to experts, so deviating from this rule in matters of religion would be special pleading.

Dispute resolution won't do any good. The feedback you've gotten so far is the exact same kind of feedback that you would get in Wikipedia's dispute resolution systems. To simplify it somewhat, Wikipedia reflects the kind of scholarship that you find at leading secular universities, such as those mentioned at WP:CHOPSY: the kinds of things you would find taught at Cambridge, Harvard, Princeton, the Sorbonne, and/or Yale. If a view is considered fringe in those kinds of circles, you can bet that it will be considered fringe at Wikipedia. Now, that may not seem fair, especially if you believe the CHOPSY outlook is wrong. But that is the way Wikipedia has been since its inception, and it would be very unlikely if you could talk the Wikipedia community out of the approach that they've used since the beginning. As William Dever put it in "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?', "the overwhelming scholarly consensus today is that Moses is a mythical figure." That's from William Dever, who is on the conservative side of much of the debate currently going on within mainstream biblical studies. The great majority of mainstream scholars have abandoned the idea of Moses as a historical figure. Alephb (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman has stated:

This isn’t simply the approach of “liberal” Bible professors. It’s the way historians always date sources. If you find a letter written on paper that is obviously 300 years old or so, and the author says something about the “United States” — then you know it was written after the Revolutionary War. So too if you find an ancient document that describes the destruction of Jerusalem, then you know it was written after 70 CE. It’s not rocket science! But it’s also not “liberal.” It’s simply how history is done. If someone wants to invent other rules, they’re the ones who are begging questions!

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I think you failed to understand what I was trying to get across. I agree with most of what you say. But here's what I'm saying: it is not appropriate to quote only one side of the debate. The other side must have a fair representation. And yes, historians have to analyze their material from a critical perspective, but that really does not imply that they can't draw conclusions out of it which are not skeptical, and make a public statement on that.

And you say a scholar is a crank/loser if he cannot convince skeptics? That's slightly irrational, as all Bible scholars would be losers then (skeptic or not) because there are lots of apologists (who is a skeptic of the skeptics' work) because they aren't convinced by the skeptics' attempts to convince them of their view.

Willcmc (talk) 18:09, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, that presupposes a belief in God. Historians can't presuppose belief in God. Historians can only work with what we've got here among us. People who are historians can be of any theological persuasion. They can be Buddhists, they can be Hindus, they can be Muslims, they can be Christians, they can be Jews, they can be agnostics, they can be atheists, and the theory behind the canons in historical research is that people of every persuasion can look at the evidence and draw the same conclusions. But Bill's hypothesis requires a person to believe in God. I don't object to that as a way of thinking. I object to that as a way of historical thinking, because it's not history, it's theology.

— Bart Ehrman, Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?

About quote only one side of the debate we're not Debatepedia, we apply WP:ONEWAY and WP:GEVAL. We don't kowtow to true believers, we kowtow to Ivy Plus. If we tell it the Ivy Plus way, we have done a good job. Apologetics is quite lowbrow theology and as history it is pseudoscholarship. If one is not skeptical about the Bible, he/she isn't a historian of the Bible.

Robert Todd Carroll has developed a list of criteria to identify pseudo-historic works. He states that:

"Pseudohistory is purported history which:

• Treats myths, legends, sagas and similar literature as literal truth
• Is neither critical nor skeptical in its reading of ancient historians, taking their claims at face value and ignoring empirical or logical evidence contrary to the claims of the ancients
• Is on a mission, not a quest, seeking to support some contemporary political or religious agenda rather than find out the truth about the past
• Often denies that there is such a thing as historical truth, clinging to the extreme skeptical notion that only what is absolutely certain can be called 'true' and nothing is absolutely certain, so nothing is true
• Often maintains that history is nothing but mythmaking and that different histories are not to be compared on such traditional academic standards as accuracy, empirical probability, logical consistency, relevancy, completeness, fairness, honesty, etc., but on moral or political grounds
• Is selective in its use of ancient documents, citing favorably those that fit with its agenda, and ignoring or interpreting away those documents which don't fit
• Considers the possibility of something being true as sufficient to believe it is true if it fits with one's agenda
• Often maintains that there is a conspiracy to suppress its claims because of racism, atheism or ethnocentrism, or because of opposition to its political or religious agenda"

So, yeah, apologists are pseudohistorians. The gist is that mainstream Bible scholars are biased against modern apologists. It's not a level playing field. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Willcmc, Wikipedia tries to present the views of mainstream scholars; it doesn't try to present "both sides of the debate" unless there actually is a debate, which in the case of the "almah" passage in Isaiah there is not. You reference Zhava Glaser of Biola University as someone who thinks otherwise, but her view is not shared by mainstream scholars and Biola University is, to be frank, a zero in the world of universities.Acha Sva (talk) 01:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Achar Sva:,@Tgeorgescu: Your bias shows again, LOL. Robert Todd taught at Sacramento City College and Lassen Community College. ACTUAL "zero" schools. Plus I don't see you taking the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist or Augustine of Hippo which have heavy Catholic and non-CHOPSY bias! Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

RTC is not a famous scholar, but a famous debunker. I.e. he was recognized as an authority in the demarcation problem. In scientific articles, scientists don't often speak of pseudoscience or pseudoscholarship because there is little occasion for it, since other scientific articles are already curated through peer-review. Further, I generally stay away from subjects I know nothing about. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Ryan E., I wouldn't be surprised if you're right about a Catholic bias at "Real Presence" and "Augustine of Hippo", but there are limits to my willingness to wade into a tar-pit. Zhava Glaser seems to belong to the "Jews for Jesus" movement, which I gather is rather a strange group, but again I'd rather not get involved. Now something more important: It seems to me that an article titled "OT messianic prophecies quoted in the NT" should be structured around the NT verses that do quote or reference the OT, otherwise you find yourself inventing references that might well not exist. Achar Sva (talk) 07:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Those articles deal with Biblical issues and you've never heard of them. Somehow I find that really hard to believe. You've never engaged with Augustine's City of God? Never actually read any of the Church Fathers? Have you read engaged at all with modern scholarship on ANY of this? I mean even as Ehrman fans, you should've at LEAST read the sources that Ehrman uses and rallies against. In any case the demarcation problem article states "The debate continues after over two millennia". And a quick search with RTC and the problem, it turns out that he has published ZERO peer-reviewed articles (that I can find) on the issue. Tgeorgescu, again your bias is showing. RTC is NOT a scholar. He's not even an expert. He doesn't meet your CHOPSY standards, and he has NO authority for speaking on issue regarding the philosophy of science. He's a pseudo-scientist. It's sad you allow a lay person like him to influence your editing, but not people you disagree with. Even James Randi is a "Nazareth-mythicist". You can't seriously take "skeptics" uncritically. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

As I said, he was a debunker. So he did not write for the same audience as reputable scholars do. That does not mean that he was wrong. Anyway, apologetics relies heavily (nowadays) on lying for Jesus. So, apologetics is much more disreputable than debunking. The requirement that historians have to critically analyze their sources wasn't invented by the "skeptical movement". See historical method for details. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Rule out historical events as prophetic?

Isn't this an encyclopedia? The title of this article is clear. But the contents stray from the title.

The article seems to have no Bible scholars checking it. Most significantly is the failure to recognize that a historical event can be both historical and yet prophetic.

Case in point: Under Debate about prophecy fulfillment, the article states: Skeptics say that the Hosea passage clearly is talking about a historical event and therefore the passage clearly is not a prophecy.

However, by doing so these skeptics (which it sounds like the article author is biased towards) are also removing all past historical events from the possibility of prophetic foreshadowing. Similar dual-purpose events can be seen in historical events like Moses's bronze snake on a pole as described in Numbers 21:9. This event is later revealed by Jesus to serve as a prophetic event that foreshadows the method of the Messiah's work,

"Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up." John 3:14

The same can be said of the Book of Jonah. Whether Jonah is taken as a true historical narrative or allegory, the fact remains that in Matthew 12:40 Jesus cites Jonah's three-day entombment as both a historical event and a foreshadowing of his own crucifixion and three-day entombment. Additional examples include Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his own son (and ultimately receiving a substitute) as historically described in Genesis 22. Here Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son in obedience to the will of God serves as a foreshadow of the Gospel narratives as stated plainly in John 3:16, and expounded upon in Romans 3. Christians see the Messiah as a sacrificial substitute to take on God's wrath for humankind's sins. What's more long-standing Jewish ceremonies and traditions are often cited as a foreshadowing of God's plan of salvation, culminating in the work of the Messiah:

"3 But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins. 4 It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.

5 Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; 6 with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. 7 Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—

I have come to do your will, my God.’”" Hebrews 10:3–7

So the fact that such a passage in Hosea or elsewhere talks about a historical event does not necessarily rule it out as prophetic in nature. Otherwise, vast portions of Jewish history and religious practices from Genesis to the return from exile and all the sacrifices for sins that took place during those times could not be considered prophetic to the final sacrificial work of the Messiah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:443:c101:c760:2de6:63fe:d49d:9b5e (talk • contribs)

That's of course fine and dandy as (conservative) Christian theology, but it isn't history. I have nothing against "the Baptists believe that...", since WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is used. Attribution is not used for historical facts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Book of Enoch

Prophecies from book of Enoch should be added. It is considered scripture by Ethiopian Orthodox Church. If we are gonna include Deuterocanonical books, we must include Enoch too. There are many Jesus prophecies in Enoch. Jude quoted from book of Enoch in Jude 14. Staraloy (talk) 12:19, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Kierkegaard

Søren Kierkegaard does agree that choosing for Christianity cannot be based upon sufficient reason. The truth value of Christian theology is a contingent truth. Meaning science and history could never show that Christianity is true; it isn't thus objectively true.

And no, Kierkegaard was no atheist. He was more fundamentalist than your rank-and-file Bible thumper. He just wasn't stupid, and some Christians are inclined to think that not being stupid is the sin against the Holy Spirit. Otherwise there is no cogent explanation of why do they consider him an atheist. I have lived to see a fundamentalist Protestant being called an atheist by fellow fundamentalists who want to win an argument through spewing claptrap memes. I mean even Conservapedia does not call him an atheist. So, of all the fake claims I have heard at Wikipedia, this one is fake in a very big way. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by "it isn't thus objectively true"? Tuxzos22 (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tuxzos22: Meaning that according to objective knowledge such as science and history, Christian theology is neither true, nor false. It does not have truth value, except for very rare cases wherein it claims have been either verified or debunked. Of course, nobody could debunk the claim that Jesus is God, since such claim does not pertain to objective knowledge, it is merely a subjective religious belief. The claim that Jesus is God is unfalsifiable, so science and history cannot say whether it is true or false. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

True believer's POV

became aware of the many ways in which Jesus Christ proved His claims to be the Messiah is true believer's WP:POV, it isn't WP:RNPOV, as our articles should be. See also emic and etic. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

POV

Too much of WP:NOTFORUM.

@NishantXavier: You're pushing the POV that Liberal Christianity isn't Christian at all. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC) @TGeorge, please don't be offended. There's no reason to take offense. I simply made a basic statement that I thought would be uncontroversial, "Christians believe Messianic prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus Christ." Jews, Muslims non Christians etc have freedom to say that they respectively, Jews, Muslims, non-Christians etc do not believe Messianic prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus Christ. We know there is a debate. Please give freedom to all sides to state their respective positions. I made no judgment at all on other Christians, or on non Christians for that matter. I merely stated what Christians believe. When an important historical debate has continued for at least 2000 years between Jews, Christians, Muslims, Atheists etc, it's fair and reasonable to ask that all sides in that debate be granted equal representation and permitted to state their own views in a non-controversial way. I hope you'll agree. Thanks. NishantXavier (talk) 08:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC) @NishantXavier: Nope, you have to WP:CITE WP:RS (meaning mainstream Bible scholarship) like everybody else. You're no authority upon what all Christians think and WP:OR is prohibited by website policy. To make the point clearer: many liberal Christians don't buy the story with Jesus fulfilling OT prophecies. For many of them, Christ is the Lord, but the historical truth is that the Old Testament never spoke about Jesus. So, yeah, Wikipedia is biased for stating the historical truth as fact, and biased against stating religious dogma as objective truth. See WP:GOODBIAS. Let me spell it out: religious dogma means a subjective belief; historians seek to render objective truths about the past. If you believe that your professor ran over my dogma is a problem for your moral conscience, then you don't belong editing Wikipedia articles about Christianity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC) But, George, I wasn't making a statement of whether Jesus fulfilled Messianic prophecy or not. I was making a statement that most Christians believe Jesus fulfilled Messianic prophecy. I agree I should have added most, but I disagree that, with that addition, the statement would not be objective and fair. Here's a syllogism for it. (1) Most Christians confess the Apostle's Creed. (2) The Apostle's Creed confesses Jesus is the Christ promised in the OT Scriptures. (3) Therefore most Christians confess that Jesus is the Christ promised in the OT Scriptures. Here's a website for it: "The Messiah, or the Christ, was the promised King from the line of David. It was promised that one day an anointed one would come and be the true King. So, we are confessing something that is deeply rooted in the Old Testament. Even as the Christian faith moved from Jerusalem and Jewish believers into the Greco-Roman and Hellenistic world, Christian never stopped confessing that Jesus was the Christ. He was the Messiah, God’s anointed. Sent, as Matthew says “to save his people from their sins” and as in Luke, God has given to him “the throne of his father David.” So, are you saying, it is factually incorrect to say "Most Christians believe Jesus is the Christ promised in the Hebrew Scriptures". If I omitted the first three words, you could say, that's a biased opinion. Imo, the second statement is unbiased fact. It is a simple observation which even liberal Christians or non-confessional Christians could and mostly would agree with: "Most Christians believe ...". I'm very open to free discussion, respect professors, and believe all should follow their conscience in discerning Truth. God Bless. NishantXavier (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC) This is not a website for free discussion, see WP:NOTFORUM. Also, we are not interested in your syllogisms, see WP:OR. WP:CITE WP:RS or beat it. WP:BLOGS aren't WP:RS. Also, WP:FRINGE sources aren't WP:RS. We don't sideline the views of Christian scholars on Wikipedia, it's that we sideline the views of WP:FRINGE scholars, those whose views have been overwhelmingly rejected by the academic mainstream. Alephb (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC) To cut all the craps, this dispute has a clear winner in the mainstream academia: the Jewish side. So, it happens that in this matter the Jewish side enjoys WP:RS/AC and therefore it is the WP:NPOV view for Wikipedia. Other views may only be stated according to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. For every historian worth his salt the matter is clear: there are no prophecies about Jesus, since post-Enlightenment historians do not acknowledge the miracle of paragnosis (precognition). For modern historians to endorse precognition is like for a Yeshiva to endorse Mein Kampf: the whole backbone of dating documents would crumble. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Many Jews are educating us Gentiles that Jewish scholars, for centuries, have seen Isaiah 53, for e.g. as a prophesy of the Messiah. Here's a scholarly work about it on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Fifty-Third-Chapter-Isaiah-according-interpreters/dp/1590459857 A website: "Messianic Jewish talmudist, Rachmiel Frydland, recounts those early views:3 [Footnote: 3. Frydland, Rachmiel, ISSUES: A Messianic Jewish Perspective, Vol. 2:5, p. 2] Our ancient commentators with one accord noted that the context clearly speaks of God's Anointed One, the Messiah. The Aramaic translation of this chapter, ascribed to Rabbi Jonathan ben Uzziel, a disciple of Hillel who lived early in the second century c.e., begins with the simple and worthy words: Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high, and increase, and be exceeding strong: as the house of Israel looked to him through many days, because their countenance was darkened among the peoples, and their complexion beyond the sons of men (Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 53, ad locum)." https://jewsforjesus.org/publications/issues/issues-v13-n06/whos-the-subject-of-isaiah-53-you-decide/ Jews regard the OT writers as real Prophets. NishantXavier (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Non sequitur. You're conflating theology with history: from theologically true it does not follow historically true. You're speaking about what holds true from the perspective of the true believer; I and this article speak about what holds objectively true for mainstream historians. Lyons, William John (1 July 2002). Canon and Exegesis: Canonical Praxis and the Sodom Narrative. A&C Black. p. 17. ISBN 978-0-567-40343-8. On the relationship between the results of his work and the task of Christian theology, Wrede writes that how the 'systematic theologian gets on with its results and deals with them—that is his own affair. Like every other real science, New Testament Theology's has its goal simply in itself, and is totally indifferent to all dogma and Systematic Theology' (1973: 69).16 In the 1920s H. Gunkel would summarize the arguments against Biblical Theology in Old Testament study thus: 'The recently experienced phenomenon of biblical theology being replaced by the history of Israelite religion is to be explained from the fact that the spirit of historical investigation has now taken the place of a traditional doctrine of inspiration' (1927-31: 1090-91; as quoted by Childs 1992a: 6). Endorsing prophecies about Jesus from several centuries BCE means endorsing miracles, and historians cannot and will not endorse miracles as a matter of historical method. So, you cannot have those "prophecies about Jesus" as historical fact, since the historical method does not allow that. So, here you have it: historians (regardless of their own religion) cannot endorse your POV without falling into pseudohistory. Mainstream history cannot endorse your POV. What you are asking for is an epistemological impossibility. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC) George, must every historian be an Atheist or Agnostic or have an a priori commitment to naturalism? Are Jews and Christians not allowed to do history? NishantXavier (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2021 (UTC) See WP:RGW: many Jews and Christians are mainstream historians and do very well as history professors as long as they kowtow to methodological materialism. If you have a problem with that, this is not the place to address it, we are merely the scribes of mainstream historians, not their puppeteers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC) I agree with adhering to methodological naturalism. I think we also agree that adhering to metaphysical naturalism is not required, correct? Because you said many Jews and Christians are mainstream historians and do very well as history professors. So Jews and Christians can follow the historical method and follow it completely wherever it leads. NishantXavier (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Hint: mainstream history will never lead to endorsing miracles. As said before, that is an epistemological impossibility. To put it otherwise: miracles cannot be asserted as objective historical facts. Bart Ehrman has stated: This isn’t simply the approach of “liberal” Bible professors. It’s the way historians always date sources. If you find a letter written on paper that is obviously 300 years old or so, and the author says something about the “United States” — then you know it was written after the Revolutionary War. So too if you find an ancient document that describes the destruction of Jerusalem, then you know it was written after 70 CE. It’s not rocket science! But it’s also not “liberal.” It’s simply how history is done. If someone wants to invent other rules, they’re the ones who are begging questions! The paradigmatic example wherein modernists had total academic victory over fundamentalists is the Book of Daniel. Historians could not do otherwise than default to the Book of Daniel is vaticinium ex eventu. There were simply no other options left on the table. Same applies to OT prophecies about Jesus: either they are not prophecies at all, or they are not messianic prophecies. Or, admittedly, in the case of one fitting OT messianic prophecy, Jesus is revealed as the fake prophet (Zechariah 13:6): read it for yourself and you shall find that it is about what shall happen to the false prophet at the coming of the Messiah. So, historically is much more likely that NT authors maimed some verses from OT and tried to retrofit the biography of Jesus to the OT, than for OT having predicted about Jesus, asserted as an objective historical fact by mainstream history. Gospel authors could simply invent biographic details about Jesus to match some verses from the OT. That is million times more probable than the occurrence of miracles, so historians have to default to "invented". So, even if we admit beforehand that miracles are possible, prophecies about Jesus still is a bad historical hypothesis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Excerpts from the Gospel of Mark was found in the 7Q5 Papyrus. That's how we know it pre-dates 70 A.D. and even 50 A.D. for that matter, as even that article says 7Q5, whose early date many scholars still defend, pre-dates 50 A.D. Next, the Prophet Daniel contains one of the most remarkable prophecies in all of Scripture. He foretells exactly the timing of Christ's Coming in Dan 9. This prophesy is well known to Christians and Jews. "[25] Know thou therefore, and take notice: that from the going forth of the word, to build up Jerusalem again, unto Christ the prince, there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: and the street shall be built again, and the walls in straitness of times." However late you want to date Daniel, you cannot claim it comes in the Christian Era. See this Wiki page for more on this particular issue: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks Scripture students are well aware of it. One Week is seven years. The prophesy indicates Christ would have come within (69*7=)483 years after Artaxerxes' decree somewhere around 450 B.C. It fits nicely with Christ's coming in the First Century CE. Jesus was not a false Prophet. That's a vehemently anti-Christian POV. Hardly neutral and objective. But here's a historical fact: His disciples converted many thousands, including Jews, because they were able to convincingly show that Jesus fulfilled the Messianic prophecies. That's why Christianity has grown to something like 100 times more adherents than Judaism. And it started with 12 poor disciples of Christ. All these are historical facts. NishantXavier (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC) You're arguing fundamentalist Christian POV against WP:RS/AC. Around here it does not work that way. The firm academic consensus is that the Book of Daniel is historical fiction. That's the WP:NPOV view for Wikipedia. Why? Because from Ivy Plus to state universities, virtually every Bible professor kowtows to that statement. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Was Daniel written in the years following Christ? Your link said it was written in the second century BC. Second century is enough. It was still before Christ. His prophecy referred to Christ's coming about 483 years after 450 B.C. NishantXavier (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC) From the Seventy Weeks Article: "The Prophecy of Seventy Weeks is the narrative in chapter 9 of the Book of Daniel which tells how Daniel prays to God to act on behalf of his people and city (i.e., Judeans and Jerusalem), and in response is given a detailed but cryptic supposed prophecy of "seventy weeks" by the angel Gabriel. The prophecy has proven difficult for readers, despite having been the subject of "intense exegetical activity" since the Second Temple period. James Alan Montgomery referred to the history of this prophecy's interpretation as the "dismal swamp" of critical exegesis. Bah, I see no reason to pursue this dialogue, you are an ignoramus of mainstream Bible scholarship. I warned you about WP:RGW, next step is WP:ANI. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC) You're just insulting me though I never insulted you. I am aware of mainstream Bible Scholarship and have read a lot on the subject. I've read both conservative and liberal scholars. I am happy to end the discussion if you wish to. God bless. NishantXavier (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Well, you could have at least known that in mainstream Bible scholarship the Book of Daniel has nothing to do with the person of Jesus of Nazareth. That's elementary knowledge. Tabor, James D. (2016). "Ancient Jewish and Early Christian Millennialism". In Wessinger, Catherine (ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Millennialism. Oxford Handbooks Series (reprint ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 256. ISBN 9780190611941. Retrieved 7 September 2020. The book of Daniel becomes foundational for the Jewish or Jewish-Christian millenarian vision of the future that became paradigmatic [...]. [...] One of the great ironies in the history of Western ideas is that Daniel's influence on subsequent Jewish and Christian views of the future had such a remarkable influence, given that everything predicted by Daniel utterly failed! [...] One might expect that a book that had proven itself to be wrong on every count would have long since been discarded as misguided and obsolete, but, in fact, the opposite was the case. Daniel's victory was a literary one. [...] Daniel not only survived but its influence increased. The book of Daniel became the foundational basis of all Jewish and Christian expressions of apocalyptic millenarianism for the next two thousand years. Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Well, I would distinguish between being aware of mainstream Biblical scholarship and agreeing with every detail of its conclusions. I agree most mainstream Biblical scholars believe the Book of Daniel to be a pseudonymous work originating in the second century BC. But I don't agree Daniel's prophecies failed. There's a famous Son of Man prophesy in Daniel 7 which speaks of a Son of Man being served by people of every nation. Jesus Christ applied this prophesy to Himself, and today, as we know, there are Christians in every nation who serve Jesus as Lord. So I don't believe Daniel's prophesy failed, even if it is dated to the second century BCE. In Daniel 9, the famous seventy weeks prophesy is found. That 70 weeks prophesy said Christ would come long ago. If Christ had never come by then, I would agree that Daniel's prophesy has been falsified. But as it is it has not been. NishantXavier (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC) Do you want to speak theology instead of history? Fine: it never was a Catholic prophecy (historically it was employed to say all sorts of bad things about the Catholic Church), mainline Protestants and Evangelicals see that prophecy as largely debunked, for the Eastern Orthodox it is a quarrel among heretics. It is only proclaimed by the Seventh-day Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses (among the larger denominations). So, you speak for tiny minorities, both in history as an academic field and in theology. That's why WP:FRINGE applies to you claims. The Prophecy of Seventy Weeks is seen as debunked by the overwhelming majority of historians and theologians, and there remain just tiny hold outs of true believers who still accept it as true belief. How are the mighty fallen could also apply to prophet Daniel. History turned its back to Daniel, Christianity turned its back to Daniel, his failure has become manifest. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:53, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Well, are you speaking of the Son of Man prophesy in Daniel 7, or the Seventy Weeks prophesy in Daniel 9? If the former, it says the Son of Man will be served by people of every nation. A very difficult prophesy for any individual to fulfil. So it easily weeds out false Messiahs. But Jesus does fulfil it, as people of every nation serve Him today, and there are no inter-denomination disagreements about that. Yes, you're right that Seventh Day Adventists and others have claimed some prophecies in Daniel apply to the Catholic Church. That's another matter. Regarding Daniel 9, the Seventy Weeks prophesy, most scholars consider it refers to historical events in the second century BCE. But the text of Daniel 9 speaks of about 483 years after Artaxerxes I's decree, so it appears to fall in the first century CE and not the second century BCE. What is 483 years after around 455 BC? Around 30 A.D. That's why the historical interpretation has seen it not as referring to Antiochus IV in the 160s BC (which is too early) but to events in Christ's Life in the 30s A.D. From the Seventy Weeks prophecy article: "The seven and sixty-two-week "weeks" are most frequently understood for the purpose of Christological interpretation as consecutive, making up a period of 69 weeks (483 years) beginning with the decree given to Ezra by Artaxerxes I in 458/7 BCE (the terminus a quo) and terminating with the baptism of Jesus. The reference to an anointed one being "cut off" in verse 26a is identified with the crucifixion of Jesus and has traditionally been thought to mark the midpoint of the seventieth week, which is also when Jeremiah's new "covenant" is "confirmed" (verse 27a) and atonement for "iniquity" (verse 24) is made. The "abomination that desolates" is typically read in the context of the New Testament references made to this expression in the Olivet Discourse and understood as belonging to a complex eschatological tableaux described therein, which may or may not remain to be fulfilled." NishantXavier (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC) So? It is still a fringe POV anyway we would look at it. The problem is that by following that logic, it has to predict the Second Coming at times that it did not happen. So: busted! (As in MythBusters.) Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Here's a scholarly studied entitled "The Fall of Jerusalem and the Abomination of Desolation" https://www.jstor.org/stable/298454?seq=1 The prophesied desolation took place during the time of the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., one of the most well documented events in history. As for Christ's own prophesy of His Second Coming, He said in Mat 24:14 that the end will be come after the Gospel has spread to all nations. So clearly not in the first century itself, but it has happened and is happening now. Here's a paper on Mat 24:14 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319208226_Exegesis_of_Matthew_2414_The_Meaning_of_the_End NishantXavier (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC) Pathetic! Don't try to dodge the fact that for the overwhelming majority of historians and theologians that prophecy is Busted! Those who do not think that it is busted will cower in fear from commenting it and drawing logical conclusions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC) "Overwhelming Majority"? There are 2.5 billion Christians in the world. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Christian_population_growth How many are Atheists? http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_countries_by_irreligion Maybe 450 to 500 million. The reality is more people believe in prophesy than do not. You can make of that what you will. Many historians and theologians continue to believe real prophesy exists, and that it exists in the BibleNishantXavier (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2021 (UTC) What Christians think about prophecies is a red herring. Most churches and denominations have abandoned Historicism (Christianity) because that very prophecy (one prophecy, not prophecies in general) led them to believe absurd claims. You are pushing a fringe POV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2021 (UTC) References

Jesus Seminar

Who cares about the Jesus Seminar? The Jesus Seminar is WP:FRINGE by design. And they are certainly not representative for mainstream Bible scholarship. At the other extreme, equally fringe is biblical literalism. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

@Perseverenceoftruth: WP:BLOGS are not WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@Perseverenceoftruth: We don't discuss the Jesus Seminar in this article. Jesus Seminar is a red herring.

Sometimes in the mainstream academia, dispute is over and a side has lost the dispute. According to Richard Carrier, is the idea that apologetics is actually specifically designed to avoid discovering the truth about things it's designed to specifically justify things you want to believe.

It is a WP:FRINGE view that one can prove historically that Jesus is the Messiah. You may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but there is no way to know that according to the historical method. Maintaining otherwise is pseudohistory. You may ask any Christian historian worth their salt and they will confirm this to be true. Even if Jesus was the Messiah in the Absolute Reality, there is no way to prove it historically. The epistemology of history does not allow historians to draw such conclusions. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

About Christianity maintains that there is evidence Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecies: no, it doesn't, unless you conflate uneducated Christianity with fundamentalist Christianity and ignore there are educated liberal Christians who don't buy into fundamentalist dogmas. So, yes, educated liberal Christians believe Christ is the Lord, but they don't play fast and loose with the epistemology of history in order to draw unsupported conclusions. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Article missing a lot of useful information / context

I haven't read the entire article, just the intro and outro, but I was struck by something that stood out odd to me:

"Old Testament prophecies about Jesus are either not thought to be prophecies by critical scholars (the verses make no claim of predicting anything) or do not explicitly refer to the Messiah"

Yet the article on Messiah says:

"Messiahs were not exclusively Jewish, however, and the concept of 'the' Messiah as a single individual is a strictly post-Biblical tradition as it is not found in the Old Testament".

So I would expect verses aren't explicitly referring to the Messiah if the Messiah is never explicitly referenced anywhere in the Old Testament. That kind of argument is misleading, if not a bit fallacious. If I say "if it snows tomorrow then the sky will turn purple" and it doesn't snow tomorrow, then you can't say that I was "disproven".

The audience of Jesus and the Apostles was Second Temple Judaism, so the interpretation of prophesies should be understood in that cultural context (and not exclusively modern critical reading). Apocalypticism had a very strong influence to Jews of the first century, and they looked to various Old Testament passages as foreshadowing the coming of an end-times Messiah. So when Christian theologians examines Messianic prophesies, they don't tend to ask "does this verse refer to the Messiah in its original context?", but rather they consider "did the audience of Jesus and his apostles consider this verse referring to the Messiah?". As an illustrative example, modern scholars interpret the Suffering Servant as referring to the Nation of Israel itself, but Jewish Apocalypticism in the first century did interpret it as a Messianic prophesy.

At best, ignoring that cultural context is missing valuable information that is critically relevant to the article. At worst, it is a misleading argument that gives the impression that these verses were never considered to be Messianic prophesies, which is certainly not true.

In fact, there are few if any instances of Messianic prophesies (as interpreted by Second Temple Judaism) that the New Testament doesn't address in some way. Second Temple Judaism did believe that the Messiah would re-establish a Jewish Kingdom and overthrow the Romans, and the lack of this happening was an argument used by Jews in Early Christianity. The New Testament does address this, but re-interprets this as referring metaphorically to the Kingdom of Heaven. This kind of debate is severely lacking from the article, since it gives the impression that the Old Testament has no Messianic prophesies (which may be the case for modern scholars, but not for Jewish teachers in Jesus' day).

Furthermore, the article only discusses interpretation of the Old Testament by modern scholars, and doesn't examine how these prophesies influenced the development of Christianity or how they were interpreted by Early Christian writers. Historical method doesn't delve into the supernatural or make theological speculation, so really the concept of modern scholars examining the fulfillment of Messianic prophesies is somewhat oxymoronic. As Messianic Prophesies are a debate of religion, then the article should examine the different religious perspectives, which is a debate irrelevant to a secular historian.

It would be cool if this article listed out Messianic prophesies as understood by Second Temple or other eras of Judaism, and discusses how this is addressed or not addressed by the New Testament or Christian theologians. Note that Messianic prophecies redirects to this article, even in Jewish-specific topics. Rather than exhaustively discussing relevant information on the topic, it seems this article was written for the purpose of debunking Christian apologetics. LutherVinci (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Yup, there are Messianic prophecies in the Hebrew Bible. But there are no Messianic prophecies about Jesus (well, except one hinting that he is a false prophet, and he will be punished at the coming of the Messiah). Big difference.

Drawing the line:

1. It is explicitly a prophecy;
2. It is explicitly Messianic;
3. It explicitly applies to Jesus of Nazareth (meaning the historical Jesus) rather than to Simon bar Kokhba or someone else.

In this sense, there are no Hebrew Bible prophecies about Jesus (above exception noted).

Otherwise, if one tortures the Bible long enough it will confess that Sun Myung Moon or Haile Selassie are the Messiah. That's what the gospels writers did to the Hebrew Bible, in order to show that Jesus was the Messiah. If you want to write about that, Achar Sva is the editor who has deep knowledge about it.

@LutherVinci: Wikipedia does not pander to piety, but it takes a hard-core mainstream Bible scholarship approach to the Bible. See WP:ABIAS. Stated otherwise, Wikipedia caters to views worthy of being taught at the Ivy League. So, if you dislike Ivy League Bible scholarship, you also dislike Wikipedia. In our articles about the Bible and the history of Ancient Israel we don't do as if the Ivy League does not exist.

So, take care that you WP:CITE recent works by full professors from major universities.

Liberty University is a university in name only. It requires "compatibility with a young-earth creationist philosophy" for staff they recruit to their biology department. That does not mean that everything every member of the university does is bogus, but it does mean that their opinions have to be taken with a pillar of salt, and that a-priori, their weight in the academic debate is marginal at best. I can find a total of two publications for Chatraw on Google Scholar, none of which has been cited even once. He lists a few more publications on his web page, but they are all in explicitly evangelical walled garden journals. It's not a significant contribution to mainstream academic opinion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Do you understand? Wikipedia is based upon highbrow religious scholarship, not upon lowbrow apologetics. If you want to state that, Wikipedia discriminates against lowbrow apologetics. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not asking for lowbrow apologetics and I am not asking to pander to piety, but I apologize I came off that way. I am saying that there is a lot of important information relevant to this topic the article lacks, namely: what prophesies were considered Messianic in Second Temple Jewish apocalypticism, how this belief has evolved in later eras of Judaism, and how the Christian understanding of Messianic prophesies evolved in later Christian writers. As Messianic prophecies redirects to this article, then I don't think it should be specifically tied to the New Testament, because that article is linked in topics that are exclusive to Judaism. All other religious-based articles on Wikipedia (that I've seen) have sections that discuss the theological significance within relevant religions, so I don't think having a theological perspective is "pandering".

As for the "line" you mentioned, then I feel that the intro and outro of the article is misleading, because as I said it appears to imply that there are no Messianic prophesies (because it specifically calls out the verses as either "not thought to be prophecies... or do not explicitly refer to the Messiah"). Really it seems to be talking about multiple different things, both in that one sentence and in the article's single list: 1) Verses that are Messianic prophesies in their original context (which I assume aren't very many), 2) Verses not Messianic prophesies in their original context, but considered so either in Second Temple or modern Judaism, and 3) Verses that were never considered Messianic prophesies, but are quoted in the New Testament anyway. And it seems the intro only mentions the third category. For the first two categories, I think the article benefits to discuss how they are addressed by the New Testament (or, if relevant, anyone else claiming to be the Messiah, be it the Unification Church or Rastafari Movement). But other than that, I think the question of whether or not they are conclusively fulfilled by Jesus (or anyone else) is more of an open question that's not really in the scope of historical method (since it critically analyzes the facts, and not analyzing something supernatural like whether or not a prophesy has been fulfilled).

Also, I'm sorry I don't understand why you copied that block quote. What is that for? LutherVinci (talk) 02:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The quote points out which are the sources to be avoided. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:39, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm

It’s clear to see the bias in this article. This almost reads like an opinion editorial. 24.96.95.45 (talk) 11:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't say the Jews are always right, or that Christians are always wrong. But this time, the Jews are right, that's the objective truth in this matter. By and large, Christian mainstream Bible scholars side with the Jews in this matter. Why? Because when scholarly examined, the matter is that clear-cut. Again, this is a matter of fanatics and ignoramuses against highly educated Christians. Do you understand? Wikipedia is based upon highbrow religious scholarship, not upon lowbrow apologetics. If you want to state that, Wikipedia discriminates against lowbrow apologetics. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Up. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

This talk page explains at length why we reject WP:FRINGE POVs from the article. Basically, only pseudoscholars disagree with Ehrman's point, due to their own fideism. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I find it very strange that you make this Ehrman out to be such an authority on the bible. Much more than those who wrote it, Christians for many thousands of years and every other biblical scholar. Everyone who disagree with that man has "fringe theories". And since they have fringe theories, you don't need to follow NPOV. You are very dishonest and one of the reasons people can't trust wikipedia. 77.18.59.49 (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Ehrman has objective knowledge of the Bible and of the history of Christianity. Even his Nemesis James White (theologian) admits to this.

Wikipedia does not pander to piety, but it takes a hard-core mainstream Bible scholarship approach to the Bible. See WP:ABIAS. Stated otherwise, Wikipedia caters to views worthy of being taught at the Ivy League. So, if you dislike Ivy League Bible scholarship, you also dislike Wikipedia. In our articles about the Bible and the history of Ancient Israel we don't do as if the Ivy League does not exist. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:04, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Please, document for me, that Ehrman is a part of the mainstream of biblical scholarship, that his theories are the most subscribed to. And also, document for me that James White is Ehrmans "nemesis" and that he is a biblical scholar. You must also document that there is no large minority that disagree, because large minorites are not a "fringe".

Before you can document your opinions, this article should have a neutral point of view. 77.18.59.49 (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Old Testament messianic prophecies quoted in the New Testament. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

You should generally assume that Wikipedia has the same view of what is WP:SCHOLARSHIP as https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/Daniel#ref597857 and https://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/oeuvre/livre_de_Daniel/115594 . Wikipedia isn't their dumber sister.

This also applies to https://iranicaonline.org/articles/darius-ii and https://www.encyclopedia.com/people/philosophy-and-religion/biblical-proper-names-biographies/darius-mede . Belief in a real Darius the Mede is restricted to religious fanatics and ignoramuses.

The difference is that Britannica, Larousse, Iranica and Judaica do not have talk pages wherein random visitors complain those encyclopedias are biased.

Okay, now I had no longer quoted Ehrman or any liberal scholar. I have quoted a professor from Moody Bible Institute (Wheaton is a liberal college compared to MBI) and a faithful Mormon academic. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

"Christians for many thousands of years" Last I checked, believing a lie for thousands of year does not make it the truth. Christians can not be reliable sources for interpretations of the Bible, because they typically lack objectivity on the subject. Archaeology has uncovered truths about the Bible that Christians were entirely unaware of. Dimadick (talk) 06:53, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

According to the Moody professor: mainstream Bible scholars do not buy into messianic prophecies about Jesus, and even evangelical scholars are running away from such concept.

I don't know how many "defectors" are there, but they are many enough to raise concerns at Moody that evangelical scholars will no longer defend the idea of messianic prophecies about Jesus. What else does he disclose? That such idea is not respectable inside the academy. Conclusion: such idea is WP:FRINGE. This has been shown from the battle screed of a Moody professor. I did not have to quote Ehrman in order to show this beyond reasonable doubt. The faculty at Moody is thoroughly aware their scholarship is WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Patterns of evidence the Moses controversy looks at a debate entering today's college classrooms the Moses controversy is really the question of did Moses write the first books of the Bible and from a lot of Christians it's not a controversy at all but as soon as you send your son or daughter off to college or university they're gonna hear a different story

— Chiar a scris Moise primele cinci cărți ale Bibliei? Dovezile sunt clare on YouTube

If you did not know this, then you have lived isolated from educated persons. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Undue weight

@TeenAngels1234: Farrell Till was a pastor, so he had to study theology for it. Later, he converted to atheism and became a notable spokesman for atheists. He even has his own Wikipedia article: Farrell Till. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:12, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Does being a Protestant pastor makes you reliable and does this justify a whole quote for you?--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@TeenAngels1234: If you want another reason: it is a clear-crisp rendering of the academic consensus. If you have a Bible with cross references and check all those "prophecies" you will see that the case for Jesus predicted in the Old Testament is very shoddy. Those are wild tangents made by people who were interested to present Jesus as the fulfillment of ancient prophecies, and were writing their stories with this purpose in mind. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

"the case for Jesus predicted in the Old Testament is very shoddy." That is a very polite way to describe bullshit, since there is no such prophecy in the Old Testament. Dimadick (talk) 19:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Yup, e.g. "They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture."

• why is that a prophecy?
• why is that about the Messiah?
• why is that about Jesus of Nazareth rather than about any other crucified Messiah claimant?
• if you are writing a story that Jesus is the prophesied Messiah and you're short on prophecies, why not make up a story about the garments he wore at his execution, however contrived it might seem to the Jews? tgeorgescu (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Isaiah 7:14 virgin/ woman debate

I made some edits today to I add more nuance to the text but these were removed without discussion or debate. Please advise? BibleWatchman (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

The authors of the Book of Isaiah knew nothing about Jesus. This is the consensus of historians. I mean: this is an epistemological a priori since the historical method does not allow them to conclude otherwise.

tgeorgescu July 30, 2021 at 3:34 pm - Reply

Quote: This isn’t simply the approach of “liberal” Bible professors. It’s the way historians always date sources. If you find a letter written on paper that is obviously 300 years old or so, and the author says something about the “United States” — then you know it was written after the Revolutionary War. So too if you find an ancient document that describes the destruction of Jerusalem, then you know it was written after 70 CE. It’s not rocket science! But it’s also not “liberal.” It’s simply how history is done. If someone wants to invent other rules, they’re the ones who are begging questions!

Can I receive a formal confirmation that you have actually written this? It has been lost somewhere in comments and I cannot find it again. It is important because I quoted it inside Wikipedia and needs a source.

BDEhrman

BDEhrman July 31, 2021 at 7:35 am - Reply

The first part sounds like something I would have said. The second part not so much. BUt I sometimes do say things that are phrased more strongly than I would typically phrase them (unless it’s over drinks). Are you quoting this from one of my comments? Then yes, that’s what I said. If I did, I was stressing the point “describes.” THat is, if you have an account that refers in some detail to airplanes striking the Twin Towers, then the account was certainly written after 9/11, even if it is phrased as a prophecy.

Source: https://ehrmanblog.org/comments-on-blog-comments/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=comments-on-blog-comments

While it is technically possible for a virgin to remain pregnant, this always happens through sperm leaking into her vagina and never through the Holy Spirit. So "Jesus was born of a virgin" is a theological claim, and it is as far from being a historical fact as Tokyo is far from New York. So much for the birth of Jesus prophesied by Isaiah.

The idea that historical scholarship could verify that Isaiah made a genuine prophecy about Jesus is simply put malarkey. All Christian historians can tell you that.

We don't even know for sure if Jesus was Mary's first born son. Paul could have had knowledge of such matters, but he does not tell it, he does not even tell that Mary was a virgin. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting item here about a recent virgin birth in the UK, apparently totally true. I've read of a similar virgin pregnancy in Morocco resulting from non-penetrative intercrural sex. Maybe Mary and Joseph did likewise. Achar Sva (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The odds of somebody witnessing that, remembering it for years, and coming via oral tradition into the gospels are low. It was perhaps made up by people seeking to explain to Pagans why Jesus was important. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

"this always happens through sperm leaking into her vagina and never through the Holy Spirit" It reminds me of popular jokes from my adolescent years, where saints in paradise notice that Mary is conversing with a phallic deity, variously calling it by the names of the Holy Spirit, Gabriel, or Lily. Anyway, I am approaching middle-age, and I have rarely met anyone who took the virgin birth stories seriously. Dimadick (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

This article and most Christians

I have reverted vandalism. Most Christians are or would count themselves in the Liberal Christianity camp if they would think it through. Liberal Christianity has absolutely no problem with this article. Wikipedia is indeed biased for WP:BESTSOURCES.

Note that I have WP:CITEd a professor from the Moody Bible Institute ("Bible is our middle name"), who sees the problem only too well.

So, no, Wikipedia isn't anti-Christian. But it isn't WP:CENSORED for the protection of the sensibilities of fundamentalist Christians.

In light of the epistemology of history, our article makes perfect sense: the authors of the Old Testament could not have known anything about Jesus of Nazareth, since they lived many centuries before him. If your divinity school isn't fundamentalist or evangelical, its professors will readily admit this. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Who are you talking to? Dimadick (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

To people who seek to ruin our articles. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The word Jew was not in existence before the early 1900's

I see a continuing abuse of recorded history taking the name Judah and replacing it with Jew. The word Jew never appears in the Pentateuch (Old Testament). Please refrain from inserting the word "Jew" where it never existed in history. 47.200.57.144 (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2024 (UTC)