Isaiah 53, 700 B.C: Historical Evidence of the Divine Omniscience.

[arewethereyet]

Nah, that may be the modern definition, but not the historical one. A prophet was supposed to be a spokesman for God, not a predictor of the future.

That's precisely his problem. He knows ONLY the current definitions and thinking about everything. 
He has no clue what the historical realities were.

Surely that's not his only problem.

[Pat Mustard]

<snipping the bullshit>

You're a lying bullshitter. Those are my thoughts.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I have a much simpler explanation, Nishant:

The writers who composed the Gospels deliberately wrote fictional scenes based on the Old Testament to make it appear that prophesies were fulfilled.

A reasonable hypothesis but what is your evidence to support it?

[The Grand Nudger]

Wheres the evidence to support the idea that star wars fanfic was written with star wars in mind? Ludicrous.

[arewethereyet]

hypothesis
noun
hy·poth·e·sis hī-ˈpä-thə-səs 

pluralhypotheses hī-ˈpä-thə-ˌsēz 
Synonyms of 
1
a
: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument
b
: an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action

2
: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

3
: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

[Silver]

The new testament is christian fanfic of the old.

[Bucky Ball]

The new testament is christian fanfic of the old.

In some ways, yes. 

"Matthew" was created to demonstrate to a Jewish community that (the *new* idea of a "prophecy being fulfilled*  was accomplished in Jesus. 

I am of two minds about the historicity questions. 
a. A lot of the material in the gospels reflects the concerns of a post-temple destruction Jewish rabbi community, in the LATE 1st Century. They were concerned how to deal with a complex 
legal system now that the temple was gone and the Jewish diaspora was happening, ie : simplify it all "love god and love your neighbor". 
b. but ... there was some impetus, and I don't know what that was, why the sect of Judaism, the "Way" sect began to grow in the mid First Century. 
They remained Jews at least until the end of the century when the High Priest (in exile) required the Benedictions against the minim" (the Way sect members) ... ie (The Expulsion Curses) to be read at the end of every synagogue service. 

The separation of Jews from Gentiles was far more complex and "local" than we know about. 
In the year 400 CE, the Archbishop of Constantinople, St. John Chrysostom, in a Christmas sermon which somehow they still have, told HIS congregation (of Christians) to stop going to synagogue. 

Go figure.

[Astreja]

I have a much simpler explanation, Nishant:

The writers who composed the Gospels deliberately wrote fictional scenes based on the Old Testament to make it appear that prophesies were fulfilled.

A reasonable hypothesis but what is your evidence to support it?

Mythologized histories are a fairly well-established part of the Greek canon (e.g. Herodotus, who included mythic elements in his Histories; compare with Thucydides, who avoided them).

It would make sense for the monotheistic Hellenic Jewish/Christian writers to follow suit, but to pull their myths and tropes from Isaiah and other OT books (instead of, say, the Iliad).

I haven't yet had a chance to study works in the original Greek, but an analysis from the literary/poetic side might turn up more evidence.

[Nishant Xavier]

1. The Book of Daniel contains wonderful prophecies about Christ's Divinity and His Suffering. We already saw in Daniel 3 the Divine and Pre-Existent Son of God comes from Heaven and snatches Daniel's 3 friends out of the fire. Then, in Daniel 7, astonishingly, we see the Son of Man - the Messiah, True Son of God and True Son of Man, i.e. Perfect God and Perfect Man - receive glory and honor from the Ancient of Days, i.e. God the Son from God the Father. Here's the passage, and we'll come to what Christ and His contemporaries thought of them in a moment: "I was watching in the night visions, And behold, One like the Son of Man, Coming with the clouds of heaven! He came to the Ancient of Days, And they brought Him near before Him. 14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, Which shall not pass away, And His kingdom the one Which shall not be destroyed." (Daniel 7).

In the New Testament, Jesus Christ declares He is the Son of Man spoken of by this Prophet Daniel, and also explains He has to be lifted up as Isaiah said of Him, i.e. on the Cross. Unfortunately, the poor people, who had never read or never understood the OT Scriptures, answer him like this: "How can you say that the Son of Man must be lifted up? Who is this Son of Man?” (Jn 12:34). This also shows these things were far from universally understood in Christ's time among the Jews. One purpose of the Messiah in fact was to clarify what was hidden in the Prophets.

But, in Daniel 9, it gets really interesting. The Prophet explicitly says that within a certain time period of roughly 490 years (70 weeks of 7 years each) after the decree of Artaxerxes, Christ or the Messiah would be cut off, but not for Himself. Shortly after this, the city would be destroyed. All these came to pass with Christ's Life and Ministry and Death and the Destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. shortly after it. Here's the passage: "And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; And the people of the prince who is to come Shall destroy the city and the sanctuary." (Dan 9:26) Wiki has this article on that Prophecy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks

See how clear it is?  And see this also: "There is a consensus among scholars affirming the view that interpretation of the seventy-weeks prophecy led to a climate of messianic expectation among certain sectors of first-century Jewish society. This position is supported by the explicit connection of the seventy weeks to the anticipated arrival of a messiah in Melchizedek (11Q13). Josephus provides an independent line of circumstantial evidence that dates this expectation to the first century. This warrants the theological conclusion that the prophecy was, in principle, intelligible to those among whom it was fulfilled." https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/aussj/vol4/iss1/4/ And as I said, and Crossan and others concede, we know that Jesus Christ was historically crucified under Pontius Pilate - who was governor from 26 A.D. to 36 A.D. - when Tiberius was Emperor - and the 15th year of his reign was 29 A.D., when the Gospel of Luke says John the Baptist started his ministry, and Cornelius Tacitus, the official biographer of the Roman Emperor Tiberius has himself documented that Christ died under Pilate. It all fits. The Wonderful Plan of a Supreme God.

2. Now, let's come back to the Prophet Isaiah. The argument was made that it was "definitely" Israel that was the Servant, not one particular Son of Israel, the Messiah. To answer this, I showed that passage from Ezekiel, where the Messiah is called David, because He is a Son of David. Biblical Figures are often called by their ancestors. Israel here refers to Christ being a son of the Patriarch Jacob, who was renamed Israel. There are other clear proofs that the people themselves are not the Servant. (1) First, the people are the ones causing the suffering, the Servant is the Innocent Victim. This is even clearer in the "because" translation favored by an authority quoted by Grandizer: "he was pierced because of our transgressions; he was crushed because of our iniquities ... he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people"

Again, Isaiah's people are the Jews/Israel. If therefore, He was stricken for their transgressions, then it is clear that He Himself is not Israel. Said differently, (1) the Servant is stricken for the transgression of the people (2) therefore, the Servant is not the people themselves; or again, (1) The Servant was pierced because of the people's transgressions, (2) therefore the Servant is not the people themselves. 

Next, you should know, it's a standard Biblical Principle, that no mere man can redeem his brother or pay his ransom, as only God can do. "No man can possibly redeem his brother or pay his ransom to God." (Psa 49:7) This shows the Servant is not a mere Man, but God; and again, not a collection or multitude of men either, as the people of Israel would be. Next, it is another principle that no mere man can be perfectly or properly righteous: "3They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one." (Psa 14)

And yet, the Servant is called the Righteous One: "By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities." (Isa 53:11). And as I mentioned, Isaiah himself clearly says the people certainly were not righteous, but sinners! "Alas, sinful nation, A people laden with iniquity, A brood of evildoers, Children who are corrupters! They have forsaken the Lord, They have provoked to anger The Holy One of Israel, They have turned away backward." (Isa 1:4).

To the final objection that the people, though themselves sinners, once forgiven by God could then allegedly atone for others, even that does not work. The Sacrificial Lamb in the Jewish system had to be without blemish, and they were specifically told anything with a blemish could never serve as a sin offering (Lev 22:19-20); therefore, since the passage says the Servant served as a sin offering, it is clear He is not the sinful people, but the sinless Messiah. That's also why John the Baptist understanding this, pointed out to him and said: "29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!" (Jn 1:29)

Saint Thomas Aquinas rightly says: "Nor did this happen suddenly nor by chance, but by a divine disposition, as is manifest from the fact that God foretold by many oracles of His prophets that He intended to do this. The books of those prophets are still venerated amongst us, as bearing testimony to our faith. This argument is touched upon in the text ... "https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/264/scgbk1chap1-9.htm

Regards,
Xavier.

[Bucky Ball]

tl;dr
The Book of Daniel is (well known) to be a forgery.
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/18242