This argument brought me to repentence and surrender earlier this year. Thanks Gavin for being a teacher I can learn so much from. Appreciate and love you Brother
Saving repentance is realizing that you are a sinner deserving of God's just punishment in Hell and turn (repent) from whatever you trusted in before, if indeed you trusted in anything; to trusting in the person and finished work of Christ alone for salvation. Jesus is Lord God Almighty clothed in unsinful humanity and He is the author of eternal life to all who trust Him alone for salvation. Jesus paid for all the sins of all the world at the cross (past, present, and future). *That payment is put to your account when you have believed on Christ [alone] for salvation.*
Fun fact: Isaiah 53 sounded so much like Jesus that liberal scholars thought for a very long time that it was just a later addition by Christians. The discovery of a near-complete Isaiah scroll dated to the 2nd century BC among the Dead Sea Scrolls completely proved them wrong.
The Old Testament depicts the Triune God. I'm not surprised that scholars would think that it was a later Christian addition, because the Son and the Holy Spirit were clearly active throughout salvation history.
I'm curious what scholars thought this. If the disciples wanted to manufacture things, they would have just changed the gospels to match scripture rather than the other way around.
The Roman empire provides some examples of prophecies the early Christians didn't have significant control over. The Romans, not Jews or Christians, decided to implement the highly unusual penal practices needed to fulfill passages like Psalm 22 and Isaiah 50:6 (not only the singling out of hands and feet in Psalm 22, but also the implied nakedness, gathering of enemies, etc.). The Romans, not Jews or Christians, crucified Jesus in line with the timing of Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy, then destroyed both Jerusalem and the temple. (For more about Daniel 9, see Robert Newman's discussion in his article "The Time Of The Messiah", which can be found online.) Much more could be said here, but I'll briefly make one other point that's often overlooked or underestimated. Jesus could have provoked people to kill him, but he wouldn't have had control over their reaction (by normal means, if he was a normal human). If you provoke people, you might get a response of mockery or pity, for example, rather than the relevant type of anger. You might get anger, but not enough of it to lead to your execution. Or you might get killed the wrong way. Too soon. Too late. In too humiliating a manner. The gospels illustrate that point. They refer to multiple occasions on which people attempted to do something like throw Jesus over a cliff or stone him. You don't even have to go to a Christian source, like the gospels. Look at what Josephus tells us about how one of Jesus' own siblings was put to death. Jesus could have met the same kind of death as his brother, James, and at the wrong time. So, the fact that Jesus' death lines up so well with the Old Testament is significant accordingly. Or think of Isaiah 9:1. Jesus' living in Nazareth (in the region of Zebulun), then Capernaum (in the region of Naphtali) lines up well with the passage in Isaiah 9, and so do his close associations with Galilee more broadly and the Gentiles. Jesus' early residence in Nazareth is unlikely to have been made up by the early Christians (it's reported by multiple sources; it's undisputed early on; Nazareth seems to have had a worse reputation than other cities in the region of Zebulun [e.g., John 1:46], which raises the question of why Nazareth would have been chosen if the location was being made up; Luke's report that Jesus was conceived in Nazareth is unlikely to have been fabricated, given the potential for a conception there to be perceived as inconsistent with Micah's reference to the Messiah's coming from Bethlehem; the opponents of Christianity corroborated Jesus' association with Galilee and Nazareth in particular from the first century onward, repeatedly referring to Jesus and Christians as "Galileans", "Nazarenes", and such for hundreds of years). Bart Ehrman has gone as far as to refer to Jesus' upbringing in Nazareth as "certain": "Little can be known about Jesus' early life, but one thing that can be said for certain is that he was raised in Nazareth, the home village of Joseph and Mary." (The New Testament [New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012], 269) For these and other reasons, the geography of Isaiah 9:1 is a good line of evidence to cite in support of Christian prophecy fulfillment. Or think of Jesus' later influence on the world. The Old Testament and Romans 11 give us the unusual scenario of a Jewish Messiah becoming highly influential in the Gentile world alongside ongoing Jewish rejection, but that's what we've seen happen. You can find extensive argumentation for the fulfillment of these and other prophecies at Triablogue. There's a large collection of articles there on Isaiah 9, I wrote a series of posts on the meaning of Micah 4-5 and the evidence for Jesus' Bethlehem birthplace, etc.
Yes, I do believe that fulfilled prophecy is often neglected in Apologetics circles. I believe that Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 would be the two strongest Old Testament texts pointing to the Messiah's death and sacrifice for us all, not only because how specific these two passages are, but also because of the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls papyri of these two texts were copied at least a hundred years before Jesus was born, proving that Christians didn't tamper with these texts. I believe this is a very strong argument for the New Testament's veracity and claim to be divinely inspired.
Yeah, except both of those don't necessarily correspond to Jesus and are too vague, and the writers of the gospels would have been able to falsely add information to fulfill whatever they want. You should at least prove the gospel accounts are true before claiming the prophecy is "fulfilled."
@@WaterCat5 did you by any chance miss where he mentioned the Dead Sea scrolls which predate Christianity, and which no one could have possibly tampered with to edit in apparent prophecies about Jesus?
@@WaterCat5 some great points above. i'll add there is great evidence for the reliability of the gospels. in fact most scholars, even secular ones, beleive the gospels are very close to the originals and that the Apostles firmly beleived what they wrote. otherwise you can't account for things like accurate protrail of 1st century Roman Palestine or the fact that all the apostles died for what they beleived in.
@Freegracecentral Idk what translation you are looking at. The NIV doesn't sound like a crucifixion. Merely mentioning the piercing of hands and feet does not suggest that. And what are these extra biblical sources? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Isaiah was written in the 7th century bce while crucifixition is not recorded until after that. So why would Isaiah even allude to such a practice?
Gavin’s great passion for Christ and the Gospel is such that even his apologetics videos (apologetics is often thought of as a dry topic) fill me with immeasurable gratitude and a far deeper faith. Thank God for men like Gavin and above all, thanks be to God the author of our universe for the beauty of Christ, in whom alone all of the world’s deepest longings find their satisfaction.
@@ThePlagueGameingHe has an unusually high tolerance for s**t. It's actually dealing with his fellow Christians that I find to be most remarkable. They can be much more vexing than any atheist. =D
@@ThePlagueGameing christians are lovely people, they never get angry or upset, cos they have god watching them and they will go to hell if they disobey the lord, no? no christian was ever mean or nasty, not a real christian anyway, not that anyone knows what a real christian looks like of course. and jesus got a bit miffed one time didn;t he? is he a real christian?
Mike Winger does a wonderful series on evidence for the Bible based on fulfilled prophecy about Jesus. And other prophecies too, including Alexander the Great and Tyre and Sidon and subsequent kingdoms.
@tomasrocha6139 it is I agree. The prophecy is in the part of the Old Testament which we know was written before Alexander the Great. Try not to make stupid comments
@@ProfYaffle Simply false, Daniel is known to be Maccabean propaganda from the 2nd century. BC at least since Porphyry from the 3rd century AD, too bad Christians burned his books.
This argument kept me in the faith. When i got to college and began hearing arguments against Christianity it all fell flat because none of it could account for Biblical prophacy. Never heard a prophessor give an intellectual response to Biblical prophacy, because it was clear they had never heard it in all its depth
The authors of the NT had full access to all these prophecies and invented their fulfillment. They also fabricated non-existent prophecies out of thin air such as "He will be called a Nazarene." Lastly we've known Daniel's prophecies were written after they happened since Porphyry's book Against the Christians from the 3rd century.
Important to note The Dead Sea Scrolls, they confirm that book of Daniel, book of Isaiah and every other book of old testament except Esther, have 100% was written before Christ. Comparasion between the scrolls and our preserved text, clearly shows that it was written before
PART 2 (This is the continuation of previous comment I've written) Isaiah 53, possibly the most famous chapter for people who want to argue that "prophecy proves Christianity," Well, I won't repeat what has already been said. Throughout the book of Deutero-Isaiah (no, I don't think Isaiah wrote all of his book, nor did Michael Heiser and other conservative scholars), the Servant is constantly referred to as Israel and how they one day would reunite his people back to their land. This is talking about the return of the Exile! The Jewish people were very despised throughout history, so I think saying that this shows Jesus is being prophesied here is a very bad argument. The chapter also mentions that the Servant will be sick, probably meaning leprosy (read the Cambridge Bible for Schools in the Bible Hub), something that didn't happen to Jesus (he actually cured the lepers). And the translation "he was crushed FOR our iniquities" is actually a mistranslation. The verse ought to be translated as "he was crushed BECAUSE OF our inequities", implying that, because "they" cause harm to him, he will suffer, something that happened to the Jews constantly throughout history. Jews believe that they and their Messiah will bring the redemption of the world, so the passage where it mentions that "by his bruises we are healed" is related to that. God smiting his servant isn't that wholly unexpected either. We read in the first book of Isaiah that Israel was sent to exile because they kept refusing to follow God, which was kind of a punishment for their deeds, but, even through these horrible times, they shall remain faithful. And, interestingly, if we read Isaiah 53:8 in the original language, we'll read, "He was taken from prison and from judgement; and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living; for the transgression of my people, THEY were stricken." The word used is "lamow," which is third-person PLURAL. Don't believe in me? Check it out for yourself. But now let's make a negative case for Isaiah 53. Well, from all we know, Christ only really suffered during his final hours... Throughout his ministry, he was well received, well treated, and even had the opportunity to eat at a Pharisee's house (Luke 14). Can we really say he was "despised, maltreated, and shunned"? I don't think so. But this can absolutely be said about the Jews... According to Isaiah 53:10, the Servant is supposed to see his "seed", a word used specifically for BIOLOGICAL children in the Hebrew Bible, yet, for all we know, Jesus didn't have kids, nor was he married. Another point is the fact that, y'know, Jesus is God? So, technically, God is His own Servant... (food for thought), and throughout the whole Hebrew Bible, the Messiah is NEVER portrayed as someone who would die (and, please, read Zechariah 12:10 in context), so Isaiah 53 is the only chapter in which you can, in a very dubious way, say that "the Messiah shall die". I would also add the idea that in the OT, sin is never portrayed as something that someone shall pay for you; it's always said to be forgiven when someone actually decides to repent and go back to the teachings of the Lord (the Torah) (Deuteronomy 24:16; Ezekiel 18:20). Well, I think that's enough. About the prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, I would first argue that the Nativity accounts are pure fiction or legend. When I was a Christian, I thought of many ways to reconcile them and watched many apologetics videos (IP, Testify, Deflate, etc.), but there is just no way, unless, of course, you invent a census before Quirinius (for which we have absolutely no evidence) and are willing to make some brutal mental gymnastics to argue that the Evangelists were simply mentioning COMPLETELY different details regarding Jesus's Nativity. Even Christian scholars like NT Wright and Dale Allison admit that the accounts are most likely legendary. And about the prophecy of Micah, the Evangelists probably misinterpreted it. Jews seemed to never have bothered where the Messiah would be born, and Bethlehem was just a way of saying "from the same as David", because David was born there. I would also argue that the fact that Matthew quotes a bunch of passages out of context and that have no Messianic themes whatsoever is good evidence that he was just going around the OT and searching for parallels (the "he shall be a Nazarene" is a good example of that). In my perspective, the Nativity accounts were created to explain the origins of the Messiah, as many people would've gotten interested in learning how he was born and all as the movement grew, and also to restle with the fact that Jesus is ALWAYS called "Jesus of Nazareth", a region well-known for various revolts. There are also minor problems, like the fact that the Massacre of the Innocents is nowhere mentioned (not even by Herod's personal friend), when the gospels actually say that "he and all of Jerusalem were troubled when they heard that", and also the completely contradictory genealogies of Jesus (and the fact that there was no way a poor family from Nazareth could've known their genealogy coming from the literal Adam). And lastly, because I'm getting very tired, the prophecy of Daniel 9! All I suggest is reading the whole thing straight up. The Messiah (or Kingdom of God) is supposed to arrive at that time; there is much evidence that Daniel was written during the 2nd century BCE; the word "destroy" in "destroy the city" can mean "to corrupt", which was exactly what Antiochus IV Epiphanes did; there is a huge debate on where the "70 weeks" start (if you want to understand the debate better, I really suggest taking a look at Michael Heiser's presentation on the issue; you can simply search "Michael Heiser 70 weeks of Daniel", and I think it will be the first video; it's around 1 hour long); and the obvious fact that, if you read the book of Daniel (without trying to see Jesus in it), I think someone will hardly see a direct connection to Jesus. Daniel is a very complicated and ambiguous book (funny, isn't it? 1 Corinthians 14:33), and every interpretation needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but (even when I was a Christian) I think that the "Maccabean period prophecy" hypothesis is the one with the most evidential weight. Those are my thoughts. I don't even know if somebody's gonna read that, but whatever. If the language is repetitive and annoying to read, sorry, English isn't my first language.
I just discovered your channel and have been binge watching your videos. You are so eloquent, so well-read, and so incredibly intelligent. I think this is my new favorite channel. The Lord has used your channel to bless me. Please continue making these videos, they’re amazing!
I often think the prophecy that Abraham’s national will be a blessing to all nations goes unexplored. Like it’s a pretty wild claim for a small nation and yet how true is it. Even putting Jesus aside, what other group has shaped the world more
I came to Christ mainly as a result of studying biblical prophecy, including "Late Great Planet Earth," by Hal Lindsey and prophecy is still one of my favorite studies. Thank you for this study and all your work. Chuck Missler has done some excellent studies on this subject.
i've yet to see a prophesy outside science that actually came to be, or was described in an way to make it unmistakable, you xians really have a low bar for evidence.
Great video Dr. Ortlund. I know from my Catholic perspective listening to people like Scott Hahn and Brant Pitre, and reading Bishop Barron’s book on Eucharist revival, it’s so amazing how it all just seems to fit-so often in really unexpected ways-but still a perfect fit, the new fulfilling the old, as it were.
What an awesome and frequently neglected subject! Thank you so much for delving into it. I also heartily recommend to anyone watching this, Mike Winger's Biblical Prophecy series where he goes into detail about many fulfilled Biblical prophecies such as the destruction of Troy. The Bible is rich with examples of this. Also, if you have the chance, Mr. Ortlund, could you do an interview/discussion with James White? I recently discovered his lectures and debates and think it would be very interesting to see you two discuss issues like apologetics, cultural outreach, and Roman Catholicism, which you both are very active in enaging. God bless!
PART 1 (my thoughts were too long to put under a single comment) Hello Gavin, I gotta say, despite recently deconverting and becoming an Agnostic, I really enjoy the way you speak about these topics and the willingness that you have when you present that information. As an agnostic, I'm going to write about what I think about these topics and explain why I don't think that this "evidence" (which I would barely call that this way) isn't that impressive, and, in fact, it may discredit many points in Christianity. I hope this doesn't sound like debunking in an arrogant way, because I just want to have an honest conversation and dialogue with people with whom I disagree. That's the reason why, despite not believing anymore, I still watch some apologetics channels. Well, I won't address the prophecies mentioned before the 20:00 minute mark for a simple reason... There are many passages there that don't mention the Messiah at all, and I think it's just extrapolation and reading a certain theological framework into the text, but I admit that many of these are obviously messianic. The problem is that those prophecies are VERY generic regarding the Messiah, and they all say pretty much the same thing: "He will become a great king and priest. He will free Israel from its oppression. And all of Earth will know that he is the Messiah.". Do you know what other group thinks the Messiah will be just like that? The Jews. Just a quick read on the Wikipedia page "Messiah in Judaism" and you already have this notion. End of world (before everything as follows) God redeems the Jewish people from the captivity that began during the Babylonian Exile in a new Exodus. God returns the Jewish people to the Land of Israel. God restores the House of David and the Temple in Jerusalem. God creates a regent from the House of David (i.e., the Jewish Messiah) to lead the Jewish people and the world and usher in an age of justice and peace. All nations recognise that the God of Israel is the only true God. God resurrects the dead. God creates a new heaven and a new earth. I would also note that most of these prophecies only appear in the OT during the Babylonian Exile and times when the Jews were being oppressed by foreign rulers. The major problem is that Jesus, supposedly, was meant to do all that, but he didn't. And yes, I know. Christians are going to say, "Jesus will do that, but in the future". But really, let's be honest for a moment here... If you read in your Holy Book that the Messiah will bring the literal Apocalypse to Earth, but when he, supposedly, comes, he is nothing more than a mere man saying that the "end times are near; repent," I understand that maybe because I don't believe Jesus did any miracles anymore (and for good reasons, I would say). A good analogy, in my view, is of a father telling his son that he will give him the most amazing gift for Christmas. He says that this gift will be capable of running many different entertainment platforms, that it will be white and blue, and that it will come with a game where a guy slaughters Greek mythology characters. You think it's a PS5, right? Well, but in the end, he gives his son a Motorola... What are we to think of such a parent? I know I might be getting theological here, but why would God hype the spectations of His own people and give a random dude speaking of an apocalypse instead of what they were actually waiting for? There is no doubt why the Jews refuse to believe Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah. He just doesn't seem to be. In fact, Jesus also seems to have these thoughts in the canonical gospels. I won't be long here because this could be a whole new discussion, but just read Mark 9:1, Mark 13, Matthew 24, Matthew 10:23, and other related verses. Jesus is VERY apocalyptic and thinks the end of the world and the redemption of God are near. We even see this theme in Paul's letters, but I won't elaborate further. But now let's talk about the "supposed prophecies about Jesus in the OT"... First of all, I don't think you can use the NT to "prove those prophecies" like it was done in 20:06-20:27, simply because the Evangelists, when they were writing these gospels (at least 30 years after the death of Jesus), already thought Jesus was the Messiah, so they are obviously going to say that he is the "root and descend of David". I also don't think you can argue that "Jesus is the most influential human being that ever existed" is evidence of it. Yes, he is in the West... So what? In the Arabic Peninsula and North Africa, Muhammad is the most influential person. In India, it's Khrishna. In China, Jesus is a nobody for most of the population. And so on... And even if Jesus was literally the most influential person in the whole world, so what? This just shows that his movement was very successful (a movement that was not prophesied in the OT, btw); that's pretty much it. But let's talk about the actual meat, shall we? I will talk about those in another comment... I've reached TH-cam's character limit.
' In the Arabic Peninsula and North Africa, Muhammad is the most influential person. In India, it's Khrishna. In China, Jesus is a nobody for most of the population. And so on... And even if Jesus was literally the most influential person in the whole world, so what?" I would submit that Islam is what it is because of Christianity, so in a sense Jesus is influential even in the Muslim world. Without Jesus there would be no Islam as we know it. Similarly, post-Christian Hinduism has been strongly influenced by Christianity. The abolition of the caste system draws from Christian influence, so without Jesus Hinduism today would be completely different. So Jesus was influential in these indirect ways, even in societies where most people have not heard of Him.
You should check out Dr. Michael L. Brown's work, he has a few videos on TH-cam regarding messianic prophecies, and he has debated rabbis on the topic of messianic prophecy. He has also written a five volume book series called: Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus. The third volume in the series addresses the objections that you have put forth in this comment, and the second comment you posted. It also addresses many other objections.
Hello, Mr Ortlund. Big fan, and really appreciative of you demonstrating gentleness and the irenic approach. It's helped me grow so much. For anyone who was expecting a different line of evidence, pointing more towards the reliability of the Bible, may I present something for you to start researching: Ezekiel 26 - Tyre will be scraped bare, and fishermen cast their nets there. Alexander stripped the old city bare to create a causeway to the island city. This forced the water currents to flow differently and submerge the old city. You can google map that right this second on your phone. Daniel 11 - Alexander the Great will die, his four generals take over, and the wars between Ptolemy and the Seleucids and who will win each one over hundreds of years of fighting, all the way to Antiochus IV, his persecution of the Jews and profaning of the Temple with a statue of Zeus who he claimed to be manifest on earth. Right to his death being not by the hand of men, as he died of sickness. These wars are known as the Syran Wars, and the Maccabbean Rebellion. Now, in favour of the arguments for Christianity that you present in this video: Summary: "The Bible is so good at continuity it has to be from God. Despite being written by dozens of authors over thousands of years." Are you skeptical? Ever look at continuity errors and bloopers for a TV Series? We are not as good at continuity as we like to think. You'll find cans of soda on medieval tables, people wearing nylon windbreakers and sneakers in a cowboy western, etc etc. And that's with dozens of team members all looking for these kinds of mistakes. And yet, Scripture has none of these. All the continuity is correct. Please, if you're a Christian, look at these. It'll settle your security in God if you're someone who's always chasing that 'feeling close to God.' If you're not, start looking into the historical reliability of the Bible. And whatever problem or polemic you find, make sure you look for a few defenses of it first before you believe it. Most 'contradictions' are actually arguments from silence or a lack of context. Like why did Jesus go all the way up near Tyre when walking instead of a more direct road? Look at a topographical map. There was a mountain in the way. There's a lot to learn, and its held up against every test thrown at it for 2000 years. God Bless you, I hope this helps you, whoever you are and whatever you believe.
Thanks for mentioning all that - the continuity of scriptures could be a whole argument in and of itself. surely, if the Bible were a work of men, you would expect to see at least some contradictions between its multiple authors, across the centuries.
Daniel 11 starts failing in verses 36-45 and predicting the end of the age as the resolution to the issues of the 160s. So Christians have to insert a gap of ??? years (and counting) to save it, and say that "the king" of verse 36 is a new king and not "the king we were just talking about since verse 20" Youre mixing up thr death not by human hand with Daniel 8, but when Daniel talks about "not by human hands" its talking about divine intervention not natural causes. See the stone not cut by human hands, im Daniel 2
Ezekiel 26 says Nebuchadnezzar will destroy Tyre forever. He never did and the city still existed today. Daniel is Maccabean propaganda that starts failing halfway through.
The greatest difficulty I have with this as a Christian who prioritizes historical-critical methodology, is that the definition for prophecy is treated so loosely by evangelicals. Oftentimes we are so quick to inject anachronistic meaning into the Tanakh for the sake of identifying prophecy, when in reality it is not actually prophecy meant to be taken specifically, but literary theme meant to be taken generally.
@@collin501 my answer would be highly dependent upon how explicitly the prophecy is made, and whether it’s written before or after the prophetic event has taken place.
Awesome video. I’m still not utterly convinced of, or at least I don’t see clearly the argument’s validity (though I’m a Christian). Still, I can recognize it’s remarkable power, and I’m fascinated by it. If I wanted to read more about it, are there any recommended books on the topic? Particularly those that might take this kind of broad scale overview of salvation history and the way it all culminates in Christ.
Genesis 12 alone is more powerful than people seems to aknowlegde (and this argument is indepentend of what one may think about reliability of Scripture's text - it still works even if you believe that Abraham didn't exist as a historical figure...): simply there is no record of ancient god making promise to give blessing upon nations through someone (it's also somewhat out of scope of ancient thinking: why even would I worship some god who would bless OTHER nations than mine?). And it was written down by a nation which historically speaking had no clear reason to believe that they somehow will overcome or will be "blessing" for example for many empires that they struggle with. So not only fulfilment of the promise in Christ (Christ is known all over the globe while ancient gods of nations are obsolete) is unique - historically *the promise itself is unique* simply in terms of time and place where it was written. When you put uniqueness of promise and uniqueness of fulfilment together, you really have to believe in a miracle: either you believe in a miracle from God or miracle of mere chance that has no comparision in history...
In an effort to break up the echo chamber, let me offer a 4th explanation: The authors of the N.T. had already read and mostly memorized the O.T. Then they penciled in events during the lifetime of Jesus that didn't actually happen in an effort to convince the reader that Jesus was the Messiah. For example, remember when Jesus is offered vinegar to drink and he refuses? We are assuming that was a real event in 33 AD. The "4th explanation" posits that event didn't happen, but the author wanted to insert that part into the story because he already knew about that line in Psalm 22. The same idea for most of Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, and the other heavy-hitter passages. The Gospel of Mark, the first gospel written, was written around 65 AD. It's a huge 30 year gap for lots of legends to develop in a time period where literacy was around 5%.
@@SmileyHappy1000 If it can be asserted without evidence, it can be dismissed without evidence. When memoirs of Cesar claim he is a decedent of the sun god do you need evidence to dismiss them? There are martyrs for literally every religion that exists; it doesn't lend any credibility to the religion. OP is being incredibly generous dating the earliest manuscripts at 30 after, and information is certainly likely to be corrupted in many ways over a 30 year period. The biggest problem with this argument is that it relies on the reliability of the very same holy book it seeks to prove, essentially begging the question.
@@SmileyHappy1000 We know they died for their beliefs? Citation needed, these are all mere church traditions of dubious historicity. And most New Testament scholars don't think Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were written by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.
I'm totally on board with you on this, Dr Ortlund! Literally today's Gospel reading is "if you destroy this temple, I will rebuild it in three days" (or words to that effect). As we all know, and have confessed for 2000 years, he suffered under Pontius Pilate, died, was buried and rose again. On the third day. I think this is something that all Christians, Apostolic & Protestant alike, can come together on!
The greatest prophecy fulfilled: that jesus would be rejected by the jews and in turn bring the world to salvation. Has this not happened right before our eyes?
Islam has no prophesies, yet they constantly talk about what they think they have. Christianity has a lot of them, but don't talk that much about them.
This was absolutely wonderful. I've been looking for discussion on this very topic. If you expand this as a series, I imagine it will perform very well. Thank you Dr. Ortlund!
As a Catholic, I'm curious what you make of supposed messianic prophecies in the Deuterocanon? Two examples immediately come to mind: 1. Baruch 3:37-4:4, which predicts how divine wisdom will become incarnate and all "who cling to her will live and all who die will forsake her". 2. Wisdom 2:12-22, which seems to anticipate the entirety of Christ's passion. Would you view these as prophetic? If not, why? If so, does this have any bearing on their inspiration, or could prophetic passages come from "ecclesiastical" books, which are good, but can't establish doctrine?
I don't think those two passages have detailed specifics that go beyond what's found in the Protestant/Jewish canon. In the intertestamental period, you have Jews who meditate on and expound the Old Testament hope, and that's what we see here. They write literature on the same themes that we see in (say) Psalms and Prophets. I can imagine someone living in the intertestamental period who's deeply immersed in Scripture and spiritually perceptive, can bring them together and vaguely, almost subconsciously, "guess at" things like the incarnation from (say) Isaiah 9.6 and Micah 5.2, and produce poetic literature in line with these intuitions. I can see why you might see them as Messianic prophecy if you have independent reasons for thinking these books are inspired. But by themselves they don't provide evidence for divine inspiration.
Yeah that seems like the best argument to explain it. I don’t think it holds up, especially for the one from wisdom. The one from Wisdom is so specific that the first time I read it, I found it hard to believe it was written before Christ’s passion. It seems almost like a meditation upon the passion even though it is written before the birth of Christ. Also, that passage in Wisdom is quoted in Mathew’s Passion narrative itself: “Likewise the chief priests with the scribes and elders mocked him and said ‘so he is the King of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God’”. Matthew 27:41-43 “…[the righteous one] boasts that God is his father. Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will to him in the end. For if the righteous one is the Son of God, God will help him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With violence and torture let us put him to the test…”Wisdom 2:16-19a I guess that seems pretty specific to me. What do you make of that?
@@michaeljefferies2444 I don't see anything in that passage from Wisdom that's not in Psalm 22 and other similar Psalms. We have a whole slew of psalms which speak of the unjust persecution of God's anointed (usually David himself, in the immediate context): Psalm 22:7-8 All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads; "He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him; let him rescue him, for he delights in him!" As for the Messiah being God's son (in some sense) it's all over the place from Psalm 2 to 2 Samuel 7.14. This is so well understood, that Peter confesses "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God", and the High Priest asks "Are you the Christ, the Son of God?" (Matthew 27:43 probably refers back to Jesus' confession at His trial). Those two titles seem fused together in the Jewish mindset. So it's not that much of a stretch for Wisdom to pull together from these strands and come up with that line. Maybe Matthew is alluding to Wisdom, but the NT authors quote and allude to many writings they don't consider Scripture. Matthew has a certain style of quoting Scripture - the familiar formula "All this happened that it might be fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet...". So if you have that you've got your case.
Excellent overview. This is definitely a neglected area. If you're interested, I'll be posting a deep dive on Ps 22:17 (Eng. 22:16) in the next few days.
The seige and destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD is personally compelling for me, with regard to prophecy. There is so much evidence NT manuscripts were written before it happened yet it matches theologically and textually so well with things Jesus said.
Thank you. It continues to be a puzzle as to why the Jewish people, from their own holy books, don’t see or interpret said books the way we Christians do.
My biggest hang up with this is all of the Jewish people of today. If it’s so obvious that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies, then why aren’t the Jewish people convinced?
I think that Paul addresses this in Romans chapters 9-11, especially ch. 11. Here is a verse from Ch 11: "25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers:[d] a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. " (11:35)
While I do in fact agree that Jesus does fulfill the OT prophecies that point to him, I can appreciate the argument that the details of his life were edited after the fact to comport with those passages. Given the nature of poetic texts, it is conceivable that a given event can be interpreted as having its fulfillment in a specific act, whether the source text actually supports it. We’ve seen it with a number of failed eschatological prophecies and calculations in the past few centuries. Given the gospels are essentially the only historic record we have of our Lord’s life, this argument hinges on the historical reliability of those texts. For instance, the Bethlehem birth narrative could have been invented by the authors for the purpose of comporting it with the prophetic expectation of the Messiah. (I don’t think it is, as I agree the gospels have demonstrated themselves to be reliable, but I can understand the objection). I think a strong argument for this position is the novel interpretations of messianic prophecies in light of the resurrection. The fact that passages were only read as messianic after Christ is a compelling case that these texts had been pointing to something that was, in many senses, unexpected but entirely coherent from the outset.
Gavin, thank you for your recent apologetics content. It has been so building up for my faith. Namely, this one, and the one on divine hiddenness. Praising God for how you're futhering the Kingdom. Keep going strong!
I think this is a great line of reasoning, and delivered in a way I had not thought of. How is it that the Jewish people had this continual hope, lasting centuries, that was eventually fulfilled by one man? An interesting topic for a future video might be a discussion of why Jewish scholars reject Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament.
The hardest part about believing it, is that its so easy for the gospel writers to make up the details of Jesus's birth to be inline with the old testament specifics. For example, Jesus being born in Bethlehem is pretty widely disputed and so on.
This is a great overview. I think the challenge with evidential arguments is that they work pretty good with people who have some overlap with your beliefs. For an atheist, evidence can start to lose its value in that they will just re-interpret all evidence through their atheism. That's not a criticism of this argument, it's just that I think people often have to be challenged at the level of their paradigm before they're open to new evidence.
Dr. Ortlund I believe another topic that isn’t talked about a lot is what true Christian work looks like. After we’ve accepted Christ, how do we move forward with work and all its components (time management, moving up and doing good work, motivation) would love to hear your Christian Response to work
Do you think you could make a video about Daniel and the prophecy there (and how it relates to the dating of the book)? That has more specific prophecies than just about anywhere else in the Bible, and depending on how we date the book, that tells us whether we can trust the authenticity of the prophecy.
I would remind people though that to those who consider the gospel foolishness as the Greeks did, so much more will they regard prophecy; "Is a prophecy fulfilled? Well they wrote it in after the fact and claimed they predicted it." "Is it unfulfilled? Well clearly that proves the bible has failed prophecies!" And so forth. Only someone actually open to God to begin with may receive some benefit. It won't convince anyone who is already in rebellion against God. Recall that God HIMSELF told us this, so unless you are rejecting God, then accept the sword of Truth given to you; Those who Reject God are in rebellion. It is not a lack of information they have or certain information they need, but a change of heart. Romans 1:18 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who [d]suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is [e]manifest [f]in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and [g]Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. That said, we ARE called to be able to provide defense and that defense may reach the ears of the receptive. So don't expect it to convince anyone, that's not your job. But you are expected to plant the seeds of faith and defend it. The holy spirit is the one who may make those seeds Grow.
I just watched “The Ten Commandments” (1956) for the second time last night, and it reminded me that the Bible truly is God’s great, big story. There’s nothing else like it.
I think there are two points here that need to be differentiated: 1. Prophecy as theology and edification for Christians; and 2. Prophecy as evidence of divine relevation. For the former, all power to you. If the narrative fits, great. For the latter, I think there needs to be more intellectual honesty among Christians. For a prophetic word to stand as 'evidence', it needs to be: -a- Evidenced prior to the prophesied event; -b- Specific in it's prediction; and -c- Not self-fulfiling. So Jesus riding on a donkey fails this test as he was able to deliberately fulfil something already written. Jesus predicting his death and resurrection fails because we have no evidence of the prediction prior to the event. In any other context, a post-event narrative of a prophecy would be met with due skepticism. The Isaiah passages certainly seem to meet -a- and -c-, being attested earlier than Jesus' life, and purporting to depict events somewhat outside of his control to fulfil. Criteria -b- would therefore be the weakest link in the evidence chain i.e., is it specific enough? Others teach the passages to be poetry about Israel, pointing to the other references to Israel as God's servant within the book as evidence. Do we think the passage is specific enough to Jesus to preclude such an interpretation? If other (non-prophetic) interpretations exist, surely those must be preferentially adopted instead of a claim of prophecy?
I think you have to be careful that you dont see fulfilment of OT passages in Jesus when the text doesnt seem to be referring to some far off Messiah figure. For example, you quoted Psalm 72:17. But when you read the whole of that Psalm, it seems to refer to David's prayers concerning Solomon. So is it appropriate to claim it's referring to the Messiah if David was actually talking about Solomon? I think some OT passages are messianic, but not all. It should also be said that most Jewish commentators would argue one of the main reasons they reject Jesus as the Messiah is precisely because the language used in some of the apparent messianic passages describing what he would do was not fulfilled in Jesus, for example 'crushing' other nations or peoples. When did Jesus do that they would ask. Indeed, was Jesus not crushed? Finally, regarding Daniel, I find it interesting that despite many today arguing Daniel was told precisely when the Messiah would appear and be killed (referring to the 70 weeks), none of the NT writers even refer to that OT passage as prophetic evidence for Jesus. How do you explain that given their own knowledge of the OT?
"none of the NT writers even refer to that OT passage as prophetic evidence for Jesus. How do you explain that given their own knowledge of the OT?" I don't think they would have the information available to know when the start for the prophecy was. We are only able to make that argument because we posses further knowledge about history
@@briandiehl9257 They had the OT scriptures just like us, and it is obvious from the Gospel writers for example that they were well-versed in it. It seems unlikely they knew less than us today.
@@PC-vg8vn However they had no way of knowing when any of the events happened. We are only able to construct a timeline because of our archeology in the middle east which didn't exist back then.
Love this video! Well said. Powerful content. "The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Rev. 19:10) Another naturalistic argument I've come across for the development of prophecy and the hope of Messiah throughout the Old is progressive mythmaking. One person says this prophecy and that hope, then that same prophecy/hope is adopted and applied again later on by another person but more content is added to it this time, then another person comes along and the pattern continues. But this view cannot explain their fulfillment in Christ and the global flourishing of the Christian faith. It makes all prophets out to be liars, and then says sin doesn't exist! Such a charitable worldview.
Yes... but the FIRST thing you need to do when arguing that prophecy proves Christianity, is to prove that the book or verse of prophecy was indeed written BEFORE the event. SECOND: You need to prove that the prophecy was fulfilled WITHOUT any artificial ''self-fulfilment'' by agents, individual or collective.
The Olivet Discourse is used by skeptics as a standard argument against Christianity. So first century prediction in keeping with the preterist view, but predicting a return of Jesus which didn't happen.
@@kylec8950 I don't know if you have a full or partial preterism position. Couple of problems with partial preterism: (1) Arguably inconsistent use of texts in a similar way to the pre-trib rapture position that will divide things up into two different "comings". (2) That's not how early Christians understood the Matthew 24:30 "coming". Some early sources may have claimed that some of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the first century, but not the "coming" of Matthew 24:30. Not that I'm aware of anyway. Even if a source could be found, there would be many early Christian sources against it.
@@kylec8950 As I understand it, it's only in the last couple of hundred years that anyone came up with something close to full preterism. So you're arguing that mainstream Christianity completely missed the fulfilment. So there is a problem here, right? Especially if you wanted to use it as an argument for "fulfilled prophecy", when most Christians would deny that.
As an Adventist, we begin the 490 years with the 3rd decree to rebuild Jerusalem in 457AD. The last 'week' (7 years) begins in the year 27AD, when Christ was baptised and began his mission. After 3 & 1/2 years, Christ was 'cut off' (his crucifixion), end the symbolic sacrifice of animals, and finally, the disciples/apostles were directed to turn their attention to the Gentiles in earnest in 34AD, thus closing the last of the 7 'weeks' (490 years) that were determined for the Jews as the people of God. The symbolism of 3.5 + 3.5 = 7 is reflected at many different levels all throughout the Bible. It's definitely a fascinating book.
The so-called “messianic prophecies” that are said to point to Jesus were never taken to be messianic prophecies by Jews prior to the Christians who saw Jesus as the messiah. The Old Testament in fact never says that the messiah will be born of a virgin, that he will be executed by his enemies, and that he will be raised from the dead. Some people point to passages like Isaiah 7:14 (virgin birth) and Isaiah 53 (execution and resurrection). But read the passages carefully and find where there is any reference in them to a messiah. These passages are not talking about the messiah. The messiah is never mentioned in them. Anyone who thinks they *are* talking about the messiah, has to import the messiah into the passages, because he simply isn’t there. No one prior to Christianity took these passages to refer to a future messiah. You can go through virtually all the alleged messianic prophecies that point to Jesus and show the same things: either the “prophecies” were not actually predictions of the future messiah (and were never taken that way before Christians came along) or the facts of Jesus’ life that are said to have fulfilled these predictions are not actually facts of Jesus’ life. One fact about Jesus life is certain: he was crucified by the Romans. And that was THE single biggest problem ancient Jews had with Christian claims that Jesus was the messiah. There was not a Jew on the planet who thought the messiah was going to be crushed by his enemies - humiliated, tortured, and executed. That was the *opposite* of what the messiah would do. To call Jesus the messiah made no sense - i.e., it was nonsense - virtually by definition. And that was the major reason most Jews rejected the Christian claims about Jesus. (Ehrman)
@@tategarrett3042 To begin with, it is important to stress the historical context within which the 53 passage was written. This part of Isaiah was produced after the Babylonian armies had destroyed Jerusalem and taken large numbers of the Jewish people into captivity in Babylon. These exiles were suffering, and the prophet was writing in order to give them hope. Those in captivity were suffering for the sins of the people, which had led to God’s punishment of the nation; but they would be returned to their land and good things would come. These suffering ones are talked about as God’s “servant”: they are serving God’s purposes. Some readers think the servant has to be a single person since, after all, he is described as an individual, God’s servant. But it is important to realize that throughout the Hebrew Bible, groups of people could be, and often are, described as individuals. Nations are named after people. Thus the Southern nation after the civil war dividing Israel is named “Judah” - after one of the sons of Jacob; it is obviously a group but it is named after a person. So too with “Gog and Magog” in Ezekiel 38-39 and the fierce “beasts” that Daniel sees as ruling the earth in Daniel 7. Each is described as an individual animal, but it represents an entire national group. Another reason for thinking Isaiah 53 does not refer to just one person, the future messiah who would die for sins, is that the passage describes the suffering of the servant as a past event, not future (he was despised and rejected; he has borne our infirmities; he was wounded for our transgressions). On the other hand - this is a key point - his vindication is described as a future event (He shall see light; he shall find satisfaction; he shall divide the spoil). The author thus is referring to someone (as a metaphor for a group of people) who has already suffered but will eventually be vindicated. And who is that someone, that “servant of the LORD”? The historical context of the author’s writing is obviously an important factor in deciding, but there is a clincher to the argument. The author of Isaiah explicitly tells us who the servant is. Most readers don’t notice this because they do not read the passage in its literary context. But as biblical scholars have long known, there are four distinct passages in Isaiah that talk about this servant. And they tell us who he is. This is most clear in Isaiah 49:3, where God directly addresses the servant: “And he said to me, ‘You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.’” The suffering servant is Israel. In short, Isaiah 53 is not originally about a future messiah. It is about the nation of Israel taken into captivity. (Ehrman)
Of all the arguments, I believe this one is the most well-debunked, not just by atheist or agnostic scholars or debaters, but also people like Tovia Singer. The lynch pin is the fact that the New Testament writers knew theOld Testament, and it would be easy for them to formulate a storyline with that knowledge.
In Luke 16 :31 Jesus speaking of Abraham telling the rich man "If they hear not Moses and the prophets , neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead."
What are your thoughts on Wisdom 2:12-20? How is this mention of "the Righteous one" not a foretelling of Jesus, his ministry and passion? If it is, how can it not be inspired then, especially with the next several chapters having such a similarity to Jesus own teachings? If it's inspired, what good reason do Protestants have for rejecting it as scripture?
Fulfilling prophecy could certainly be amazing but I could prophecize things I know humans will do in the future, meaning it's more of a future expectation than an amazing prediction. You also have a problem of self fulfillment or writing that a prophecy has been fulfilled when it has not been. It is likely if not a certain that when a writer wrote something new in the bible it was based on something he already knew about the bible or the oral tradition at the time. If anything, a story that repeats and grows over time becomes exaggerated. This certainly happens across the OT as well as the NT when you put the stories in actual chronological order. Jesus begins as a knowledgeable person there to correct a religion that had been corrupted by the Roman Empire and has to be persuade to share with the Gentiles his message and becomes the ultimate human sacrifice to end all sacrifices by the end. The bible tells you how to spot false prophets because they were never understood to prophecize hundreds and thousands of years into the future but rather near term predictions that would be realized relatively soon. OT predictions that were clearly for Israel were taken and misused by the NT writers that the predictions were for Jesus. The prophecies claimed to be fulfilled in the bible by Christians simply don't pan out because if they did, we would all most likely be Christians right now or at least give Christianity more credit.
We know that the Gospel authors were literate Jews familiar with their Hebrew Bible, and they wanted their fellow Jews to accept Jesus as the prophesied Messiah. Knowing what Jews expected in their Messiah, the authors wrote the Gospels to meet those expectations, and Jesus apparently fulfills Hebrew Bible prophecies.
I think the lack of academic support is the reason it’s neglected, but that lack of academic support probably comes from the unwillingness to believe in the Bible and also the establishment clause of the first amendment that governs state schools.
The prediction of future events is no different than betting on numbers for a lottery or tossing die at local casino. One problem with prophecy is usually there are no details given, just mindless hope treated as if something will happen in the future, and that hope being reimagined as “fact” even in the absence of any evidence. Hope does not make something “true”. Another problem is even in the instance that do occur that mirror some previous nebulous prediction given sufficient passage of time one could rightly claim just about any (unusual) scenario could statistically occur. But such occurrence happened not because of prophecy and instead happen because there are any number of similar events that can occur based solely upon the complex nature of the empirical universe. And does not require the intervention of some supernatural source. There simply are too many parameters that can occur statistically within the natural order to make any claims of the supernatural to be legitimate.
When it comes to Old Testament eschatology, it seems that it will never be fulfilled in Christianity unless you take something like the view of Dispensationalism.
I think the most brief overview can sometimes be strong in itself. Afterall the indepth analysis can sometimes lead to someone being lost in the details.
Isaiah 41:23 “Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together.”
@20:50 - this point really hits home! Most of this video gave me Holy Spirit chills, well done! Our great God and King and Savior was predicted in the 3rd chapter of the book. One of the other powerful things I find is that the same hill that Abraham goes to sacrifice Issac on is the same hill David put his alter on and Solomon put his temple on and ultimately that same general location that God’s eternal Lamb was sacrificed on. God Bless you and your ministry!
Daniel 9 (70 weeks = 490 years = 458 BC - 33 AD) and Daniel 2 both placing the arrival of the Messiah after 69 weeks (27 AD) is what convinced me that Jesus was the Messiah, showing up in the days of the 4th empire from the time of Daniel 2 (Babylon-> Persia -> Greece -> Rome). That and Matthew 24:1-35 (I ended up leaving premillennialism and becoming partial preterist after learning how Jesus fulfilled that lol).
Hi Gavin! Big fan of the channel, even as an atheist. I wanted to add my personal viewpoint on this, which I feel was somewhat left out of the alternate takes. To me, it seems that our modern concept of Jesus already accounts for the prophetical text. An example of what I mean is the Horcruxes in Harry Potter. I seriously doubt that JK Rowling had the concept of Horcruxes when writing the second book at all (pretty big coincidence that one of the few things in the world able to destroy Horcruxes is handy). Similarly, I don’t think that Horcruxes as a general concept were wholly derived just from Tom Riddle’s diary, they serve multiple narrative purposes that go way beyond extending an artifact from one of the previous books. It seems most likely to me from an honest reading that these narrative needs were conceptualized as Horcruxes, while (crucially) accommodating this previous material. To put this in perspective of Gavin’s alternate points: 1) It would be an unthinkably enormous coincidence if JK Rowling thought of Horcruxes as being susceptible to Basilisk venom independent of Chamber of Secrets. 2) Nobody thinks that the reason Tom Riddle’s diary is so much like a Horcrux is because there was a reprint of Chamber of Secrets to make them more compatible. I think by far the closest in this example would be 3) intentional fulfillment, which I think a case could be made for. While I do think there are examples of intentional fulfillment (especially in the birth narratives), my point is that the two INDEPENDENT objects of the diary and the narrative purpose of the Horcruxes are reconciled by the conceptualization of the Horcruxes in light of the diary. To bring this back to the Bible, I think that there were independently 1) prophetical texts and 2) a historical Jesus, but the conceptualization of Jesus as a messianic savior was made not only in light of some of the exploits of the historical Jesus, but also the previous centuries’ worth of scripture. Hopefully I have explained this well, I am not here to offend anyone, just offering an alternative viewpoint I feel was left out.
JK Rowling has said that she had the main outline of the books in mind from the beginning. This is actually exactly parallel to the unfolding of the eschatological hope in Scripture. The only difference is - the author here can't be human because the publication of this "book series" spans centuries.
@@JM-jj3eg I think you are doing exactly what I’m saying. I have no doubt that Rowling had some big, overarching ideas from the outset. It wouldn’t even surprise me if she had the idea of multiple artifacts containing Voldemort’s soul from the beginning stages, but my point is that this was then retrofitted to incorporate specifics when the particulars of Horcruxes are established later. For instance, we are to believe that it was ALWAYS the case that basilisk venom was, in the greater universe, one of the two or three things that could destroy Horcruxes. I think an honest, unadulterated reading would lead the reader to believe this was retrofitted into the concept of Horcruxes after CoS had canonically established it. To bring it back to Jesus, I think that the messianic savior concept Christianity has today is similarly retrofitted to include what was already canonically established. And I should clarify, what I am trying to establish is different from alternate take #3. What I’m saying is that the idea of what it means to fulfill a given prophecy has changed with our modern concept of Christ. I think some of the original authors would be very surprised at how some of the prophecies are being fulfilled under a Christian context.
@@connorbrockman599 I agree there is a move from general to specifics when we go from prophecy to fulfillment. There is a logical reason for this, and it's not because the specifics were thought of later and retrofitted into the narrative (that may be the case with Rowling, though). The reason God did it this way is because if a prophecy is too specific or clear, people might try to intentionally hoax a fulfillment. Also later generations will say they "fulfillment" was cooked up to fit the "prophecy". Even now, skeptics claim this about the Gospel narrative. How much more so if the OT specifcally said "The Messiah will be crucified and be raised 3 days later". That's why I think God did not give any specifics surrounding the resurrection in particular, only very vague references like Psalm 16:10. It was a bit 'safer' to give details about the crucifixion (Isaiah 53, Psalm 22), because it's unlikely that someone would volunteer to be crucified to fake a fulfillment, or even fake a crucifxion scene - in an honor-shame society, nobody would want that. But coming back to Rowling, I think anyone can infer that a single author wrote book 2 and book 6, simply from the degree of coherence between them, even though there is some amount of retconning involved. My point is we can infer the same about the Bible, and that would indicate a supernatural origin, even if you want to say the author didn't plan out the specific details in advance. But I would say the appearance of retconning was done a different reason, not because the author didn't know or plan the details of the endgame.
I remember reading Ezekiel 26 and seeing how it compares to what Alexander the Great did to the city of Tyre and being kind blown. Still one of my favorite examples of fulfilled prophecy
@@tomasrocha6139 Not exactly. While a good chunk of the prophecy is about Nebuchadnezzar, if we look at verse 3 the phrase "I will bring many nations against you" appears, heavily implying it is not just about Nebuchadnezzar. Verses 26:4 and 26:12 match up exactly with what Alexander did to Tyre.
@@Dave_OGG That most likely is about Nebuchadnezzar's multinational army, as a King of Kings his forces came from multiple nations. And even after being destroyed by Alexander it was rebuilt and still exists to this day contrary to prophecy.
@@tomasrocha6139 I don't see how a tiny fishing town no one knows about with the same name equates to being rebuilt when considering it took decades before anyone was able to conquer it. Tyre did not fall until Alexander came along. Nebuchadnezzar did do significant damage, but Alexander wiped out of the city entirely by literally having his army throw it piece by piece into the sea, as Ezekiel said would happen.
Do you find the argument that scripture is supernatural and unique in light of textual criticism? I'm not talking about supposed contradictions but rather how the majority (including believing scholars mark s smith) believe Moses didn't write the Torah. Paul's letters where half are truly written by him, 2nd peter being a later forgery etc.. Obviously you know the arguments so I'm not going to articulate them here. Thanks Pastor.
This video is a brief summery on the topic. If you want that kind of detail you should read books on the field. You could also watch Mike Winger's serious on why we can trust the Bible. it includes detailed responses to literally 100s of Bible passages and the scholarly work on the topic as a whole
The so-called 2nd Coming , i.e; the coming of man, occurred in 67-70ad. It was Titus Flavius. And there was no Sunday resurrection. The Greek text plainly states the Tomb arrival occurred "as the Sabbath was ending, and it was dawning towards the first of the week." (Note: Mark 16:9... was later added to the text, for so-called "clarification"). Therefore, even if the resurrection did actually happen, it occurred on the 7th Day Sabbath.
(your views are somewhat unclear in your comment, sorry if i misunderstand) matthew 24 i dont think v29-31 was fullfilled in 70ad. it was certainly predicted in many ways but when they talk about the second coming it seems like the same events as what happens in revelation, which was written after 70AD and seems to not be about past events why are you assuming the intentions of whatever dude probably wrote 16:9-20?
Even if it were true, that is only one out of dozens of very specific profecies. Is it really reasonable to assume a mass conspiracy among all the New testimant Authors...which would be dozens of people btw? Even if you think so than you will have to justify why they would have done it. Early Christians were outcasts and heavily persecuted. Why would anyone suffer so much for a lie that they invented
![[Full Episode] The Restaurant War Thailand ศึกพ่อค้าซ่าแม่ค้าแซ่บ Episode 2 | 29 ก.ย. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/r3lfLNH6Ke4/mqdefault.jpg)
This argument brought me to repentence and surrender earlier this year. Thanks Gavin for being a teacher I can learn so much from. Appreciate and love you Brother
God bless you brother
Same here
Saving repentance is realizing that you are a sinner deserving of God's just punishment in Hell and turn (repent) from whatever you trusted in before, if indeed you trusted in anything; to trusting in the person and finished work of Christ alone for salvation.
Jesus is Lord God Almighty clothed in unsinful humanity and He is the author of eternal life to all who trust Him alone for salvation.
Jesus paid for all the sins of all the world at the cross (past, present, and future). *That payment is put to your account when you have believed on Christ [alone] for salvation.*
Praise God!
Wow, that's amazing!
Fun fact: Isaiah 53 sounded so much like Jesus that liberal scholars thought for a very long time that it was just a later addition by Christians. The discovery of a near-complete Isaiah scroll dated to the 2nd century BC among the Dead Sea Scrolls completely proved them wrong.
The Old Testament depicts the Triune God. I'm not surprised that scholars would think that it was a later Christian addition, because the Son and the Holy Spirit were clearly active throughout salvation history.
God’s Providence wasn’t going to give anyone an out on this one.
and then 2 seconds later "nah of course it couldnt refer to Jesus in context it is too different"
I'm curious what scholars thought this. If the disciples wanted to manufacture things, they would have just changed the gospels to match scripture rather than the other way around.
Ha! Yeah. "Fun" fact indeed.
The Roman empire provides some examples of prophecies the early Christians didn't have significant control over. The Romans, not Jews or Christians, decided to implement the highly unusual penal practices needed to fulfill passages like Psalm 22 and Isaiah 50:6 (not only the singling out of hands and feet in Psalm 22, but also the implied nakedness, gathering of enemies, etc.). The Romans, not Jews or Christians, crucified Jesus in line with the timing of Daniel's Seventy Weeks prophecy, then destroyed both Jerusalem and the temple. (For more about Daniel 9, see Robert Newman's discussion in his article "The Time Of The Messiah", which can be found online.) Much more could be said here, but I'll briefly make one other point that's often overlooked or underestimated. Jesus could have provoked people to kill him, but he wouldn't have had control over their reaction (by normal means, if he was a normal human). If you provoke people, you might get a response of mockery or pity, for example, rather than the relevant type of anger. You might get anger, but not enough of it to lead to your execution. Or you might get killed the wrong way. Too soon. Too late. In too humiliating a manner. The gospels illustrate that point. They refer to multiple occasions on which people attempted to do something like throw Jesus over a cliff or stone him. You don't even have to go to a Christian source, like the gospels. Look at what Josephus tells us about how one of Jesus' own siblings was put to death. Jesus could have met the same kind of death as his brother, James, and at the wrong time. So, the fact that Jesus' death lines up so well with the Old Testament is significant accordingly.
Or think of Isaiah 9:1. Jesus' living in Nazareth (in the region of Zebulun), then Capernaum (in the region of Naphtali) lines up well with the passage in Isaiah 9, and so do his close associations with Galilee more broadly and the Gentiles. Jesus' early residence in Nazareth is unlikely to have been made up by the early Christians (it's reported by multiple sources; it's undisputed early on; Nazareth seems to have had a worse reputation than other cities in the region of Zebulun [e.g., John 1:46], which raises the question of why Nazareth would have been chosen if the location was being made up; Luke's report that Jesus was conceived in Nazareth is unlikely to have been fabricated, given the potential for a conception there to be perceived as inconsistent with Micah's reference to the Messiah's coming from Bethlehem; the opponents of Christianity corroborated Jesus' association with Galilee and Nazareth in particular from the first century onward, repeatedly referring to Jesus and Christians as "Galileans", "Nazarenes", and such for hundreds of years). Bart Ehrman has gone as far as to refer to Jesus' upbringing in Nazareth as "certain": "Little can be known about Jesus' early life, but one thing that can be said for certain is that he was raised in Nazareth, the home village of Joseph and Mary." (The New Testament [New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 2012], 269) For these and other reasons, the geography of Isaiah 9:1 is a good line of evidence to cite in support of Christian prophecy fulfillment.
Or think of Jesus' later influence on the world. The Old Testament and Romans 11 give us the unusual scenario of a Jewish Messiah becoming highly influential in the Gentile world alongside ongoing Jewish rejection, but that's what we've seen happen.
You can find extensive argumentation for the fulfillment of these and other prophecies at Triablogue. There's a large collection of articles there on Isaiah 9, I wrote a series of posts on the meaning of Micah 4-5 and the evidence for Jesus' Bethlehem birthplace, etc.
Yes, I do believe that fulfilled prophecy is often neglected in Apologetics circles. I believe that Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 would be the two strongest Old Testament texts pointing to the Messiah's death and sacrifice for us all, not only because how specific these two passages are, but also because of the fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls papyri of these two texts were copied at least a hundred years before Jesus was born, proving that Christians didn't tamper with these texts. I believe this is a very strong argument for the New Testament's veracity and claim to be divinely inspired.
Yeah, except both of those don't necessarily correspond to Jesus and are too vague, and the writers of the gospels would have been able to falsely add information to fulfill whatever they want. You should at least prove the gospel accounts are true before claiming the prophecy is "fulfilled."
@@WaterCat5 Isaiah 53 is about a crucifixion pretty explicitly, which is well established from extrabiblical sources too.
@@WaterCat5 did you by any chance miss where he mentioned the Dead Sea scrolls which predate Christianity, and which no one could have possibly tampered with to edit in apparent prophecies about Jesus?
@@WaterCat5 some great points above. i'll add there is great evidence for the reliability of the gospels. in fact most scholars, even secular ones, beleive the gospels are very close to the originals and that the Apostles firmly beleived what they wrote. otherwise you can't account for things like accurate protrail of 1st century Roman Palestine or the fact that all the apostles died for what they beleived in.
@Freegracecentral Idk what translation you are looking at. The NIV doesn't sound like a crucifixion. Merely mentioning the piercing of hands and feet does not suggest that.
And what are these extra biblical sources? Correct me if I'm wrong, but Isaiah was written in the 7th century bce while crucifixition is not recorded until after that. So why would Isaiah even allude to such a practice?
This is the Primary reason I am a Christian. Followed by personal experience.
The Kalam is great for Theism, but Prophecy is what drives me to Christ.
Gavin’s great passion for Christ and the Gospel is such that even his apologetics videos (apologetics is often thought of as a dry topic) fill me with immeasurable gratitude and a far deeper faith. Thank God for men like Gavin and above all, thanks be to God the author of our universe for the beauty of Christ, in whom alone all of the world’s deepest longings find their satisfaction.
A gentleman for sure. I wonder sometimes if he ever gets mad! 😎
@@ThePlagueGameingHe has an unusually high tolerance for s**t. It's actually dealing with his fellow Christians that I find to be most remarkable. They can be much more vexing than any atheist. =D
@@ThePlagueGameing christians are lovely people, they never get angry or upset, cos they have god watching them and they will go to hell if they disobey the lord, no? no christian was ever mean or nasty, not a real christian anyway, not that anyone knows what a real christian looks like of course. and jesus got a bit miffed one time didn;t he? is he a real christian?
Mike Winger does a wonderful series on evidence for the Bible based on fulfilled prophecy about Jesus. And other prophecies too, including Alexander the Great and Tyre and Sidon and subsequent kingdoms.
yes, its very detailed
It's easy to write prophecies about Alexander during the 2nd century BC.
@tomasrocha6139 it is I agree. The prophecy is in the part of the Old Testament which we know was written before Alexander the Great. Try not to make stupid comments
@@ProfYaffle Simply false, Daniel is known to be Maccabean propaganda from the 2nd century. BC at least since Porphyry from the 3rd century AD, too bad Christians burned his books.
@@ProfYaffle It's not the only prophecy about Alexander is in Daniel which is from the 2nd century BC.
This argument kept me in the faith. When i got to college and began hearing arguments against Christianity it all fell flat because none of it could account for Biblical prophacy. Never heard a prophessor give an intellectual response to Biblical prophacy, because it was clear they had never heard it in all its depth
The authors of the NT had full access to all these prophecies and invented their fulfillment. They also fabricated non-existent prophecies out of thin air such as "He will be called a Nazarene." Lastly we've known Daniel's prophecies were written after they happened since Porphyry's book Against the Christians from the 3rd century.
@@tomasrocha6139 I believe the video addresses every single point you just argued.
@@eshoosca It doesn't. He adresses deliberate fulfillment, not invented fulfillment, never defends the authenticity of Daniel etc.
Looking forward to this! This was the Fathers' favorite argument for scripture. Also, I've never seen so many chapters in a thirty minute video, lol.
The chapters are morse code 🕵️♂️
@@graysonguinn1943yeah lol they get hard to follow the numbers sometimes.
Important to note The Dead Sea Scrolls, they confirm that book of Daniel, book of Isaiah and every other book of old testament except Esther, have 100% was written before Christ. Comparasion between the scrolls and our preserved text, clearly shows that it was written before
This is one of my favorite Bible topics. Thank you for your work!
PART 2 (This is the continuation of previous comment I've written)
Isaiah 53, possibly the most famous chapter for people who want to argue that "prophecy proves Christianity," Well, I won't repeat what has already been said. Throughout the book of Deutero-Isaiah (no, I don't think Isaiah wrote all of his book, nor did Michael Heiser and other conservative scholars), the Servant is constantly referred to as Israel and how they one day would reunite his people back to their land. This is talking about the return of the Exile! The Jewish people were very despised throughout history, so I think saying that this shows Jesus is being prophesied here is a very bad argument. The chapter also mentions that the Servant will be sick, probably meaning leprosy (read the Cambridge Bible for Schools in the Bible Hub), something that didn't happen to Jesus (he actually cured the lepers). And the translation "he was crushed FOR our iniquities" is actually a mistranslation. The verse ought to be translated as "he was crushed BECAUSE OF our inequities", implying that, because "they" cause harm to him, he will suffer, something that happened to the Jews constantly throughout history. Jews believe that they and their Messiah will bring the redemption of the world, so the passage where it mentions that "by his bruises we are healed" is related to that. God smiting his servant isn't that wholly unexpected either. We read in the first book of Isaiah that Israel was sent to exile because they kept refusing to follow God, which was kind of a punishment for their deeds, but, even through these horrible times, they shall remain faithful. And, interestingly, if we read Isaiah 53:8 in the original language, we'll read, "He was taken from prison and from judgement; and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living; for the transgression of my people, THEY were stricken." The word used is "lamow," which is third-person PLURAL. Don't believe in me? Check it out for yourself.
But now let's make a negative case for Isaiah 53. Well, from all we know, Christ only really suffered during his final hours... Throughout his ministry, he was well received, well treated, and even had the opportunity to eat at a Pharisee's house (Luke 14). Can we really say he was "despised, maltreated, and shunned"? I don't think so. But this can absolutely be said about the Jews... According to Isaiah 53:10, the Servant is supposed to see his "seed", a word used specifically for BIOLOGICAL children in the Hebrew Bible, yet, for all we know, Jesus didn't have kids, nor was he married. Another point is the fact that, y'know, Jesus is God? So, technically, God is His own Servant... (food for thought), and throughout the whole Hebrew Bible, the Messiah is NEVER portrayed as someone who would die (and, please, read Zechariah 12:10 in context), so Isaiah 53 is the only chapter in which you can, in a very dubious way, say that "the Messiah shall die". I would also add the idea that in the OT, sin is never portrayed as something that someone shall pay for you; it's always said to be forgiven when someone actually decides to repent and go back to the teachings of the Lord (the Torah) (Deuteronomy 24:16; Ezekiel 18:20). Well, I think that's enough.
About the prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, I would first argue that the Nativity accounts are pure fiction or legend. When I was a Christian, I thought of many ways to reconcile them and watched many apologetics videos (IP, Testify, Deflate, etc.), but there is just no way, unless, of course, you invent a census before Quirinius (for which we have absolutely no evidence) and are willing to make some brutal mental gymnastics to argue that the Evangelists were simply mentioning COMPLETELY different details regarding Jesus's Nativity. Even Christian scholars like NT Wright and Dale Allison admit that the accounts are most likely legendary. And about the prophecy of Micah, the Evangelists probably misinterpreted it. Jews seemed to never have bothered where the Messiah would be born, and Bethlehem was just a way of saying "from the same as David", because David was born there. I would also argue that the fact that Matthew quotes a bunch of passages out of context and that have no Messianic themes whatsoever is good evidence that he was just going around the OT and searching for parallels (the "he shall be a Nazarene" is a good example of that). In my perspective, the Nativity accounts were created to explain the origins of the Messiah, as many people would've gotten interested in learning how he was born and all as the movement grew, and also to restle with the fact that Jesus is ALWAYS called "Jesus of Nazareth", a region well-known for various revolts. There are also minor problems, like the fact that the Massacre of the Innocents is nowhere mentioned (not even by Herod's personal friend), when the gospels actually say that "he and all of Jerusalem were troubled when they heard that", and also the completely contradictory genealogies of Jesus (and the fact that there was no way a poor family from Nazareth could've known their genealogy coming from the literal Adam).
And lastly, because I'm getting very tired, the prophecy of Daniel 9! All I suggest is reading the whole thing straight up. The Messiah (or Kingdom of God) is supposed to arrive at that time; there is much evidence that Daniel was written during the 2nd century BCE; the word "destroy" in "destroy the city" can mean "to corrupt", which was exactly what Antiochus IV Epiphanes did; there is a huge debate on where the "70 weeks" start (if you want to understand the debate better, I really suggest taking a look at Michael Heiser's presentation on the issue; you can simply search "Michael Heiser 70 weeks of Daniel", and I think it will be the first video; it's around 1 hour long); and the obvious fact that, if you read the book of Daniel (without trying to see Jesus in it), I think someone will hardly see a direct connection to Jesus. Daniel is a very complicated and ambiguous book (funny, isn't it? 1 Corinthians 14:33), and every interpretation needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but (even when I was a Christian) I think that the "Maccabean period prophecy" hypothesis is the one with the most evidential weight.
Those are my thoughts. I don't even know if somebody's gonna read that, but whatever. If the language is repetitive and annoying to read, sorry, English isn't my first language.
Just dropping by to corroborate literally all of this, as someone who has also take a critical deep dive into prophecy. Cheers
Fulfilled prophecy has helped solidify my faith. I greatly appreciate the time taken to explain this. Thank you.
I just discovered your channel and have been binge watching your videos. You are so eloquent, so well-read, and so incredibly intelligent. I think this is my new favorite channel. The Lord has used your channel to bless me. Please continue making these videos, they’re amazing!
yahoo! Glad you're enjoying!
I often think the prophecy that Abraham’s national will be a blessing to all nations goes unexplored. Like it’s a pretty wild claim for a small nation and yet how true is it. Even putting Jesus aside, what other group has shaped the world more
I came to Christ mainly as a result of studying biblical prophecy, including "Late Great Planet Earth," by Hal Lindsey and prophecy is still one of my favorite studies. Thank you for this study and all your work. Chuck Missler has done some excellent studies on this subject.
i've yet to see a prophesy outside science that actually came to be, or was described in an way to make it unmistakable, you xians really have a low bar for evidence.
As Dutch Reformed (continental), I greatly appreciate your work.
May the Lord continue to bless your work and further God's Kingdom.
Great video Dr. Ortlund. I know from my Catholic perspective listening to people like Scott Hahn and Brant Pitre, and reading Bishop Barron’s book on Eucharist revival, it’s so amazing how it all just seems to fit-so often in really unexpected ways-but still a perfect fit, the new fulfilling the old, as it were.
This is what convinced me as a teenager.
Yessss I just started watching but I am pumped! The prophecy argument is the most neglected for sure but has so much more power than given credit for.
What an awesome and frequently neglected subject! Thank you so much for delving into it. I also heartily recommend to anyone watching this, Mike Winger's Biblical Prophecy series where he goes into detail about many fulfilled Biblical prophecies such as the destruction of Troy. The Bible is rich with examples of this.
Also, if you have the chance, Mr. Ortlund, could you do an interview/discussion with James White? I recently discovered his lectures and debates and think it would be very interesting to see you two discuss issues like apologetics, cultural outreach, and Roman Catholicism, which you both are very active in enaging.
God bless!
PART 1 (my thoughts were too long to put under a single comment)
Hello Gavin, I gotta say, despite recently deconverting and becoming an Agnostic, I really enjoy the way you speak about these topics and the willingness that you have when you present that information.
As an agnostic, I'm going to write about what I think about these topics and explain why I don't think that this "evidence" (which I would barely call that this way) isn't that impressive, and, in fact, it may discredit many points in Christianity.
I hope this doesn't sound like debunking in an arrogant way, because I just want to have an honest conversation and dialogue with people with whom I disagree. That's the reason why, despite not believing anymore, I still watch some apologetics channels.
Well, I won't address the prophecies mentioned before the 20:00 minute mark for a simple reason... There are many passages there that don't mention the Messiah at all, and I think it's just extrapolation and reading a certain theological framework into the text, but I admit that many of these are obviously messianic. The problem is that those prophecies are VERY generic regarding the Messiah, and they all say pretty much the same thing: "He will become a great king and priest. He will free Israel from its oppression. And all of Earth will know that he is the Messiah.". Do you know what other group thinks the Messiah will be just like that? The Jews. Just a quick read on the Wikipedia page "Messiah in Judaism" and you already have this notion.
End of world (before everything as follows)
God redeems the Jewish people from the captivity that began during the Babylonian Exile in a new Exodus.
God returns the Jewish people to the Land of Israel.
God restores the House of David and the Temple in Jerusalem.
God creates a regent from the House of David (i.e., the Jewish Messiah) to lead the Jewish people and the world and usher in an age of justice and peace.
All nations recognise that the God of Israel is the only true God.
God resurrects the dead.
God creates a new heaven and a new earth.
I would also note that most of these prophecies only appear in the OT during the Babylonian Exile and times when the Jews were being oppressed by foreign rulers.
The major problem is that Jesus, supposedly, was meant to do all that, but he didn't. And yes, I know. Christians are going to say, "Jesus will do that, but in the future". But really, let's be honest for a moment here... If you read in your Holy Book that the Messiah will bring the literal Apocalypse to Earth, but when he, supposedly, comes, he is nothing more than a mere man saying that the "end times are near; repent," I understand that maybe because I don't believe Jesus did any miracles anymore (and for good reasons, I would say).
A good analogy, in my view, is of a father telling his son that he will give him the most amazing gift for Christmas. He says that this gift will be capable of running many different entertainment platforms, that it will be white and blue, and that it will come with a game where a guy slaughters Greek mythology characters. You think it's a PS5, right? Well, but in the end, he gives his son a Motorola...
What are we to think of such a parent? I know I might be getting theological here, but why would God hype the spectations of His own people and give a random dude speaking of an apocalypse instead of what they were actually waiting for? There is no doubt why the Jews refuse to believe Jesus is the long-awaited Messiah. He just doesn't seem to be.
In fact, Jesus also seems to have these thoughts in the canonical gospels. I won't be long here because this could be a whole new discussion, but just read Mark 9:1, Mark 13, Matthew 24, Matthew 10:23, and other related verses. Jesus is VERY apocalyptic and thinks the end of the world and the redemption of God are near. We even see this theme in Paul's letters, but I won't elaborate further.
But now let's talk about the "supposed prophecies about Jesus in the OT"...
First of all, I don't think you can use the NT to "prove those prophecies" like it was done in 20:06-20:27, simply because the Evangelists, when they were writing these gospels (at least 30 years after the death of Jesus), already thought Jesus was the Messiah, so they are obviously going to say that he is the "root and descend of David". I also don't think you can argue that "Jesus is the most influential human being that ever existed" is evidence of it. Yes, he is in the West... So what? In the Arabic Peninsula and North Africa, Muhammad is the most influential person. In India, it's Khrishna. In China, Jesus is a nobody for most of the population. And so on... And even if Jesus was literally the most influential person in the whole world, so what? This just shows that his movement was very successful (a movement that was not prophesied in the OT, btw); that's pretty much it.
But let's talk about the actual meat, shall we?
I will talk about those in another comment... I've reached TH-cam's character limit.
' In the Arabic Peninsula and North Africa, Muhammad is the most influential person. In India, it's Khrishna. In China, Jesus is a nobody for most of the population. And so on... And even if Jesus was literally the most influential person in the whole world, so what?"
I would submit that Islam is what it is because of Christianity, so in a sense Jesus is influential even in the Muslim world. Without Jesus there would be no Islam as we know it. Similarly, post-Christian Hinduism has been strongly influenced by Christianity. The abolition of the caste system draws from Christian influence, so without Jesus Hinduism today would be completely different.
So Jesus was influential in these indirect ways, even in societies where most people have not heard of Him.
You should check out Dr. Michael L. Brown's work, he has a few videos on TH-cam regarding messianic prophecies, and he has debated rabbis on the topic of messianic prophecy. He has also written a five volume book series called: Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus. The third volume in the series addresses the objections that you have put forth in this comment, and the second comment you posted. It also addresses many other objections.
I would love if you went into more depth on some of the specifics. And the prophecies not relating directly to jesus, very interesting.
Hello, Mr Ortlund.
Big fan, and really appreciative of you demonstrating gentleness and the irenic approach. It's helped me grow so much.
For anyone who was expecting a different line of evidence, pointing more towards the reliability of the Bible, may I present something for you to start researching:
Ezekiel 26 - Tyre will be scraped bare, and fishermen cast their nets there. Alexander stripped the old city bare to create a causeway to the island city. This forced the water currents to flow differently and submerge the old city. You can google map that right this second on your phone.
Daniel 11 - Alexander the Great will die, his four generals take over, and the wars between Ptolemy and the Seleucids and who will win each one over hundreds of years of fighting, all the way to Antiochus IV, his persecution of the Jews and profaning of the Temple with a statue of Zeus who he claimed to be manifest on earth. Right to his death being not by the hand of men, as he died of sickness.
These wars are known as the Syran Wars, and the Maccabbean Rebellion.
Now, in favour of the arguments for Christianity that you present in this video:
Summary: "The Bible is so good at continuity it has to be from God. Despite being written by dozens of authors over thousands of years."
Are you skeptical?
Ever look at continuity errors and bloopers for a TV Series?
We are not as good at continuity as we like to think. You'll find cans of soda on medieval tables, people wearing nylon windbreakers and sneakers in a cowboy western, etc etc.
And that's with dozens of team members all looking for these kinds of mistakes.
And yet, Scripture has none of these. All the continuity is correct.
Please, if you're a Christian, look at these. It'll settle your security in God if you're someone who's always chasing that 'feeling close to God.'
If you're not, start looking into the historical reliability of the Bible. And whatever problem or polemic you find, make sure you look for a few defenses of it first before you believe it.
Most 'contradictions' are actually arguments from silence or a lack of context.
Like why did Jesus go all the way up near Tyre when walking instead of a more direct road?
Look at a topographical map. There was a mountain in the way.
There's a lot to learn, and its held up against every test thrown at it for 2000 years.
God Bless you, I hope this helps you, whoever you are and whatever you believe.
Thanks for mentioning all that - the continuity of scriptures could be a whole argument in and of itself. surely, if the Bible were a work of men, you would expect to see at least some contradictions between its multiple authors, across the centuries.
Daniel 11 starts failing in verses 36-45 and predicting the end of the age as the resolution to the issues of the 160s. So Christians have to insert a gap of ??? years (and counting) to save it, and say that "the king" of verse 36 is a new king and not "the king we were just talking about since verse 20"
Youre mixing up thr death not by human hand with Daniel 8, but when Daniel talks about "not by human hands" its talking about divine intervention not natural causes. See the stone not cut by human hands, im Daniel 2
Ezekiel 26 says Nebuchadnezzar will destroy Tyre forever. He never did and the city still existed today. Daniel is Maccabean propaganda that starts failing halfway through.
@@tomasrocha6139 tyre had a Mainland and island city.
@@SaintRegime The mainland settlements were a tiny portion of Tyre.
The greatest difficulty I have with this as a Christian who prioritizes historical-critical methodology, is that the definition for prophecy is treated so loosely by evangelicals. Oftentimes we are so quick to inject anachronistic meaning into the Tanakh for the sake of identifying prophecy, when in reality it is not actually prophecy meant to be taken specifically, but literary theme meant to be taken generally.
You wouldn't say that for the prophecies argued for in the new Testament, though, would you?
@@collin501 my answer would be highly dependent upon how explicitly the prophecy is made, and whether it’s written before or after the prophetic event has taken place.
What about psalm 22?
@@collin501 How can that be a prophecy when no prediction is made? It's a song about King David.
@tomasrocha6139 is it, though? Was he despised by the people? And verses 27-31 seem like a future prediction to me.
Isaiah 53 should make everyone a Christian.
Awesome video. I’m still not utterly convinced of, or at least I don’t see clearly the argument’s validity (though I’m a Christian). Still, I can recognize it’s remarkable power, and I’m fascinated by it. If I wanted to read more about it, are there any recommended books on the topic? Particularly those that might take this kind of broad scale overview of salvation history and the way it all culminates in Christ.
Genesis 12 alone is more powerful than people seems to aknowlegde (and this argument is indepentend of what one may think about reliability of Scripture's text - it still works even if you believe that Abraham didn't exist as a historical figure...): simply there is no record of ancient god making promise to give blessing upon nations through someone (it's also somewhat out of scope of ancient thinking: why even would I worship some god who would bless OTHER nations than mine?). And it was written down by a nation which historically speaking had no clear reason to believe that they somehow will overcome or will be "blessing" for example for many empires that they struggle with. So not only fulfilment of the promise in Christ (Christ is known all over the globe while ancient gods of nations are obsolete) is unique - historically *the promise itself is unique* simply in terms of time and place where it was written. When you put uniqueness of promise and uniqueness of fulfilment together, you really have to believe in a miracle: either you believe in a miracle from God or miracle of mere chance that has no comparision in history...
In an effort to break up the echo chamber, let me offer a 4th explanation: The authors of the N.T. had already read and mostly memorized the O.T. Then they penciled in events during the lifetime of Jesus that didn't actually happen in an effort to convince the reader that Jesus was the Messiah.
For example, remember when Jesus is offered vinegar to drink and he refuses? We are assuming that was a real event in 33 AD. The "4th explanation" posits that event didn't happen, but the author wanted to insert that part into the story because he already knew about that line in Psalm 22. The same idea for most of Psalm 22, Isaiah 53, and the other heavy-hitter passages.
The Gospel of Mark, the first gospel written, was written around 65 AD. It's a huge 30 year gap for lots of legends to develop in a time period where literacy was around 5%.
@@SmileyHappy1000 If it can be asserted without evidence, it can be dismissed without evidence. When memoirs of Cesar claim he is a decedent of the sun god do you need evidence to dismiss them? There are martyrs for literally every religion that exists; it doesn't lend any credibility to the religion. OP is being incredibly generous dating the earliest manuscripts at 30 after, and information is certainly likely to be corrupted in many ways over a 30 year period. The biggest problem with this argument is that it relies on the reliability of the very same holy book it seeks to prove, essentially begging the question.
@@SmileyHappy1000 We know they died for their beliefs? Citation needed, these are all mere church traditions of dubious historicity. And most New Testament scholars don't think Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were written by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.
Please consider making a video for the case for partial Preterism. I suspect it ties into the concept of dual fulfillment of prophecy.
I'm totally on board with you on this, Dr Ortlund!
Literally today's Gospel reading is "if you destroy this temple, I will rebuild it in three days" (or words to that effect). As we all know, and have confessed for 2000 years, he suffered under Pontius Pilate, died, was buried and rose again. On the third day.
I think this is something that all Christians, Apostolic & Protestant alike, can come together on!
The greatest prophecy fulfilled: that jesus would be rejected by the jews and in turn bring the world to salvation. Has this not happened right before our eyes?
My favorite subgenre of Biblical prophecy is "prophecies so clearly fulfilled that atheists have to claim they were written after the fact."
Do you think that the prophecies in the apocryphal second temple writings attributed to people like Moses and Enoch were written after the fact?
My favorite is when the prophecy starts failing halfway through which is how we know Daniel was written around 165 BC.
Islam has no prophesies, yet they constantly talk about what they think they have. Christianity has a lot of them, but don't talk that much about them.
Fulfilled prophecy is such a fascinating topic. The OT is so awesome!
So you think it is awesome to drown babies and every living animal and human except for eight people and a comparatively small group of animals?
This was absolutely wonderful. I've been looking for discussion on this very topic. If you expand this as a series, I imagine it will perform very well. Thank you Dr. Ortlund!
As a Catholic, I'm curious what you make of supposed messianic prophecies in the Deuterocanon? Two examples immediately come to mind:
1. Baruch 3:37-4:4, which predicts how divine wisdom will become incarnate and all "who cling to her will live and all who die will forsake her".
2. Wisdom 2:12-22, which seems to anticipate the entirety of Christ's passion.
Would you view these as prophetic? If not, why? If so, does this have any bearing on their inspiration, or could prophetic passages come from "ecclesiastical" books, which are good, but can't establish doctrine?
💯
I don't think those two passages have detailed specifics that go beyond what's found in the Protestant/Jewish canon. In the intertestamental period, you have Jews who meditate on and expound the Old Testament hope, and that's what we see here. They write literature on the same themes that we see in (say) Psalms and Prophets. I can imagine someone living in the intertestamental period who's deeply immersed in Scripture and spiritually perceptive, can bring them together and vaguely, almost subconsciously, "guess at" things like the incarnation from (say) Isaiah 9.6 and Micah 5.2, and produce poetic literature in line with these intuitions.
I can see why you might see them as Messianic prophecy if you have independent reasons for thinking these books are inspired. But by themselves they don't provide evidence for divine inspiration.
Yeah that seems like the best argument to explain it. I don’t think it holds up, especially for the one from wisdom.
The one from Wisdom is so specific that the first time I read it, I found it hard to believe it was written before Christ’s passion. It seems almost like a meditation upon the passion even though it is written before the birth of Christ. Also, that passage in Wisdom is quoted in Mathew’s Passion narrative itself:
“Likewise the chief priests with the scribes and elders mocked him and said ‘so he is the King of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let Him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God’”. Matthew 27:41-43
“…[the righteous one] boasts that God is his father. Let us see whether his words be true; let us find out what will to him in the end. For if the righteous one is the Son of God, God will help him and deliver him from the hand of his foes. With violence and torture let us put him to the test…”Wisdom 2:16-19a
I guess that seems pretty specific to me. What do you make of that?
@@michaeljefferies2444 I don't see anything in that passage from Wisdom that's not in Psalm 22 and other similar Psalms. We have a whole slew of psalms which speak of the unjust persecution of God's anointed (usually David himself, in the immediate context):
Psalm 22:7-8 All who see me mock me; they make mouths at me; they wag their heads; "He trusts in the Lord; let him deliver him;
let him rescue him, for he delights in him!"
As for the Messiah being God's son (in some sense) it's all over the place from Psalm 2 to 2 Samuel 7.14. This is so well understood, that Peter confesses "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God", and the High Priest asks "Are you the Christ, the Son of God?" (Matthew 27:43 probably refers back to Jesus' confession at His trial). Those two titles seem fused together in the Jewish mindset. So it's not that much of a stretch for Wisdom to pull together from these strands and come up with that line. Maybe Matthew is alluding to Wisdom, but the NT authors quote and allude to many writings they don't consider Scripture. Matthew has a certain style of quoting Scripture - the familiar formula "All this happened that it might be fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet...". So if you have that you've got your case.
Excellent overview. This is definitely a neglected area. If you're interested, I'll be posting a deep dive on Ps 22:17 (Eng. 22:16) in the next few days.
Im praying for your Nashville move.
The seige and destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD is personally compelling for me, with regard to prophecy. There is so much evidence NT manuscripts were written before it happened yet it matches theologically and textually so well with things Jesus said.
What evidence is there for that? Most scholars date Mark around or after 70 AD.
Good video. Also excited for the C S Lewis one since I recently read The Narnian, which discusses the incident fairly
Been loving Gavin’s apologetic work👍. He is very thoughtful with working through these topics in an engaging and fair way
Thank you. It continues to be a puzzle as to why the Jewish people, from their own holy books, don’t see or interpret said books the way we Christians do.
My biggest hang up with this is all of the Jewish people of today. If it’s so obvious that Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies, then why aren’t the Jewish people convinced?
I think that Paul addresses this in Romans chapters 9-11, especially ch. 11. Here is a verse from Ch 11:
"25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers:[d] a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. " (11:35)
While I do in fact agree that Jesus does fulfill the OT prophecies that point to him, I can appreciate the argument that the details of his life were edited after the fact to comport with those passages. Given the nature of poetic texts, it is conceivable that a given event can be interpreted as having its fulfillment in a specific act, whether the source text actually supports it. We’ve seen it with a number of failed eschatological prophecies and calculations in the past few centuries. Given the gospels are essentially the only historic record we have of our Lord’s life, this argument hinges on the historical reliability of those texts. For instance, the Bethlehem birth narrative could have been invented by the authors for the purpose of comporting it with the prophetic expectation of the Messiah. (I don’t think it is, as I agree the gospels have demonstrated themselves to be reliable, but I can understand the objection).
I think a strong argument for this position is the novel interpretations of messianic prophecies in light of the resurrection. The fact that passages were only read as messianic after Christ is a compelling case that these texts had been pointing to something that was, in many senses, unexpected but entirely coherent from the outset.
Gavin, thank you for your recent apologetics content. It has been so building up for my faith. Namely, this one, and the one on divine hiddenness. Praising God for how you're futhering the Kingdom. Keep going strong!
Great job
I think this is a great line of reasoning, and delivered in a way I had not thought of. How is it that the Jewish people had this continual hope, lasting centuries, that was eventually fulfilled by one man?
An interesting topic for a future video might be a discussion of why Jewish scholars reject Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament.
Amazing! I'd love to hear your thoughts on the differences between Matthew's and Luke's genealogies.
Agreed! I was just studying this, and it’s fascinating
I agree, this is the best one. Thanks for a reference.
helpful points--thanks
yes
Great Job Dr. Ortland. Dominus Vobiscum !
The hardest part about believing it, is that its so easy for the gospel writers to make up the details of Jesus's birth to be inline with the old testament specifics. For example, Jesus being born in Bethlehem is pretty widely disputed and so on.
Exactly. This is why it was a weak and kinda childish argument in my opinion. I am a Christian but for a different reasons.
This is a great overview. I think the challenge with evidential arguments is that they work pretty good with people who have some overlap with your beliefs. For an atheist, evidence can start to lose its value in that they will just re-interpret all evidence through their atheism. That's not a criticism of this argument, it's just that I think people often have to be challenged at the level of their paradigm before they're open to new evidence.
Thank you for all the incredible content this month
Dr. Ortlund I believe another topic that isn’t talked about a lot is what true Christian work looks like. After we’ve accepted Christ, how do we move forward with work and all its components (time management, moving up and doing good work, motivation) would love to hear your Christian Response to work
Do you think you could make a video about Daniel and the prophecy there (and how it relates to the dating of the book)? That has more specific prophecies than just about anywhere else in the Bible, and depending on how we date the book, that tells us whether we can trust the authenticity of the prophecy.
LOVED THIS TEACHING! Thank you
I would remind people though that to those who consider the gospel foolishness as the Greeks did, so much more will they regard prophecy;
"Is a prophecy fulfilled? Well they wrote it in after the fact and claimed they predicted it."
"Is it unfulfilled? Well clearly that proves the bible has failed prophecies!"
And so forth. Only someone actually open to God to begin with may receive some benefit. It won't convince anyone who is already in rebellion against God. Recall that God HIMSELF told us this, so unless you are rejecting God, then accept the sword of Truth given to you; Those who Reject God are in rebellion. It is not a lack of information they have or certain information they need, but a change of heart.
Romans 1:18
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who [d]suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is [e]manifest [f]in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and [g]Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
That said, we ARE called to be able to provide defense and that defense may reach the ears of the receptive. So don't expect it to convince anyone, that's not your job. But you are expected to plant the seeds of faith and defend it. The holy spirit is the one who may make those seeds Grow.
Powerful video
I just watched “The Ten Commandments” (1956) for the second time last night, and it reminded me that the Bible truly is God’s great, big story. There’s nothing else like it.
I think there are two points here that need to be differentiated:
1. Prophecy as theology and edification for Christians; and
2. Prophecy as evidence of divine relevation.
For the former, all power to you. If the narrative fits, great.
For the latter, I think there needs to be more intellectual honesty among Christians. For a prophetic word to stand as 'evidence', it needs to be:
-a- Evidenced prior to the prophesied event;
-b- Specific in it's prediction; and
-c- Not self-fulfiling.
So Jesus riding on a donkey fails this test as he was able to deliberately fulfil something already written.
Jesus predicting his death and resurrection fails because we have no evidence of the prediction prior to the event. In any other context, a post-event narrative of a prophecy would be met with due skepticism.
The Isaiah passages certainly seem to meet -a- and -c-, being attested earlier than Jesus' life, and purporting to depict events somewhat outside of his control to fulfil. Criteria -b- would therefore be the weakest link in the evidence chain i.e., is it specific enough? Others teach the passages to be poetry about Israel, pointing to the other references to Israel as God's servant within the book as evidence. Do we think the passage is specific enough to Jesus to preclude such an interpretation? If other (non-prophetic) interpretations exist, surely those must be preferentially adopted instead of a claim of prophecy?
I think you have to be careful that you dont see fulfilment of OT passages in Jesus when the text doesnt seem to be referring to some far off Messiah figure. For example, you quoted Psalm 72:17. But when you read the whole of that Psalm, it seems to refer to David's prayers concerning Solomon. So is it appropriate to claim it's referring to the Messiah if David was actually talking about Solomon? I think some OT passages are messianic, but not all.
It should also be said that most Jewish commentators would argue one of the main reasons they reject Jesus as the Messiah is precisely because the language used in some of the apparent messianic passages describing what he would do was not fulfilled in Jesus, for example 'crushing' other nations or peoples. When did Jesus do that they would ask. Indeed, was Jesus not crushed?
Finally, regarding Daniel, I find it interesting that despite many today arguing Daniel was told precisely when the Messiah would appear and be killed (referring to the 70 weeks), none of the NT writers even refer to that OT passage as prophetic evidence for Jesus. How do you explain that given their own knowledge of the OT?
"none of the NT writers even refer to that OT passage as prophetic evidence for Jesus. How do you explain that given their own knowledge of the OT?" I don't think they would have the information available to know when the start for the prophecy was. We are only able to make that argument because we posses further knowledge about history
@@briandiehl9257 They had the OT scriptures just like us, and it is obvious from the Gospel writers for example that they were well-versed in it. It seems unlikely they knew less than us today.
@@PC-vg8vn However they had no way of knowing when any of the events happened. We are only able to construct a timeline because of our archeology in the middle east which didn't exist back then.
Yet another argument that is convincing exclusively to already convinced Christians. Like so much of apologetics.
Love this video! Well said. Powerful content. "The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy" (Rev. 19:10)
Another naturalistic argument I've come across for the development of prophecy and the hope of Messiah throughout the Old is progressive mythmaking. One person says this prophecy and that hope, then that same prophecy/hope is adopted and applied again later on by another person but more content is added to it this time, then another person comes along and the pattern continues. But this view cannot explain their fulfillment in Christ and the global flourishing of the Christian faith. It makes all prophets out to be liars, and then says sin doesn't exist! Such a charitable worldview.
Yes... but the FIRST thing you need to do when arguing that prophecy proves Christianity, is to prove that the book or verse of prophecy was indeed written BEFORE the event.
SECOND: You need to prove that the prophecy was fulfilled WITHOUT any artificial ''self-fulfilment'' by agents, individual or collective.
Yes Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21 are all great fulfilled prophecy that proves Jesus is who he said he is.
The Olivet Discourse is used by skeptics as a standard argument against Christianity.
So first century prediction in keeping with the preterist view, but predicting a return of Jesus which didn't happen.
@@Henry-yh6vv Huh. Yes Jesus predicted a first century coming and it DID HAPPEN. It happened it 70ad just as Jesus prophesied.
@@kylec8950 I don't know if you have a full or partial preterism position.
Couple of problems with partial preterism:
(1) Arguably inconsistent use of texts in a similar way to the pre-trib rapture position that will divide things up into two different "comings".
(2) That's not how early Christians understood the Matthew 24:30 "coming". Some early sources may have claimed that some of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in the first century, but not the "coming" of Matthew 24:30. Not that I'm aware of anyway. Even if a source could be found, there would be many early Christian sources against it.
@@Henry-yh6vv I agree. I was partial for about a decade and have recently come full. There is no third coming. The Bible only speaks of two!
@@kylec8950 As I understand it, it's only in the last couple of hundred years that anyone came up with something close to full preterism.
So you're arguing that mainstream Christianity completely missed the fulfilment.
So there is a problem here, right?
Especially if you wanted to use it as an argument for "fulfilled prophecy", when most Christians would deny that.
As an Adventist, we begin the 490 years with the 3rd decree to rebuild Jerusalem in 457AD. The last 'week' (7 years) begins in the year 27AD, when Christ was baptised and began his mission. After 3 & 1/2 years, Christ was 'cut off' (his crucifixion), end the symbolic sacrifice of animals, and finally, the disciples/apostles were directed to turn their attention to the Gentiles in earnest in 34AD, thus closing the last of the 7 'weeks' (490 years) that were determined for the Jews as the people of God. The symbolism of 3.5 + 3.5 = 7 is reflected at many different levels all throughout the Bible. It's definitely a fascinating book.
The so-called “messianic prophecies” that are said to point to Jesus were never taken to be messianic prophecies by Jews prior to the Christians who saw Jesus as the messiah. The Old Testament in fact never says that the messiah will be born of a virgin, that he will be executed by his enemies, and that he will be raised from the dead. Some people point to passages like Isaiah 7:14 (virgin birth) and Isaiah 53 (execution and resurrection). But read the passages carefully and find where there is any reference in them to a messiah. These passages are not talking about the messiah. The messiah is never mentioned in them. Anyone who thinks they *are* talking about the messiah, has to import the messiah into the passages, because he simply isn’t there. No one prior to Christianity took these passages to refer to a future messiah.
You can go through virtually all the alleged messianic prophecies that point to Jesus and show the same things: either the “prophecies” were not actually predictions of the future messiah (and were never taken that way before Christians came along) or the facts of Jesus’ life that are said to have fulfilled these predictions are not actually facts of Jesus’ life.
One fact about Jesus life is certain: he was crucified by the Romans. And that was THE single biggest problem ancient Jews had with Christian claims that Jesus was the messiah. There was not a Jew on the planet who thought the messiah was going to be crushed by his enemies - humiliated, tortured, and executed. That was the *opposite* of what the messiah would do. To call Jesus the messiah made no sense - i.e., it was nonsense - virtually by definition. And that was the major reason most Jews rejected the Christian claims about Jesus. (Ehrman)
you say that Isaiah isn't talking about the Messiah. Who then is it talking about?
Bart 🤥🤡
@@tategarrett3042 To begin with, it is important to stress the historical context within which the 53 passage was written. This part of Isaiah was produced after the Babylonian armies had destroyed Jerusalem and taken large numbers of the Jewish people into captivity in Babylon. These exiles were suffering, and the prophet was writing in order to give them hope. Those in captivity were suffering for the sins of the people, which had led to God’s punishment of the nation; but they would be returned to their land and good things would come. These suffering ones are talked about as God’s “servant”: they are serving God’s purposes.
Some readers think the servant has to be a single person since, after all, he is described as an individual, God’s servant. But it is important to realize that throughout the Hebrew Bible, groups of people could be, and often are, described as individuals. Nations are named after people. Thus the Southern nation after the civil war dividing Israel is named “Judah” - after one of the sons of Jacob; it is obviously a group but it is named after a person. So too with “Gog and Magog” in Ezekiel 38-39 and the fierce “beasts” that Daniel sees as ruling the earth in Daniel 7. Each is described as an individual animal, but it represents an entire national group.
Another reason for thinking Isaiah 53 does not refer to just one person, the future messiah who would die for sins, is that the passage describes the suffering of the servant as a past event, not future (he was despised and rejected; he has borne our infirmities; he was wounded for our transgressions). On the other hand - this is a key point - his vindication is described as a future event (He shall see light; he shall find satisfaction; he shall divide the spoil). The author thus is referring to someone (as a metaphor for a group of people) who has already suffered but will eventually be vindicated.
And who is that someone, that “servant of the LORD”? The historical context of the author’s writing is obviously an important factor in deciding, but there is a clincher to the argument. The author of Isaiah explicitly tells us who the servant is. Most readers don’t notice this because they do not read the passage in its literary context. But as biblical scholars have long known, there are four distinct passages in Isaiah that talk about this servant. And they tell us who he is. This is most clear in Isaiah 49:3, where God directly addresses the servant: “And he said to me, ‘You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.’” The suffering servant is Israel.
In short, Isaiah 53 is not originally about a future messiah. It is about the nation of Israel taken into captivity. (Ehrman)
Great work
Of all the arguments, I believe this one is the most well-debunked, not just by atheist or agnostic scholars or debaters, but also people like Tovia Singer. The lynch pin is the fact that the New Testament writers knew theOld Testament, and it would be easy for them to formulate a storyline with that knowledge.
Gavin, thank you for this. But the link to your "messianic expectations" article doesn't work.
The Church (Body of Christ) established by Christ on the foundation of the apostles in 33 A D is the beginning of Christianity.
Awesome topic
In Luke 16 :31 Jesus speaking of Abraham telling the rich man "If they hear not Moses and the prophets , neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead."
What are your thoughts on Wisdom 2:12-20? How is this mention of "the Righteous one" not a foretelling of Jesus, his ministry and passion? If it is, how can it not be inspired then, especially with the next several chapters having such a similarity to Jesus own teachings?
If it's inspired, what good reason do Protestants have for rejecting it as scripture?
Fulfilling prophecy could certainly be amazing but I could prophecize things I know humans will do in the future, meaning it's more of a future expectation than an amazing prediction. You also have a problem of self fulfillment or writing that a prophecy has been fulfilled when it has not been. It is likely if not a certain that when a writer wrote something new in the bible it was based on something he already knew about the bible or the oral tradition at the time. If anything, a story that repeats and grows over time becomes exaggerated. This certainly happens across the OT as well as the NT when you put the stories in actual chronological order. Jesus begins as a knowledgeable person there to correct a religion that had been corrupted by the Roman Empire and has to be persuade to share with the Gentiles his message and becomes the ultimate human sacrifice to end all sacrifices by the end. The bible tells you how to spot false prophets because they were never understood to prophecize hundreds and thousands of years into the future but rather near term predictions that would be realized relatively soon. OT predictions that were clearly for Israel were taken and misused by the NT writers that the predictions were for Jesus. The prophecies claimed to be fulfilled in the bible by Christians simply don't pan out because if they did, we would all most likely be Christians right now or at least give Christianity more credit.
We know that the Gospel authors were literate Jews familiar with their Hebrew Bible, and they wanted their fellow Jews to accept Jesus as the prophesied Messiah. Knowing what Jews expected in their Messiah, the authors wrote the Gospels to meet those expectations, and Jesus apparently fulfills Hebrew Bible prophecies.
Hi Dr. Ortlund. Thanks for this video. I'll be posting a response in a week or so. I'll let you know the details when it's ready. Cheers.
I think the lack of academic support is the reason it’s neglected, but that lack of academic support probably comes from the unwillingness to believe in the Bible and also the establishment clause of the first amendment that governs state schools.
The Holy Eucharist is the most powerful scientific evidence that Christianity has.
The prediction of future events is no different than betting on numbers for a lottery or tossing die at local casino. One problem with prophecy is usually there are no details given, just mindless hope treated as if something will happen in the future, and that hope being reimagined as “fact” even in the absence of any evidence. Hope does not make something “true”. Another problem is even in the instance that do occur that mirror some previous nebulous prediction given sufficient passage of time one could rightly claim just about any (unusual) scenario could statistically occur. But such occurrence happened not because of prophecy and instead happen because there are any number of similar events that can occur based solely upon the complex nature of the empirical universe. And does not require the intervention of some supernatural source. There simply are too many parameters that can occur statistically within the natural order to make any claims of the supernatural to be legitimate.
Could you go through the kingdoms that daniel mentions? I think they are in revelation as well. The kindgdoms daniel lists are accurate i think
When it comes to Old Testament eschatology, it seems that it will never be fulfilled in Christianity unless you take something like the view of Dispensationalism.
So interesting and inspiring as usual with such a nice personality :-) Thanks a lot brother Gavin!
God bless
You seem like a nice guy. Prophecy seems like a laughably bad argument.
I think the most brief overview can sometimes be strong in itself. Afterall the indepth analysis can sometimes lead to someone being lost in the details.
14:01 crystallize or christalize? missed opportunity for a pun
Isaiah 41:23 “Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together.”
This is stellar!
@20:50 - this point really hits home! Most of this video gave me Holy Spirit chills, well done! Our great God and King and Savior was predicted in the 3rd chapter of the book. One of the other powerful things I find is that the same hill that Abraham goes to sacrifice Issac on is the same hill David put his alter on and Solomon put his temple on and ultimately that same general location that God’s eternal Lamb was sacrificed on. God Bless you and your ministry!
Daniel 9 (70 weeks = 490 years = 458 BC - 33 AD) and Daniel 2 both placing the arrival of the Messiah after 69 weeks (27 AD) is what convinced me that Jesus was the Messiah, showing up in the days of the 4th empire from the time of Daniel 2 (Babylon-> Persia -> Greece -> Rome). That and Matthew 24:1-35 (I ended up leaving premillennialism and becoming partial preterist after learning how Jesus fulfilled that lol).
Where does the city and sanctuary being destroyed fit into your 490 year time table with year 483 at AD27?
One of the most important arguments for Christianity. Great video.
I want to look more into this. Any literature recommendations ?
Hi Gavin! Big fan of the channel, even as an atheist.
I wanted to add my personal viewpoint on this, which I feel was somewhat left out of the alternate takes. To me, it seems that our modern concept of Jesus already accounts for the prophetical text. An example of what I mean is the Horcruxes in Harry Potter. I seriously doubt that JK Rowling had the concept of Horcruxes when writing the second book at all (pretty big coincidence that one of the few things in the world able to destroy Horcruxes is handy). Similarly, I don’t think that Horcruxes as a general concept were wholly derived just from Tom Riddle’s diary, they serve multiple narrative purposes that go way beyond extending an artifact from one of the previous books. It seems most likely to me from an honest reading that these narrative needs were conceptualized as Horcruxes, while (crucially) accommodating this previous material. To put this in perspective of Gavin’s alternate points:
1) It would be an unthinkably enormous coincidence if JK Rowling thought of Horcruxes as being susceptible to Basilisk venom independent of Chamber of Secrets.
2) Nobody thinks that the reason Tom Riddle’s diary is so much like a Horcrux is because there was a reprint of Chamber of Secrets to make them more compatible.
I think by far the closest in this example would be 3) intentional fulfillment, which I think a case could be made for. While I do think there are examples of intentional fulfillment (especially in the birth narratives), my point is that the two INDEPENDENT objects of the diary and the narrative purpose of the Horcruxes are reconciled by the conceptualization of the Horcruxes in light of the diary. To bring this back to the Bible, I think that there were independently 1) prophetical texts and 2) a historical Jesus, but the conceptualization of Jesus as a messianic savior was made not only in light of some of the exploits of the historical Jesus, but also the previous centuries’ worth of scripture. Hopefully I have explained this well, I am not here to offend anyone, just offering an alternative viewpoint I feel was left out.
Thanks for sharing your take! Alternative perspectives are always welcome. God bless.
JK Rowling has said that she had the main outline of the books in mind from the beginning. This is actually exactly parallel to the unfolding of the eschatological hope in Scripture. The only difference is - the author here can't be human because the publication of this "book series" spans centuries.
@@JM-jj3eg I think you are doing exactly what I’m saying. I have no doubt that Rowling had some big, overarching ideas from the outset. It wouldn’t even surprise me if she had the idea of multiple artifacts containing Voldemort’s soul from the beginning stages, but my point is that this was then retrofitted to incorporate specifics when the particulars of Horcruxes are established later. For instance, we are to believe that it was ALWAYS the case that basilisk venom was, in the greater universe, one of the two or three things that could destroy Horcruxes. I think an honest, unadulterated reading would lead the reader to believe this was retrofitted into the concept of Horcruxes after CoS had canonically established it.
To bring it back to Jesus, I think that the messianic savior concept Christianity has today is similarly retrofitted to include what was already canonically established. And I should clarify, what I am trying to establish is different from alternate take #3. What I’m saying is that the idea of what it means to fulfill a given prophecy has changed with our modern concept of Christ. I think some of the original authors would be very surprised at how some of the prophecies are being fulfilled under a Christian context.
@@connorbrockman599 I agree there is a move from general to specifics when we go from prophecy to fulfillment. There is a logical reason for this, and it's not because the specifics were thought of later and retrofitted into the narrative (that may be the case with Rowling, though).
The reason God did it this way is because if a prophecy is too specific or clear, people might try to intentionally hoax a fulfillment. Also later generations will say they "fulfillment" was cooked up to fit the "prophecy". Even now, skeptics claim this about the Gospel narrative. How much more so if the OT specifcally said "The Messiah will be crucified and be raised 3 days later". That's why I think God did not give any specifics surrounding the resurrection in particular, only very vague references like Psalm 16:10. It was a bit 'safer' to give details about the crucifixion (Isaiah 53, Psalm 22), because it's unlikely that someone would volunteer to be crucified to fake a fulfillment, or even fake a crucifxion scene - in an honor-shame society, nobody would want that.
But coming back to Rowling, I think anyone can infer that a single author wrote book 2 and book 6, simply from the degree of coherence between them, even though there is some amount of retconning involved. My point is we can infer the same about the Bible, and that would indicate a supernatural origin, even if you want to say the author didn't plan out the specific details in advance. But I would say the appearance of retconning was done a different reason, not because the author didn't know or plan the details of the endgame.
I remember reading Ezekiel 26 and seeing how it compares to what Alexander the Great did to the city of Tyre and being kind blown. Still one of my favorite examples of fulfilled prophecy
But that's explicitly about Nebuchadnezzar King of Kings, who failed to seize Tyre, not Alexander.
@@tomasrocha6139 Not exactly. While a good chunk of the prophecy is about Nebuchadnezzar, if we look at verse 3 the phrase "I will bring many nations against you" appears, heavily implying it is not just about Nebuchadnezzar. Verses 26:4 and 26:12 match up exactly with what Alexander did to Tyre.
@@Dave_OGG That most likely is about Nebuchadnezzar's multinational army, as a King of Kings his forces came from multiple nations. And even after being destroyed by Alexander it was rebuilt and still exists to this day contrary to prophecy.
@@tomasrocha6139 I don't see how a tiny fishing town no one knows about with the same name equates to being rebuilt when considering it took decades before anyone was able to conquer it. Tyre did not fall until Alexander came along. Nebuchadnezzar did do significant damage, but Alexander wiped out of the city entirely by literally having his army throw it piece by piece into the sea, as Ezekiel said would happen.
Do you find the argument that scripture is supernatural and unique in light of textual criticism? I'm not talking about supposed contradictions but rather how the majority (including believing scholars mark s smith) believe Moses didn't write the Torah. Paul's letters where half are truly written by him, 2nd peter being a later forgery etc.. Obviously you know the arguments so I'm not going to articulate them here. Thanks Pastor.
This video is a brief summery on the topic. If you want that kind of detail you should read books on the field. You could also watch Mike Winger's serious on why we can trust the Bible. it includes detailed responses to literally 100s of Bible passages and the scholarly work on the topic as a whole
The so-called 2nd Coming , i.e; the coming of man, occurred in 67-70ad. It was Titus Flavius.
And there was no Sunday resurrection. The Greek text plainly states the Tomb arrival occurred "as the Sabbath was ending, and it was dawning towards the first of the week." (Note: Mark 16:9... was later added to the text, for so-called "clarification"). Therefore, even if the resurrection did actually happen, it occurred on the 7th Day Sabbath.
(your views are somewhat unclear in your comment, sorry if i misunderstand)
matthew 24
i dont think v29-31 was fullfilled in 70ad. it was certainly predicted in many ways but when they talk about the second coming it seems like the same events as what happens in revelation, which was written after 70AD and seems to not be about past events
why are you assuming the intentions of whatever dude probably wrote 16:9-20?
What is New Testament authors picked up on the messiah being born in Bethlehem from the OT, and they inserted it to show fulfillment?
Even if it were true, that is only one out of dozens of very specific profecies. Is it really reasonable to assume a mass conspiracy among all the New testimant Authors...which would be dozens of people btw? Even if you think so than you will have to justify why they would have done it. Early Christians were outcasts and heavily persecuted. Why would anyone suffer so much for a lie that they invented