On the Hunt for Jesus in the Old Testament

The manufactured prophecy miracle

Religious folks have a vested interest in managing expectations about miracles. Taking them at their word, that God is powerful and good—and has our wellbeing in mind—secularists can suggest miracles that should have happened. A year before the Sandy Hook School massacre, Richard Carrier wrote this:

Read more »

The 100% Challenge

As a pastor, I often made reference in my sermons to the “astounding prophecies of the Bible,” which I believed proved the deity of Christ and the divine inspiration of Scripture beyond a reasonable doubt. It was my sincere conviction that if an unbeliever examined, for example, the Messianic prophecies embedded in the Old Testament with an open mind, he would walk away a convert to Christ. How many prophecies are we talking about here? Well, that depends on who you ask. Jews for Jesus point to several dozen Messianic prophecies, while Josh McDowell in Evidence that Demands a Verdict claims “over 300 references to the messiah that were fulfilled in Jesus.” According to ChristianAnswers.Net, “The probability that Jesus of Nazareth could have fulfilled even eight such prophecies would be only 1 in 1017” (that's 10 to the power of 17).

For decades, I accepted this standard defense of the Christian faith without question. It was not until a Bible class earlier this year that serious doubts about the Messianic prophecies began to bubble to the surface. I was teaching through John's Gospel, verse by verse, when the class came to chapter 19 and verse 36 ("These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: Not one of his bones will be broken"). Someone asked me about the original prophecy, so I followed my index finger to the handy-dandy cross reference and arrived at Psalm 34:20. Ah, here I would be able to show the class one of the "astounding" prophecies of Scripture that "proves beyond a doubt" that Jesus was the Christ. What I discovered was, shall we say, underwhelming:

19 A righteous man may have many troubles,
but the LORD delivers him from them all;

20 he protects all his bones,
not one of them will be broken.

This is certainly an inspiring verse of Scripture, but you would have to be a fool to take it as a prophecy of the Messiah. I was left in the truly awkward position of explaining to the class why John took a verse like this and wrenched it so violently from its original context (something I've preached against for years). As we went along, I noticed other misquoted passages the Gospel writer applied to Jesus. I was quite embarrassed--not for myself, but for the apostle John! This got me to wondering--how many other claims of prophetic fulfillment are not just a little bit off, but way off?

Here's why this question is so important to evangelical Christianity: if the Messianic prophecies fail, the entire Christian foundation erodes away with it (see Deut. 18:22). The Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (CARM) recognizes this: “How do you respond to someone's claim that the Bible is not inspired? Is there a way to prove inspiration or, at least, intelligently present evidence for its inspiration? The answer is, ‘Yes!’ One of the best ways to prove inspiration is by examining prophecy.”

Got that? Christians say that you can evaluate the Bible’s claims of divine inspiration by whether or not it accurately records actual instances of fulfilled prophecy. CARM continues: “If just one prophecy failed, then we would know that God is not the true God, because the creator of all things, which includes time, would not be wrong about predicting the future.”

So, does everyone understand the rules of the game? If we can find just one bogus prophecy—one instance where the Bible says something is going to happen a certain way and it doesn’t pan out—this is all a reasonable person needs to demonstrate the Bible is human, not divine, in origin. Put another way, if there were 100 Bible prophecies and 99 were shown to be right on the money, 1 wrong prophecy would be enough to spoil a 100% perfect record. If the Messianic prophecies are shady in any way, then the Bible is not the perfect product of a perfect God (as millions believe today). Perhaps most significant, without 100% accuracy of the Messianic passages, Jesus cannot be the One sent from heaven to redeem the world.

Now that we have our challenge, can we find one bogus prophecy? Well, here's where it gets tough: choosing just one! Let’s start in Matthew, who is prolific in his quotation Old Testament prophecies and his application of them to Jesus. Should we build our case on a passage like Matthew 2:23? It says of Jesus, “And he came and dwelt in the city called Nazareth , that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, 'He shall be called a Nazarene.’” I'm sad to say that in my 20 years as a Christian, I never realized that Matthew makes reference to a prophecy that doesn’t even exist! Try as you may, you will nowhere find a place in the Old Testament where it unambiguously declares the Messiah would be a Nazarene.

How about the (in)famous example of Isaiah 7:14? Matthew uses this prophecy as the cornerstone of his Gospel, quoting Isaiah as saying, “Behold, the virgin shall be with child.” However, the word Matthew translates "virgin" would be more accurately translated “young woman.” The Jews had a very specific word for virgin (bethulah), but it was not the word Isaiah chose (ha-almah). Holy disappearing virgin, Batman! Further examination of the chapter reveals that the promised child of Isaiah 7:14 was to be a sign to Ahaz, a Judean king who lived centuries before Jesus was even born!

Or how about this one: Matthew’s claim that King Herod slaughtered “all the male children who were in Bethlehem and its vicinity, from two years old and under” (Matthew 2:16). Every Sunday school student knows this story (one Bible class lesson titles this episode, “Babies Give Their Lives for Jesus”). As a minister, I searched desperately to substantiate this story with the Jewish histories of Josephus or with any secular historian of that era--only to realize that there is not a shred of historical or archaeological evidence behind it. To add insult to injury, Matthew (or whoever wrote under his name) would have us believe that this fanciful tale was also a fulfillment of ancient prophecy. He quotes Jeremiah 31:15: “A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children; and she refused to be comforted, because they were no more.” Once again, a careful reading of the entire chapter in its context reveals that Jeremiah is talking about a situation far removed from Bethlehem, Herod, and the Magi. He is describing the struggles of the Israelites during the Babylonian Captivity. The few verses after verse 15 bear this out:

15 This is what the LORD says:
"A voice is heard in Ramah,
mourning and great weeping,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because her children are no more."

16 This is what the LORD says:
"Restrain your voice from weeping
and your eyes from tears,
for your work will be rewarded,"
declares the LORD.
"They will return from the land of the enemy.

17 So there is hope for your future,"
declares the LORD.
"Your children will return to their own land.”

Clearly the Gospel writer was stretching it a bit (read: a lot)!

No doubt, I will hear from outraged Christians who cannot understand how a minister so in-tune with the Bible, from a conservative Christian denomination, can question these prophecies. Well, please understand that there are fair-minded, rational people out there who do have trouble with them. The man whose question sparked this search was not a skeptic, but a respected deacon of my church.

That having been said, I’m interested in what Christians perusing this forum see as so irrefutable about the so-called Messianic prophecies about Jesus. If the standard for prophecy is 100% accuracy—no misses—then (as Ricky Ricardo would say) "someone’s got some 'splaining to do!"

The Top five Six Books On Bible Prophecy

There's a great deal of crap out there about Bible prophecy. Read these five six books in descending order instead:

Read more »

Bible Prophecy Fulfilled: Christmas Trees.

Since it’s the time of year when my Christian friends are preparing to celebrate Christmas, I feel that I must point out something very important, to them.

Christmas trees are mentioned in the Bible. 

Not only mentioned, but prophesied thousands of years before they would become a part of Christmas celebrations.  Not only were they predicted, but they were condemned by the prophet Jeremiah:

Thus says the Lord: “Learn not the way of the nations, nor be dismayed at the signs of the heavens because the nations are dismayed at them, for the customs of the peoples are vanity. A tree from the forest is cut down and worked with an axe by the hands of a craftsman. They decorate it with silver and gold; they fasten it with hammer and nails so that it cannot move.

Jeremiah 10:2-4 (ESV)

Clearly, the Bible condemns the practice of cutting and decorating Christmas trees.   All believers who practice such things are in rebellion against their god - right?  Maybe I will have to tear up my American Atheists membership card.  We have a bona fide example of fulfilled prophesy in the Bible!

Read more »

Bible Prophecy Fulfilled (Part 3): The Christmas Murders

The story of the wise men being guided by a heavenly star, to the house where Jesus resided has been a key element of many a Christmas play.    What has not been talked about very often is how this little piece of razzle-dazzle got a bunch of kids murdered.  Yep.  This is one of those not-infrequent moments in the Bible which makes a person (of even average intelligence) face palm and say “Really God?  Really?  This was the best you could come up with?”

Read more »

Paul Tobin Responds to The Infidel Delusion (Part 2)

Part 1 can be found here. Quote of the day from Paul Tobin below:

I shake my head in wonderment when I see the evangelical mind at work.

Read more »

How the NT Writers Used the OT

I will not attempt to provide an in depth analysis here, but one of the major things claimed by the New Testament in support of Jesus’ life and mission is that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy (Luke 24:26-27; Acts 3:17-24). I believe early Christian preachers simply went into the Old Testament looking for verses that would support their view of Jesus. They took these Old Testament verses out of context and applied them to Jesus in order to support their views of his life and mission. None of the them proves much of anything significant with regard to Jesus' nature or mission.

Many of the claimed prophecies came from the book of Psalms. But the Psalms are simply devotional prayers. Among other things in the Psalms we find prayers for help in distress, for forgiveness, and wisdom, and so on. They declare praise to God, and they express hope that their enemies will be defeated. There is nothing about them, when reading them devotionally, that indicates they are predicting anything at all! But the New Testament writers quoted from several of them and claimed they predicted several things in the life, death and resurrection of the Messiah, Jesus (i.e., Psalms 2, 16, 22, 40, 69, 110, and 118).

Psalms 2 expresses hope for the Messiah, the anointed one. But any Jew writing about his hope for a future Messiah could have said these same hopeful things. A hope is not a prediction. Besides, Psalms 2 and 110 were most likely to be read at the coronation of Jewish kings. Psalms 110:1 reads: “The Lord says to my lord: ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for you feet.” The New Testament writers make a big deal out of the fact that David wrote this Psalm in which he calls someone else “lord.” This supposedly refers to David’s future Messianic son, Jesus--his divine nature and mission. But it’s fairly obvious that if David wrote this Psalm he did it on the coronation of his son Solomon, whom he subsequently called, "lord." He did this because of Solomon’s new status, which placed him as a ruler even above the aged David himself. The Jews of that time would not have understood it any other way.

The other Psalms do not predict anything at all. They are prayers to be interpreted within the range of the writer’s experiences alone. Any extrapolation of them to Jesus is reading Jesus into the text, and not justified by the text itself.

It is more probable that the New Testament writers were influenced in the construction of their stories about Jesus by making his life fit some of these details. That may also explain Luke’s concoction of a census in order to get Mary to Bethlehem so that Jesus could be born there, according to “prophecy” (Micah 5:2, Matthew 2:6).

Matthew even constructs a small detail based upon a misunderstanding of prophecy. Matthew 21:2 has Jesus requesting both a donkey and also a colt to ride into Jerusalem on, based upon a false understanding of Zechariah 9:9: “Rejoice…your king comes to you…gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.” Zechariah’s prophecy is an example of Hebraic parallelism in which the second line retells the point of the first line. There is only one animal in Zechariah, but Matthew thinks he means there is a donkey and also a colt, so he wrote his story based upon this misunderstanding in order to fit prophecy! [Mark (11:1) and Luke (19:30) both say it was a “colt.” John (12:14-15) says it was a “donkey”, and then quoted Zechariah 9:9 as saying: “your king is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt.”

How Matthew’s gospel uses the Old Testament is a case in point for us. How he uses Isaiah 7:14 to predict the supposed virgin birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:23), is simply fraudulent. In Matthew 1:20-23 the author claims that Isaiah 7:14 refers to Jesus’ virgin birth: “Immanuel with us.” The context for the prophecy in Isaiah tells us that before any “young woman” (not virgin) shall conceive and bear a son who grows to maturity that Syria, the northern kingdom of Israel, along with the southern Israelite kingdom of Ahaz would all lie devastated. The prophecy in the original Hebrew of Isaiah says nothing whatsoever about a virginal conception. And it says nothing about a messiah, either. God will indeed be with Ahaz, but not in salvation, but in judgment.

Let’s just look at three more from Matthew. What exactly does the word “fulfill” mean in Matthew 2:14-15: “Then Joseph got up, took the child and his mother by night, and went to Egypt, and remained there until the death of Herod. This was to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet, ‘Out of Egypt I have called my son.’” According to The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures, “This is a reference to Hosea 11:1, which does not seem to be a prophecy in the sense of a prediction. Hosea was writing of God’s calling Israel out of Egypt into the Exodus. Matthew, however, gave new understanding to these words. Matthew viewed this experience as Messiah being identified with the nation.” According to J. Gnilka, "The total disassociation of that the quotation from its context is completely at odds with our own exegetical preferences." [in Das Matthausevangelium I Kommentar zu Kap 1.1 – 13.58 (HTKNT, 1.1; Freiburg: Herder, 1986), p. 55]. According to U. Luz, "Matthew naturally understands his quotation from Hosea as prophetic; he did not share the insight, common since Zwingli... and Calvin... that his interpretation does not correspond to the original meaning." [Das Evangelium nach Matthaus I Mt 1-7, p. 129].

When Herod the king ordered all boys two years old and younger in Bethlehem to be killed, Matthew sees this as a fulfillment of Jeremiah 31:15. Jeremiah is mourning for those who will be cast into Babylonian captivity. According to R. Schnackenburg, "it seems far-fetched to quote this text as fulfillment of prophecy." [Das Mathausevangelium 1.1 – 16.20 (Die Neue Echter Bibel, 1.1; Wurzburg: Echter Verlag, 1985), p. 27].

Look at Matthew 2:22-23: “Then after being warned by God in a dream, he left for the regions of Galilee, and came and lived in a city called Nazareth. This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophets: ‘He shall be called a Nazarene.’” Again, according to the conservative The Bible Knowledge Commentary : An Exposition of the Scriptures, “The words ‘He will be called a Nazarene,’ were not directly spoken by any Old Testament prophet, though several prophecies come close to this expression. Isaiah said the Messiah would be “from [Jesse’s] roots” like “a Branch” (Isaiah 11:1). “Branch” is the Hebrew word nezer, which has consonants like those in the word “Nazarene” and which carry the idea of having an insignificant beginning.”

Contextually Matthew’s use of Scripture is an apologetic to the Jews. Therefore, in some way his contemporaries must have seen such a use of Scripture as evidence of the nature or mission of Jesus. The question we must ask is how does his interpretation confirm these facts? What is the point of the quotations? What does it add to Matthew’s narrative? What does it confirm about Jesus? Contextually there is simply no way on grammatical-historical lines that Hosea 11:1 could be used as evidence of the nature or mission of Jesus in Matthew 2:15. It just isn’t there. Matthew uses the verse so loosely that it would show evidence of nothing at all to us today were we the ones weighing the claims of another Messiah. It teaches us nothing at all about the Messiah that Matthew hasn’t already told us. We today would be extremely puzzled by Matthew’s interpretation of it.

And Matthew’s claim that Jesus is a “Nazarene” isn’t specifically quoted from any OT source, and even if the Messiah was to be a “branch” from David, that could only mean to the OT reader that he would be from David’s blood line, not that he would live in Nazareth!

Our methods for discerning exactness and correctness have changed. If we were to judge the NT writers by our standards of hermeneutics today they wouldn’t measure up. Another way to put this is that if we would employ the same methods in scholarly studies today as they did, we would be laughed at by our contemporaries—just try it and see!

What was Matthew’s intention? Matthew’s gospel reads as if he was making a case for Jesus as the Christ. Dunn stated in The Living Word (Fortress Press, 1987) that Matthew’s use of the sayings of Jesus is similar to the way he used the O.T. in that: “the texts used were often significantly different in sense from the original. It was evidently quite an acceptable procedure in Matthew’s time to incorporate the interpretation into the saying itself by modifying the form of the saying.” (pp. 115-122). Today we think this way of interpreting the O.T. is wrong. And yet we are supposed to believe that Jesus is the fulfillment of OT prophecy? Hardly!

Does Old Testament Prophecy Point to Jesus?

[Written by John W. Loftus] I know this isn't Christmas time (or is it?). Here's just one example of many to show the Old Testament does not predict anything about the life, mission, death or resurrection of Jesus. Just one of many, okay?

Matthew reports this about Jesus being born in Bethlehem (2:5):

“When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him. And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born. And they said unto him, ‘In Bethlehem of Judea: for thus it is written by the prophet, “And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least among the princes of Judah: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.”’”

The Greek word for “Governor” can be translated in English as “ruler” or as “shepherd” depending on the context. To the Greek mind a ruler is a shepherd and a shepherd is a ruler.

In the first place, "Bethlehem Ephratah" in Micah 5:2 refers not to a town, but to a clan: the clan of Bethlehem, who was the son of Caleb's second wife, Ephrathah (1 Chr.2:19, 2:50-51, 4:4). Secondly, the prophecy, as understood by Herod’s scribes (if they actually did think this), refers to a military commander, as can be seen from the context of Micah 5:6, which says,

“He will be their peace. When the Assyrian invades our land and marches through our fortresses, we will raise against him seven shepherds, even eight leaders of men. They will rule the land of Assyria with the sword, the land of Nimrod with drawn sword. He will deliver us from the Assyrian when he invades our land and marches into our borders.”

This leader is supposed to defeat the Assyrians, which, of course, Jesus never did. This is basic exegesis. If Jesus is who Micah referred to as having been born in Bethlehem, then Jesus was also supposed to conquer the Assyrians.

Gleason Archer deals with this Bible difficulty in his book, The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. He claims Matthew did not quote from the Septuagint version (LXX), which was the standard Greek translation of the Hebrew text, but from some other Greek paraphrase. A paraphrase wasn’t meant to be literal translation; it’s more expressive. It brings out the implications of the prophecy, and Archer claims that's what Matthew used. He also claims Matthew conflated two different prophecies when quoting Micah 5:2. Archer claims Matthew also was quoting from II Samuel 5:2, in which it's said:

“all of Israel” came to King David and said, “In the past, while Saul was king over us, you were the one who led Israel on their military campaigns. And the Lord said to you, ‘You will shepherd my people Israel, and you will become their ruler.’”

Afterward the people anointed David as their king. Archer claims the phrase, “You will shepherd my people Israel, and you will become their ruler,” is what Matthew is referring to when speaking about Jesus, not that he would conquer the Assyrians. Archer further states that it was actually “Herod’s Bible experts,” not Matthew, “who quoted from more than one Old Testament passage.” So, “in a sense, therefore, they were the ones responsible for the wording, rather than Matthew himself.”

Now it's true that New Testament writers repeatedly “conflate” Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, and Archer offers a couple of examples. We see this in Matthew 27:9-10, which combines elements from Zechariah 11:12-13, Jeremiah 19:2,11, and Jeremiah 32:6-9. We also see this in Mark 1:2-3, which combines elements from Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1. But Matthew (2:5) explicitly says the prophecy was from Micah, not from the people of Israel in II Samuel 5:2.

Furthermore, if Matthew takes Micah’s prophecy out of context, as I’ve explained, then it doesn’t help anything by claiming he was also referring to II Samuel 5:2, since that too is taken out of context. It isn’t even a prophecy. It’s about David shepherding the people of Israel.

If however, Archer wants to blame the scribes in Herod’s court for misapplying Micah 5:2, then why did Archer expend so much ink trying to show what Matthew was attempting, if Matthew wasn’t attempting to do anything here but merely record what these scribes said? If Herod’s scribes are to be blamed for misunderstanding Micah 5:2, along with II Samuel 5:2, then exactly where is there in the Old Testament any prophecy for the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem? There is none!

The Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus in a Nutshell

Let's consider the kinds of evidence Christians argue should convince us to believe. Philosophical arguments to their God are special pleading since they don't lead to any specific religious sect. What's left? There's no empirical evidence since we weren't there to witness the resurrection for ourselves. It's not good enough for reasonable people to simply accept someone's claim that he saw some guy come back from the dead, much less someone in the ancient superstitious pre-scientific past. The textual evidence comes from the 4th century, which contains known forgeries. In these texts there is no first-hand eyewitness testimony. Neither Jesus nor his disciples nor anyone who saw or heard Jesus wrote any of them. There is no prophetic evidence, none. There is no prophecy of a Trinitarian God, no prophecy of an Incarnation, no prophecy of a virgin birth, no prophecy of a dying Messiah and no prophecy of a resurrected Messiah. All the so-called Old Testament prophecies are either not predictions at all, or misapplied by the New Testament writers. There is no corroborating evidence of the bizarre unbelievable stories in the Gospels about earthquakes, eclipses, or dead saints who were supposedly raised from dead when Jesus did.

And I'm supposed to believe? Really? Seriously? When I say there isn't sufficient evidence to believe I mean just that. It doesn't matter if the earliest disciples had sufficient evidence to believe. We don't know that they did. All we have is the so-called evidence above. The kicker is that the Jews of that day did not believe this so-called evidence, nearly 8 million of them in the known world, even though they believed in God, his ability to do miracles, Old Testament prophecy, and were there. So tell me once again why any reasonable person should believe? It simply does not add up.

Even if God exists…
Even if miracles took place…
Even if Christianity is true…
Even if Jesus was resurrected…
Even if there were eyewitnesses…
There’s no reason for US to believe today!

Robert J. Miller's Book, Helping Jesus Fulfill Prophecy, Is a Rout

This book should end the faith-based claim that prophecy is evidence for the biblical God.

This book describes in detail how Christian authors "helped" Jesus fulfill prophecy...This book analyzes how the belief that Jesus fulfilled prophecy became an argument to justify a new notion: the view that Christians had replaced Jews as God's chosen people...The book concludes with an ethical argument for why Christians should retire the argument from prophecy. [It may be a bit expensive but it's the only book you'll need on Messianic prophecy.

John Beversluis, "The Gospel According to Whom? A Nonbeliever Looks at The New Testament and its Contemporary Defenders" 4

I'm posthumously posting six chapters from an unfinished book sent to me for comment in 2008 by the late John Beversluis (see Tag below). In this chapter Beversluis makes mincemeat of the characters in the Nativity Narratives as being confused and/or irrational if we take the story as historical truth. I've highlighted a few gems from him.

Read more »

An Introduction Part Two: In Accordance With Prophecy

Something I find rather fun to do is, while engaged in conversation with colleague, end every declarative statement with the phrase, “In accordance with prophecy.” For example, “Hey, Charles, what are your plans for the evening?” “Well, Johnny, I’m going to fix some dinner and then watch the telly…in accordance with prophecy!” Sound ridiculous? It is. And yet, listening to certain “enlightened” evangelical preachers, one can only, logically, come to the conclusion that there are those out there who actually speak in this manner and those, more alarmingly, that believe in their predictions without a second thought, and some might even say without a first one either. Prophecy, especially of the Messianic or End Times varieties, plays a large role in the pontifications of many evangelical preachers, such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and is more than a little significant in the role of recruiting more members of the “flock.” This should not come as a surprise for all religions, and especially the most important aspects of Christianity, are rooted in the “fulfillment” of certain obscure and ambiguously worded prophecies—the birth, ministry, death, resurrection and impending second coming of Jesus are all supposedly in accordance with various prophecies in the Scriptures.

However, what happens when a prophecy found in the perfect and inerrant Bible is proven to be false? What then does that say about the other prophecies? Can they, too, be false? Do the prophecies of the birth and resurrection of Jesus allow other essential elements of Christianity to remain true? That is, if the birth and resurrection prophecies are indeed taken as truth, can Mary’s virginity or even some of the spoken words of Jesus be simultaneously taken as truth without being contradictory? If any of the fundamental and critical aspects of Christianity can be brought into doubt or even refuted entirely, where then does Christianity as a whole stand?

To delve into these questions, in this particular piece (we shall examine the resurrection and prophecies made by Jesus in future articles) let us look first to the question of the birth of Jesus, assuming for now that he did indeed exist historically, and how the virginity of Mary hinges on whether or not Jesus is human or divine, and vice versa. We will leave alone, at this juncture, the theories that the stories of the Biblical Jesus are Christian retellings of Pagan mythology much like the Old Testament’s Noah story was essentially a “rehash” of the ancient Gilgamesh epic. For now, for the sake of this piece, let us assume that the story is an original. We are going to deal first with the Gospel of Matthew, the first gospel we encounter in the canonical text. Matthew 1: 18-19 makes it very clear that Mary was “found to be with child” before she and Joseph “came together.” Reading this with a Literalist’s eyes, one can conclude that Mary was indeed a virgin at the time of Jesus’ conception. Reading further, we encounter, in Matthew 1:22-23, the problematic birth prophecy from Isaiah 7:14. The text states that, “…the Lord himself will give you a sign: the virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.” There is some debate as to the translation of “virgin,” as it usually simply meant “young woman” in Hebrew, but we will discuss textual translation errors at a later date. For now, let us look at what we know of how Jesus was supposed to be:

1) He was to be born of a virgin.
2) He was to be a direct descendant in the line of King David.

In the Gospel of Luke, specifically Luke 2:4, we learn that Joseph, for all intents and purposes Jesus’ Biblical “stepfather,” “belonged to the house and line of David.” That is quite clear. Joseph is a direct descendant of King David. The Messiah will be of that line. Joseph’s son is Jesus. No problem, correct? Actually, no, Houston, we do indeed have a problem. The gospels of Matthew and Luke give genealogies of Joseph, albeit two completely contradicting ones (see Matthew 1:17 and Luke 3:23-38), both showing that Joseph is indeed in the “house and line of David.” There have been several apologists who have tried to reconcile the errors by stating that the lineage given was that of Mary and not Joseph, which fails for two reasons:

1) Mary is not mentioned in either of the passages at all.
2) It is highly unlikely for the writers of a very male-dominated culture and society to have mentioned a woman’s genealogy. Lineage was always traced from the father.

So now we have the understanding, if we read as Literalists, that Joseph is unquestionably of the “house and line of David.” How, then, can Jesus also be of the same line if Joseph did not have any part in his conception? Either Jesus is not the Messiah, or Mary was not a virgin. The two elements as understood and believed by Christians cannot logical coexist. For if Joseph is a descendant of David, and Jesus as the Messiah is also supposed to be a direct descendant, that implies that Joseph is a biological father. An adopted son may be allowed to inherit from a father and even carry on the family name, but his blood will never be the same—that is, he will never be able to draw a direct line to the same ancestors as his stepfather. If Mary was indeed a virgin, and if the “father” was indeed the holy spirit as stated clearly in Matthew, then Jesus can NOT be the Messiah promised in the Old Testament Scriptures because Mary is NOT of the “house and line of David.” The divinity of Jesus and the virginity of Mary, when looked at literally and with the prophecies stated, do not stand up to scrutiny. Perhaps one can say that the Isaiah prophecy does not relate to Jesus at all. If I were to believe Jesus was indeed perfect and without sin and able to know all through his Father, I would think the same thing, for the rest of that passage of Isaiah states that “he will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right…” (Isaiah 7:15-16) It seems highly unlikely that Jesus, the only one ever born who was perfect and lived without any sins, would ever have a period where right and wrong would be a question.

In closing, it is apparent that upon careful examination, several fundamental elements of the Christian faith do not stand up to outside critiques, or even, in some cases, to several passages in the same book. In the case of the “virginal birth” and the accompanying prophecies, it is obvious that the two critical parts of the faith of Christianity can not logically coexist. But then, logic is not what religion is based upon. If the very concept of who and what Jesus truly was can be called into question so easily, how can the rest of the faith stand up? And, further, how can Literalists keep ignoring such blatant facts when we use their own techniques—i.e. reading the texts literally—against them and how, if we noticed the errors and inconsistencies so easily, can so many people be completely fooled? The short answer on the latter half of that second question is early indoctrination and, I promise, we shall get to that topic in time.

When next we meet, we shall examine the elements of the resurrection of Jesus—what the Bible says, what Jesus himself has to say about it, what apologists say, what other non-Christians say, and, of course, what I say. Until then, be well everyone.

Dr. Timothy McGrew's Sermon Response To Me About Prophecy

In my recent debate with Abdu Murray I had said:

Where’s the Prophetic Evidence?

There is none! I defy someone to come up with one statement in the Old Testament that is specifically fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus that can legitimately be understood as a prophecy and singularly points to Jesus as the Messiah using today’s historical-grammatical hermeneutical method. It cannot be done. An expressed hope for a future savior is not to be considered a prediction, unless along with that hope are specific details whereby we can check to see if it was fulfilled in a specific person.

Looks like people were asking how I could say that, which in turn promoted Timothy McGrew to respond. It's long. One thing though. He did not deal with my arguments in chapter 17 of Why I Became an Atheist. McGrew said he has my book (1st edition I presume) but he shows no awareness of it, and he doesn't deal with the force of my arguments.



Throughout this "sermon" of his (really, this is not a lecture where students can ask questions!) he repeatedly says that I disagree with something, or that I say something different. I do yes. But I'm sure as sure can be he's special pleading based on the mother of all cognitive biases, confirmation bias. Surely as an outsider he would not treat any other holy book containing alleged prophecies this way. No, siree bob!

Read more »

Crystal-Ball Theology

…or imaginary prophecies: take your pick 

Caravaggio brilliantly captured the moment when the Risen Jesus invited his disciple Thomas to touch the sword wound in his side. But what’s wrong with this picture? Certainly nothing is wrong with the painting; it is one of Caravaggio’s masterpieces, and I chose it for the cover of my book because it helps expose some of the theological nonsense in the New Testament. There is so much to unpack here, but let’s give it a shot.

Read more »

"How the New Testament Writers Used Prophecy," An Excerpt from "Why I Became an Atheist" pp. 353-59.

Heads up! I'm fairly excited for my upcoming 9,000 worded paper, "Did Virgin Mary Give Birth to the Son of God?" It's to appear on my page at the Secular Web within a couple of weeks. [The following essay was first published in December 2023] 

"How the New Testament Writers Used Prophecy" by John W. Loftus. 

One of the major things claimed by the New Testament in support of Jesus’ life and mission is that Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecy (Luke 24:26–27; Acts 3:17–24). If God cannot predict the future as time moves farther and farther into the distance, as I questioned earlier, then neither can any prophet who claims to speak for God. As we will see with regard to the virgin birth of Jesus, none of the Old Testament passages in the original Hebrew prophetically applied singularly and specifically to Jesus. [In chapter 18, "Was Jesus Born of a Virgin in Bethlehem?"]. Early Christian preachers simply went into the Old Testament looking for verses that would support their view of Jesus. They took these Old Testament verses out of context and applied them to Jesus in order to support their views of his life and mission.9

Read more »

Did Jesus Rise From the Dead? My Debate Opener vs Abdu Murray

The red headings represent PowerPoint slides. Here we go...

I’m very honored to be here and happy people actually showed up to listen to this debate. I have a lot of ground to cover so I must begin.

Read more »

Tonight's Debate Opener vs William Albrecht On "Was Jesus Born of a Virgin?"

My debate opponent believes a virgin named Mary gave birth to a divine child named Jesus over two-thousand years ago. The most significant problem is that theologians cannot explain how a human being and a god can be one and the same, that is, 100% human and 100% divine, with every essential characteristic of humanity and divinity included. How can a god be a god if he has a body? How can an infinite timeless god exist in time? Conversely, how can a human be a human if he or she doesn’t have a body? How can a finite human take on eternal godlike characteristics and still remain a human being? How can a human be perfectly good incapable of being tempted to sin, and yet also be tempted to sin? Christians themselves have shown the incoherence of a divine/human being by their 2000 year long disagreements over it.

Make no mistake about it. This is what my debate opponent is aiming at in this debate. The virgin birth is a first step toward claiming Jesus was God incarnate. My aim is to stop him short of this first step, even though his case isn’t done until he tackles the second step by dealing with some formidable philosophical objections to a divine/human being. With no such being there's no virgin birth either.

Let’s start by talking about the kind of evidence we need.

Read more »

New Book: Divination and Interpretation of Signs in the Ancient World

This book looks good, very good, and it's on my wish list. Why people cannot see the similarities with the Biblical narrative is beyond me. See especially Chapter 14. "Prophecy as a Form of Divination; Divination as a Form of Prophecy," and Chapter 16. "Prophecy and Omen Divination: Two Sides of the Same Coin." But there are so many things wrong with divination compared to the sciences I don't know where to begin. See the book right here, and on Amazon where the title to the 16th chapter is found.

There is No OT Prophecy Fulfilled in the Life, Death or Resurrection of Jesus

That's my claim, Christian. Do you want to dispute this? Once again, but to be more specific: There is no OT prophecy of Jesus' birth, ministry, death, or resurrection that is to be legitimately considered a prophecy that was fulfilled in any grammatical-historical sense pointing specifically to Jesus.

The DC Debunking Christianity Team Is the Best!

If you aren't reading the comments here at DC you're missing out on some superior thoughts and arguments by people who comment. I've said this before. See for yourselves then join them! Take a look at the three most recent comments (as of this writing):

Here's Zeta kraut on the Hebrews being asked by their god to slaughter the Canaanites so they could take their land away from them:

Since coveting the land of others is supposedly a no-no for the ancient Israelites, what better excuse is there to claim that their god gave the land to them? Why is it that an omnipotent god who could simply speak into existence trillions and trillions of celestial bodies in less than a day could not create a piece of new land for his "Chosen People" instead of exterminating the Canaanites? It is very obvious that this is simply fabricated history arising from wishful thinking.

I also find the racist concept of "Chosen People" obnoxious. Maybe Yahweh had no choice because he was assigned by a higher god (Deuteronomy 32:8-9) to take charge of the ancient Israelites?

Read more »