The New Testament misinterpreting the Old Testament

[distraff]

We all learned in Sunday school about how Herod killed all the baby boys in Bethlehem because he was afraid of the Rumor that baby Jesus was the king of the Jews and he wanted to keep the kingship to himself.

Honestly I don't see why anyone in their right mind would slaughter tens of thousands of children in a city just because of some ridiculous rumor that some peasant baby would grow up to be the new king. That seems a bit extreme. Plus there is no historical record of such a major horrific event outside of Christian text.

Anyway, when this story was being told in Matthew he tried to show that this event fulfilled a prophesy in the bible. Here is what he said.

Matthew 2:
16 When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.
17 Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
18 “A voice is heard in Ramah,
weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more.”

The verse quotes Jeremiah 31:15 says:

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 they are no more.”

So Matthew interprets this verse to be referring to Herod's slaughter of the little boys in Bethlehem. The Book of Jeremiah mostly deals with the banishment of the Jewish people from their land by the Babylonians. The Persians later allowed the Jews to return.

In fact that is what this verse and this Chapter is about. It is about the Jews being banished to Babylon.

The chapter says stuff like:
10 “Hear the word of the Lord, you nations;
proclaim it in distant coastlands:
‘He who scattered Israel will gather them
and will watch over his flock like a shepherd.’
11 For the Lord will deliver Jacob
and redeem them from the hand of those stronger than they.

In fact lets read verses 15, 16, and 17 together:
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 they 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 descendants,”
declares the Lord.
“Your children will return to their own land.

Verse 15 is really about the fact that there are no more Jews in the land of Judea so Rachel an ancestor of the Jews is weeping that they are gone. But then the next two verses affirm that the Jews will return "from the land of the enemy." This is not about the slaughter of the little boys in Bethlehem hundreds of years later after the Jews returned.

So the new Testament misinterprets the meaning of Jeremiah 15:31.

 

[laska]

In my opinion Jeremiah Ch 31 is not talking about the return of the Jews from Babylonian captivity but the latter day gathering of Israel when a new covenant would be made through Ephraim and Israel will be gathered (recommend reading entire Chapter). On September 22, 1827 an angel of God gave a latter day descendant of the Biblical Joseph/Ephraim, the prophet Joseph Smith, the gold plates in which the Book of Mormon was translated. September 22, 1827 was the Feast of Trumpets on the Jewish Calendar. Jewish scholars have connected the Feast of Trumpets with a new revelation and the gathering of Israel. When ancient Israel received a new revelation through Moses, they escaped destruction by being led by the prophet on an exodus that began during Passover, journeyed across a vast wilderness to a promised land, where they settled next to the second largest largest inland lake of salt in the world(Lord's covenant people are called the salt of the earth), built a great temple to the Lord, and made the desert bloom. In the latter days when God gave a new revelation to a latter day Joseph, the people referred to as Mormons( a remnant of Joseph) escaped destruction with an exodus that began during Passover being led by a prophet across the vast American wilderness to a promise land, where they settled beside the largest inland lake of salt in the world, built a great temple to the Lord, and made the desert bloom.

If you see Jeremiah Ch 31 as speaking of this latter day gathering of Israel when the twelve tribes will be gathered once again to the lands of their inheritance and not the return of the Jews from the Babylonian dispersion, then the following verse: 15 "¶Thus saith the Lord; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not." fits well with the context given in Mathew when Herod killed all the children in the area where there was a lot of the tribe of Benjamin. Ramah was a town from the tribe of Benjamin. Joseph and Benjamin were the sons of Rachel. In this context it would be saying while Rachel would be weeping over the killing of the children of this area by Herod, in the latter days her descendants from Joseph would be an instrument in God's hands in gathering Israel.

 

[Excon]

The biggest misinterpretation from the old to the new is the usurpation of the Jewish Messiah. Attributing that title to a man who does not fit the criteria is obscene.

 

[laska]

The biggest misinterpretation from the old to the new is the usurpation of the Jewish Messiah. Attributing that title to a man who does not fit the criteria is obscene.

Personally I think the Old Testament is full of symbolism that is symbolic of Christ. All the great Old Testament prophets imo were symbolic and foreshadowed Christ. The meaning of these prophets names tend to be titles given to Christ, and many events that happened in their lives paralleled what would happen in Christ's life. For example just a few of the parallels between Moses' life and Jesus' life was that both escaped infanticide edicts from rulers who had heard that the deliverer of Israel had been born. Both escaped this edict by going into the house of Egypt. Both were shepherds who would be instruments in God's hand in saving Israel. That it was Joshua, the Hebrew form of the name of Jesus, that actually leads Israel into the promise land, imo just emphasizes to the reader that it is Christ who all this is symbolic of. The Passover is greatly symbolic of Christ:https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/01/passover-was-it-symbolic-of-his-coming?lang=eng

 

[ludin]

We all learned in Sunday school about how Herod killed all the baby boys in Bethlehem because he was afraid of the Rumor that baby Jesus was the king of the Jews and he wanted to keep the kingship to himself.

Honestly I don't see why anyone in their right mind would slaughter tens of thousands of children in a city just because of some ridiculous rumor that some peasant baby would grow up to be the new king. That seems a bit extreme. Plus there is no historical record of such a major horrific event outside of Christian text.

Then you really don't understand ancient societies. it was common for a king to kill all the decedents of another king in order to prevent them from establishing an authority. Christ was from the line of David. from both his fathers side and his mothers side. had he wanted to he could have asserted his claim to the throne.

herrod was a planted king from another line but not the line of david.
there is plenty of evidence that toward the end of his life herrod was paranoid delusional. he killed 300 of his military leaders, he had his own sons killed he had priests killed. so if he had heard that there was another king in bethleham (very small town by the way) then it would not be outside his nature to kill all the boys 2 years or younger.

so based on information that we know of it is very possible that the event did happen.

Anyway, when this story was being told in Matthew he tried to show that this event fulfilled a prophesy in the bible. Here is what he said.

Matthew 2:
16 When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.
17 Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
18 “A voice is heard in Ramah,
weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more.”

The verse quotes Jeremiah 31:15 says:

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 they are no more.”

So Matthew interprets this verse to be referring to Herod's slaughter of the little boys in Bethlehem. The Book of Jeremiah mostly deals with the banishment of the Jewish people from their land by the Babylonians. The Persians later allowed the Jews to return.


So the new Testament misinterprets the meaning of Jeremiah 15:31.

actually if you quote more of the verse many future tense verbs are used.

https://humblesmith.wordpress.com/2...use-of-jeremiah-31-a-fulfillment-of-prophecy/

 

[CrabCake]

Honestly I don't see why anyone in their right mind would slaughter tens of thousands of children in a city just because of some ridiculous rumor that some peasant baby would grow up to be the new king. That seems a bit extreme. Plus there is no historical record of such a major horrific event outside of Christian text.

Bethlehem was not a thriving metropolis, even today there are only about 27,000 people there. The population of Bethlehem around the time of Jesus' birth is estimated to have been under about 300 people. So, this would have been about a half dozen infants he killed. If we use the highest estimates of the population instead, this still puts it at no more than 1,000 people, so still under 20 infants.

Anyway, when this story was being told in Matthew he tried to show that this event fulfilled a prophesy in the bible. Here is what he said.

Matthew 2:
16 When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.
17 Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
18 “A voice is heard in Ramah,
weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more.”

The verse quotes Jeremiah 31:15 says:

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 they are no more.”

So Matthew interprets this verse to be referring to Herod's slaughter of the little boys in Bethlehem. The Book of Jeremiah mostly deals with the banishment of the Jewish people from their land by the Babylonians. The Persians later allowed the Jews to return.

In fact that is what this verse and this Chapter is about. It is about the Jews being banished to Babylon.

The chapter says stuff like:
10 “Hear the word of the Lord, you nations;
proclaim it in distant coastlands:
‘He who scattered Israel will gather them
and will watch over his flock like a shepherd.’
11 For the Lord will deliver Jacob
and redeem them from the hand of those stronger than they.

In fact lets read verses 15, 16, and 17 together:
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 they 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 descendants,”
declares the Lord.
“Your children will return to their own land.

Verse 15 is really about the fact that there are no more Jews in the land of Judea so Rachel an ancestor of the Jews is weeping that they are gone. But then the next two verses affirm that the Jews will return "from the land of the enemy." This is not about the slaughter of the little boys in Bethlehem hundreds of years later after the Jews returned.

So the new Testament misinterprets the meaning of Jeremiah 15:31.

The author of Matthew was using a dual fulfillment hermeneutic.

 

[Logicman]

We all learned in Sunday school about how Herod killed all the baby boys in Bethlehem because he was afraid of the Rumor that baby Jesus was the king of the Jews and he wanted to keep the kingship to himself.

Honestly I don't see why anyone in their right mind would slaughter tens of thousands of children in a city just because of some ridiculous rumor that some peasant baby would grow up to be the new king...Plus there is no historical record of such a major horrific event outside of Christian text.

"tens of thousands of children"? You couldn't be more off in your numbers.

Bethlehem was known by the Biblical prophet Micah as one of the smallest communities in all of Judea, so just how many babies 2 years old or younger do you really think there were? Three? Five? Maybe ten?

For the record, Professor William F. Albright, the dean of American archaeology in the Holy Land, estimates that the population of Bethlehem at the time of Jesus' birth to be about 300 people (Albright and Mann 1971:19). The number of male children, two years old or younger, would be about six or seven (Maier 1998:178, footnote 25). This would hardly be a newsworthy event in light of what else was going on at the time (Biblearchaeology.org).

Considering all the butchery Herod was involved in, even murdering people in his own family, I don't see the Bethlehem killing as a major news story, especially since CNN and FOX and the other networks didn't even exist back then.

Finally, they don't call an argument from silence (which is what you're making), a logical fallacy, for nothing.

 

[Logicman]

The biggest misinterpretation from the old to the new is the usurpation of the Jewish Messiah. Attributing that title to a man who does not fit the criteria is obscene.

Actually the Messiah title fits Jesus perfectly. I believe you are thinking of the wrong Messiah ('Messiah ben David,' the 'conquering king').

Have you ever heard of “Messiah ben Joseph – the ‘Suffering Servant”?

Generally speaking, Messiah ben Joseph is described as the “Suffering Servant” who atones for the sins of his people. He appears on the stage in Israel, will be rejected by his people, and dies in the war against evil. Following that the world is filled with calamities and war until Messiah ben David – the Conquering King – appears and sets everything right.

Curiously, in Judaism, numerous ancient Jewish rabbis identified Isaiah chapter 53 as speaking about such an individual. Among the verses of Isaiah 53 are these:

2 …he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

Uncanny. If there was ever a profile of Jesus Christ, then this is it. And numerous Jewish rabbis agreed this chapter of Isaiah is a Messianic prophecy. Among the quotes from the ancient rabbis concerning Isaiah 53 are these:

Rabbi Moses Alschech(1508-1600) said:

“Our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view.”

Abrabanel (1437-1508) said earlier: “This is also the opinion of our own learned men in the majority of their Midrashim.”

Rabbi Yafeth Ben Ali ( second half of the 10th Century): “As for myself, I am inclined to regard it as alluding to the Messiah.”

Many more quotations from Jewish rabbis are in the same link as the ones above:

Isaiah 53 Rabbinical Commentary

Why Israel Missed its Messiah « The Righter Report

 

[Excon]

Personally I think the Old Testament is full of symbolism that is symbolic of Christ. All the great Old Testament prophets imo were symbolic and foreshadowed Christ. The meaning of these prophets names tend to be titles given to Christ, and many events that happened in their lives paralleled what would happen in Christ's life. For example just a few of the parallels between Moses' life and Jesus' life was that both escaped infanticide edicts from rulers who had heard that the deliverer of Israel had been born. Both escaped this edict by going into the house of Egypt. Both were shepherds who would be instruments in God's hand in saving Israel. That it was Joshua, the Hebrew form of the name of Jesus, that actually leads Israel into the promise land, imo just emphasizes to the reader that it is Christ who all this is symbolic of. The Passover is greatly symbolic of Christ:https://www.lds.org/ensign/1994/01/passover-was-it-symbolic-of-his-coming?lang=eng

:doh Nothing you said refutes what I pointed out.

---

Actually the Messiah title fits Jesus perfectly.

No he doesn't.
All you have provided is more obscenity as you can not even get Mashiach ben Yossef's role correct and instead are trying to usurp him as well. :doh

The person you believe is the Mashiach does not fit the criteria to be the Mashiach. Period.

 

[Logicman]

No he doesn't.
All you have provided is more obscenity as you can not even get Mashiach ben Yossef's role correct and instead are trying to usurp him as well. :doh

The person you believe is the Mashiach does not fit the criteria to be the Mashiach. Period.

Sure he does. But feel free to show me otherwise.

Give me your top three reasons why Jesus does not fit your criteria as the Jewish Messiah?

 

[RAMOSS]

Actually the Messiah title fits Jesus perfectly. I believe you are thinking of the wrong Messiah ('Messiah ben David,' the 'conquering king').

Have you ever heard of “Messiah ben Joseph – the ‘Suffering Servant”?

Generally speaking, Messiah ben Joseph is described as the “Suffering Servant” who atones for the sins of his people. He appears on the stage in Israel, will be rejected by his people, and dies in the war against evil. Following that the world is filled with calamities and war until Messiah ben David – the Conquering King – appears and sets everything right.

Curiously, in Judaism, numerous ancient Jewish rabbis identified Isaiah chapter 53 as speaking about such an individual. Among the verses of Isaiah 53 are these:

2 …he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

Uncanny. If there was ever a profile of Jesus Christ, then this is it. And numerous Jewish rabbis agreed this chapter of Isaiah is a Messianic prophecy. Among the quotes from the ancient rabbis concerning Isaiah 53 are these:

Rabbi Moses Alschech(1508-1600) said:

“Our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view.”

Abrabanel (1437-1508) said earlier: “This is also the opinion of our own learned men in the majority of their Midrashim.”

Rabbi Yafeth Ben Ali ( second half of the 10th Century): “As for myself, I am inclined to regard it as alluding to the Messiah.”

Many more quotations from Jewish rabbis are in the same link as the ones above:

Isaiah 53 Rabbinical Commentary

Why Israel Missed its Messiah « The Righter Report

Ah yes, the good old lies about what the 'ancient rabbi's' taught. This is a bunch of out of context quotes, forgeries and lies. It is based on the rather bad writings of 'Dr Mike Brown', who rather lied about a lot of things.

For example, he fails to mention the Rabbi Moses Alschech specifically said that the messiah he was comparing to was King David. THe concept in Judaism that the Messiah (anointed one) was in Jewish society the Jewish King, and the Jewish high priest. This it not the 'Messiah' who was going to restore home leadership to Israel,

If you also notice, Isaaih 53 is written in perfect (i.e. completed action) tense. That means it is the past, not the future.

Do you notice that each and every one of those quotes are totally in isolation? That's because it's taken out of context, and it is being lied about what they are talking about.

 

[Logicman]

Ah yes, the good old lies about what the 'ancient rabbi's' taught. This is a bunch of out of context quotes, forgeries and lies.....

I've told you a long time, and time and time again, not to bother me with your nonsense.

 

[RAMOSS]

I've told you a long time, and time and time again, not to bother me with your nonsense.

Oh, I don't care if you are bothered or not. I just want the truth to be told. And, your sources are people who are misrepresenting things, and lying. I think that it is important to set people straight, so they don't swallow the lies your sources tell. You have a horrible track record when it comes to sources that tell the truth.

I mean, it's not surprising you fall for that. After all, you used that 'bible believers' site in Australia that promote holocaust denial, and pushes the anti-jewish book 'The Protocols of Zion', and you repeated that source even after that was pointed out.

People should take responsibility for the source that they choose, and the sources they choose tell a lot about their character. After all, even the New Testament said 'By their fruits you shall know them'. I just think people should get the proper information so they can judge for themselves the fruit you are providing.

 

[Logicman]

Oh, I don't care if you are bothered or not. I just want the truth to be told. And, your sources are people who are misrepresenting things, and lying. I think that it is important to set people straight, so they don't swallow the lies your sources tell. You have a horrible track record when it comes to sources that tell the truth.

If you knew the truth you'd know that Jesus is the Messiah.

Placing you on Ignore, Ramoss.

Click.

Bye bye. :lamo

 

[RAMOSS]

If you knew the truth you'd know that Jesus is the Messiah.

Placing you on Ignore, Ramoss.

Click.

Bye bye. :lamo

Of course, it does not matter if logicman places me on ignore, since it is not for his sake I give the information, but for others to judge for themselves. That is what Logicman (what a misnomer) does not understand.

 

[tosca1]

:doh Nothing you said refutes what I pointed out.

---

No he doesn't.
All you have provided is more obscenity as you can not even get Mashiach ben Yossef's role correct and instead are trying to usurp him as well. :doh

The person you believe is the Mashiach does not fit the criteria to be the Mashiach. Period.

Have you provided any explanation why the Messiah title doesn't fit Jesus?

 

[tosca1]

Ah yes, the good old lies about what the 'ancient rabbi's' taught. This is a bunch of out of context quotes, forgeries and lies. It is based on the rather bad writings of 'Dr Mike Brown', who rather lied about a lot of things.

For example, he fails to mention the Rabbi Moses Alschech specifically said that the messiah he was comparing to was King David. THe concept in Judaism that the Messiah (anointed one) was in Jewish society the Jewish King, and the Jewish high priest. This it not the 'Messiah' who was going to restore home leadership to Israel,

If you also notice, Isaaih 53 is written in perfect (i.e. completed action) tense. That means it is the past, not the future.

Do you notice that each and every one of those quotes are totally in isolation? That's because it's taken out of context, and it is being lied about what they are talking about.

Oh.
All these explanation and critique coming from someone who'd claimed that there is no such thing as the Old Testament in the Jewish religion. :roll:
And we're supposed to take his word as fact. Without batting an eyelash. :lol:

 

[distraff]

In my opinion Jeremiah Ch 31 is not talking about the return of the Jews from Babylonian captivity but the latter day gathering of Israel when a new covenant would be made through Ephraim and Israel will be gathered (recommend reading entire Chapter). On September 22, 1827 an angel of God gave a latter day descendant of the Biblical Joseph/Ephraim, the prophet Joseph Smith, the gold plates in which the Book of Mormon was translated. September 22, 1827 was the Feast of Trumpets on the Jewish Calendar. Jewish scholars have connected the Feast of Trumpets with a new revelation and the gathering of Israel. When ancient Israel received a new revelation through Moses, they escaped destruction by being led by the prophet on an exodus that began during Passover, journeyed across a vast wilderness to a promised land, where they settled next to the second largest largest inland lake of salt in the world(Lord's covenant people are called the salt of the earth), built a great temple to the Lord, and made the desert bloom. In the latter days when God gave a new revelation to a latter day Joseph, the people referred to as Mormons( a remnant of Joseph) escaped destruction with an exodus that began during Passover being led by a prophet across the vast American wilderness to a promise land, where they settled beside the largest inland lake of salt in the world, built a great temple to the Lord, and made the desert bloom.

If you see Jeremiah Ch 31 as speaking of this latter day gathering of Israel when the twelve tribes will be gathered once again to the lands of their inheritance and not the return of the Jews from the Babylonian dispersion, then the following verse: 15 "¶Thus saith the Lord; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not." fits well with the context given in Mathew when Herod killed all the children in the area where there was a lot of the tribe of Benjamin. Ramah was a town from the tribe of Benjamin. Joseph and Benjamin were the sons of Rachel. In this context it would be saying while Rachel would be weeping over the killing of the children of this area by Herod, in the latter days her descendants from Joseph would be an instrument in God's hands in gathering Israel.

Editing post.

 

[distraff]

Then you really don't understand ancient societies. it was common for a king to kill all the decedents of another king in order to prevent them from establishing an authority. Christ was from the line of David. from both his fathers side and his mothers side. had he wanted to he could have asserted his claim to the throne.

herrod was a planted king from another line but not the line of david.
there is plenty of evidence that toward the end of his life herrod was paranoid delusional. he killed 300 of his military leaders, he had his own sons killed he had priests killed. so if he had heard that there was another king in bethleham (very small town by the way) then it would not be outside his nature to kill all the boys 2 years or younger.

so based on information that we know of it is very possible that the event did happen.

The problem is that Jesus belonged to a kingship that had ended thousands of years ago. There was no threat and his family lived in poverty and never made any attempt to overthrow Herod. Plus, over thousands of years there would be tens of thousands of people who could trace their ancestry to David. Jesus would has seemed like an inconsequential rumors. I could see a crazy king killing one child to get rid of some stupid sounding rumors but slaughtering all the children in a whole city sounds like a massive over-reaction. That would be like the Chinese government today killing all the children in a town because of some rumor that a poor child who is a descendant of Genghis Khan will grow up to be king. Hint: There are a lot of descendants of Genghis Khan in China.

But if Herod was some sort of lunatic then who knows what is possible.

actually if you quote more of the verse many future tense verbs are used.

https://humblesmith.wordpress.com/2...use-of-jeremiah-31-a-fulfillment-of-prophecy/

This was a prophetic verse. We do not disagree that this verse was about the future, we only disagree about the future event itself. You did not actually respond to my main arguments.

 

[distraff]

The author of Matthew was using a dual fulfillment hermeneutic.

I don't understand how that is a response at all. I am sorry.

 

[distraff]

"tens of thousands of children"? You couldn't be more off in your numbers.

Bethlehem was known by the Biblical prophet Micah as one of the smallest communities in all of Judea, so just how many babies 2 years old or younger do you really think there were? Three? Five? Maybe ten?

For the record, Professor William F. Albright, the dean of American archaeology in the Holy Land, estimates that the population of Bethlehem at the time of Jesus' birth to be about 300 people (Albright and Mann 1971:19). The number of male children, two years old or younger, would be about six or seven (Maier 1998:178, footnote 25). This would hardly be a newsworthy event in light of what else was going on at the time (Biblearchaeology.org).

Considering all the butchery Herod was involved in, even murdering people in his own family, I don't see the Bethlehem killing as a major news story, especially since CNN and FOX and the other networks didn't even exist back then.

Finally, they don't call an argument from silence (which is what you're making), a logical fallacy, for nothing.

Ok, you win on the number of children. Congrats. Now what about my main point about Jeremiah 31:15?

 

[Logicman]

Ok, you win on the number of children. Congrats. Now what about my main point about Jeremiah 31:15?

distraff - Verse 15 is really about the fact that there are no more Jews in the land of Judea so Rachel an ancestor of the Jews is weeping that they are gone. But then the next two verses affirm that the Jews will return "from the land of the enemy." This is not about the slaughter of the little boys in Bethlehem hundreds of years later after the Jews returned.

So the new Testament misinterprets the meaning of Jeremiah 15:31.

There is no Jeremiah 15:31 in the Bible. If you're talking about Jeremiah 31:15 then it's like Matthew said. Matthew only referenced 31:15, not anything after that, so you don't have a case there either.

 

[distraff]

In my opinion Jeremiah Ch 31 is not talking about the return of the Jews from Babylonian captivity but the latter day gathering of Israel when a new covenant would be made through Ephraim and Israel will be gathered (recommend reading entire Chapter). On September 22, 1827 an angel of God gave a latter day descendant of the Biblical Joseph/Ephraim, the prophet Joseph Smith, the gold plates in which the Book of Mormon was translated. September 22, 1827 was the Feast of Trumpets on the Jewish Calendar. Jewish scholars have connected the Feast of Trumpets with a new revelation and the gathering of Israel. When ancient Israel received a new revelation through Moses, they escaped destruction by being led by the prophet on an exodus that began during Passover, journeyed across a vast wilderness to a promised land, where they settled next to the second largest largest inland lake of salt in the world(Lord's covenant people are called the salt of the earth), built a great temple to the Lord, and made the desert bloom. In the latter days when God gave a new revelation to a latter day Joseph, the people referred to as Mormons( a remnant of Joseph) escaped destruction with an exodus that began during Passover being led by a prophet across the vast American wilderness to a promise land, where they settled beside the largest inland lake of salt in the world, built a great temple to the Lord, and made the desert bloom.

If you see Jeremiah Ch 31 as speaking of this latter day gathering of Israel when the twelve tribes will be gathered once again to the lands of their inheritance and not the return of the Jews from the Babylonian dispersion, then the following verse: 15 "¶Thus saith the Lord; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children refused to be comforted for her children, because they were not." fits well with the context given in Mathew when Herod killed all the children in the area where there was a lot of the tribe of Benjamin. Ramah was a town from the tribe of Benjamin. Joseph and Benjamin were the sons of Rachel. In this context it would be saying while Rachel would be weeping over the killing of the children of this area by Herod, in the latter days her descendants from Joseph would be an instrument in God's hands in gathering Israel.

The chapter references a removal and a return of the same people. Do you think the chapter references the removal of the Jews by the Babylonians and the return by the Persians or do you think the Chapter references the removal of the lost 10 tribes by the Assyrians and the return of the Lost 10 tribes to Israel in the latter days?

I just want to understand your opinion a bit better.

 

[CrabCake]

I don't understand how that is a response at all. I am sorry.

Look it up.

You've stumbled onto the fact that many interpretations of scripture (including those you mentioned) are interpreted using the dual fulfillment hermeneutic. What you are seeing as a "misinterpretation" is just a method of interpreting scripture you appear to have been unfamiliar with. Look up "dual fulfillment hermeneutic" and it will all make sense.

A dual fulfillment hermeneutic sees prophecies as having both a short term and long term application with the short term being a sort of minor fulfillment and the long term fulfillment being a major or even eschatological fulfillment. This hermeneutic was widely used within the various messianic movements, of which Christianity is one. So, it's not that it is a misinterpretation but rather that those who use this method of reading prophecy don't think that you're done with the prophecy just because it was fulfilled the first time, they are still waiting for the major final fulfillment, which according to the author of the scripture in question is found in Christ Jesus.

The messianic movement itself relies heavily on this hermeneutic. The recognition that the God of Israel has not delivered his people led to the conclusion that the prophecies had not reached their final fulfillment.

Again, look it up. You've stumbled onto a well known aspect of biblical hermeneutics which you seem to mistakenly believe is evidence of misinterpretation.

 

[distraff]

Look it up.

You've stumbled onto the fact that many interpretations of scripture (including those you mentioned) are interpreted using the dual fulfillment hermeneutic. What you are seeing as a "misinterpretation" is just a method of interpreting scripture you appear to have been unfamiliar with. Look up "dual fulfillment hermeneutic" and it will all make sense.

A dual fulfillment hermeneutic sees prophecies as having both a short term and long term application with the short term being a sort of minor fulfillment and the long term fulfillment being a major or even eschatological fulfillment. This hermeneutic was widely used within the various messianic movements, of which Christianity is one. So, it's not that it is a misinterpretation but rather that those who use this method of reading prophecy don't think that you're done with the prophecy just because it was fulfilled the first time, they are still waiting for the major final fulfillment, which according to the author of the scripture in question is found in Christ Jesus.

The messianic movement itself relies heavily on this hermeneutic. The recognition that the God of Israel has not delivered his people led to the conclusion that the prophecies had not reached their final fulfillment.

Again, look it up. You've stumbled onto a well known aspect of biblical hermeneutics which you seem to mistakenly believe is evidence of misinterpretation.

Interesting idea. But you haven't given me any reason to believe in biblical hermeneutics. I presented a pretty strong case for my interpretation in the OP. You have not really countered that.