The category “prophecies Jesus is said to have fulfilled” is not a natural category inside the category “all prophecies ever made”, or even inside “all prophecies in the Hebrew Old Testament”. It’s a subcategory that could not and had not been identified before Jesus. Nor does it include a majority of “all prophecies ever made by Jews”, etc. And nor does it include any prophecies with such high specificity that fulfilling even a few of them constitutes significant evidence.
And that’s why it holds no meaning, even if we assume he actually did everything Christians believe about him and allow arbitrary reinterpretations of prophecies to match his life.
Think about the verse the gospel cites; how likely is it Jesus had a seamless robe? How would they have even made it, and why? Why would it have to be seamless for the Romans to apparently not want to rip it up when gambling for it, given that Psalm 22 doesn’t even mention a seamless garment? Why does only John, the newest gospel, mention it? Isn’t it a bit odd that the gospel even tells you exactly how you should interpret this bizarre little incident? And Psalm 22 isn’t even explicitly a prophecy, just general lamenting poetry of a condemned man. Given all this, it’s pretty obvious that the author of John or his sources are making up a weird little anecdote so they can shoehorn in yet another fulfillment of scripture.
I agree, but wish to point out that some people think Jesus turned up to fulfill some longstanding prophecies.
The category “prophecies Jesus is said to have fulfilled” is not a natural category inside the category “all prophecies ever made”, or even inside “all prophecies in the Hebrew Old Testament”. It’s a subcategory that could not and had not been identified before Jesus. Nor does it include a majority of “all prophecies ever made by Jews”, etc. And nor does it include any prophecies with such high specificity that fulfilling even a few of them constitutes significant evidence.
And that’s why it holds no meaning, even if we assume he actually did everything Christians believe about him and allow arbitrary reinterpretations of prophecies to match his life.
And that category also includes a few made-up prophecies! I think particularly of the ‘almah’/young-woman/virgin one, and the ‘seamless robe’.
Aside: what’s the story with the seamless robe? I can find the Wikipedia article but is it another translation snafu like the Virgin Birth? Thanks!
Think about the verse the gospel cites; how likely is it Jesus had a seamless robe? How would they have even made it, and why? Why would it have to be seamless for the Romans to apparently not want to rip it up when gambling for it, given that Psalm 22 doesn’t even mention a seamless garment? Why does only John, the newest gospel, mention it? Isn’t it a bit odd that the gospel even tells you exactly how you should interpret this bizarre little incident? And Psalm 22 isn’t even explicitly a prophecy, just general lamenting poetry of a condemned man. Given all this, it’s pretty obvious that the author of John or his sources are making up a weird little anecdote so they can shoehorn in yet another fulfillment of scripture.
I think that kpreid’s objection is just cousin_it’s objection in a less mathematical form.
Naturally, the probability that a person who has not done X will be reported as having done X will be higher if X is the subject of a prophecy.