Talk:Messianic prophecy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 21 Februari 2006. The result of the discussion was merge/redirect with Messiah.

Contents

[edit] Proposed deletion (Discuss)

This article was proposed for deletion on October 12, 2006 without going through the proper deletion listing procedures. It was nominated for deletion by Bob A on grounds that are clearly not valid ("only Abrahamic" and "mainly listcroft"), basically in retalliation for reverts. At one point he redirected this to an article he basically copied from someone else's sub-article and his article was nominated for deletion.

  • The earlier versions of the article (now restored) are not "basically listcroft". They discuss the concept (the original purpose of the article), the varying views, etc. Someone totally unfamilar with "What does the term "Messianic prophecy" mean?" could read those versions of the article and have a good understanding.
  • As the earlier versions indicate, Messianic prophecy is definitely not limited to Abrahamic religions. Someone added the Zoroastrian view. Nor is the Hebrew Bible considered the only source of Messianic prophecy.
  • Even if the concept were limited to Abrahamic religions, that is not a valid ground for deletion.
  • Again, as indicated, the purpose of the article was to explain the concept of Messianic prophecy. That even applies to things like Nero in The Matrix trilogy.

RickReinckens 17:01, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

the Matrix trilogy? I don't think that an encyclopedic wiki artcile is the place to have a discussion on the Messianic implication of the Matrix trilogy. Wikipedia just isn't a discussion forum like that. It's an encyclopedia. Peace. --Home Computer 19:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additional comment

Note: According to the guy who wrote this article, it is intended only to discuss the concept of messianic prophecy and when it was written the intention per an agreement with the main contributors on "messianic prophecies" was that there would be other articles on Messianic prophecies of various religions, etc. I had made a suggestion on how to get such articles written and was going to start one. For reasons I won't go into an overzealous administrator of a particular religion deleted the disambiguation page without checking for what linked there, so a number of articles now link to that deleted page.

If you want to write about specific messianic prophecies, particular religions' views, etc., please create a new article, don't put it here! Charles Ulysses Farley 21:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry mate I'm going to disagree with you here. Messiah is a distictive Hebrew word used in the Jewish Scriptures to speak of a coming King. Seeing as how most world religions have no Hebrew prophecy concerning a King that is to come that doesn't apply. Christianity applies because it claims Jesus was the fulfillment. Therefore I propose this article be redesigned to better fit this description and demonstrate what the notable citable experts say on the topic. --Home Computer 19:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I would have to agree with Home Computer on this; as Messiah is Hebrew in origin, therefore making it a Jewish topic. Christianity would also fit this topic, for the reasons stated above. --Dulcimerist 23:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


Rick, I don't know if you got a chance to see my note on the talk page of the Messianic prophecies (disambiguation) page. I really don't see why they deleted the disambiguation page so fast. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that I am setting up a page on the Christian view and I changed the link to that. Charles Ulysses Farley 01:06, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BUPC view

This entry seems to fail under the NPOV Undue weight policy. This group consistutes a few hundred scattered across the western U.S. MARussellPESE 18:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pesher link

Judah, thanks for adding the Dead Sea Scrolls link about pesher. I haven't researched it in detail but that is the first time I have seen it mentioned by people not affiliated with Messianic Judaism. It looks like it might be worth adding in the Reference section.

RickReinckens 04:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple references

Rick, I noticed you left a comment in the source code in the Video section asking if it is possible to have several references to one footnote. Of course it is. See here: Wikipedia:Footnotes. Also, you can have numbered footnotes plus Harvard references, with Notes in one section and References in another. Judah haNasi 06:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I redid the notes but it looked pretty stupid in the Video section so I changed it up a bit and it doesn't have "See notes" for each one anymore. Judah haNasi 07:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questioning Recent Edit

I am perplexed at the resistance I am encountering with stating that Christians believe that Jesus fulfilled most of the requirements for the Messiah instead of some especially in light of the number of Messianic prophecies being fulfilled as discussed in the New Testament. I am open to being enlightened. Which Christian denominations do not believe Jesus has fulfilled a majority of Messianic prophecies? Bbagot 22:07, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

Which ones would those be, then? Peace on earth, lion lying down with the lamb, Temple re-built, all Jews in Israel, that sort of thing? Jayjg (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I believe that there is a difference between "requirements for being a Messiah" and "messianic prophecies". Saying the Messiah will be a decendent of David is a requirement. Saying the Messiah will unify the whole world under Mosaic Law is a prophecy. But maybe the Christian POV is that there is no difference between the two. I think we need to also keep in mind that Christians point to a number of OT verses as Messianic prophecy that the historic Jews never considered to be Messianic prophecies. Just some things to think about. That said, I still would prefer "some" over "most", however perhaps we could compromise with something like: "he fulfilled a number of messianic prophecies". (changes emph.)--Andrew c 22:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Gentlemen, that section is specifically the Christian view. It appears you're trying to compromise the wording because you don't like it. McDowell points to over 300 Messianic Prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. Do you agree? No, but you don't have to. That has nothing to do with the Christian view. Modern Judaism usually has a list of about 10 to 12 prophecies that must be fulfilled that haven't been. 300 is still more than 12. That's why it's most.

Bbagot 22:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

That's not "most". Josh McDowell, not generally considered a serious scholar, claims over 300, but the major ones have obviously not been fulfilled, see Second_Coming#Biblical_sources for details. 209.78.17.170 21:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC) The word most makes no distinction between outside interpretations of "major"/"minor". It is quantitative. Bbagot 03:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot

But McDowell is not a reliable source in this matter. You need to the views of qualified theologians or, better yet, Christian religious movements. Jayjg (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh yeah, a man who has written 77 books, is a best selling author, has a Master's of Divinity degree and is booked yearlong at different churches throughout the nation shouldn't be considered a reputable source. Clearly, no one listens to him. ;-) Bbagot 01:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot
He's a controversial popular author, not a serious theologian. Please don't insert any additional unsourced claims in the article, thanks. Jayjg (talk) 20:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Does it make a difference if you just throw out the sources I list? I am perplexed at your stand in this issue. Matthew quotes far more Messianic prophecies for Jesus than are currently considered pending even under the most liberal views of Messianic fulfillment and no Christian questioned my edit. What is it about the concept that bothers you so much that you keep it from being mentioned? I understand not having the same viewpoint as Christian thought. But trying to control Christian thought, that's another issue. Bbagot 17:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot
You haven't cited any sources at all. Jayjg (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
You dismissed it as a non-source here in talk. Am I to believe that if I put it into the article that you would allow it to stand? Bbagot 17:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC) Bbagot
Do you have any reliable sources, and can you cite them properly? Jayjg (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Josh McDowell despite ypou own POV on him is considered by wiki standards to be a notable expert on the matter. --Home Computer 19:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, welcome to 5 months ago. Next, McDowell is not considered a reliable source under WP:RS. He is a popular writer, who is pushing an agenda, writing outside of his field of expertise, not published in scholarly sources, not respected by the scholars on the subjects he addresses in his books. Read through the page. There are much better people we can cite than him. You know, scholars with PhDs who teach at well respected, accredited universities, or theologians from high ranking Jewish/Catholic/Protestant religious orders or noted seminaries. Citing McDowell to represent a mainstream position is almost as bad as citing Earl Doherty. --Andrew c 01:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Please review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josh_McDowell for some updated facts. Have you read any Josh McDowell books? Are you familiar with his works? Have you read his bigraphiocal info re: his education and his appoligetic contributions? You may be wrong on every point according to his wiki page alone. Please review. --Home Computer 04:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to add.. on what facts did you develop your opinion? The whole "demands a verdict" series is an incredible collection of legally formated citations and "proofs" of historical evidences for the Christian faith. His works are probably the most well known of thier type. --Home Computer 04:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
K, let's get this out of the way..

You claim concerning McDowell"writing outside of his field of expertise, " 1. awarded the Master of Divinity degree graduating Magna Cum Laude at Talbot Theological Seminary of Biola University. and 2. honorary Doctor of Laws degree by the Simon Greenleaf School of Law, in recognition of his ministry and writings. McDowell was also a visiting lecturer at that school in the 1980s.

You claim concerning McDowell "not published in scholarly sources, not respected by the scholars on the subjects he addresses in his books" 1. Mal Couch, President, Tyndale Seminary: "This is an awesome book that I cannot recommend too highly." [1] 2. Charles H. Ray, Associate Editor, The Conservative Theological Society Journal said: "Anyone wanting to study and defend the Bible (and all Christians should) must have this book." [2]

Further more reading through WP:RS demonstrates that he's the perfect source for this article. He provides legally demonstrated proofs. He is widely accepted as an authority on the subject (though hotly debated among those who disagree with the Bible). His research is accepted by millions as a definitive text on the matters. Yes there will be camps that hotly disagree with any research demonstrating pro-biblical evidence but that's not what we're here to debate. THIS article happens to be about the fulfillment of religious law. THE Law. McDowell is a notable authority on both biblical interpretation and legal proofs. He's sold MILLIONS of books on that precise topic According to wiki standards he is the scholarly opinion on the matter despite what we as lowly editors feel. --Home Computer 04:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh I apologize that I hit a nerve with this one. I wasn't trying to be offensive or uncivil. I was just saying, despite your claims, McDowell isn't the best source for this topic. Dan Brown has sold millions of books, but should we cite him predominantly in the Mary Magdalene article? Being a popular writer and selling books is not a good enough qualification. He is admittedly a conservative/evangelical apologist. While he is representative of this minor POV, he is not representative of mainstream Christianity or Judaism (keep in mind that there are over 1 billion Catholics on this planet, and their POV is much more relevant than a comparatively minor, extremist sect in the US).
As for credentials, an honorary degree is an honorary degree, and it doesn't help if it is from an unaccredited school that only had been in existence for 2 years prior. His Masters (not PhD) was also from an (at the time) unaccredited school. The Conservative Theological Society Journal is also not a WP:RS (not that I can find anything that McDowell has published there, although some of his books have been reviewed in it. Good luck finding a journal at JSTOR.org that even reviews McDowell, I tried.) There is no mention of any peer review process, and how scholarly can a journal be when it has a Doctrinal Statement of inerrancy. Once again, not a source we should cite to represent mainstream Christianity. I'm not denying that he is popular among evangelical circles, and it isn't surprising that popular evangelicals give him good reviews, but what about the scholars and theologians from prominent institutions. How well respected is he among them?
My point is that he is clearly not a mainstream scholar, and unfortunately to minor POVs, wikipedia focuses more on mainstream scholarship. That is just the breaks. I am not saying we are forbidden from citing McDowell. I'm just saying that there are much more credible sources, and that if cited, he should not be given undue weight, due to his strong personal bias, his questionable credentials, and the minority POV he represents. --Andrew c 13:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to disagree again but in here you clearly demonstrate the basis of your bias. "how scholarly can a journal be when it has a Doctrinal Statement of inerrancy", "a comparatively minor, extremist". I do not think you have a clear understanding of theologial scholarship. Perhaps you are coming from an extreme Liberal perspective where ctitisism of the Bible takes presidence to exegesis FROM the Bible but when we are talking about the fulfillment of prophecy I'm sure that Bible critics are far less out of thier area of expertise than are appologetisicst such as McDowell. Remember, we are not talking about how we can prove the Bible wrong or find it's errors.. this areticle deals with the scholarly review and hermeneutical exegesis of what the writer was foretelling. McDowell is one of the experts on that subject. Pick up some of his material, have a look for yourself. Besides.. awards from the president.. awards from multiple theological societies.. over 10 million books sold domestically. Published in 40 languages.. can you even NAME 40 languages? This guy's exegesis is on par with James Dobson's christian psychology and Billy Graham's evangalising. --Home Computer 17:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

In case you're in search of an additional source to use; the secular Jewish historian Josephus, a Roman Citizen in Jerulsalem at the time of Christ, recorded that Christ had fulfilled an even larger number of Messianic prophesies. This is recorded In the 18th book of "Jewish Antiquities" in the third chapter. --Dulcimerist 00:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Work Needed

I don’t understand the purpose or plan of this article. Some examples:

Do we need an entire section called “Messianic Prophecy” just to have the section read: “A messianic prophecy is considered to be a prophecy about the Messiah(s).” I mean – that’s a bit obvious and unnecessary, no?

Why is there a paragraph about the use of the word God in the article? Same thing about “skeptic” – does an article about messaniac prophecy need to define the word skeptic?

The section on Zoroastrianism has one senetence: “Zoroastrianism believes in the imminent coming of a World Savior (Saoshant), who would be born of a virgin, and who would lead humanity in the final battle against Evil.” Anyone care to refrence that? What is the source for this information.

On and on it goes. This whole article needs a complete reorganization and exclusion of much of its material. Otherwise, it ought to just be let go. Lostcaesar 04:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree and think that this article needa an entire rewrite based specifically on the scholarly discussion behind the Hebrew prophecies of a Messiah. --Home Computer 19:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the intro? I think the previous intro was pretty strong. Did it accidentally get deleted in an edit? Because as it stands, the first sentence isn't even a completely thought. I propose restoring the previous intro, and fixing, reworking that where necessary.--Andrew c 22:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
It was significantly slimmed. Feel free to edit in what you considered to be pertinent. Don't revert though. Let's focus on specificaly Messianic prophesy.. ie, Judaic. Compare the old intro to the new. It's poorly written now but a more sound foundation if you will. --Home Computer 22:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I must disagree completely. There is no excuse to replace existing content with admittedly poor writing. I understand wanting this article to focus more on Judaic Messianic prophecy, but it may not be the best idea to start omitting relevent POVs per Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. That said, even if we can all agree that the focus of this article is on the Judeo-Christian concept, we can easily modify the old text, instead of re-inventing the wheel by adding new (poorly written) content.--Andrew c 00:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, i reviewed the newest versions and I like it. Not sure why you got all hot in the pants about the changes, but I like the concensus you and other editors have come to as of right now. Also.. you've been using some pretty strong wording in responses to me and I'd like to suggest maybe that we both take a break from this page and come back to it with a little less offense being taken and given. Peace. --Home Computer 04:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I apologize again. I have a problem with tone, and sounding too stern over the internet. Please accept my apologies. It's just that the first sentence of your revision really bothered me. When I first read it, it sounded like an incomplete thought, as if you hadn't finnished writing what was there. But now I realize, the issue was that the sentence ended in a preposition. And the use of passive voice and the parenthetical comment also confused me. Sorry again. I'm fine with the current version.--Andrew c 13:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
No prob. I appreciate your wikiskill. I am not as good of an editor. :)--Home Computer 17:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] purpose of the article

Major Revert

This article got WAY off topic. Having it just about Abrahamic religions is VERY POV, not factually accurate and not verifiable. The article deals with the CONCEPT of Messianic Prophecy. Read the TALK page for the older Messianic prophecies article about why this article was created.

If you want to talk about the view of Messianic prophecy in a specific tradition, whether it is Catholic, Orthodox Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Mormon, Protestant, Seventh-Day Adventist, or anything else, create an article "Messianic prophecy (Roman Catholic view)", etc., and add it to the See Also section.

With the old Messianic prophecies article we found that was the only way to avoid constant edit wars and avoid having the article co-opted by one or two people, who start trying to use it to advocate their particular theology. (The fact is that someone from a cult-like group with 1,000 followers worldwide started making major additions and arguing with everyone.) Remember--the article is about the concept, not particular views. In particular sections, e.g., "Christian", add links to specialized articles.

And besides, having multiple articles allows for more detailed discussion of particular views, not less. Also, it avoids POV complaints. If a "sub" article is about "Messianic prophecy (Evangelical Christian view)", you can put all the POV stuff you want as long as it is documentable.

- - - -

  • Regarding the comment of Home Computer that Messiah is a Jewish word, that is irrelevant. Check out Church of World Messianity. They have nothing to do with any Abrahamic religion. Many people now claim to be a Messiah and make alleged Messianic prophecies. The original meaning of the word is irrelevant other than explaining its source as part of the article. As indicated, the article deals with the concept of Messianic prophecy.
  • Regarding the statement that Christian scholars teach that Jesus fulfilled all Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament, that is just plain false. Yes, there are some scholars who teach that but it is clearly wrong. Zechariah 12 describes the return of the Messiah. Zechariah 14 says he will rule from Jerusalem. The vast majority of Christian scholars teach that Jesus did not fulfill all Old Testament prophecies in his first coming. Examples are John Ankerberg, John Weldon, Zola Levitt, D. James Kennedy, Fred K.C. Price, John Hagee, the Pope, Daniel C. Juster, Russ Resnick, Martin Waldman, Jesus, Paul, Luke, John, and Jude.
You misunderstand the quote. Christian scholars teach that all messianic prophecy IS fulfilled in Jesus, be it past or future.. ie, all conservative Christian scholars agree that Jesus will return again thus fulfilling more of His prophesied duty. --Home Computer 17:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, our hope in setting up a separate "Concept explained" article was that it would end up with a slew of sub-articles each discussing a particular traditions' view. Turning the "concept" article into a specialized sub-group (Abrahamic) defeats that.

Another thing is that we found that if an article is controlled mainly by followers of one religion (in this case Christianity), followers of other religions simply don't even attempt to contribute. Having a general "concept" article with specialized sub-articles was intended to avoid that.

RickReinckens 16:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

First an asinine comment, I am not fond of top posting. As for the contents of your post, I agree that having a more inclusive article avoids NPOV violations, and I was unaware of the previous compromise. Thanks for filling me in with the history. However, I think it is a terrible idea to have POV forks for every single minor view. I think we should have more general articles. Like one article on the Christian view. And if, for whatever reason, there is starting to be too much space devoted to one sect (aka undue weight given to a minority view), we can then talk about creating further spinouts, but I would strongly oppose creating a dozen or more minor spinouts before working up more inclusive spinouts.--Andrew c 16:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I reverted to Andrew's last edit. We don't need sections for Bahai, Buhdism, and every other religion that does not believe in Messaiach in an article devoted to Messianic Prophecy. Man thins thing was getting SOOOOo long. And also, doing research in the Bible and backing it up with Bible quotes is generally considered original research.
I propose that the article stand as is but be divided perhaps into Messianic prophecy from the Abramic faiths and non-abramic faiths. For the Abramic faiths, you don't need to get into a huge Bible study, just link and cite with concise summaries of expert opinion on the matter, And for the non-Abramic, please for the love of Wiki, just use notable religiouns that actually have prophecies concerning Messiach. thanks. --Home Computer 17:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. If the article isn't about the messianic prophecies in the hebrew bible, then it's nonnotable, since i'm not aware of any other notable messianic prophecies, and the current version of it is absurdly bloated, even including deprecated font tags that violate xhtml standards, and i'm going to add it to articles for deletion. Otherwise it needs to be completely rewritten and merged with messianic prophecy in Christianity. Bob A 18:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree in part. This article (as suggested above) should not include information on the Matrix trilogy's perspective of Messiah. It should not (as has been removed) document all the religions that don't claim anything regarding a Messiah. It is getting rediculous however I think we can come to a concensus here and work with it. :) --Home Computer 19:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I think both sides have points. However, I do not feel the concerns raised by Bob A meet the criteria for deletion (proven by the recent failed deletion attempt). Home Computer, you are taking a very narrow definition of what the word Messiah means. Both Brittanica and Columbia University Press encyclopedias mention on Judeo-Christian POVs in their Messiah articles. And wikipedia is supposed to be better than these other encyclopedias because of our NPOV policy. Cutting out these other POVs is in clear violation of the mission behind wikipedia. However, we should also keep in mind undue weight and the formatting issues. We should also respect the consensus that came before us, and try to do what we can to improve this article as it stands, instead of changing the entire scope of the article against the previous consensus. But I think we can all agree this article needs work.--Andrew c 18:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Andrew, why are you reverting the changes? You said it needs change lets fix it. Why on earth would you want there to be a section on Bahai just to state that Bahai has no prophecy concerning Messiah? I'm reverting to my last entry where irrelecant info (like the Bhuddist section stating that there is no Messiah in Buddism) is absent and a new category for non abramic religions has been added per our consensus. --Home Computer 18:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Umm... don't throw the word "consensus" around like that. Hypothetically speaking, if Rick and myself prefer the old version, and you and Bob support the new version, there is No Consensus. Except for the "consensus" reached 8 months ago at Talk:Messianic prophecies between less than a half dozen people. Really, I don't care that much about this topic, and I do not want to get involved in an edit war. So I apologize, but I am going to withdraw from editing this article for the time being. Here are some words of advice. Revert to the old version. Post a WP:RfC to get more interest in this article, asking editors what the scope of the article should be. Then you can build a consensus to change the article (or maybe not, depending on what others think). --Andrew c 20:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
?? Didn't we agree on the changes like several hours ago? I reverted TO your changes.. and then others came and cleaned up with some good editing. You yourself even wrote me privately about the changes being needed. So I am glad that others have stepped up and helped with the edits. --Home Computer 20:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restored cited materials

I restored the cited materials that did not need to be removed. --Home Computer 16:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] What is Josh McDowell's POV?

Is he a Full Preterist or a Partial Preterist? Since he claims all prophecy has been fullfilled, sounds like he's a Full Preterist.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.0.3.172 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 23 October 2006.

He doesn't claim that all prophecy has been fulfilled. He believes that the whole Bible is completely true, and thus that Jesus is the Messiah and is the fulfillment of all Messianic prophecy. According to that position the Bible indicates a second coming where unfulfilled prophecy concerning Jesus will come to pass and by the same person. To say that all messianic prophecy is fulfilled in Jesus includes future prophecy, as Jesus is not dead. --Homecomputer∴Peace 16:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

If future prophecy is included, then, as of today, all prophecy has not yet been fulfilled. Anyone who claims that all prophecy has already been fulfilled is a Full Preterist. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc.75.15.207.17 17:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Saying that all Messianic Prophecy is fulfilled in Jesus can include, prophesies of the future are fulfilled in Jesus. --Homecomputer∴Peace 17:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
No, including prophecy that will be fulfilled in the future means that all prophecy will be fulfilled by Jesus, not that it has already been fulfilled. See Grammatical tense. Anyone who claims that all prophecy has already been fulfilled is a Full Preterist. 75.15.196.18 19:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Saying Jesus IS the fulfillment does not assign a time other than the current state of things. If I said Jesus was, that's past, will be is future which are both also true. But when I say Jesus is the fulfillment of all biblical messianic prophecy, that's saying that all biblical messianic prophecy past and present finds it's fulfillment in Christ and will continue to proove to be. The fact that Jesus fulfills a promise doesn't conflict with the fact that historically it hasn't happened yet. English is a clumsy language with tenses. Koine Greek was much more descpritive concerning these. :) --Home Computer∴Peace 20:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The Sanhedrin will be re-established (Isaiah 1:26)
  • Once he is King, leaders of other nations will look to him for guidance. (Isaiah 2:4)
  • The whole world will worship the One God of Israel (Isaiah 2:17)
  • He will be descended from King David (Isaiah 11:1) via King Solomon (1 Chron. 22:8-10)
  • The Moshiach will be a man of this world, an observant Jew with "fear of God" (Isaiah 11:2)
  • Evil and tyranny will not be able to stand before his leadership (Isaiah 11:4)
  • Knowledge of God will fill the world (Isaiah 11:9)
  • He will include and attract people from all cultures and nations (Isaiah 11:10)
  • All Israelites will be returned to their homeland (Isaiah 11:12)
  • He will swallow up death forever (Isaiah 25:8)
  • There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease (Isaiah 25:8)
  • All of the dead will rise again (Isaiah 26:19)
  • The Jewish people will experience eternal joy and gladness (Isaiah 51:11)
  • He will be a messenger of peace (Isaiah 52:7)
  • Nations will end up recognizing the wrongs they did Israel (Isaiah 52:13-53:5)
  • For My House shall be called a house of prayer for all nations (Isaiah 56:3-7)
  • The peoples of the world will turn to the Jews for spiritual guidance (Zechariah 8:23)
  • The ruined cities of Israel will be restored (Ezekiel 16:55)
  • Weapons of war will be destroyed (Ezekiel 39:9)
  • The Temple will be rebuilt (Ezekiel 40) resuming many of the suspended mitzvot
  • He will then perfect the entire world to serve God together, as it is written (Zephaniah 3:9)
  • Jews will know the Torah without Study (Jeremiah 31:33)
  • He will give you all the desires of your heart (Psalms 37:4)
  • He will take the barren land and make it abundant and fruitful (Isaiah 51:3, Amos 9:13-15, Ezekiel 36:29-30, Isaiah 11:6-9)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.15.196.18 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 23 October 2006.

As noted above, Conservative Christian Scholars (and indeed most of Christianity) holds that Jesus is the Messiah(Christ) and is alive. I'm not sure why you keep trying to apply the term pretorist but virtually all of Christianity considers Jesus the Messiah and believes that all prophecies of the Messiah are fulfilled in Him, be it future or past or present. Almost anyone who believes in Jesus Christ(lit. Messiah) believes in the 2nd coming, the millenial riegn the eternity of an ever increasing Kingdom, etc.. these are core doctrines of the religions that hold Jesus to be the fulfillment. So I'm confused as to what you're getting at. Is there an issue you see with the article that needs fixing? --Homecomputer∴Peace 20:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's another way to think of it, Jesus fulfills the prophecy of creating a New Heavens and a New Earth in the final stages of the end times. Those events will happen in the future. See how the tense works there? Hope it helps. --Home Computer∴Peace 20:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)