I've also read some things claiming that the Gospels may have originally been composed as midrash. There are good points in favor of as well as in opposition to that view (as has been noted in this thread).
My position is this: If the Gospels were originally intended as actual history, then the fact is that the authors took OT passages out of context to fabricate prophetic fulfillments, and Waterrock's arguments don't hold up, since the term used is "fulfilled." On the other hand, if they were midrash, then the authors wouldn't have meant "fulfilled" literally, but being midrash renders them non-history. Either way, the Gospels are rendered false.
My position is this: If the Gospels were originally intended as actual history, then the fact is that the authors took OT passages out of context to fabricate prophetic fulfillments, and Waterrock's arguments don't hold up, since the term used is "fulfilled." On the other hand, if they were midrash, then the authors wouldn't have meant "fulfilled" literally, but being midrash renders them non-history. Either way, the Gospels are rendered false.
"As for the truth, it seems like we just pick a theory." -- Emily Saliers of Indigo Girls
