|
Isaiah
May 28, 2007 10:14:07 GMT -5
Post by blondie on May 28, 2007 10:14:07 GMT -5
Jesus did indeed come to fulfill Isaiah 53:5-6 - But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed. All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him.
Isaiah 53:10-11 - But the LORD was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand. As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied; By His knowledge the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities. So if you believe this is a prediction of the future you must believe people can predict the future. I don't believe people can tell the future. If you dismiss all of the other fortune tellers, like the Oracle of Delphi or Jean Dixon you are using a logical fallacy. Special pleading. Also the Jesus legend was constructed specifically to be seen to fulfill certain prophesies Matthew 21 1: And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, and were come to Bethphage, unto the mount of Olives, then sent Jesus two disciples, 2: Saying unto them, Go into the village over against you, and straightway ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. 3: And if any man say ought unto you, ye shall say, The Lord hath need of them; and straightway he will send them. 4: All this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, Most damning of all for this prophesy is who really was the Suffering Servant in the poem? The Jews believe the Servant is Israel. This is clear from the text: Isaiah 49 3: And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified. This is a very clear example of taking the Bible out of context. The you admit that you have no idea what you are talking about in any of this discussion. Thanks for the admission. This is just a cheap shot Plato said , "the wisest is he he knows he does not know." I don't know whether or not Jesus was a real person or how much of the stuff attributed to him, if any, really happened. Neither do you. Jews are not Christian, unless they have converted -- their inclusion shows your ignorance of Christianity. The Straw Man argument only works if you can't be called on it. Do you honestly believe I don't know Jews aren't Christians or do you just dismiss any opinion a Jew might have? Catholics add to the Bible in many ways. They over-emphasize Mary -- she was just the person God chose to bring forth His son. I will not say that there aren't many Christians in Catholicism, but they have extras that are not biblical. Catholics wrote your Bible. Your Bible isn't even the Bible it's a Bible. You may think the book your Grammy gave you as a kid is the golden center of the universe but it's just arbitrary: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon#Other_canonsBut your point is irrelevant because Catholics don't just go by the Bible, they also have the Church. You may think their theology is wrong, but they think yours is too. As an Atheist, with no dog in this fight, I've long said that if you are going to be a Christian at least be Catholic. They have their dogma worked out. Protestants can't even agree on what they believe. People believe different things because they are human. People can justify (in their eyes) many things if they don't use context. Religioustolerance.org is a very obvious example of that. You guys need to lay off religioustolerance.org. It's the most objective site about religion I know of on the internet. This is like the FoxNews/Rush Limbaugh trick of taking the center position and painting it as extreme so your extreme position seems equally objective. This only works if your audience is unaware of the actual opposing position. Atheist sites are the counter of Evangelical sites. Find a more objective site about religion than religioustolerance.org or beliefnet.com. I don't parrot anything. I take the Bible, I read and study and use context. If anyone is parroting, you are: you just take info from another source and blindly assume that it is correct. Proof of this is that you are admitting that you are basing what you think about certain biblical topics on what has been written on religioustolerance.org, a source which rarely looks at scripture contextually. They are therefore invalid as a proper source of Christian belief. I base my understanding of the Bible on years of study of both subjective and objective sources. That's how I recognize your dogma. I'm not only familiar with Evangelical apologetics but many other forms of Christianity. All you know is the Evangelical version. You're obviously unaware or opposing viewpoints or objective scholarship.
|
|
lawman
Apprentice Cog
Posts: 237
|
Isaiah
May 28, 2007 10:26:17 GMT -5
Post by lawman on May 28, 2007 10:26:17 GMT -5
I John: 2nd Chapter
18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
|
|
|
Isaiah
May 28, 2007 14:00:18 GMT -5
Post by kevin on May 28, 2007 14:00:18 GMT -5
So if you believe this is a prediction of the future you must believe people can predict the future. I don't believe people can tell the future. If you dismiss all of the other fortune tellers, like the Oracle of Delphi or Jean Dixon you are using a logical fallacy. Special pleading. Its only a logical fallacy in the way you list it. It is not if your belief is that Isaiah was given prophecy from God. In this case, one views that Isaiah was merely a mouthpiece for God, and not the actual one "making predictions". No proof of that, just speculation. Without proof, speculation does not override what has been written. The mention of Matthew 21:4 does not mean that Jesus was made to fit the mold of the one to come. It merely shows that this particular instance was a fulfillment of prophecy that the Jews kept missing because Jesus did not fit their idea of a savior. As far as your other verse in Isaiah, what about these? Isaiah 20:3 -And the LORD said, "Even as My servant Isaiah has gone naked and barefoot three years as a sign and token against Egypt and Cush,
Isaiah 20:2 - "Then it will come about in that day, That I will summon My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah,
Isaiah 37:35 - 'For I will defend this city to save it for My own sake and for My servant David's sake.'"
Isaiah 41:8 - But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, Descendant of Abraham My friend,
Isaiah 44:1 - "But now listen, O Jacob, My servant, And Israel, whom I have chosen:
Isaiah 45:4 - "For the sake of Jacob My servant, And Israel My chosen one, I have also called you by your name; I have given you a title of honor Though you have not known Me. By you logic, any of the above fit. What about these then? Isaiah 1:3 - "An ox knows its owner, And a donkey its master's manger, But Israel does not know, My people do not understand." It is pointed out here that Israel is God's people (many more times in the OT besides Isaiah). So here are the verses preceding Isaiah 53 for context: Isaiah 52:13-15 - Behold, My servant will prosper, He will be high and lifted up and greatly exalted. Just as many were astonished at you, My people, So His appearance was marred more than any man And His form more than the sons of men. Thus He will sprinkle many nations, Kings will shut their mouths on account of Him; For what had not been told them they will see, And what they had not heard they will understand. How can My people (Israel) and My Servant -- who is pointed at in these latter verses of Isaiah 52 and 53, but also indicated by "He" -- be one in the same? Can't. So the Suffering Servant is not Israel. Sorry, try again later. Just your usual atheist reasoning. Holds no more water than your other arguments. On the NT, yes. They didn't accept Jesus so they have no opinion that is valid on him. It is the one that is readily accepted. There are many others out there (books, scrolls, etc.) but they are not readily accepted or seen as redundant. Your point is? And again, your point is? Catholics have rituals, written prayers, and the "power" to receive forgiveness via priests. The last is very unbiblical. Jesus' death ripped the temple veil down. Why should we lay off? Its only good if you're uninformed. As I've said time and again: no context = invalid. Why don't they take all scripture in context and be objective with that? See above. If you are on the outside looking in, you only have part of the information. That is what those two sites offer -- just bits and pieces that are "true" when context is not involved. Years of study? Judging by what you've posted on Bible doctrine, your years have study have been in vain. Or are you talking about 2 years of studying once every other month? Again, what objective scholarship? You've yet to provide anything that is correct when scripture is taken in context.
|
|
|
Isaiah
May 29, 2007 9:18:11 GMT -5
Post by blondie on May 29, 2007 9:18:11 GMT -5
Its only a logical fallacy in the way you list it. It is not if your belief is that Isaiah was given prophecy from God. In this case, one views that Isaiah was merely a mouthpiece for God, and not the actual one "making predictions".
You are still obviously using special pleading. Plenty of people who claim to be predicting the future claim to be given their prophecy by a god.
Isaiah 20:3 -And the LORD said, "Even as My servant Isaiah has gone naked and barefoot three years as a sign and token against Egypt and Cush, Isaiah 20:2 - "Then it will come about in that day, That I will summon My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah,
Isaiah 37:35 - 'For I will defend this city to save it for My own sake and for My servant David's sake.'"
Isaiah 41:8 - But you, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, Descendant of Abraham My friend,
Isaiah 44:1 - "But now listen, O Jacob, My servant, And Israel, whom I have chosen:
Isaiah 45:4 - "For the sake of Jacob My servant, And Israel My chosen one, I have also called you by your name; I have given you a title of honor Though you have not known Me.
By you logic, any of the above fit.
Yep, by my logic any of the above would fit.
These seem only like more reasons that the Suffering Servant isn't Jesus. Maybe it refers to one of these guys. I'm sure you could make a good argument for any of them with a little determination. The fact that you don't have to invoke the supernatural into a theory is always a strong plus.
They didn't accept Jesus so they have no opinion that is valid on him.
There you go. So you disqualify anyone who doesn't accept Jesus from having an opinion on him.
Well, I don't accept Jesus and I have an opinion. I guess I'm braking the rules.
I guess you don't allow yourself an opinion on religions besides Evangelical Christianity.
And again, your point is? Catholics have rituals, written prayers, and the "power" to receive forgiveness via priests. The last is very unbiblical. Jesus' death ripped the temple veil down.
I don't think you're allowed to have an opinion on the Church, not accepting it and all.
It is the one that is readily accepted. There are many others out there (books, scrolls, etc.) but they are not readily accepted or seen as redundant. Your point is?
And again, your point is? Catholics have rituals, written prayers, and the "power" to receive forgiveness via priests. The last is very unbiblical. Jesus' death ripped the temple veil down.
Whatever. I'm sure all other Christians also think they have the one true Bible and one true interpretation.
Years of study? Judging by what you've posted on Bible doctrine, your years have study have been in vain.
You should try it. Have you ever read a book about Christianity that wasn't written by an Evangelical?
Again, what objective scholarship?
Read books written by people who have the same sort of credentials you would trust if they studied anything else. Degrees from good accredited universities.
Read books that are published by mainstream publishers or university presses.
I doubt you can find a single objective source to back up your interpretation of Isaiah. All you'll find is,"some Christians believe..."
|
|
|
Isaiah
May 29, 2007 14:48:50 GMT -5
Post by kevin on May 29, 2007 14:48:50 GMT -5
It is true that some say God has inspired their predictions. Jean Dixon had many false predictions though, so she’s out. The Oracle of Delphi was very ambiguous – almost all of his predictions “came true” no matter the outcome. The most famous example: “If Croesus went to war with Cyrus, he would destroy a mighty kingdom.” Croesus did: his own kingdom.
I’m sure you’ll respond by saying that Isaiah is ambiguous as well. However, the prophecy pointed out is not of the “either way, its fulfilled” type that the Oracle was famous for. Your only contention was if it was Jesus or not that is referred to in Isaiah 53. But of course, you think it was all part of the “legend of Jesus” anyway.
Let me ask you then – as written, and discounting your idea that the “legend of Jesus” was made to fit the prophecy – who else fits the words of Isaiah 53? I’m not talking about “well, in verse 3 it could be” and “In verse 5 it might be”, etc. All of them. If you can show where Isaiah 53 does NOT describe Jesus, you’ll have something to work with. Otherwise, you’re just denying for the sake of denying.
Jews believe it is Israel, Christians believe it is Jesus. Who is right? This ain’t a tootsie roll pop.
They can have their opinions all day long. At best, they see Jesus as a teacher, some would even say a great teacher. But they didn’t accept him as messiah so if their opinion differs from NT scripture, the answer is yes.
That pretty much sums it up. Seriously, your opinions on Jesus are that he is mythical and legendary. Why then would I assume that you had an opinion that was valid unless it was backed up by a viable source? Besides the above opinions, you’ve been showing that the rest aren’t yours, but come from some external source.
Just as a point of clarity, its "breaking" not "braking" in this case. Unless you're talking about "bringing the rules to a screeching halt" ;D.
I try not to. Why? The reason you just gave above – if I don’t know enough about them, I try to avoid making assumptions about them. There is nothing worse than stating opinions on either little or plainly false information. In all of my years of teaching, I have avoided the habit of some of my fellows in “bashing” other religions, even other denominations. That is not to say I don’t veer off course from time to time but I try to avoid such because I’ve never liked it when others did it. It serves little purpose.
See above. I listed some well-known facts about Catholicism and stated that the last one was not biblical. I can offer an opinion on what is well known if a denomination is carrying out a practice that is not biblical. I can say little else about Catholicism as I do not know much more.
Maybe. Let them back it up contextually and not by doing drive-by theology.
As of this week, I didn’t even consider the “type” of Christian an author was before I read and critiqued his/her work. After this week, I still won’t. Point me to some other writers that don’t throw in unbiblical or extra-biblical beliefs and I’ll seriously consider them. I think I’ve read books by some Episcopalians and Catholics, but since I never looked for their “type” I’m not sure. I’m about to pick up “Mere Christianity” by C.S. Lewis – what was he?
Oh no, I only read books published by some obscure company printing pages out of their basement using a cheap 9-pin dot matrix printer. All of the authors have home school degrees from ICS after obtaining their GED.
Just a joke ;D.
Show me an objective source that refutes it. All you’ll find is “most liberal theologians believe…”.
|
|
|
Isaiah
May 29, 2007 17:05:32 GMT -5
Post by blondie on May 29, 2007 17:05:32 GMT -5
It is true that some say God has inspired their predictions. Jean Dixon had many false predictions though, so she’s out. The Oracle of Delphi was very ambiguous – almost all of his predictions “came true” no matter the outcome. The most famous example: “If Croesus went to war with Cyrus, he would destroy a mighty kingdom.” Croesus did: his own kingdom.
I’m sure you’ll respond by saying that Isaiah is ambiguous as well. However, the prophecy pointed out is not of the “either way, its fulfilled” type that the Oracle was famous for. Your only contention was if it was Jesus or not that is referred to in Isaiah 53. But of course, you think it was all part of the “legend of Jesus” anyway.
It's still special pleading. You're wildly gullible when you fall for Bible "prophesy" and skeptical, like me, about all others. Thre's plenty of examples of good prophesy in history. For what that's worth.
Let me ask you then – as written, and discounting your idea that the “legend of Jesus” was made to fit the prophecy – who else fits the words of Isaiah 53? I’m not talking about “well, in verse 3 it could be” and “In verse 5 it might be”, etc. All of them. If you can show where Isaiah 53 does NOT describe Jesus, you’ll have something to work with. Otherwise, you’re just denying for the sake of denying.
Isaiah doesn't have anything to do with Jesus. It's about something else. It was written before he was born. That's the argument. Nothing you can say makes nearly as much sense as that. We can't dismiss the natural explanation so they're is no reason to even contemplate the supernatural explanation
|
|
|
Isaiah
May 29, 2007 17:52:39 GMT -5
Post by kevin on May 29, 2007 17:52:39 GMT -5
It's still special pleading. You're wildly gullible when you fall for Bible "prophesy" and skeptical, like me, about all others. Thre's plenty of examples of good prophesy in history. For what that's worth. You've got to put it in perspective. The biggest reason to disbelieve is skepticism, as you put it. Lacking proof to the contrary can allow you to believe. Hmmm, what about Nostradamus, hadn't looked at his stuff in awhile... It does if you consider prophetic and match it with NT examples. If you discount the prophetic portions, then you are correct. Who DO you apply the prophesies to then? I saw some stuff on Wikipedia, but without any written record of the prophecies either being shown to be false or true, its too hard to say.
|
|
|
Isaiah
May 30, 2007 9:26:12 GMT -5
Post by blondie on May 30, 2007 9:26:12 GMT -5
t does if you consider prophetic and match it with NT examples. If you discount the prophetic portions, then you are correct. Who DO you apply the prophesies to then? I saw some stuff on Wikipedia, but without any written record of the prophecies either being shown to be false or true, its too hard to say. In Isaiah? Possibly the Servant is the Hebrew people. Who knows? It's just an old poem.
|
|