Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1- Direct communication w/ God
2- Other people
3- Bible
4- Circumstnaces
Irrelevant to the point. Unless you are going to claim that god taught you through direct communication that the Isaiah passages were about Jesus, you learned it from someone. So Thrills point stands .
Irrelevant to the point. Unless you are going to claim that god taught you through direct communication that the Isaiah passages were about Jesus, you learned it from someone. So Thrills point stands .
You asked me and I told you - even though I figured I would get a response like this. This is why I don't answer many of these types of inquiries, because you really don't care how I respond.
With regards to Isaiah - did you read my initial response?
You probably caught yourself when I first called you on your initial question - and you changed it. It's all on the prior pages - so you can say what you want... the proof contradicts your claim.
Seriously - please be up front and respectful with your comments and questions and you will have no problem with me.
There is nothing outside of the Bible reflecting any conversations with Christ. That's nothing new.
That's all I wanted: for all readers to hear you admit that for someone who Luke and Matthew said his fame had spread far and wide,
Quote:
And the fame of him went out into every place of the country round about. And his fame went throughout all Syria
it turns out that not a single secular historian writing history had heard anything about this famous man. I mean even Simon bar Kokhba had statues and coins minted after him which proves he was real. Jesus hasn't a single historical reference made about him which, if it doesn't prove nobody heard of him, it certainly suggests the possibility.
But onto more proof Isaiah 53 is NOT about Jesus:
The most we can infer from Isaiah 53 is that someone died for the sins of others. The title, "Messiah", which appears prominently throughout the Old Testament is nowhere present here. No one saw Jesus die as an atonement for the sins of others, which was what I was trying to impress on DRob--that we haven't a single historical reference outside the New Testament that Jesus was crucified--and certainly NOTHING outside the New Testament that he died for the sins of man. This is simply the meaning which the New Testament writers gave to his death. Isaiah 53 works for Christianity ONLY if you already accept the New Testament teaching that Jesus' death was for atonement can you then go back to Isaiah and say,
“See! Isaiah predicted what I already believe!” Isaiah 53,
Thus the reality is that Isaiah is no proof at all, just a contrived confirmation Isaiah 53 is all about Jesus for someone who has already chosen Jesus and Christianity.
With this in mind, assuming no preconceived notions about Jesus being the "he" of Isaiah 53 let's look at one of the most famous verses:
Quote:
Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[a] his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life[b] and be satisfied[c];
Quite simply it was the Lord's will to crush Israel and make it suffer as an offering for its sin of idolatry by being conquered by other nations--Babylon and then Rome--but God promises His servant, Israel that Israel will see its offspring--future generations of Jews prospering and their days prolonged. Once Israel's suffering is over Israel will be satisfied.
Now look at the above bolded. Jesus had no offspring or progeny because he never married, and this has vexed Christian theologians for centuries. How did they get around it? They made Jesus' offspring into a spiritual type. Jesus' offspring will now be everyone who has accepted him as their savior.
See how simple it is for Christians to twist the meaning of Old Testament language into what they want the passages to say??????
You asked me and I told you - even though I figured I would get a response like this. This is why I don't answer many of these types of inquiries, because you really don't care how I respond.
With regards to Isaiah - did you read my initial response?
You got the answer you got because you have even til now avoided my question. I have not asked how you learned of doctrine in general, but how you learned that Isaiah applied to Jesus , in response to your claim that Thrill would have to be God like to know that you learned it from others .
So did you learn about Isaiah as a direct revelation from God , or from some source that taught you it applied to Jesus ? Just this specific question, nothing else about general belief .
And yes, I read your initial post to Thrill. It was later that you challenged the ability to know that evangelicals learn to apply Isaiah to Jesus because they are taught to .
That's all I wanted: for all readers to hear you admit that for someone who Luke and Matthew said his fame had spread far and wide,
it turns out that not a single secular historian writing history had heard anything about this famous man. I mean even Simon bar Kokhba had statues and coins minted after him which proves he was real. Jesus hasn't a single historical reference made about him which, if it doesn't prove nobody heard of him, it certainly suggests the possibility.
It is hard to have a discussion with you because you keep changing things.
First we had the whole question about the gospels.
Now in post 55 you specifically asked...
Quote:
And who in the historic record can you name that Jesus spoke to? If you could name even ONE credible extra-Biblical
person who recorded his conversation with Jesus you could turn the world's belief system around, DRob. So do it.
That question I specifically answered in post 69.
Quote:
There is nothing outside of the Bible reflecting any conversations with Christ. That's nothing new.
Now you claim no one had heard of him. You never asked me that specific question. Seriously - is this how you normally operate?
Just for your purposes, you can read this. It doesn't matter to me, so I will not answer any questions on this. I'm just showing you it is exists. And even if it doesn't - it does not change what is recorded in the Bible.
The most we can infer from Isaiah 53 is that someone died for the sins of others. The title, "Messiah", which appears prominently throughout the Old Testament is nowhere present here. No one saw Jesus die as an atonement for the sins of others, which was what I was trying to impress on DRob--that we haven't a single historical reference outside the New Testament that Jesus was crucified--and certainly NOTHING outside the New Testament that he died for the sins of man. This is simply the meaning which the New Testament writers gave to his death. Isaiah 53 works for Christianity ONLY if you already accept the New Testament teaching that Jesus' death was for atonement can you then go back to Isaiah and say,
“See! Isaiah predicted what I already believe!” Isaiah 53,
Thus the reality is that Isaiah is no proof at all, just a contrived confirmation Isaiah 53 is all about Jesus for someone who has already chosen Jesus and Christianity.
With this in mind, assuming no preconceived notions about Jesus being the "he" of Isaiah 53 let's look at one of the most famous verses:
Quite simply it was the Lord's will to crush Israel and make it suffer as an offering for its sin of idolatry by being conquered by other nations--Babylon and then Rome--but God promises His servant, Israel that Israel will see its offspring--future generations of Jews prospering and their days prolonged. Once Israel's suffering is over Israel will be satisfied.
Now look at the above bolded. Jesus had no offspring or progeny because he never married, and this has vexed Christian theologians for centuries. How did they get around it? They made Jesus' offspring into a spiritual type. Jesus' offspring will now be everyone who has accepted him as their savior.
See how simple it is for Christians to twist the meaning of Old Testament language into what they want the passages to say??????
I already answered your Isaiah 53 issue a few pages ago. Isaiah was not writing about Jesus. But with God being the ultimate source of the information, He included similarities to what Jesus endured. All you have do is read it to see the similarities.
It is hard to have a discussion with you because you keep changing things.
First we had the whole question about the gospels.
Now in post 55 you specifically asked...
That question I specifically answered in post 69.
Now you claim no one had heard of him. You never asked me that specific question. Seriously - is this how you normally operate?
Just for your purposes, you can read this. It doesn't matter to me, so I will not answer any questions on this. I'm just showing you it is exists. And even if it doesn't - it does not change what is recorded in the Bible.
I already answered your Isaiah 53 issue a few pages ago. Isaiah was not writing about Jesus. But with God being the ultimate source of the information, He included similarities to what Jesus endured. All you have do is read it to see the similarities.
This is not a big deal.
Okay, I won't belabor the point with you. My interest in writing this thread is to demonstrate that Christianity tried to make Isaiah 53 about Jesus as a way to prove to disbelieving pagans that Jesus had been prophesied in the Old Testament, and this was proof Jesus was the Son of God even if the passages never mentioned Jesus--which is clearly misrepresentation and fraud. Now you're saying Isaiah is not about Jesus but it might make vague references to Jesus--which doesn't make a bit of sense.
But I'll grant you my original question did not say extra-Biblical. I later tried to clarify I needed something outside the Bible since most scholars who are not Christian fundamentalist don't accept the Bible as a direct communication of God to man--mostly because it is fraught with errors, mistakes, inaccuracies et. al So if you want to really hammer my omission about extra-Biblical be my guest. My error, i apologize. I now realize if I had qualified my question with "Extra-Biblical" you never would have responded. Fair enough.
He has to save EVERYONE from God. Good news is that he can, and he WILL save anyone that comes to him.
Everyone needs to be saved from God, Richard. If you believe that, what does that tell you about God?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
