|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fulfillments of Bible Prophecy | |||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
quote: How righteous and damn condescending of you.
quote: Right??? Right? CHristianity, or at least your version, can not be criticized? You self-righteous. It aint worth getting banned.
quote: Your belief in certain aspects of some fantastical supernatural entitities supposed word does not qualify you to determine the universality of prophecy. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Peepul Member (Idle past 5048 days) Posts: 206 Joined: |
There are some prophecies which may be better than others to argue for evidence of the faithfulness of the Bible. However, we will not allow unbelievers to insist that a fulfillment of prophecy is not "universal" because they continue in unbelief This is unjustified - the prophecy is objectively not fulfilled! Besides, reading this thread, it is clear that the prophecies being discussed are not explicit enough to say unambigously what is being predicted. The degree of interpretation involved is high, and to me, this means it is not even possible to say what the prophecy actually is. If there are any truly explicit prophecies, with objective confirmation from evidence outside the bible, that are not self-fulfilling, please put them forward. Otherwise they really don't prove anything.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Nope, I said the word seed was a creative way to refer to children. Message 106 and Message 110. I asked Peg to show me that the word seed had been used in Isaiah's time to refer to followers as she claims. quote:I guess you can eat those words. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:You're adding to the text. Jesus was baptized by John, who preached repentance and baptism. If there was no sin, then there was no need to be baptized. The fallen nature idea is a later teaching, not what Jesus preached. quote:You have no support that "all his life" he denied himself. We don't have that information. You're adding to the text again. Jesus preached repentance. He came for the "lost" not the righteous. The idea you present concerning baptism is a later teaching.
quote:The verses you provided from John 8:26 and 5:30, don't support the concept that Jesus never sinned in his life. We don't know what he did between 13 and 30. Paul's personification of sin isn't really applicable here. Righteous doesn't mean never sinned. Good doesn't mean never sinned.
quote:You're adding. The text does not support the idea that the baptism had anything to do with denying himself. Denying one's self does not mean one is without sin. John's ministry was specific. Repentance. Jesus went to John. Jesus preached repentance. He lead by example. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Could be, but then that casts out the offspring verse. As I said before, if we go with the idea that he physically died and came back from the dead; then the point of the song is that he lived physically on Earth and had children and enjoyed the spoils of victory. The ascension doesn't go with the song. NET Bible 53:12 So I will assign him a portion with the multitudes, he will divide the spoils of victory with the powerful, because he willingly submitted to death and was numbered with the rebels, when he lifted up the sin of many and intervened on behalf of the rebels. All the parts have to come together. If the righteous servant is removed from the land of Israel and then returned in victory, the servant is able to have children and enjoy the spoils of the victory.
53:10 Though the Lord desired to crush him and make him ill, once restitution is made, he will see descendants and enjoy long life, and the Lord’s purpose will be accomplished through him. You've got to explain the kids, unless you want to say restitution has not been made and the Lord's purpose has not been accomplished. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
There is no need for you to bulster the strength of your argument with fowl language. Asses is not necessarily foul language. Pulling something out of one's ass, is a common colloquialism and you're on the internet. It is incredibly easy to avoid the debate by feigning offense. If you have a geniune problem: don't play armchair moderator in this thread, especially by posting your concerns in two seperate posts (Message 190, Message 194). It wastes memory and it wastes debate space and simply distracts from the debate. If you really feel my behaviour is inflammatory or uncivil, bring it to the attention of moderators in the appropriate thread. In the meantime, step off the holier-than-thou high horse, and deal with the problems with your position.
There are some prophecies which may be better than others to argue for evidence of the faithfulness of the Bible. However, we will not allow unbelievers to insist that a fulfillment of prophecy is not "universal" because they continue in unbelief. You made a claim that the the lord is rich to all who call upon him. I suggested that it was not the case, which demonstrates that it is not universal. This shows that this prophecy is not fulfilled, or cannot be verified as being fulfilled. Do you agree?
For example, Isaiah 53 speaks of the Suffering Servant dying for the sins of the people. Now if some atheist or agnostic says that he doesn't even BELEIVE that he has sinned or is in need of the forgiveness of sins, WHY On earth should we accept his saying the prophecy has not been fulfilled in Jesus' crucifixion? You have tried to distract me with other prophecies previously. We are talking about a prophecy about richness and calling upon the names of Yahweh/Christ. Are you conceding that it is impossible to confirm whether this particular prophecy has been fulfilled because of the large numbers of excuses that can be pulled out of the proverbial hat? Is that why you are keen to try moving to a different prophecy? Focussing on the hits, trying to avoid focussing on the misses?
Your unbelief in certain aspects of God's word does not qualify you to determine the non-unversality of prophecy. You seem to be confused about my discussing universals. When I speak of universality I am talking about a single prophecy that makes a claim that Yahweh is rich to all that call. Since this prophecy applies to all people who follow a certain action,, it can be said to 'universally apply' and it also means that it can be tested. I have done this, and the name is not rich. I am eminently qualified to determine the universality of this prophecy since I am included in the set all who call. So, cedre has argued that I am lazy, that I didn't try hard enough, you have argued that I have to believe first, you have also argued that my skepticism interferes with the experiment and now you are arguing that I'm not qualified to determine if this prophecy has been fulfilled. These are golden oldies on the con trick of prophecy jaywill. Does this mean that the prophecy has failed, or does it mean that the prophecy can not fail because there is always a loophole you can jump through to explain away the problem? Once you have conceded that this prophecy is useless for purposes of demonstrating fulfillment, we can try another one. Focussing on the hits, ignoring or explaining away the misses: The confidence trick of prophecy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
How righteous and damn condescending of you. We would neither go to Caiphas and the priests who cried out for the crucifixion of Jesus to find confirmation from them, on whether Jesus was the prophesied Son of God. We're not waiting for you to put your stamp of "universality" on something which you're hell bent on denying.
Right??? Right? CHristianity, or at least your version, can not be criticized? You self-righteous. It aint worth getting banned. And it ain't worth getting refuted about either. Better hush up.
Your belief in certain aspects of some fantastical supernatural entitities supposed word does not qualify you to determine the universality of prophecy. Shhhh.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
To the more likely scenario of the Suffering Servants physical death Purpledawn writes:
Could be, but then that casts out the offspring verse. As I said before, if we go with the idea that he physically died and came back from the dead; then the point of the song is that he lived physically on Earth and had children and enjoyed the spoils of victory. The ascension doesn't go with the song. I don't think that this offspring matter is a serious obstacle to the prophecy meaning Christ. The next chapter 54 has some striking words about the barren woman having children and the married one not.
"Give a ringing shout, O barren one, you who have not borne; Break forth into a joyful shouting and cry out, you who have not been in labor. For more numerous are the children of the desolate one than the children of the married woman, says Jehovah. ... For your Maker is your Husband." (See Isaiah 54:1,5) There is the implication here that God as the Creator, the Maker, is not limited to the natural process of birth. There is at least a divine hint that His desire to produce children for His people is not limited by typical nature. So the seed of the previous chapter's Suffering Servant of Israel should not be under such a natural limitation either. Now I need to refer to the New Testament because the revelation of the Bible is progressive. Jesus told the Jews that God was able to raise up stones to be Abraham's descendents, so they should not place too much confidence simply on that natural relationship. Since the revelation of God's economy is progressive, unfolding gradually and successively, here a little, and there a little, there may have been no other way for God to convey this thought. The New Testament is a matter of God conveying His Spirit and His life into man making a kin relationship of sons to a divine Father. Jesus hinted at this when they asked Him to leave the crowd to see His mother and family. He stretched out His hands on the crowd and said that the ones who do the will of His Father were His mother, and sister, and brothers. So the offspring matter of the Suffering Servant, I do not think, is made impossible by Jesus not being married or father children in the natural sense.
NET Bible 53:12 So I will assign him a portion with the multitudes, he will divide the spoils of victory with the powerful, because he willingly submitted to death and was numbered with the rebels, when he lifted up the sin of many and intervened on behalf of the rebels. All the parts have to come together. If the righteous servant is removed from the land of Israel and then returned in victory, the servant is able to have children and enjoy the spoils of the victory.
As stated, in the next chapter 54 you have a hint that God the Maker of Israel, the Creator Who is her Husband, will not be limited in the childbearing matter by typical natural limitations. So the "barren" woman is to rejoice. At least you have a divine "heads up" that the Maker is able to obtain offspring for His inheritance by virtue of His divine transcendents. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
You're adding to the text. Jesus was baptized by John, who preached repentance and baptism. If there was no sin, then there was no need to be baptized. The fallen nature idea is a later teaching, not what Jesus preached. Please quote the additions to clarify what you mean. Where did I add to a text? I interpreted a text. Is that your idea of adding to a text? Then you also have been adding to the text by interpreting in your way Isaiah 53?? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
You're adding to the text. Jesus was baptized by John, who preached repentance and baptism. If there was no sin, then there was no need to be baptized. The fallen nature idea is a later teaching, not what Jesus preached. This matter of denying the self was certainly NOT a latter post Jesus concept. How many times did He say it? If you would follow Him you had to deny yourself, take up your cross and follow Him. These are the words of Jesus. You see baptism, burial and so forth are closely related to the cross. Both are a dying. You bury what has died. Am I right? Now, it is true that John the Baptist was relunctant to "bury" Jesus in the symbolic baptism. He didn't think he was worthy to do so. Jesus insisted upon it. It could not be because He was sinful. He taught that He had no sin. Satan had nothing in Him. "Which of you convicts Me of sin?" He stated. So He did not see Himself as sinful and in need of baptism for that reason. And I believe Him. Now, why then be baptized? What needed to be buried ? If not the sinful man which needed burial in this case, then what ? All men must deny themselves to follow Christ. You cannot follow Christ if you can only follow yourself. This can be your good self too. I am trying to help you. But my experience is limited. I do know that you have to say "No" often to your SELF, even your "good" self in order to follow Jesus Christ. Jesus took the lead to deny Himself and follow the Father. We follow by denying ourselves to follow Jesus. It is not only a matter of sins. It is a matter of living without God, independently, that has to be denied, buried. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
You guys should stop trying to splice and dice the Bible apart.
You want to splice away the Old Testament from the New Testament. You want to divide the quotations of Jesus from the epistles of the Apostles. You want to chop the living revelation up so as to kill it. You chop here and there to separate the pieces. You want to kill the beast by chopping up the plenary revelation of the Bible. This is a "Divide and Conquer" stradegy. If you can chisle away Isaiah from the Gospels, you can kill the revelation of Jesus Christ, so you think. "Jesus has nothing to do with Isaiah's Book." Yes He does. He is the center of the whole divine revelation of the 66 books.
"For whatever promises of God there are, in Him is the Yes, and through Him the Amen ..." So after His resurrection Jesus opened the minds of the disciples to see that the Scriptures were speaking about Him in so many places:
"And He said to them, O foolish and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and enter into His glory? And beginning from Moses and from all the prophets, He explained to them clearly in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself." (Luke 24:25-27) Slow of heart. Some of you are slow of heart. Some of your hearts are not only slow or standing still. You are struggling to go in the wrong direction. Now I'm preaching, now I'm preaching. I know. Listen. When Jesus opened up the Scriptures to them I bet He also went over a lot of things in the book of Isaiah. That is probably why Philip knew that that passage in chapter 53 pertained to Jesus, as he told the Ethiopian servant. Now instead of a hymn or passing the plate around, we'll have a few retorts from the Internet audience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
You made a claim that the the lord is rich to all who call upon him. I suggested that it was not the case, which demonstrates that it is not universal. This shows that this prophecy is not fulfilled, or cannot be verified as being fulfilled. Do you agree? No, I do not agree that the prophecy is not fulfilled because you claimed that calling did nothing for you. That is not a good enough reason for me to deny it. The prophet Joel prophesied that the Spirit of God would be poured out on all flesh and the sons and daughters of the Israelites would prophecy, the old men would dream dreams. The book of Acts records the pouring out of the Holy Spirit on the early church. Some people were standing by scoffing and geering as you do. It is not up to them to pronounce that Joel's prophecy was not fulfilled because of thier scoffing and geering. Besides, you do not know that you will not in some future time experience this richness of the Lord upon calling. I only say that Romans 10:12 is not the only verse in the Bible. And we should learn not simply what the Bible says, but what it also says. It speaks of calling from a pure heart. It speaks of calling with a pure lip. It speaks of calling in truth. These aspects should be considered also. He is still rich to all who call upon Him, yet in a way which does not violate other important aspects of drawing near in faith to God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3268 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
No, I do not agree that the prophecy is not fulfilled because you claimed that calling did nothing for you. That is not a good enough reason for me to deny it. Just out of curiosity, what would it take to show you this prophecy had failed? Is there anything that could get you to believe that? If not, if anything could be forced to fit that prophecy, doesn't that make the prophecy powerless?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
jaywill Member (Idle past 1971 days) Posts: 4519 From: VA USA Joined: |
This is unjustified - the prophecy is objectively not fulfilled! Lets take one that is rather more objective then. What would you accept as evidence of a prophecy being fulfilled? Let's take Jesus prophesying about the weather being really a problem in the days just before His second coming:
"And there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth anguish of nations in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the billows, Mens hearts fainting from fear and expectation of the things coming upon the inhabited earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken." (Luke 21:25,26) Are you expecting that fulfillment of this prophecy means that there is no possibility left to doubt that the words of Jesus have come true? If that is what you mean, I don't think even such an objective prediction as this necessarily means fulfillment cannot still be doubted. Fulfillment of prophecy does not have to mean that there is universal agreement that prophecy has been fulfilled, even if the matters are entirely objective. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Well that a new flip. The problem is you're trying to make the songs about one living person. I really don't think they are. Isaiah 49:3 refers to Israel as God's servant. You quote Isaiah 54 in hopes of a magical solution to the offspring issue of Isaiah 53, but this commentary by David Guzik says that in Isaiah 54 is God speaking to Israel as his wife.
1. (1-3) Israel will be restored like a barren woman who bears many children.
a. Sing, O barren, you who have not borne: In ancient Israel, the barren woman carried an enormous load of shame and disgrace. Here, the Lord likens captive Israel to a barren woman who can now sing - because now more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married woman. Isaiah 54 is not going to give you a magical way out for the offspring in Isaiah 53. It is interesting, though, that Guzik can see Israel in Isaiah 54, but can't in the previous 4 Servant Songs. He even considers 49:3 to refer to Jesus. The reason I show you Guzik, even though I don't agree with him on servant songs, is so that you realize that it is not my twisting of the text. Even my study Bible agrees with him. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024