|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fulfillments of Bible Prophecy | |||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3458 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I've shown my line of reasoning in Message 48 and Message 58. Suffering Servant-Jewish Interpretation So, seeing seed or seeing sons or seeing children are idiomatic expressions used in the Hebrew Bible to describe the experience of seeing one's own family propagate for one or more generations. Seed is already a creative way of referring to children and prolonging days is a creative way of saying living longer. Even today, probably because of Biblical influence, seed is a creative way to refer to biological offspring, as opposed to adopted children or followers of a leader or teacher.
quote:Irrelevant. quote:Actually you haven't and I responded to your Message 55 with Message 61. An indirect descendant is still a descendant. A follower is not an indirect descendant. Your verses are all over 700 years later and not a way to show what Isaiah meant in his time. You need something a little more contemporary with Isaiah. Paul uses the phrase "Abraham's seed" to creatively refer to Israel or Jews. (Romans 9:6 and Galatians 3:29) Paul is trying to reason that even gentiles are heirs to the promises to Abraham through "adoption". It doesn't help us understand what Isaiah meant. The rest of the verses don't use the word seed. (Matthew 21:43 and John 8:39) Do you understand? "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
the jews of today do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah, so of course they deny that Isaiah 53 is a messianic prophecy as can be clearly seen in the source material you've used to base your conclusions.
But who did apply Isaiahs words to Jesus? The jews of his day who became his disciples and saw the evidence that he really was the Messiah. Under the direction of holy spirit they came to understand that the prophecy applied to the Messiah.
quote: purpledawn writes:
But Isaiah wasnt into creative journalism...he was a prophet who wrote under inspiration. 'Seed' was not a 'creative' writing method back then. It was simply a common term that everyone understood to mean decedents. As i said, Jesus was called 'son of david'. This implies that seed and decendency are the one in the same and it shows that a 'seed' does not have to come directly from ones loins.
Seed is already a creative way of referring to children and prolonging days is a creative way of saying living longer. purpledawn writes: Your verses are all over 700 years later and not a way to show what Isaiah meant in his time. You need something a little more contemporary with Isaiah. not at all. Under Gods direction the explanation was given through christs followers. He did this with Moses, he did it with the prophets, and he did it with Christ. God always has representatives on the earth who are given knowledge of spriritual things. And when jesus returned to heaven, those representatives became the christian Apostles. They teachings they imparted, including their explanation of Isaiahs prophecy, were revealed to them by holy spirit.
quote: that holy spirit was poured out on the congregation at Pentecost
quote: Do you really think that God knows less about who the prophecy of Isaiah is speaking about then the group who created the "Messiah Truth Project", who are they?
quote: Of course they will tell you that Isaiah does not refer to the Messiah because the Messiah has not come yet...they are still waiting for him. Do you really believe that they know better then God? You can be misled by them all you want, but the truth is that Isaiah 53 is a messianic prophecy and all its parts were fulfilled by Jesus.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Tiberius's rule began in the year 14AD so the 15th year of Tiberius was 29CE. This was the year that John the Baptizer began his work and when Jesus came to be baptized. If that is so then the Magi story is wrong since according to the link below Herod died in 4 BCE.
Error 404 - Livius So if Christ was 33.5 years old in 33 CE Herod could not have sent the Magi to Bethlehem to give their gifts to the newborn nor would Herod have had to kill all male children 2 years of age or younger. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
lyx2no Member (Idle past 4716 days) Posts: 1277 From: A vast, undifferentiated plane. Joined: |
kbertsche in post 41 writes: In other words, the phrase is probably an idiom and is not intended to be taken strictly literallyPeg in post 107 writes: But Isaiah wasnt [sic] into creative journalism...peg in post 118 writes: So why, in the instance of Isaiah 53, do you reject a figurative use of the word 'seed'? It never ceases to amaze me that either or both arguments work for apologists. Edited by lyx2no, : Post 118, even better Genesis 2 17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness. 18 And we all live happily ever after.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3458 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Aside from Paul, show me that the quotes are from the disciples of Jesus or Jews for that matter. quote:Isaiah is written in poetry and prose. You don't know what Isaiah was "into". Read the text. I agree, seed is not a creative writing method, I didn't say it was. The Hebrew word for seed was used to mean offspring and descendants, as I showed earlier in Message 58 and Message 106. I agree that seed is used to mean descendants, which I have been saying. What is obvious is that you don't understand what descendants are or creative writing. Those calling Jesus the son of David meant Jesus came from David's bloodline, IOW, from David's seed. So the original "seed" came from David's loins. For Jesus to have descendants, he at some point had to produce children from his loins. I really don't want to have to draw pictures. The use of the word "seed" has not been shown to mean followers of a person. Disciples are not descendants, unless the teacher/leader is their biological father or mother.
quote:And yet you didn't bother to provide the verses that explain. "They" didn't explain Isaiah's prophecy. Even the four I addressed in Message 93 don't explain anything about the entire prophecy. John 14:15 doesn't say anything about the prophecy. Saying they received the Holy Spirit does not show us what information the apostles received concerning the prophecy. quote:Your job is to show me that my reading is incorrect. You haven't yet. Why wouldn't God's chosen people know what he meant? It's their language.Why would you assume that they would translate the words to fit their current doctrine and belief system? So get back to showing me that the verse in question does not deal with direct offspring and normal life or show me why my reading of it is incorrect. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2132 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
I'll use the NET Bible for Scripture quotations; you can check it online at Matthew 1 | NET Bible
I probably should have started with Is 52:13, because v. 14 has a prophecy of Jesus' execution:
he was so disfigured he no longer looked like a man; his form was so marred he no longer looked human OK, now to Is 53:
Is 53:1a Who would have believed what we just heard?
quote:Exactly. Jn 12:38 matches Is 53:1a. quote:??? I don't know what you mean. My first verse-by-verse post was not claimed to be comprehensive. Is 53:2a He sprouted up like a twig before God,
The "twig" (or "root" or "shoot") recalls the choosing of David as King (1 Sam 16:5-13) and was mentioned earlier in the book of Isaiah in a clear reference to the Messiah who was to come:
like a root out of parched soil Is. 11:1 A shoot will grow out of Jesse’s root stock,
This clarifies for us (in case we wondered) that Is 53 really is speaking of the Messiah.a bud will sprout from his roots. Is. 11:2 The LORD’s spirit will rest on him— a spirit that gives extraordinary wisdom, a spirit that provides the ability to execute plans, a spirit that produces absolute loyalty to the LORD. Is. 11:3 He will take delight in obeying the LORD. He will not judge by mere appearances, or make decisions on the basis of hearsay. Is. 11:4 He will treat the poor fairly, and make right decisions for the downtrodden of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth, and order the wicked to be executed. Next verse:
Is 53:3 He was despised and rejected by people,
one who experienced pain and was acquainted with illness; people hid their faces from him; he was despised, and we considered him insignificant. Jn 1:10-11 He was in the world, and the world was created by him, but the world did not recognize him.
He came to what was his own, but his own people did not receive him. quote:It seems like a pretty good match to me. This prophecy was fulfilled by Jesus. Next verse:
Is 53:4a But he lifted up our illnesses,
he carried our pain; Matt. 8:17 In this way what was spoken by Isaiah the prophet was fulfilled:
He took our weaknesses and carried our diseases. quote:It seems like a match to me; He healed people. But I agree with you that the rest of the verse seems to apply this to Jesus' substitutionary sacrifice, taking our sins on Himself:
Is 53:4b even though we thought he was being punished,
Perhaps the original prophecy has a dual reference (not uncommon in biblical prophecy).attacked by God, and afflicted for something he had done. Next verse:
Is. 53:5 He was wounded because of our rebellious deeds,
crushed because of our sins; he endured punishment that made us well; because of his wounds we have been healed. Rom. 4:25 He was given over because of our transgressions and was raised for the sake of our justification.
1Pet. 2:24 He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we may cease from sinning and live for righteousness. By his wounds you were healed. quote:??? I don't know what you're talking about. They may not specifically say "This is a fulfillment of prophecy", but they intentionally used phrases from the prophets, implicitly presenting this as a fulfillment of prophecy. quote:This seems to be a clear fulfillment of phrophecy. Isaiah was predicting Christ's vicarious suffering for our sins, and our vicarious healing as a result. Next verse:
Is. 53:6 All of us had wandered off like sheep;
each of us had strayed off on his own path, but the LORD caused the sin of all of us to attack him. 1Pet. 2:25 For you were going astray like sheep but now you have turned back to the shepherd and guardian of your souls.
quote:Exactly. He took our sins on himself and died in our place. In return, He places His righteousness on us. This vicarious, substitutionary atonement is central to the gospel message. quote:The fact that sin was transferred to Christ is central to the gospel! This takes us through Is 53:6. The next few verses are even more specific in describing Jesus, but the post is getting long, so I'll stop the verse-by-verse here for now and hope to pick it up later. A friend of mine wrote a summary of the prophecies of Jesus in Is 53. He identifies these:1) Born humbly (v.2) 2) Lived sinlessly (v.9) 3) Rejected widely (v.3) 4) Tried unjustly (v.8) 5) Suffered silently (v.7) 6) Whipped cruelly (v.5) 7) Volunteered willingly (v.12) 8) Executed disgracefully (v.9) 9) Crucified vicariously (v.5) 10) Buried honorably (v.9) 11) Raised gloriously (v.12) 12) Forgives abundantly (v.11) My friend writes of the prophecies in Is 53, "There is only one person in recorded history to whom they can refer." Can you think of anyone other than Jesus who fits all of these descriptions?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
purpledawn writes: The use of the word "seed" has not been shown to mean followers of a person. if thats the case, then how is it that Jesus said to some religious Jews who were inclined to murder him;
quote: You will need to explain how it is that the devil is able to have decedents/seeds/children on the earth? How does the devil produce his children? Whom does he have sex with to do that and what human women ever had sex with the devil to produce his offspring? Otherwise you may have to consider the alternative... Isaiah is not referring to physical offspring but rather spiritual offspring.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Hi bluescat,
do you know what line of reasoning they are using for the date of 4bce? Your link says:Herod was brought back to Jerusalem by two legions, VI Ferrata (whose men had already fought in Gaul and the civil wars) and another legion, perhaps III Gallica (37 BCE). Antigonus was defeated and after he had besieged and captured Jerusalem, and had defeated the last opposition (more), Herod could start his reign as sole ruler of Judaea. He assumed the title of basileus, the highest possible title. If you agree that Herod became the sole ruler of Judaea in 37bce, you might be interested to know that the Jewish historian Josephus reports that Herod died 37 years after his appointment by Rome and 34 years after his capture of Jerusalem. If those years are counted in each case according to the regnal year (meaning after a full 12 months), his death could have been in 1BCE.
bluescat writes: So if Christ was 33.5 years old in 33 CE Herod could not have sent the Magi to Bethlehem to give their gifts to the newborn nor would Herod have had to kill all male children 2 years of age or younger. thats right, Herod would have had to have died later for the account to be true. And there obviously is some debate over the timing of herods death among historians. the magi didnt visit a 'newborn' baby though...Jesus was a young child by the time they got there. this explains why Herod had calculated that all baby boys from 2 yrs of age and under should be killed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3458 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:John 8:44 is not using the term seed and the author isn't talking about literal offspring. The author is being metaphorical. It's a more insulting way to call someone a liar, especially for a religious person. BTW, the devil isn't a living being. This is an example of followers, not descendants. Followers are taught by their leader like children are taught by their parents. This doesn't show me that Isaiah meant followers when he used the word seed and not descendants. The use of the word see is very specific. Do you understand the difference yet? "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
purpledawn writes: John 8:44 is not using the term seed and the author isn't talking about literal offspring. The author is being metaphorical. John uses the term 'Father'. Are you saying that 'Father' has nothing to do with descendants or seeds. Are you also saying that Jesus didnt say those words, John made it up??
purpledawn writes: This is an example of followers, not descendants. Followers are taught by their leader like children are taught by their parents. Im not convinced of your reasoning on this one at all.If the devil isnt a living being, how can anyone be his 'follower' The account in John is not a story telling account, he is relaying events during Jesus ministry...there is no metaphor in the context, no story being told. Its pure reporting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3458 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
I don't appreciate having to do this again with a different translation, but I will use the NET Bible as you wish. Once more with feeling.
quote:But it doesn't. God clearly says: he was. That's past tense, not the future. Then God says: "so now he will". We have flashback and then back to the present. 52:14-15 (just as many were horrified by the sight of you) he was so disfigured he no longer looked like a man; his form was so marred he no longer looked human — so now he will startle many nations. Kings will be shocked by his exaltation, 28 for they will witness something unannounced to them, and they will understand something they had not heard about. The wording doesn't suggest an execution or described what we know of Jesus at his execution even poetically. Verse 1
53:1 Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the Lord’s power revealed through him? This rhetorical question is in the present, not future; so it has nothing to do with John 12:38. Per your NET notes, the speaker changes at this point.
The speaker shifts here from God to an unidentified group (note the first person plural pronouns throughout vv. 1-6). The content of the speech suggests that the prophet speaks here as representative of the sinful nation Israel. The group acknowledges its sin and recognizes that the servant suffered on their behalf. The Jews would say that the Gentiles are the unidentified group who is acknowledging their sin and recognizing that the servant suffered on their behalf. Notice that the group is acknowledging that the servant suffered, not will suffer. Already done. Also per you NET notes:
Heb the arm of the Lord. The arm of the Lord is a metaphor of military power; it pictures the Lord as a warrior who bares his arm, takes up his weapon, and crushes his enemies ... But Israel had not seen the Lord’s military power at work in the servant. So this also would not fit with Jesus. He didn't have a military. It does make a case for the Gentiles being the unidentified group though. They apparently hadn't seen Israel show any military might. Remember what is going on in history when Isaiah is speaking. Verse 2
He sprouted up like a twig before God, like a root out of parched soil; he had no stately form or majesty that might catch our attention, no special appearance that we should want to follow him quote: Please notice verse 53:2 is also past tense. He grew up, not will grow up. Isaiah 11:1 just says the person will come from Jesse's line. They're an agricultural people, so their metaphors are derived from what they know. It isn't the same word used in Isaiah 53:2. The word used here describes a branch growing out of a tree. Family tree. Isaiah 53:2 is saying he grew up just like a young plant grows up. The word used here describes a growing plant, not a tree. Yes, a tree is a plant, but that isn't the image the word is to present. The NET notes suggest that the root out of parched soil is a metaphor that suggests insignificance. I don't think Jesus was ever portrayed as growing up insignificant. Saying the words fit doesn't make them fit. Show me that all the words fit and why. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3458 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:The term father is not exclusive to offspring. Father in the dictionary Priests are called father. (No offspring there obviously)There are the Church fathers. George Washington is called the father of our country (United States). No we are not of his seed. My ancestors got here way before him. The Devil is called the father of lies. There are no lie seeds. If you don't understand or don't accept creative language or literary devices, I'm not sure how you can learn anything from the Bible writers. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
purpledawn writes: The term father is not exclusive to offspring. Father in the dictionary exactly right, just as the scriptures show that the term 'seed' is not exclusive to offspring. The term has a variety of meanings in scripture. An example is in the case of Luke 8:11 "Now the illustration means this: The seed is the word of God" Here Jesus applies 'seed' to Gods word...it has nothing to do with offspring here. So why, in the instance of Isaiah 53, do you reject a figurative use of the word 'seed'? Edited by Peg, : No reason given. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3458 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Verse 3
53:3 He was despised and rejected by people, one who experienced pain and was acquainted with illness; people hid their faces from him; he was despised, and we considered him insignificant. quote:You didn't explain anything. Thanks! If all you're going to say is, "It looks like a match to me." ; then you're wasting my time. So really explain how John's comment in John 1:10-11 is deemed a prophecy let alone a match for Isaiah. Notice it is again past tense, not aimed at the future. Verse 4-9 These are all past tense. At the time Isaiah was speaking all this had supposedly already taken place. How can Isaiah 53 be about Jesus??? Verse 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 This one still presents a problem. Descendants and long life. God is saying he will bless him with descendants and long life to show people the servant is back in God's favor once restitution is made. If those things don't really happen, he won't be consider by the people to be blessed by God or in God's favor which will make it difficult for him to accomplish God's purpose. So now in verses 11 and 12 God is proclaiming the servant’s vindication and exaltation as the NET notes put it. If you read the entire poem, you will see that whatever happened to the servant; already happened at the time Isaiah was speaking. This throws Jesus out of the picture. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Your link says: Herod was brought back to Jerusalem by two legions, VI Ferrata (whose men had already fought in Gaul and the civil wars) and another legion, perhaps III Gallica (37 BCE). Antigonus was defeated and after he had besieged and captured Jerusalem, and had defeated the last opposition (more), Herod could start his reign as sole ruler of Judaea. He assumed the title of basileus, the highest possible title. If you agree that Herod became the sole ruler of Judaea in 37bce, you might be interested to know that the Jewish historian Josephus reports that Herod died 37 years after his appointment by Rome and 34 years after his capture of Jerusalem. If those years are counted in each case according to the regnal year (meaning after a full 12 months), his death could have been in 1 BCE. You just proved my point that the dates are all speculative, and cannot be trusted no matter what the source. The fact that all these witings occured long after the fact further dilutes their credibility. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024