Fulfillments of Bible Prophecy

quote:

---

Why then was the Suffering Servant called "the righteous One"? (Isa. 53:11)

​

Why does it say "Nor was there any deceit in His mouth" (v.9)

​

It further says that "He was crushed because of our iniquities" (v.5)

​

Where's the hint in Isaiah 53 that He was crushed because of His OWN iniquities?

​

You're twisting the Bible.

​

Furthermore Isaiah says that He made Himself an offering for sin. The sin offering had to be without blemish. The spiritual meaning should be clear that the sin offering was itself to be without sin.

---

In Isaiah 53:11, the usage of righteous may be used more as a legal reference. From the NET Bible notes:

quote:

---

Why does it say "Nor was there any deceit in His mouth"

---

Deceit is not the only sin out there. It just implies he didn't lie. I'm sure of your point.

quote:

---

Where's the hint in Isaiah 53 that He was crushed because of His OWN iniquities?

---

I didn't say that he was.

quote:

---

Furthermore Isaiah says that He made Himself an offering for sin. The sin offering had to be without blemish. The spiritual meaning should be clear that the sin offering was itself to be without sin.

---

Well the suffering servant and Jesus wouldn't qualify either. Blemish free deals with physical appearance and health, not actions. It means no cuts, bruises, disfigurement, etc. Plus humans weren't accepted as a sin offering. Literally they don't qualify, figuratively they wouldn't need to die.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

I know some claim that it was written after 70Ce but that claim is unfounded and has no evidence.

---

The evidence seems overwhelming. What proof do you have to back up your assertions?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

In the wilderness Yochan the immerser began preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins ...Now in those days Yehoshua came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by Yochan in the Jordan River ...One LoveEdited by Bailey, : bold

---

I'm not here to mock or condemn what you believe, I'm just a fool playing with ideas.
My only intention is to tickle your thinker. Trust nothing I say. Learn for yourself.
Think for yourself.Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Yet, the 'sin offering' would, itself, be without sin (blemish).Firstly, in that any sin that maintains a possibility of existence is dissolved when one turns and becomes joined to the Almighty (unto whom Yehoshua was enjoined), and secondly in that the offering was performed and accomplished outside of the wicked and devious sacrificial atonement system associated within the Levitical priestly caste that had come to dishonor God. For if Yehoshua, in cahootz with the entire lot of radical Jewish Prophets, despised one thing mutually, it would seem to be the bizarre and crass sacraficial bloodshedding which, through the Levites impotence of mercy and justice, became the destructive blemish of Our Father's ancient Israel; and continues, unto this day, to poison the springs of salvation and wisdom Yehoshua established.One Love

I've repeatedly mentioned it. Yes, I have called on the name of Jesus, Christ, Yahweh, God and Lord at least. Maybe this, maybe that. Despite the fact that you have thanked me for my clarification you are still missing the fullness of the problem. How about you stop skimming my posts and hiding behind the fact that I used a single and marginally unpleasant word via a common colloquialism in a post directed at a different poster and instead try paying attention to my argument?I said I think you are having issues arguing in good faith, my opinion in this regard grows.I don't feel like trying to find new ways to discuss points that you don't even begin to attempt to address, so I will just copy/paste them from my last reply.You said that the prophecy is that Yahweh's name is rich to all those that call. I called, and I experienced no richness.
There are two possibilities.1) The prophecy is false.
2) The prophecy cannot be falsified.I know, by virtue of us continuing to have this debate, that you are rejecting position 1. What I am trying to do is to convince you that this only leaves position 2. That it doesn't matter what happens when I call out to Jesus or Yahweh or Krsna or whoever, you will not consider it a failure of the prophecy.You will explain away the 'miss', you will attempt to focus on the 'hit'. I said this quite early on, and you have not failed to continue to do this.Will you accept, that a prophecy that could be seen as a fulfilled prophecy no matter what happens in the future, is a useless prophecy for the purposes of this thread? If nobody felt the richness upon calling on Yahweh, it would be just as much of a success as if nobody felt the richness and it would just as much of a success if there was a mixture of people's feelings. We could explain that those that don't experience richness don't meet some criteria (not trying hard enough, aren't attempting it in the right temporal context, aren't sincere, are too sceptical, they secretly want it to fail, you don't know what feeling rich means - maybe you feel it but don't realize it etc etc), and those that do feel it: success!

---

I am not looking for you to add to the list of excuses as to why the prophecy hasn't come true. I didn't use the Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, English, German or Spanish form of the Christian Messiah's name. I didn't try, I didn't believe before hand, it wasn't the right time, I was too sceptical etc etc etc ad nauseum. The very fact that between the believers you've managed to come up with such a dazzling array of 'reasons' why the prophecy did not hold up should be a big warning light of unfalsifiability. Address the problem that once we allow these kinds of excuses all possible future outcomes would be covered by the prophecy: everything is proof of the prophecy, and nothing shows that it is wrong.I didn't expect getting you to address this point was going to be easy: it wouldn't be such a successful confidence trick if you were able to deal with this.

Sure Luke is nowhere named in the account but ancient authorities agree that he was the writer. The Gospel is attributed to Luke in the Muratorian Fragment (c. 170CE) and was accepted by such second-century writers as Irenaeus and Clement of Alexandria.In any casew it doesnt matter who the author of the book was, the prophecies and the recorded history are the important thing.

while i understand why you are saying this, i feel I have to clarify that ANYONE can become spiritual descendants of Abraham. Its not as if some are predestined to receive understanding and some will never receive it.If someone really wants understanding, God will grant it. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Yes, when lost sinners are "willing" to repent of their sins, God will save them. But God's salvation is "both" man being willing to enter into His salvation (John 3:16), and God the Father drawing sinners to our Savior (John 6:44).I'm forever gratefull that I'm one of John 3:16's "whosoever wills," and that God's people are a "chosen" race (John 15:16,19; 1 Pet 2:9).Blessings Edited by John 10:10, : added Bible reference

My point is there is no corroborating evidence. The only evidence is Biblical writing.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since 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

Though technical, this is not very convincing to me given the tenor of the whole chapter. I don't see readily how much difference would be made with English expressions like "vindicate," or "lead to righteousness," or "render justice," etc.Nothing in Isa. 53 remotely suggests that one sinner is himself a sin or trespass offering for others. The whole concept of the chapter is that a righteous and innocent Servant made Himself a sin offering for others not righteous. He took on not what He deserved but what they deserved. And doing so justified them as the sin or trespass offering was designed to do. Lying is not the only sin. True. But the accumulative effect of the discriptions of the Suffering Servant is His purity.Your hunting for indications to the contrary is like looking for hen's teeth. The accumulative effect is to His righteousness. You're going against the tone of the passages in an attempt to twist them. Then where is the hint of His own iniquities period ? Wrong. It is ridiculous to assume that the sin offering was to justify people as to their physical perfection before the priests. It was to their moral corrections the offerings were instituted.Actions needed to be atoned for, for the most part, and not physical imperfections.There is some mention of people not being allowed to enter the temple because of physical defects. But the far greater purpose of the Levititcal offerings concerned sinul ACTIONS in need of atonement. In interpreting as you are you are practically destroying ancient Judaism, not to speak of your unwarranted attack on the Christian faith. Humans were not accepted until the Suffering Servant (Who was sinless) came to offer Himself once for all for the sins of the people. No one before Him was qualified.This offering of the Human offering for sin was done:1.) By Jehovah - (v.6) "And Jehovah has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him." 2.) And by the Servant Himself - (v.10) " ... He makes Himself an offering for sin."His making Himself an offering for sin is pleasing to Jehovah and not displeasing - "But Jehovah was PLEASED to crush Him, to afflict Him with grief. When He makes Himself an offering for sin ..."Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I believe that Christians should be decerning and not wreckless when it comes to intepreting prophesies. I don't think we should easily jump to the conclusion that this or that event is the fulfillment of a prophecy.So you insist to me "But I DID call on Jesus and nothing has happened."Okay, maybe that problem of yours is too hard for me to solve. However, I don' think I will play into you hands and say because of your problem therefore prophecies in the Bible are unreliable in general.I'm sorry that you experience nothing of the richness of what and Who Jesus Christ is (for whatever reason that may be).But I know 100 times more people personally who daily call on the the Lord Jesus in all kinds of situations. And His attributes are rich and richly experienced by them.PSSome readers of this post may be interested in this website on calling on the name of the Lord:Calling on the LordSome readers may be interested in these topics covered in the above website: Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Again, I need to ask. Can you quite your preaching and try to defend your previous assertions.Your fundie website had no business being posted on the forum. It does nothing to bolster your argument. It does show that your true interest in coming here is to preachABE
Why is it that fundie websites all look like they were designed on AOL 10 years ago?Edited by Theodoric, : Editorial comment

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

You should know that there is extra-biblical testimonial to the fact that Jesus lived and died.Now I am not sure if you understand that there might be a vested interest in DENYING at all costs certain aspects of His existence.When you ask, for example, for extra-biblical testimony that Jesus rose from the dead, I think there would be the problem of the vested interest of unbelievers in Christ's Lordship to deny it.Sometimes I get the impression that what some skeptics want is a record of some atheist saying "Yep, Jesus was raised from the dead by God."But that would make them Christian believers, wouldn't it? Then they would be discarded by skeptics as not reliable or objective.I don't mind looking into your request of extra-biblical confirmation of Bible prophecy having come to pass. However, I am not sure how to solve the problem of the vested interest in unbelievers as "outsiders" to the faith, wanting to naturally deny the truth of the Bible.Are you saying "Give us the confirmation of unbelievers in the Bible to the truth of the Bible"?Look at all the resistence that has been raised on trying to get some of you to see that Isaiah 53 most impressively points to Jesus.I have also see quite a bit of resistence to extra-biblical testimonial that Jesus was extraordinary and lived. Popular is the excuse that such historical testimonial was forged by Christians.What do you do? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I am not sure what you mean by preaching. But you have your style of writing and I have mine.You don't have to sit passively in a pew and make no remark by "Amen" to my "preaching". Please point out the rule where that is not allowed.If it is a waste of your time to talk with me, then go find someone else to talk to.I'm here. And until I'm banned I post what I post the way I post it.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Nothing in Isa. 53 remotely suggests that one sinner is himself a sin or trespass offering for others. The whole concept of the chapter is that a righteous and innocent Servant made Himself a sin offering for others not righteous. He took on not what He deserved but what they deserved. And doing so justified them as the sin or trespass offering was designed to do.

---

Again the idea that one is still considered a sinner after one has repented, is a later concept. Show me that contemporaries of Isaiah felt the same way. The servant could have sinned at some point in his life and repented. He is still considered righteous before God.

quote:

---

Your hunting for indications to the contrary is like looking for hen's teeth. The accumulative effect is to His righteousness. You're going against the tone of the passages in an attempt to twist them.

---

I'm not looking for anything. I don't have a need for the servant to be sinless, as in never having committed a sin. Isaiah doesn't present the servant as sinless and Jesus didn't present himself as sinless.You on the other hand need righteous to mean sinless so that it makes Jesus unique. Righteous doesn't automatically mean one hasn't committed a sin. Show me that it does.

quote:

---

Then where is the hint of His own iniquities period ?

---

That's not in the text. The point is that righteous does not mean sinless in Isaiah's time.

quote:

---

PD:
Well the suffering servant and Jesus wouldn't qualify either. Blemish free deals with physical appearance and health, not actions.

​

Wrong. It is ridiculous to assume that the sin offering was to justify people as to their physical perfection before the priests. It was to their moral corrections the offerings were instituted.

​

Actions needed to be atoned for, for the most part, and not physical imperfections.

​

There is some mention of people not being allowed to enter the temple because of physical defects. But the far greater purpose of the Levititcal offerings concerned sinul ACTIONS in need of atonement. In interpreting as you are you are practically destroying ancient Judaism, not to speak of your unwarranted attack on the Christian faith.

---

Pay attention! We are talking about the sin offering itself. The qualifications of the animal sacrificed. That is what is without blemish and it deals with the physical characteristics of the animal, not its actions. The purpose of the sin offering is different than the specifications of the sacrificial animal.

quote:

---

Humans were not accepted until the Suffering Servant (Who was sinless) came to offer Himself once for all for the sins of the people. No one before Him was qualified.

​

This offering of the Human offering for sin was done:

​

1.) By Jehovah - (v.6) "And Jehovah has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him."

​

2.) And by the Servant Himself - (v.10) " ... He makes Himself an offering for sin."

​

His making Himself an offering for sin is pleasing to Jehovah and not displeasing - "But Jehovah was PLEASED to crush Him, to afflict Him with grief. When He makes Himself an offering for sin ..."

---

Your God changes the rules when it suits him. Good to know.BTW, Jesus didn't offer himself. He was created for the purpose if you believe God sent his son as the author of John claims.
But then again Jesus Was Not A Sacrifice To Forgive Sins.So we really have to figure out what the author was trying to say to his audience since he didn't mean a literal death and sacrifice.Jesus teaching people to repent of their sins is what atoned for their sins. Not his death.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz