Summations Only

I test to see if their claim is accurate.The issue is simple, does the claim stand up to examination?And of course I have shown the alleged prophecies to be unreliable. Once again I refer you to Message 3, Message 6 and Are any of these prophecies fulfilled by Jesus? where you will find actual evidence and not just fantasy and supposition.AbE: by the way, the unknown author of 2Peter is not one of the Prophets.

Uh, no, I do not rely on either the authorship or accuracy of Isaiah, rather I rely on what is actually written.And of course I have shown the alleged prophecies to be unreliable. Once again I refer you to Message 3, Message 6 and Are any of these prophecies fulfilled by Jesus? where you will find actual evidence and not just fantasy and supposition.

Don't give me that "We Christians" shit, it just won't fly. If you want to say that Your Chapter of Club Christian wishes to try to play word games to fake a fulfillment, then that is fine.But the child Jesus was NOT named Immanuel.And sorry, but after the fact claims of fulfillment don't mean much either unless it stands up to examination. As so often is the case you are starting with "... the prinicple that all the positive figures of the Old Testmanent are pointers to the greater One to come..." is a great example of what is known as "confirmation bias".The fact is that once again you must resort to quote-mining, taking pieces-parts out of context.

There is a difference between quoting and quote mining.What you do is quote mining, taking a small section out of context to force support for some dogma of your Chapter of Club Christian.What you do with Isaiah is to actually manufacture after the fact fulfillment.Jesus was never named Immanuel.In addition, Jesus did not meet the rest of the quote from Isaiah as I have pointed out to you many times.The passage from Isaiah where you mine the quote regarding being named Immanuel points not to Jesus but to a child that was contemporary.

That's called the theology of anything that can be misrepresented and taken out of context.Sorry but you offer nothing convincing. You are still simply trying to justify pulling pieces parts out of context to justify YOUR beliefs instead of dealing with what was actually written. It is dishonest and simply diminishes the worth of the Bible.

Sorry but that is another example of misrepresentation.Do you see the ellipsis in your quote?If they are there it is NOT in context.

Except of course that Isaiah 61 1-2 is Not a prophecy.Here it is in context:

quote:

---

61 The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me,
Because the Lord has anointed Me
To preach good tidings to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives,
And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,
And the day of vengeance of our God;
To comfort all who mourn,
3 To console those who mourn in Zion,
To give them beauty for ashes,
The oil of joy for mourning,
The garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness;
That they may be called trees of righteousness,
The planting of the Lord, that He may be glorified.

​

4 And they shall rebuild the old ruins,
They shall raise up the former desolations,
And they shall repair the ruined cities,
The desolations of many generations.
5 Strangers shall stand and feed your flocks,
And the sons of the foreigner
Shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.
6 But you shall be named the priests of the Lord,
They shall call you the servants of our God.
You shall eat the riches of the Gentiles,
And in their glory you shall boast.
7 Instead of your shame you shall have double honor,
And instead of confusion they shall rejoice in their portion.
Therefore in their land they shall possess double;
Everlasting joy shall be theirs.

​

8 For I, the Lord, love justice;
I hate robbery for burnt offering;
I will direct their work in truth,
And will make with them an everlasting covenant.
9 Their descendants shall be known among the Gentiles,
And their offspring among the people.
All who see them shall acknowledge them,
That they are the posterity whom the Lord has blessed.

​

10 I will greatly rejoice in the Lord,
My soul shall be joyful in my God;
For He has clothed me with the garments of salvation,
He has covered me with the robe of righteousness,
As a bridegroom decks himself with ornaments,
And as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.
11 For as the earth brings forth its bud,
As the garden causes the things that are sown in it to spring forth,
So the Lord God will cause righteousness and praise to spring forth before all the nations.

---

To take just the first two verses is quote mining, taking material out of context.

I'm sorry but simply continuing to quote mine has very little worth or impact.God gave me a brain and I imagine Her intent was that I use my brain.I can read.I do not have to resort to taking the contents out of context.

Sorry but anything that might happen in the future is by definition, unfulfilled.

Which is still not fulfilled prophecy. Jesus was not named Immanuel.In addition, when Isaiah is taken in context it becomes very clear that the child being spoken of as being named Immanuel is NOT someone that would be born hundreds of years later but rather someone who would be born and grow up within a decade of the prophecy.

The prophecies in Isaiah were fulfilled, and withing 20 years of their utterance as has been pointed out to you numerous times.The point is that they do not have anything to do with Jesus.

Too funny. Have you ever read the Bible?Isaiah 7:7-9 and Isaiah 7:14-17.The prophecy is that Israel and Aram were attacking Judah and the King of Judah feared they would win, but God sends a prophecy that Ahaz need not worry about them, they would get destroyed.And that happened. Assyria conquered Israel (and carted off much of the population) and Aram and Ephraim but not Judah.The Prophecy was fulfilled at that point.

But Isaiah 7 still has jackshit to do with Jesus.That phrase you so love to quote mine and take out of context is part of the prophecy concerning Israel, Aram and Ephraim and is the timing indicator. It is solely related to when the fulfillment would happen, before that child is even old enough to choose good instead of bad.Ahaz was not evil in the eyes of God according to the story, rather it was Israel that was abandoned by God.Have you ever read the Bible?

So once again, as expected, you simply do a Gish gallop and yet more totally irrelevant and valueless quote mining.You asked for an example of fulfilled Biblical Prophecy.I gave you an example of fulfilled Biblical Prophecy. God sent a prophecy to Ahaz. The prophecy was meant for Ahaz. The prophecy was fulfilled when Assyria attacked and destroyed Israel.Why do you continue to try to diminish the value of the Bible?It is NOT a book, it is an anthology of anthologies and different parts have different purposes as well as authors. 2 Kings (all of Kings) was meant as political propaganda. Israel and Judah are NOT synonymous and if you look at the section of 2 Kings you quoted it is written from the Israeli perspective while Isaiah is written from the perspective of Judah.That part of 2 Kings is the counter point to the story found in Isaiah, the other side of the coin. It explains why Israel was threatening Ahaz and in case you missed it, God told Ahaz "No worries mate, I got your back. Those folk will be gone before you could cook a mess of prawns on the barbie."Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Although it is slightly off topic, the current trend of the discussion is a great example of the contradictory nature found in much of the Bible.Israel and Judah were separate City States, often at war with each other and often claiming that God was on THEIR side. It's another evidence that the Bible was written by men to serve the purposes of the authors and their immediate audience and not for folk living thousands of years later.In this instance, Israel and Judah were at war. Each claimed that God was on their side. Isaiah was written from the point of view of Jerusalem and Judah while 2 Kings is written from the point of view of Israel. Both are works of political propaganda and meant to resonate with their respective audiences.In Isaiah the Kings of Israel are depicted as evil while in 2 Kings we see just the opposite, it is Judah that is vilified.Both are likely after the fact mythos.