Another failed prophecy?

Isa 52:1 No more uncircumcised people would ever enter into Jerusalem.

RR, better learn up before making allegations about something you apparantly know little about. This is a prophecy of the messianic kingdom age when Jerusalem, Judah and all Israel will be owned and occupied by Jews with Jesus as king.As prophesied by OT prophets, Jesus and the apostles, Jews will reoccupy the land and specifically Jerusalem. In 1948 it became a nation again an eventually will be totally secured, never to be reoccupied by the gentile.

That's not how my Bible reads Buz, in mine Isa 52:1 reads "Jerusalem, henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean" You do realize what hencefore means right? I'm just asking because it appears that you believe hencefore to mean something like "in the future" Anyways what is your textual evidence of what you claim Buz?

quote:

---

Isa 52:1 No more uncircumcised people would ever enter into Jerusalem.

​

The Revenge of Reason

---

If you had an interest in providing some aspect of truth, the least one would expect is to provide the entire verse you've misquoted.Does wonders for a proper presective.
52:1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem , the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.And if want to further your prespective, reading joining verses helps. 2 Shake thyself from the dust; arise, [and] sit down, O Jerusalem : loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion.
Hebrews 12:22

​

But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem , and to an innumerable company of angels, 23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, 24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than [that of] Abel. 25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more [shall not] we [escape], if we turn away from him that [speaketh] from heaven: 26 Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven. 27 And this [word], Yet once more, signifieth the removing of those things that are shaken, as of things that are made, that those things which cannot be shaken may remain. 28 Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear: 29 For our God [is] a consuming fire.Rev 20:14

​

And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea. 2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem , coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, [and be] their God.

quote:

---

Originally posted by P e t e r

​

Does wonders for a proper perspective

---

While I agree that full perspective is always to be considered, I think your Hebrews and Revelation citations are basically irrelevant to the question here. I see every indication that chapter 52 of Isaiah is referring to Judah's return from captivity in Babylon, rather than a future eschatological ideal.For example:Is. 52:4-5 "My people went down aforetime into Egypt. . and the Assyrian oppressed them without cause. Now therefore, what have I here . . that my people is taken away for nought? . . ."IOW, first they were enslaved in Egypt, then oppressed by the Assyrians, and are now taken away to Babylon.Is. 52:2 ". . . loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion."IOW, Judah has until this moment been held captive (in Babylon).Is. 52:9 "Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jersualem; for the Lord has comforted his people, he has redeemed Jerusalem.""waste places of Jersualem", i.e. Jerusalem was destroyed and left desolate by the Babylonians. But now God has (past tense) redeemed his people (via his servant Cyrus) so that they can return.Is. 52:11 "Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her (i.e. Babylon); be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord."IOW, depart out of Babylon. And "be ye clean that bear the vessels of the Lord": Cyrus ordered that the temple vessels be returned to the Judahites so that they could "bear" them back to Jerusalam from Babylon.Is. 52:12 "For ye shall not go out with haste, nor go by flight . . ."IOW, they don't have to flee from Babylon because (God's servant) Cyrus has vanquished their captor and allowed for their unhindered return to Jerusalem.This is very clear and fits the historical context perfectly. The only reason that someone would argue for a future eschatological ideal here is that, once again, Judah failed to "live happily ever after". The uncircumcised definitely came into Jerusalem later in the form of Antiochus IV, among others.This (likely 3rd) contributing author to the text of Isaiah, had high hopes that their return from Babylon to rebuild the temple would prove to establish an ideal kingdom ruled by God. As it happened, he was wrong.Namaste'Amlodhi[This message has been edited by Amlodhi, 03-26-2004]

I'm concluding you haven't reached the "eschatological ideal" by faith or otherwise and in such an unenlightened state,
I'd have to conclude your perspective is lacking from experience or first hand knowledge.

​

Hebrews 11:5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. 6 But without faith [it is] impossible to please [him]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and [that] he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.I got a hunch that Enoch is or will be hanging out in the holy city of Jerusalem while the souls of men live and die through the ages and also the city of Jerusalem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by P e t e r

​

I'm concluding you haven't reached the "eschatological ideal" by faith or otherwise and in such an unenlightened state, I'd have to conclude your perspective is lacking from experience or first hand knowledge.

---

And you seem prone to trip over your presuppositions and come sprawling to conclusions. You know zip about my experience.Should we expect anything of substance from you regarding this textual issue? Or is it, perchance, your lack of experience and knowledge that is forcing you to take refuge in the Obi Wan Kenobi routine.Namaste'Amlodhi

Indeed, while I've attempted to persuade by verse and or reason the topics claim of "Another failed prophecy?" is incorrect, the onus of the originators claim or yourself hasn't convinced me otherwise.Granted it's a pretty big universe and verifying a difficult claim as this one through the use of text and persuasion is no small feat.The claim been made, the hard part is proving it so. Care to try again?Sorry about my conclusion of your lack of your "eschatological ideal", if you care share some of your spiritual revelations that would be great.

quote:

---

Originally posted by P e t e r

​

I've attempted to persuade by verse and or reason the topics claim of "Another failed prophecy?" is incorrect . . .

---

The original premise was put forward by R of R. It was countered by buzsaw's claim that Is. 52 describes the eschatological kingdom of Christian doctrine. The reasons why I (in opposition) understand this chapter to be describing the return from the Babylonian captivity have been given. And (so far), I have seen no counter-reasoning presented from the context of the chapter in question.Citations from NT passages containing later Christian eschatological doctrine are not only irrelevant to this issue, but they are also simply an attempt to beg the question. If you contend this methodology is valid, I can as easily quote gnostic scripture to prove gnostic doctrine.

quote:

---

P e t e r :

​

. . . the originators claim or yourself hasn't convinced me otherwise.

---

Convincing you is not a requirement.

quote:

---

P e t e r :

​

Sorry about my conclusion of your lack of your "eschatological ideal"

---

No worries. But it was the "lack of experience" part that you tripped over.

quote:

---

P e t e r :

​

. . . if you care (to) share some of your spiritual revelations that would be great.

---

I am prepared to make a fairly convincing argument that self-proclaimed "spiritual revelations" are not to be trusted.Namaste'Amlodhi

quote:

---

The original premise was put forward by R of R.

---

His premise should not be assumed as true because he quoted only a portion of the verse and it's intention, therefore his conclusion is also an error.

quote:

---

And (so far), I have seen no counter-reasoning presented from the context of the chapter in question.

---

Agreed, you read the passage but you didn't see it.52:1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem , the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean. I'll give you some clues, (emphasis on the word, awake);
John 11:11 These things said he: and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. 12 Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. 13 Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. 14 Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead.

​

Eph 5:. 14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.

​

Dan 12:2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake , some to everlasting life, and some to shame [and] everlasting contempt.

quote:

---

If you contend this methodology is valid, I can as easily quote gnostic scripture to prove gnostic doctrine.

---

OK, I'llI take the bait, prove gnostic doctrine by quoting qnostic scripture.Myself I use a lot more faith than proof for much of what is written in verse.As I wrote earlier, the "premise" itself is flawed just by logical deduction.

quote:

---

I am prepared to make a fairly convincing argument that self-proclaimed "spiritual revelations" are not to be trusted.

---

Ahh, so my initial statement; "I'm concluding you haven't reached the "eschatological ideal" by faith or otherwise and in such an unenlightened state,
I'd have to conclude your perspective is lacking from experience or first hand knowledge."
was correct after all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by P e t e r :

​

His premise should not be assumed as true because he quoted only a portion of the verse and it's intention. . .

---

The premise isn't being assumed. I have listed the reasons why I think the context of chapter 52 supports the premise. Said reasons being the part which you have consistently failed to address.

quote:

---

P e t e r :

​

. . . therefore his conclusion is also an error.

---

Are you merely assuming this? Or do you intend to present some substantial support for this position.

quote:

---

P e t e r :

​

Agreed, you read the passage but you didn't see it.

​

52:1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem , the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.

​

I'll give you some clues, (emphasis on the word, awake);

---

Oh, thank you. Now let me give you a clue.The Hebrew term translated as "awake" in Isaiah 52:1 is עור ('uwr) which specifically translates to "stir up" (i.e. prompt to action) and is also used in the reflexive, i.e. "stir one's self up". This same term, עור ('uwr), is also used by Isaiah in chapter 13, as follows:Isaiah 13:17 "Behold, I stir up ('uwr) the Medes against them . . ." Using your dubious eisegesis, this must mean that God is going to resurrect the Median army to attack the Babylonians?In contrast, the (completely different) term translated as "awake" in your Dan. 12:2 quotation is קוצ (quwts) which conveys the sense of "abruptness in starting up from sleep".Thus, your own citations refute you.

quote:

---

P e t e r :

​

OK, I'llI take the bait, prove gnostic doctrine by quoting qnostic scripture.

---

It wasn't "bait". It was a point; one which you seem to have missed entirely. Listen closely: Yes, I can quote gnostic scripture. But that would not prove gnostic scripture anymore than your quoting NT scripture proves NT scripture. That was the point. How can you fail to understand this?

quote:

---

P e t e r :

​

Myself I use a lot more faith than proof for much of what is written in verse.

---

I noticed. More specifically, you're only interested in pretending the verse says what you want it to say rather than in making any real effort to understand it.

quote:

---

P e t e r :

​

As I wrote earlier, the "premise" itself is flawed just by logical deduction.

---

The premise: If the context of Isaiah chapter 52 is the return from Babylonian captivity, then this author was wrong in stating that "henceforth" the uncircumcised shall no more come into Jerusalem. The reasons for understanding the chapter in this context have been given. There is nothing illogical in this. The only "flaw" I have seen evidenced so far is your conspicuous evasion of the issue.

quote:

---

P e t e r :

​

Ahh, so my initial statement; "I'm concluding you haven't reached the "eschatological ideal" by faith or otherwise and in such an unenlightened state, I'd have to conclude your perspective is lacking from experience or first hand knowledge" was correct after all.

---

No, it wasn't. As I stated, you know nothing of my past experience. As it is, that experience informs me that you do not possess some "transcendental wisdom"; much as you like to pretend that you do.Namaste'Amlodhi

Wow, our reasoning and perspectives are so different. We should be able to concur on that at least.

quote:

---

The premise isn't being assumed.

---

An essential component of a premise is to assume a truth to which a conclusion can be drawn.If you've got the facts then I don't think"premise" is the word to use in your statement

quote:

---

Said reasons being the part which you have consistently failed to address..

---

You classified some of them as "irrelevant" and again you say I haven't addressed them.Must one of the differences of reasoning we have.

quote:

---

Or do you intend to present some substantial support for this position.

---

Stands to reason,(read as substantial support) when R-R quotes only a portion of a complete sentence and draws a definitive conclusion from only that portion of the sentences complete thought, his conclusion is inevitably an error. Seem pretty basic to me, can't figure why that isn't reasonable for you.

quote:

---

Oh, thank you. Now let me give you a clue.

---

By giving other clues doesn't nullify the ones I've given. To do so, I would consider to bad reasoning.
I would suggest taking the clues given and work with those for a possible insight other than what you seem determined or not able to consider.

quote:

---

I noticed. More specifically, you're only interested in pretending the verse says what you want it to say rather than in making any real effort to understand it.

---

I'd have to disagree with your reasoning. My intention was to show other probabilities that could exist in a spiritual realm, to which you repeatedly cast away as irrelevant. Spiritual realm being what it is, I'm no authority on it and I don't recall giving any specifics, only clues.

quote:

---

The premise: If the context of Isaiah chapter 52 is the return from Babylonian captivity, then this author was wrong in stating that "henceforth" the uncircumcised shall no more come into Jerusalem.

---

I'll repeat myself again, I wrote, when R-R quotes only a portion of a complete sentence and draws a definitive conclusion from only that portion of the sentences complete thought, his conclusion is inevitably an error.Considering the inspiration for the verse is God, being a spirit, it would stand to reason the possibility that a spiritual Jerusalem being created and the fulfillment of the verse and therefore R-R be in error.If I could prove a spiritual Jerusalem exists the issue would be settled, however I'm not doing that, rather I'm providing evidence of the spiritual Jerusalem existence to which you consider irrelevant.

quote:

---

As it is, that experience informs me that you do not possess some "transcendental wisdom"; much as you like to pretend that you do.

---

I'm convinced faith can take you a long way, and that faith in God an essential part of wisdom.Perhaps my little faith and or your lack of faith in God is a source of our differences of perspective.Heb 11:11:1

​

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. 2 For by it the elders obtained a good report. 3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. [This message has been edited by P e t e r, 03-29-2004]

quote:

---

Originally posted by P e t e r

​

An essential component of a premise is to assume a truth to which a conclusion can be drawn.

---

Premise - a proposition antecedently supposed as a basis of argument. [Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th ed.] (empasis mine)Note the word "antecedently". The premise is supposed; the argument and/or conclusion requires support/proof or it remains mere supposition. I have provided said support for my position. Your premise remains supposition.

quote:

---

P e t e r :

​

You classified some of them as "irrelevant" and again you say I haven't addressed them.

---

They are irrelevant. At issue is the literary/historical context of Isaiah chapter 52. The opinions of later NT authors are no more relevant than those of Friedrich Nietzsche.

quote:

---

P e t e r :

​

. . . when R-R quotes only a portion of a complete sentence. . .

---

I'm not R-R.

quote:

---

P e t e r :

​

By giving other clues doesn't nullify the ones I've given. To do so, I would consider to (be) bad reasoning.

---

Oh, but they did. They nullified your presuppositions completely by showing you that, in the Hebrew, the term translated as "awake" in this verse doesn't mean what you assumed it to mean. I would consider denial to be bad reasoning.

quote:

---

P e t e r :

​

My intention was to show other probabilities that could exist in a spiritual realm.

---

Probabilities?

quote:

---

P e t e r :

​

. . . I'm providing evidence of the spiritual Jerusalem existence to which you consider irrelevant.

---

You are providing no evidence; you can't use dogma to prove dogma. Further, even if it were possible to "prove" that a "spiritual Jerusalem" exists, it wouldn't mean that this author of Isaiah intended to describe Christian eschatological dogma in this chapter. Hence, it would still be irrelevant.As it is, you have no evidence whatsoever. Thus, your argument is that mere supposition is good reason to ignore the context and grammatical tense of the chapter in question.

quote:

---

P e t e r :

​

I'm convinced faith can take you a long way, and that faith in God (is) an essential part of wisdom.

---

Sybil Leek is convinced she is a witch. Many people are convinced that channelers talk to dead people. Etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Do you consider these beliefs relevant?Namaste'Amlodhi

Don't think we're going to agree on much, guess we'll have to wait this one out.Thanks for the exchange.Peter

Peter I only provided part of a verse in an attempt to be brief, I was not trying to mislead, sorry for the confusion. But I don't understand what point you are trying to make with your awake qoutes. First they all refer to people not places, I don't see how that is relevent. Second, what of these quotes:GEN 28:16 And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the LORD is in this place; and I knew it not.
or
Jud 5:12 Awake, awake, Deborah: awake, awake, utter a song: arise, Barak, and lead thy captivity captive, thou son of Abinoam
or
Psalm 44:23 Awake, why sleepest thou, O Lord? arise, cast us not off for ever
or
Mark 4:38 And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow: and they awake him, and say unto him, Master, carest thou not that we perish?Are you saying all these people were dead also? I find it annoying that you would suggest I was being deceitful for not providing an entire verse, when here you are providing all kinds of verses out of context (for the second time in the same thread.)