Are any of these prophecies fulfilled by Jesus?

Using the book to verify the same book is known as circular reasoning.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

That's a fallacy in itself, wish I knew a name for it. It's quite possible that a true history could be written reporting on a prophecy AND its fulfillment over time and by calling it circular reasoning you'd accomplish nothing but ensuring that you personally would never know that it was true.

In any case, what same book? The Bible is a collection of books, not one book. If you have a collection of essays or short stories by many authors in one book it would be only physically one book. Same with the Bible. There was no New Testament in Jesus' time, only the Old Testament. He read from it. The part He read from was a separate book unto itself, about seven hundred years old. His reading from it got written down along with reports of other things in His life. The writings about Jesus and the other writings of the apostles were copied and read separately in thousands of churches over hundreds of years before all the separate books got bound together in one.

Using bad logic to discredit the truth is a VERY bad policy.

ABE: Have you ever read the Bible, Pressie? If you have you should know that many of the books date themselves by reference to historical events reported in other books. Isaiah starts out telling us he is reporting on the period of certain kings of Judah, and names them: Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah. In chapter 39 he is referring to King Hezekiah. If you read the other books with their chronologies of the kings and events in Israel and Judah it becomes possible to put a date on many of the writings. OLD dates in the case of these kings. It would take a conspiratorial imagination beyond the ability of normal human beings to make all that up years later. Not to mention you're calling him a liar to think that of him.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith writes: That's a fallacy in itself, wish I knew a name for it.

Nope. No fallacy involved. Just that nobody knows exactly when the Book of Isiah was written by those different authors. No originals involved.

Faith writes: It's quite possible that a true history could be written reporting on a prophecy AND its fulfillment over time and by calling it circular reasoning you'd accomplish nothing but ensuring that you personally would never know that it was true.

Thanks for stating the obvious. Everything is possible. Probable, not.

Any reliable evidence that the original Jewish, Protestant, Eastern Orthodox Bible Books of Isaiah were written before the propecy came true, yet?

Yeah, Jesus proved Himself to be the Messiah. Not that you'd have any way of judging. But only because you're determined to deceive yourself.

As quoted in the New Testament, Luke 4, Jesus read from the book of Isaiah when He was in the synagogue at Nazareth, showing that they had a copy there too. That was a hundred years later than the Dead Sea scroll but you can be sure that if they had a copy of that book in Nazareth they had a copy of it in every synagogue in the whole scattered Hellenistic world,

That's a lot to conclude from one copy. But besides that, if you are disagreeing with Pressie, your attempted rebuttal would seem to be pointless, because Pressie concedes that the Dead Sea scroll dates from at 100-150 years earlier than Jesus birth and ministry.

That's evidence that the scroll was well known and well distributed in Jesus' time, which suggests something a lot older than a couple hundred years,

No it does not suggest anything more than a couple hundred years. You're starting with one copy, extrapolating that to a huge distribution and then insisting that 100 to 150 years is not enough time. That seems to me even more of a stretch than what you are complaining about.

And again, it's absurd in the extreme to think you can date any of the scriptures from the last extant copy known.

He does not seem to be doing that anymore.

What Pressie seems to be doing is not just acknowledging the age of the found copy, but inferring something from the fact that no earlier copies have turned up. While that is not strong evidence, at least it is not a logical fallacy. After all, creationist like to argue that no one has found a fossil of intermediate form X; an argument that would seem to have similar limitations to the argument Pressie makes.

So even if you absurdly prefer to date the book far more recently than either the ancient Jews or the Christian Church dated it, you can't date it after Jesus' announces the fulfillment of its prophecy in His time.

I think you are forgetting that the author of Luke is quoting Jesus in a book written after Jesus death rather than having Jesus speak to us directly. That is one problem of the many problems with using the text itself as verification. Anyone in Luke's time who wanted to had the whole OT available to cherry pick from and all of known events of Jesus past life from which to find matches to scripture.

What I am not saying is that the text is wrong. I am saying that using it as verification poses more questions than it answers.

In some respects, I don't see the worth of the argument. Assuming all of the descriptions in the Gospels are true, which is something you must do before even attempting to verify prophecy, there would seem to be more than enough to demonstrate that Jesus was the Son of God without establishing that Isaiah did or did not know of his coming.

This has been covered and quoted by many people so I'm doing this as a general reply.

[Isa 7:1-25 KJV] 1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, king of Judah, [that] Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah the son of Remaliah, king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, but could not prevail against it.
2 And it was told the house of David, saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim. And his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind.
3 Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field;
4 And say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah.
5 Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying,
6 Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, [even] the son of Tabeal:
7 Thus saith the Lord GOD, It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass.
8 For the head of Syria [is] Damascus, and the head of Damascus [is] Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people.
9 And the head of Ephraim [is] Samaria, and the head of Samaria [is] Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established.
10 Moreover the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying,
11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.
12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD.
13 And he said, Hear ye now, O house of David; [Is it] a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my God also?
14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin{almah} shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel{"god with us"}.
15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.
17 The LORD shall bring upon thee, and upon thy people, and upon thy father's house, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; [even] the king of Assyria.
18 And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] the LORD shall hiss for the fly that [is] in the uttermost part of the rivers of Egypt, and for the bee that [is] in the land of Assyria.
19 And they shall come, and shall rest all of them in the desolate valleys, and in the holes of the rocks, and upon all thorns, and upon all bushes.
20 In the same day shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired, [namely], by them beyond the river, by the king of Assyria, the head, and the hair of the feet: and it shall also consume the beard.
21 And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] a man shall nourish a young cow, and two sheep;
22 And it shall come to pass, for the abundance of milk [that] they shall give he shall eat butter: for butter and honey shall every one eat that is left in the land.
23 And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] every place shall be, where there were a thousand vines at a thousand silverlings, it shall [even] be for briers and thorns.
24 With arrows and with bows shall [men] come thither; because all the land shall become briers and thorns.
25 And [on] all hills that shall be digged with the mattock, there shall not come thither the fear of briers and thorns: but it shall be for the sending forth of oxen, and for the treading of lesser cattle.

"Isaiah promises Ahaz that God will destroy his enemies and tells him to ask God for a sign that this is a true prophecy. A "sign", in this context, means a special event which confirms the prophet's words.[11] Ahaz's sign will be the birth of a son to an almah. The word almah has no exact equivalent in English: it probably meant a young girl or woman who had not yet borne a child.[12] So the sign is that a young girl will conceive - or possibly has conceived and is already pregnant, the Hebrew is ambiguous - and give birth to a son; she is to name the boy Immanuel, meaning "God is with us" - the grammar of the Hebrew is clear that the naming will be done by the baby's mother - and God will destroy Ahaz's enemies before the child is able to tell right from wrong.[1]

The almah has been identified as either the mother of Hezekiah or the daughter of Isaiah.[13] There are, however, problems with both candidates: Hezekiah was born well before the war with Ephraim and Syria began, and although almah does not specifically mean "virgin" it probably does mean a girl who has not yet had a child, and Isaiah already has a son. In any case the significance of the Immanuel sign is not the identity of the child and its mother but the meaning of the name ("God is with us") and, most important, the role it plays in identifying the length of time before God will destroy the Ephraimite-Syrian coalition (before the child learns right from wrong).[12]"

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaiah_7:14#The_Book_of_Isaiah

So it couldn't have been one of Isaiah's relatives. Jesus also fulfills this prophecy because both kings are destroyed long before Jesus is born.

Not only that if you look back to verse 8 it gives a total length of time of 65 years for Ephraim to be destroyed ("not a people"). Surely by then the child would not be considered a child and wouldn't be referenced as such.

Therefore it could easily be a prophecy about Jesus.

quote:

---

Jesus also fulfills this prophecy because both kings are destroyed long before Jesus is born.

---

You mean that Jesus utterly FAILS to fulfil the prophecy because he was born long after both kings were destroyed.

A sign has to occur before the event or it is useless.

Jesus also fulfills this prophecy because both kings are destroyed long before Jesus is born.

That doesn't seem to fit, to me. It says:

quote:

---

14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin{almah} shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel{"god with us"}.
15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good.
16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.

---

So to me that is saying that the child will be born before the kings are destroyed, but the kings will be destroyed before the child grows up.

It doesn't makes sense as saying that the kings will be destroyed before the child is even born. It just doesn't read that way; he's born, he eats butter and honey, but then before he grows up the kings will be destroyed.

Using the book to verify the same book is known as circular reasoning.

Using that same logic using fossils to date geological layers and using geological layers to date fossils is circular reasoning.

We can infer from the writing and references in outside sources that some of these books are nearly as old as they claim to be.

As to Jesus being who he said he was:

http://bobsiegel.net/...surrection-outside-the-new-testament

Same thing. Outside sources identify him and his deeds. You can choose to believe all of these people wrong, or you can choose to believe they were correct. That's your choice, but you can't argue with the facts.

Not only that if you look back to verse 8 it gives a total length of time of 65 years for Ephraim to be destroyed ("not a people"). Surely by then the child would not be considered a child and wouldn't be referenced as such. Therefore it could easily be a prophecy about Jesus.

Yikes, bro. You are swimming upstream, but unlike a salmon, there is no payoff for your doing so.

First, that the prophecy is at least about the Ahaz and son is not really questioned by anyone. That ought to at least make you question your reasoning. Christians typically insist on a dual prophecy.

Others have explained why your reading is wrong based on the text. I'm just suggesting that your mistake was completely avoidable.

Second of all, your reasoning amounts to 'Not about Ahaz's boy, therefore easily Jesus? Really? Would the form of that argument convince you if someone else used it about some other topic. For someone who prides himself on the ability to drop the names of fallacies, I find your reasoning here quite amusing.

We can infer from the writing and references in outside sources that some of these books are nearly as old as they claim to be.

That's exactly the kind of material that would add some substance to this discussion. Do you care to cite some of these sources regarding Isaiah in particular.

This is not really a thread, where anyone, and certainly not I, am questioning whether Jesus lived or performed miracles. The question is strictly whether Isaiah had any clue about Jesus coming and whether he wrote about it in the book named after him.

Bob doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. The Talmud references to a Yeshua are not in time and place with the bible Jesus. One says he was from 100 BCE the other 200-500 CE. All the references are from the 3rd century CE or later.

Here is some quick info
http://en.wikipedia.org/..._evidence_of_the_historical_Jesus

Josephus is years after and his writings even later. Josephus is not a primary source.

Kapyong, an ex-member here, had a great post that addressed these supposed historical references.
Message 8

Jesus also fulfills this prophecy because both kings are destroyed long before Jesus is born. That doesn't seem to fit, to me. It says: quote: 14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin{almah} shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel{"god with us"}. 15 Butter and honey shall he eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. 16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good, the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings. So to me that is saying that the child will be born before the kings are destroyed, but the kings will be destroyed before the child grows up. It doesn't makes sense as saying that the kings will be destroyed before the child is even born. It just doesn't read that way; he's born, he eats butter and honey, but then before he grows up the kings will be destroyed.

It doesn't actually say that either, you are taking that as implied, but its not actually there.

Also if you are correct and Isaiah isn't talking about his close relatives having a child, then it could be any child born at any time from that point on. Meaning any child in the entire country. It could be a child born 60 years from then which would eat the good food and be able to discern what is good food and what is bad food but before he grows up the kings will be destroyed. In other words it reads as nonsense in that way. Any first born child of the time right before the destruction of the kings would fit that description.

The only way you can read it and have it make any sense is that it is talking about some future person being born to a woman who hasn't had a child and the child will grow up after the kings have been destroyed.

quote: Jesus also fulfills this prophecy because both kings are destroyed long before Jesus is born. You mean that Jesus utterly FAILS to fulfil the prophecy because he was born long after both kings were destroyed. A sign has to occur before the event or it is useless.

Actually no. Its just as likely that the prophecy was about something else that happens much later. You'll note that the prophecy says 'your enemies' instead of naming the two countries.

Bob doesn't know what the hell he is talking about. The Talmud references to a Yeshua are not in time and place with the bible Jesus. One says he was from 100 BCE the other 200-500 CE. All the references are from the 3rd century CE or later. Here is some quick info http://en.wikipedia.org/..._evidence_of_the_historical_Jesus Josephus is years after and his writings even later. Josephus is not a primary source. Kapyong, an ex-member here, had a great post that addressed these supposed historical references. Message 8

Insults and profanity don't help your point, in fact it makes it harder to take your point seriously.

That aside, I see you must not have read his references. He goes through in the bottom half o his article and vets Josephus and his quotes thoroughly by talking about other authors that talk about the original works and Josephus's works. Using the same kind of networking verification used to tell of any other ancient works authenticity, strangely enough he mentions how this kind of verification is widely accepted for anything that isn't Christianity, but when applied to Christianity it is disregarded and Christianity is held to an entirely different standard. Something that seems to be going on here as well.

Edit: Also Jesus was a common name and the link I provided earlier by bob talks about that.

Edited by lokiare, : Forgot to address a point. Editing before replies.