Fulfillments of Bible Prophecy

Theodoric, you are speaking to me now. I don't know about others but I rarely talk in terms of "PROVING" God. I speak in terms of indications that one is on the right track to believe in God or in the Bible.As I said before, you can forever state that something has not been proved. Much of this is posturing. The evidence of Jesus is the ultimate suffering servant refered to in Isaiah 53 lead me to believe that we are on the right track to accept the New Testament's teaching that He was.If I work real hard at it I can object that that is not proved."WEEEEll, it said that He didn't open His mouth. But really Jesus DID open His mouth once or twice while being judged. Sooooo, you haven't proved it yet !"Hedging bets was an expression. My point was that the reader should not judge the entire matter of prophetic fulfillment simply on whether the Jews at large believed of not.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

It has been said that Judaism is more than a religion. It has been said that it is a civilization. It has been a long lasting one too. Probably not as long as Egyptian civilization by the time of the birth of Jesus. But it had been long lasting nonetheless.When Cleopatra was queen of Egypt the pyramids had already been standing over 1,000 years. They had their own archeologists too digging around Egypt trying to determine what things were what which were built 2,000 years previous in thier own civilization.How is this relevant to the discussion at hand? My point is that when Jesus was born in Bethlehem the priests had already for centries been in expectation that a Messiah would be born in that city.That is how they knew to tell Herod when he asked where the "born king" of Israel would be.I don't know how "confirmation bias" arranged that a man like Jesus was born there.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

And you wrote that "the last thing" you want anyone to do is to do something for you. So you're tell us up front, that though you're asking questions, you don't want answers provided.As for my preaching, you can see that you're not restricted to sit passively in a pew and listen. You can challenge me at every point. Internet "preaching" gives that advantage to the one supposedly being preached to.You can also "preach" your own message. And you do.I think my point is made with you. I'm not terribly impressed with your insistence of "proof" of fulfilled prophecy. Like a good student of the Jesus Seminar or some other pop culture skeptical task force, you simply move the goal post ad infinitum that something has not yet been proved.What would constituted "proof" for you anyway? Just what would be proof for you that Isaiah 53 spoke concerning Jesus Christ. Exactly what would you accept as proof?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I think we are absolutely on the right track to believe the testimony of the New Testament made abundantly, that Isaiah 53 was a prophecy of Jesus.This prophecy contains these words: Now if this Suffering Servant poured out His soul unto death then how can He be around to enjoy the spoils of His death? He would have to be made alive again.Who is the Person in history Who supposedly bore the iniquities of sinners and was raised from the dead? He has to be resurrected to enjoy any spoils of His labors if they called for His death.Isaiah 53 also says: But if He is DEAD how can He? He must be resurrected, made to live again in order to see the fruit of His death and be satisfied.I think this refers to Jesus. Could that be Israel as a nation? Maybe so. However, the prophecy says that: If so then how can Israel be called in the prophecy "the righteous One, My Servant"? Which is it? Did the nation go astray from God or is the nation the righeous One? If "us all" refers to Israel then there is no need for Jehovah God to cause the iniquity of Israel to fall on Israel.The prophesy is that the iniquity of wayward one, or really wayward ones (plural) has been caused to fall on a righteous One. Of course we have to admit that the Jews have been crushed and afflicted. But they usually went to it kicking and screaming in regret of their sins. For example, the Assyrian or Babylonian invasions. Who was afflicted making Himself an offering for sin? There Jesus Christ makes Himself an offering for sin. Is someone else expected to come along who will be more noted for doing this? In other words the stroke should have fallen upon someone else who was deserving, It was due them. But instead the stroke fell on the Suffering Servant on thier behalf.Who else in history is known for this kind of substitutionary suffering and death? You could suggest that some other person like Mahatna Ghandi or M L King or Abraham Lincoln died an underserving death on behalf of others. Okay, but none of them was known to subsequently be satisfied with the fruit of their death or see the positive results of their death. They were no longer around to divide any spoil. And they all would admit that they were sinners among other sinners.The suffering servant should be a Jewish one. There have of course been a number of good Jews who suffered oppression and died. But this Jew has to be raised from the dead in order to see the fruit of the travail of his soul. He also has to be one who made intercession for the transgressors: Is there another Jew, raised from the dead, who uttered words like this: He made intecession for the trangressors. Is there a more notable instance of an innocent man under oppression, in His own words, for the sins of many, interceding for the forgiveness of sinners?Are you expecting someone is to come to be more appropriate a referant of Isaiah 53?So though some may say "Ya haven't proved it yet, that Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus." I think there is plenty there to suggest we are on the right track to assume Jesus Christ was the One being prophesied about.There may be some aspects of the prophecy which are still in progress. The part about the dividing of the spoils may not fully be realized yet. However the Apostle Paul did say that Christ was already leading a train of captive foes.You see Saul as a persecutor of the Christian church was one of those foes. But then he was led captive by Christ to be His apostle. He was a big spoil. Paul's thought is that every forgiven sinner is likewise a spoil being lead away in Christ's triumphant victory.I think Isaiah 53 is talking about Jesus. The New Testament confirms it.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.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 don't bother reading replies that start this way.So I'll leave off right here until you wake up a little.

My saying "Yes I did. Yes I do" refered to me saying that I experienced that Christ is rich to me because I called upon Him. I think you thought it refered to something else. Okay. I don't know. But my experience is not the same as yours.I was too quick to offer solutions. You see I have helped and seen a few people who did not know Jesus come to know Jesus, before my eyes.Maybe I was too eager. I would not say "You didn't believe hard enough."I really don't think that in myself I have anymore faith than anyone else. So strength of effort I would not be concerned about. There was a conspiracy against me. Every possible destraction came my way to turn me away from Christ, for years, years.I will not again second guess your experience unless you request my opinion on it. The passage said that the Lord is rich to all who call upon Him. Calling on the name of the Lord started with the fourth generation of mankind, with Enosh in Genesis 4:26.I think there would be over 500 references or examples of calling on the name of God. The vast majority of them are certainly positive.I know personally of thousands of people who would confirm the positive results of calling on the Lord Jesus. If you like to get in touch with them personally to confirm, I would be will to provide 10 or 20 email addresses.What rises up within me on many occasions when I call on the name of Jesus, I know is not of me alone. I enjoy sin and left to myself would do so as much as I could without being made to suffer.When I see temptation coming, I do not struggle or strive or grit my teeth to try to resist. I do not resolve to turn over a new leaf or promise to do better. When I handle the situation rightly I begin to call on the name of the Lord Jesus. And grace empowers me to escape.I have had over 35 years of this kind of experience. I began to have this kind of experience around 1974.Excuse me if I don't jump on your alternative explanation so readily. I think that the Lord is rich to all who call upon Him as the NT says.You know Paul identified the Christians by listening to them call on the name of Jesus according to the book of Acts. He bound all those who called upon this name. Why did they call? I think they also found it rich.Independent testimony of Rome confirms that they "chanted" the name of Jesus. They regarded it as a chant. That doesn't prove that it was rich. But they were doing it and were known for it.Some may argue that calling to another deity was also done. I don't doubt that. I have heard people sing Hari Krishna. You can talk to them about thier experience. Whatever it is it doesn't mean that the Lord Jesus is not rich to all who call upon Him. I find that thinking and reasoning about calling to the Lord Jesus is vastly inferior to actually calling to the Lord Jesus.While you reason about it, I rather spend the time to enjoy Him. If I find out at the end of my life that I was deceived, I have lost nothing.In fact I would do it again. Calling on the name of Jesus is the best possible practice I could have included in my life. There will be no regrets.As it stands, I do not think I have been deceived. I have not experienced this for everyone. That is true. I believe that word of God when it says that He is rich to all who call upon Him.Of course that is not the ONLY verse in the Bible. So I do have to make room for some other factors which might cause some interference. After all the Lord Himself did say some in "that day" would say "Lord Lord" and He will say that He did not allow them, or that He did not acknowledge them.This does not mean for me that it must be a permanent dismissal as in eternal perdition. But Jesus did say something like "Why do you call me Lord, Lord when you will not do what I tell you to do."So in that instance, there may be some discipline, some chastizement to the one calling Lord, Lord without regard to the will of God.All this does not really nullify the teaching that He is rich to all who call upon Him. That richness may be preceeded with some necessary discipline.I am going over this quickly and if you are not familiar with the passages you may have trouble following me. But I am a little pressed for time. I was talking about the passage which says that the Lord is rich to all who call upon Him. I believe firmly that I have experienced that. Of course that is not the only verse in the Bible. I am willing to consider other factors that may come into play mentioned elsewhere.I have seen a few unbelievers argue and argue. But when it comes down to asking them to try calling on the name of the Lord Jesus in a prayerful way, they stop arguing. It seems that their hands get sweaty. They seem to approach an event horizon. Somehow, instinctively they realize that to call on the name of Jesus will result in something serious.I have NEVER seen people reserve such caution towards any other name in history. When they come right up to it, they seem to sense deep within that to call Lord Jesus, Lord Jesus might just possibly result in a real change in their life.Why is that? Have to go now.

This does say something in response to Peg's reference to Isa 26.If you are refering to what I wrote, my reference was Isaiah 53:11 - 12.Is that what you are claiming to have refuted? I don't see it in the quotation above.If He poured out His soul unto death, He has to be made alive again in order to see and enjoy the fruit of His travail.This is not that figurative. This is practical.By the way - "Hind sight is 20/20" is okay a saying in regard to prophecy sometimes. I mean after His resurrection it says that Jesus " ... opened their minds to understand the Scripture"So if someone complains that no contemporary of Isaiah reading chapter 53 would see resurrection there, that MAY be true. Looking back on the prophecy, with the help of the New Testament opening our minds to understand the Scripture,, possibly was the only way one could really grasp what the Spirit of God meant there.At any rate, He died, He enjoyed the fruit of His travail and death. I think the death and resurrection of Jesus is being spoken of there.

Purpledawn wrote: The baptism of Jesus does not signify that He sinned and needed His sins washed away. It does signify that in His incarnation He came in the form of the fallen Adamic nature which needed to be denied, terminated, and buried because it is self bound and so independent.He all His life denied Himself and lived by the Father. With the fall of man an independent soul life came into existence. Jesus came in the form of this independent self yet without sin. The baptism of a righteoues man here signifies the burial of that independent self in order to deny the self and live out the Father who indwelt Him.Independently, Jesus' will was a good will. But He did not come to do His good independent will of a good man. He denied Himself and performed the will of His Father. Baptism was His way of demonstrating that He intended to deny Himself, even as a good man, and live through and by the Father's life.This passage shows that even the goodness of His human life He denied in order to do the Father's will not His own. In the goodness of His own human life He could say and judge with goodness and righteousness, because He was sinless. But even this goodness He denied in order to live out the Father's life and speak what He heard from the Father. Therefore Jesus denied Himself even though He was sinless. And baptism He insisted upon to demonstrate that even He was living not by Himself alone, but by His Father.Jesus did not come in the form of the unfallen Adam (before Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil). Jesus was incarnated in the form of the fallen man, yet without sin. Jesus came in the appearance of a fallen man yet without the sin of the fallen man.The footnote of the Recovery Version says concerning Romans 8:3: The Holy Bible Recovery VersionMy main point is Christ's requested baptism did not signfiy the washing away of Christ's sins. It signifed His intention to deny Himself, even the sinless self, and live out the Father's life and will.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.

There is no need for you to bulster the strength of your argument with fowl language.There are some prophecies which may be better than others to argue for evidence of the faithfulness of the Bible. However, we will not allow unbelievers to insist that a fulfillment of prophecy is not "universal" because they continue in unbelief.For example, Isaiah 53 speaks of the Suffering Servant dying for the sins of the people. Now if some atheist or agnostic says that he doesn't even BELEIVE that he has sinned or is in need of the forgiveness of sins, WHY On earth should we accept his saying the prophecy has not been fulfilled in Jesus' crucifixion?He doesn't even believe he is a sinner. What right does such a person have to say that the redemptive death of Christ is not a universal fulfillment of prophecy?Your unbelief in certain aspects of God's word does not qualify you to determine the non-unversality of prophecy.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Folks, Isaiah begins chapter 53 with the question "Who has believe our report?"This is the prophet speaking on behalf of himself and most likely OTHER prophets of God. The point of the question is that we should not be surprised at rampant unbelief in thier report.Modulous and purpledawn are simply examples of this rejection of the prophetic report concerning Christ.Not only so but the prophecy indicates that people of Christ's own generation would have a hard time understanding the import of His act: The high priest surpised the relgionist by prophesying that one man would die for the nation. For the most part, no one expected this to happen. This was another fulfillment of Isaiah 53 in Christ's redemptive death and resurrection.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I made a case. Termination of the old man in baptism is not only for its sins. It is even for living a "good" life yet apart from the Father's will.Jesus had no sins. Yet He denied Himself and did not His own will but the will of His Father.Burial in baptism signified His intention to put even His sinless self under termination to do the Father's will. So He insisted on being baptized.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Purpledawn again: Now this is curious. Wasn't it you saying that the seed had to not be taken metaphorically or spiritually? Now you metaphorically interpret what you wish, all in order to make the chapter refer to something else besides Christ.Do you see how you apply a double standard? I see you simply using what you complain against when it suits your purpose to point Isaiah's prophesy away from Jesus Christ.

Modulous,Rule 10 from the Forum Guidelines says this: Please refrain, Modulous, from refering to those who disagree with you as pulling things out of thier you know what. That's not civil and its inflamatory.And it adds no strength to your point either.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Purpledawn writes: Isaiah says " ... He poured out His soul unto death" (v.12). So physical death is more likely the meaning.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

We would neither go to Caiphas and the priests who cried out for the crucifixion of Jesus to find confirmation from them, on whether Jesus was the prophesied Son of God.We're not waiting for you to put your stamp of "universality" on something which you're hell bent on denying. And it ain't worth getting refuted about either. Better hush up. Shhhh.