Isaiah was not talking about Jesus - Prophecies, Promises, and Misquotes - All - The Skeptic's Annotated Bible Discussion Board - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
drseinfeld	Isaiah was not talking about Jesus		Lead	[-]
Posts: 6286 06/23/05 07:43:40	Tags : None Lk 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. This is from Isaiah but it is Isaiah referring to himself. Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
David from Texas	Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2001 06/23/05 18:17:11	*Quote:* Isaiah was not talking about Jesus drseinfeld Lk 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 4:19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 4:20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 4:21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears. This is from Isaiah but it is Isaiah referring to himself. Isaiah 61:1 The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound; 61:2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; If Isaiah is referring only to himself in verse 1, then who is the "I" in verses 8 and 10 referring to? The "I" in verse 8 is obviously that of the Lord, whereas the "I" in verse 10 is that of the prophet. The pronouns shift quickly in Isaiah 61, so why should we be so concerned that Isaiah is referring only to himself in verse 1? Is it not permitted for Isaiah to be speak of himself in verse 1, and at the same time prophesy what Jesus would say 700 years later? The same process occurs in Isaiah 50:4-8. The prophet begins by saying, "The Lord hath given me the tongue of the learned..." In verse 6, he says "I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting." It is no accident that the wealth of prophecies from the prophet Isaiah was fulfilled and continues to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The New Testament authors had no problem in seeing them.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
drseinfeld	Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 6286 06/24/05 04:37:13	DavefromTexas If Isaiah is referring only to himself in verse 1, then who is the "I" in verses 8 and 10 referring to? The "I" in verse 8 is obviously that of the Lord, whereas the "I" in verse 10 is that of the prophet. The pronouns shift quickly in Isaiah 61, so why should we be so concerned that Isaiah is referring only to himself in verse 1? drseinfeld Because the "prophecy" in Luke 4:18-19 quotes verses 1 and 2 which are about Isaiah, and not Jesus. The "I" in those verses refer to Isaiah. The "I" in verse 8 obvious refers to God, but so what? You look at the verse and figure, who does it refer to? Sometimes "I" can refer to God, but the verses quoted by Luke do not. DFT Is it not permitted for Isaiah to be speak of himself in verse 1, and at the same time prophesy what Jesus would say 700 years later? drseinfeld I think you're talking about dual prophecy, which is unbiblical. DFT The same process occurs in Isaiah 50:4-8. The prophet begins by saying, "The Lord hath given me the tongue of the learned..." In verse 6, he says "I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting." It is no accident that the wealth of prophecies from the prophet Isaiah was fulfilled and continues to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The New Testament authors had no problem in seeing them. drseinfeld They only saw them in their imagination. Muslims have no problem seeing Muhammad as the comforter that will be sent. Dt. 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; The NT writers distorted OT verses and made up stories to "fulfill" the "prophecies." BTW when was the hair plucked off the cheeks of Jesus?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
David from Texas	Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2001 06/24/05 15:55:25	*Quote:* drseinfeld Because the "prophecy" in Luke 4:18-19 quotes verses 1 and 2 which are about Isaiah, and not Jesus. The "I" in those verses refer to Isaiah. There is no "I" in verses 1 and 2 of Isaiah 61. There are two "me"s. *Quote:* The "I" in verse 8 obvious refers to God, but so what? You look at the verse and figure, who does it refer to? That is my point. You look at the verse and figure that it is Isaiah only, I look at the verse and figure that it is talking of Isaiah and Jesus. *Quote:* Sometimes "I" can refer to God, but the verses quoted by Luke do not. What is your proof? All that you have presented thus far is your assertion, do you have any evidence? *Quote:* DFT Is it not permitted for Isaiah to be speak of himself in verse 1, and at the same time prophesy what Jesus would say 700 years later? drseinfeld I think you're talking about dual prophecy, which is unbiblical. I did not say dual prophecy. What makes you think that Isaiah was prophesying in verses 1 and 2 if he was only talking about himself? Even if I had been talking about dual prophecy, what is your evidence that it is unbiblical? *Quote:* DFT The same process occurs in Isaiah 50:4-8. The prophet begins by saying, "The Lord hath given me the tongue of the learned..." In verse 6, he says "I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting." It is no accident that the wealth of prophecies from the prophet Isaiah was fulfilled and continues to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The New Testament authors had no problem in seeing them. drseinfeld They only saw them in their imagination. Are you imagining that Isaiah was talking only about himself in verses 1 and 2 of chapter 61? Unless you provide evidence of your assertion, then I have to conclude that your assertion is only in your imagination. *Quote:* Muslims have no problem seeing Muhammad as the comforter that will be sent. Dt. 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; And of course, the prophecy you have quoted is well beloved by Christians who see it as being fulfilled in Christ... The phrase "like unto me" is very telling... Jesus, like Moses, brought a new covenant. *Quote:* The NT writers distorted OT verses and made up stories to "fulfill" the "prophecies." BTW when was the hair plucked off the cheeks of Jesus? Is leaving out many of the details of the scourging and crucifixion of Jesus "distorting OT verses"? No, the gospels do not record all of the gory details, such as the hair being plucked off... The NT authors appropriately exercized restraint in describing the scourging and crucifixion. There was no need to cover many of the details because the OT prophecies did it for them.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
drseinfeld	Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 6286 06/25/05 07:01:10	DFT There is no "I" in verses 1 and 2 of Isaiah 61. There are two "me"s. drseinfeld You're right. I must have been thinking about the I's a few verses later. But the "me's" refer to Isaiah. DFT That is my point. You look at the verse and figure that it is Isaiah only, I look at the verse and figure that it is talking of Isaiah and Jesus. drseinfeld I don't see how it could be about both of them and looking at the verse I think it is obvious Isaiah is referring to himself. DFT (quoting drseinfeld) Sometimes "I" can refer to God, but the verses quoted by Luke do not. DFT What is your proof? All that you have presented thus far is your assertion, do you have any evidence? drseinfeld I think it is obvious Isaiah is referring to himself in verses 1 and 2 in chapter 61. What is your proof and evidence? There is no reason to believe Isaiah is referring to Jesus here. DFT quoting both of us: Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DFT Is it not permitted for Isaiah to be speak of himself in verse 1, and at the same time prophesy what Jesus would say 700 years later? drseinfeld I think you're talking about dual prophecy, which is unbiblical. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DFT I did not say dual prophecy. What makes you think that Isaiah was prophesying in verses 1 and 2 if he was only talking about himself? Even if I had been talking about dual prophecy, what is your evidence that it is unbiblical? drseinfeld Maybe I should say dual meaning although "speak of himself in verse 1, and at the same time prophesy what Jesus would say 700 years later?" does sound like dual prophecy. Anyway, Isaiah was referring to himself and there was no additional meaning in regards to a crucified demi-god centuries into the future. www.outreachjudaism.org/virgin.html#2 talks about dual prophecy. Excerpt: The troubles created by this explanation are manifold. To begin with, the proposal of dual prophecy is entirely contrived and has no basis in the Bible. Nowhere in the seventh chapter of Isaiah does the text even hint of a second fulfillment. The notion of a dual prophecy is thoroughly unbiblical and was fashioned in order to explain away a stunning theological problem. DFT Are you imagining that Isaiah was talking only about himself in verses 1 and 2 of chapter 61? Unless you provide evidence of your assertion, then I have to conclude that your assertion is only in your imagination drseinfeld It is just the plain reading of the text! Unless you can provide evidence that the text refers to Jesus I must conclude the same about your imagination. DFT talking about Dt 18:15 And of course, the prophecy you have quoted is well beloved by Christians who see it as being fulfilled in Christ... The phrase "like unto me" is very telling... Jesus, like Moses, brought a new covenant. drseinfeld The OT is binding, so the NT is not authorized. Lev.23:14, 21, 31 "It shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations. Christians and Muslims are guilty of what they want to see. DFT Is leaving out many of the details of the scourging and crucifixion of Jesus "distorting OT verses"? No, the gospels do not record all of the gory details, such as the hair being plucked off... The NT authors appropriately exercized restraint in describing the scourging and crucifixion. There was no need to cover many of the details because the OT prophecies did it for them. drseinfeld If the OT verses were fulfilled in the NT then it would be a little more impressive if all the details were fulfilled. The OT verses are not prophecies of Jesus.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
David from Texas	Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2001 06/25/05 22:42:05	*Quote:* DFT What is your proof? All that you have presented thus far is your assertion, do you have any evidence? drseinfeld I think it is obvious Isaiah is referring to himself in verses 1 and 2 in chapter 61. What is your proof and evidence? There is no reason to believe Isaiah is referring to Jesus here. So, your answer is that you have no evidence. All that you have presented thus far is an assertion. A response of "there is no reason to believe..." is not any further evidence beyond an assertion. *Quote:* DFT I did not say dual prophecy. What makes you think that Isaiah was prophesying in verses 1 and 2 if he was only talking about himself? Even if I had been talking about dual prophecy, what is your evidence that it is unbiblical? drseinfeld Maybe I should say dual meaning although "speak of himself in verse 1, and at the same time prophesy what Jesus would say 700 years later?" does sound like dual prophecy. How is "speaking of himself" referring to prophecy? *Quote:* Isaiah was referring to himself and there was no additional meaning in regards to a crucified demi-god centuries into the future. No additional meaning? Then how do you determine when a biblical prophet is prophesying and when he is only referring to himself, other people, historical references, etc? Does each prophecy have to be introduced with a phrase indicating that he is now prophesying, such as "Thus saith the Lord God"? If so, then how do you explain the behavior of the prophet Ezekiel in Ez. chapters 4 and 5? The prophet seemed to be "acting out" a prophecy in dramatic fashion with tiles, iron pans, laying on the ground, making bread, eating bread, drinking water, baking bread with dung, cutting facial hair, and burning hair? If it is difficult to discern exactly when a prophet is prophesying in the prophets, then why should I believe you that Isaiah was referring only to himself in verses 1 and 2 of chapter 61? *Quote:* www.outreachjudaism.org/virgin.html#2 talks about dual prophecy. Excerpt: The troubles created by this explanation are manifold. To begin with, the proposal of dual prophecy is entirely contrived and has no basis in the Bible. Nowhere in the seventh chapter of Isaiah does the text even hint of a second fulfillment. The notion of a dual prophecy is thoroughly unbiblical and was fashioned in order to explain away a stunning theological problem. Christians would differ with the assertion that "dual prophecy is entirely contrived and has no basis in the Bible". I offer the following link as a response to the link you provided above... paracleteforum.org/archiv...logue.html *Quote:* drseinfeld It is just the plain reading of the text! Unless you can provide evidence that the text refers to Jesus I must conclude the same about your imagination. I am going to ask you for some help here... Do you speak Hebrew? If so, can you show me where the pronouns are located in verses 1 and 2? The reason for my asking is that I cannot see the pronouns when looking at the KJV w/ Stong's definitions on the website listed below... I know that the pronouns must be there, otherwise the KJV would not have translated it the way that it is... I presume that I would need to look at the Hebrew text directly in order to see it... Can you point me in the right direction? www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin...hBible.htm *Quote:* drseinfeld The OT is binding, so the NT is not authorized. Lev.23:14, 21, 31 "It shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations. Christians and Muslims are guilty of what they want to see. Perhaps, a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black? How do the verses in Lev. that you quoted above indicate that the OT is binding? Those verses are talking about specific laws, they are not indicating that the OT is the final authority. Even if they did suggest that the law given by Moses was "binding", then why is the entire OT included? The pentateuch was written more than 700 years before the prophets... Are you suggesting that the Lev. verses were prophesying that the later prophets written 700 years later would also be binding? If so, then why stop at the prophets? Why not include the NT? Why not include the book of Mormons? *Quote:* drseinfeld If the OT verses were fulfilled in the NT then it would be a little more impressive if all the details were fulfilled. The OT verses are not prophecies of Jesus. Christians believe that the OT verses were PARTIALLY fulfilled by what is recorded in the NT. Christians believe that ALL of the OT prophecies will eventually be fulfilled. Part of the complete fulfillment of OT prophecies includes the return of Christ in glory to reign as the promised Messiah over Israel.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Diskeyezed	Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 851 06/26/05 04:25:49	*Quote:* So, your answer is that you have no evidence. All that you have presented thus far is an assertion. A response of "there is no reason to believe..." is not any further evidence beyond an assertion. And all you've offered is the Christian assertion with no evidence. David, when you (and Christians in general) assert that when Isaiah wrote about himself he was also prophesying about someone he doesn't even mention, the burden of proof is on you. Therefore, your simple assertion is rather weak, whereas drseinfeld's assertion is based on the basic, straight-forward reading of the text. Oh, and with regard to verse 8, that's simply Isaiah allegedly quoting God, of whom he was allegedly a prophet. That really has no bearing on the issue of the previous verses. "As for the truth, it seems like we just pick a theory." -- Emily Saliers of Indigo Girls
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
drseinfeld	Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 6286 06/26/05 07:04:12	I am not an expert on Hebrew but I imagine the translators put in pronouns based on context. Who is being spoken about in a verse? That is determined by context. Quote from a link you gave me: ----------------- Many, many prophecies in the OT have a double fulfillment! The son born in the second fulfillment was to be named "Immanuel" ("God with us")-- a rather strong hint that the virgin born son of David was to be no ordinary man. ----------------- God with us doesn't mean that God was in the flesh on earth (Jesus). It means that God was with Judah and would save them from the two kings who were threatening them. The OT is binding: Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. Ps.119:151-2 "Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth. Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever." Ps.119:160 "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." A link and an excerpt for you: www.infidels.org/library/...3ling.html Isaiah 61:1-3 The spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me, because Yahweh has anointed me; he has sent me to bring good news to the oppressed, to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and release to the prisoners; to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn; to provide for those who mourn in Zionto give them a garland instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning, the mantle of praise instead of a faint spirit. They will be called oaks of righteousness, the planting of Yahweh, to display his glory. First of all, this is a "Messianic prophecy"only because New Testament writers in their desperate attempts to find prophecy fulfillment in every piddling event in the life of Jesus arbitrary declared that it was (Matt. 12:15-21; Luke 4:18-19), and Hatcher has uncritically accepted it. After all, if a New Testament writer said that such and such an event fulfilled prophecy, what can a biblical inerrantist do but blindly accept it? If, however, Hatcher would bother to examine the context of these verses in Isaiah 61, he should see that this statement was made in a larger context where Isaiah was prophesying that the Israelites who had been taken into Assyrian captivity would be brought back home. In the passages I have cited below, the italicized expressions will point out Isaiah's theme that the captives would be returned. Isaiah 49:5 And now Yahweh says, who formed me in the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him, and that Israel might be gathered to him, for I am honored in the sight of Yahweh, and my God has become my strength; he says, "It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth." Isaiah 51:11 So the ransomed of Yahweh shall return, and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. Isaiah 51:14 The oppressed [captive exiles, KJV & others] shall speedily be released; they shall not die and go down to the Pit, nor shall they lack bread. Isaiah 52: 3-4 For thus says Yahweh: You were sold for nothing, and you shall be redeemed without money. For thus says the Lord GOD: Long ago, my people went down into Egypt to reside there as aliens; the Assyrian, too, has oppressed them without cause. Isaiah 60:4 (Y)our sons shall come from far away, and your daughters shall be carried on their nurses arms. There are many other verses that I could quote from this context to show that Isaiah was rather ecstatically predicting a return of the Israelites who had been dispersed by the Assyrians
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
David from Texas	Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2001 06/26/05 16:02:23	*Quote:* The OT is binding: Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. Ps.119:151-2 "Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth. Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever." Ps.119:160 "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever." Of the three verses that you have quoted above, only Genesis 17:13 could be considered support for your assertion that the OT is binding... The two verses in the Psalms are referring to TESTIMONIES (119:152-2) and JUDGMENTS (119:160), not to statutes or commandments. I agree that Genesis 17:13 presents a problem for Christians, not so much that it supports that assertion that the OT is binding, but that it presents difficulty in trying to understand why God would seemingly say that circumcision of the flesh was to be everlasting. I do not have a satisfactory answer for this difficulty. I would offer the following as an interesting examination of this verse... John Calvin commented about this verse (quoted below): *Quote:* 13. For an everlasting covenant The meaning of this expression may be twofold: either that God promises that his grace, of which circumcision was a sign and pledge, should be eternal; or that he intended the sign itself to be perpetually observed. Indeed, I have no doubt that this perpetuity ought to be referred to the visible sign. But they who hence infer, that the use of it ought to flourish among the Jews even of the present time, are (in my opinion) deceived. For they swerve from that axiom which we ought to regard as fixed; that since Christ is the end of the law, the perpetuity which is ascribed to the ceremonies of the law, was terminated as soon as Christ appeared. The temple was the perpetual habitation of God, according to that declaration, This is my rest forever, here will I dwell, (Psalm 132:14.) The Sabbath indicated not a temporal but a perpetual sanctification of the people. Nevertheless, it is not to be denied, that Christ brought them both to an end. In the same way must we also think of circumcision. If the Jews object, that in this manner, the law was violated by Christ; the answer is easy; that the external use of the law was so abrogated, as to establish its truth. For, at length, by the coming of Christ, circumcision was substantially confirmed, so that it should endure forever, and that the covenant which God had before made, should be ratified. Moreover, lest the changing of the visible sign should perplex any one, let that renovation of the world, of which I have spoken, be kept in mind; which renovation notwithstanding some interposed variety has perpetuated those things which would otherwise have been fading. Therefore, although the use of circumcision has ceased; yet it does not cerise to be an everlasting, or perpetual covenant, if only Christ be regarded as the Mediator; who, though the sign be changed, has confirmed the truth. And that, by the coming of Christ, external circumcision ceased, is plain from the words of Paul; who not only teaches that we are circumcised by the death of Christy spiritually, and not through the carnal sign: but who expressly substitutes baptism for circumcision; (Colossians 2:11 and truly baptism could not succeed circumcision, without taking it away. Therefore in the next chapter he denies that there is any difference between circumcision and uncircumcision; because, at that time, the thing was indifferent, and of no importance. Whence we refute the error of those, who think that circumcision is still in force among the Jews, as if it were a peculiar symbol of the nation, which never ought to be abrogated. I acknowledge, indeed, that it was permitted to them for a time, until the liberty obtained by Christ should be better known; but though permitted, it by no means retained its original force. For it would be absurd to be initiated into the Church by two different signs; of which the one should testify and affirm that Christ was come, and the other should shadow him forth as absent. Interestingly, many Christians today disagree with the sentiments expressed by Calvin above, and say that the covenant among the Jews is still continuing. *Quote:* Isaiah 49:5 And now Yahweh says, who formed me in the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him, and that Israel might be gathered to him, for I am honored in the sight of Yahweh, and my God has become my strength; he says, "It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth." Isaiah 51:11 So the ransomed of Yahweh shall return, and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. Do you agree that the scriptures you have quoted above refers to Messiah? Or does it refer to Isaiah only? *Quote:* Isaiah 51:14 The oppressed [captive exiles, KJV & others] shall speedily be released; they shall not die and go down to the Pit, nor shall they lack bread. Isaiah 52: 3-4 For thus says Yahweh: You were sold for nothing, and you shall be redeemed without money. For thus says the Lord GOD: Long ago, my people went down into Egypt to reside there as aliens; the Assyrian, too, has oppressed them without cause. Isaiah 60:4 (Y)our sons shall come from far away, and your daughters shall be carried on their nurses arms. There are many other verses that I could quote from this context to show that Isaiah was rather ecstatically predicting a return of the Israelites who had been dispersed by the Assyrians Yes, I agree with you that Isaiah was predicting a return of the Israelites who had been dispersed by the Assyrians. My question to you is this... When did the return occur? Did it occur when the Jews returned under Cyrus to build the second temple? Or did it occur in the 20th Century? Or is there still a future return?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
drseinfeld	Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 6286 06/26/05 19:52:40	DFT Isaiah 49:5 And now Yahweh says, who formed me in the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him, and that Israel might be gathered to him, for I am honored in the sight of Yahweh, and my God has become my strength; he says, "It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth." Isaiah 51:11 So the ransomed of Yahweh shall return, and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. Do you agree that the scriptures you have quoted above refers to Messiah? Or does it refer to Isaiah only? drseinfeld Isaiah only. The exiles were to return in his time. Jesus was not a valid sacrifice and Judaism believes salvation is not through believing in a crucified demi-god.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
David from Texas	Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2001 06/27/05 04:30:24	*Quote:* DFT Isaiah 49:5 And now Yahweh says, who formed me in the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him, and that Israel might be gathered to him, for I am honored in the sight of Yahweh, and my God has become my strength; he says, "It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to restore the survivors of Israel; I will give you as a light to the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth." Isaiah 51:11 So the ransomed of Yahweh shall return, and come to Zion with singing; everlasting joy shall be upon their heads; they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away. Do you agree that the scriptures you have quoted above refers to Messiah? Or does it refer to Isaiah only? drseinfeld Isaiah only. The exiles were to return in his time. Jesus was not a valid sacrifice and Judaism believes salvation is not through believing in a crucified demi-god. Which sources can you refer me to that demonstrate that the exiles returned in the time of Isaiah? Are you suggesting that the prophecy was not fulfilled? I notice that you did not answer my other questions. Those questions are listed below... *Quote:* Quote: Isaiah 51:14 The oppressed [captive exiles, KJV & others] shall speedily be released; they shall not die and go down to the Pit, nor shall they lack bread. Isaiah 52: 3-4 For thus says Yahweh: You were sold for nothing, and you shall be redeemed without money. For thus says the Lord GOD: Long ago, my people went down into Egypt to reside there as aliens; the Assyrian, too, has oppressed them without cause. Isaiah 60:4 (Y)our sons shall come from far away, and your daughters shall be carried on their nurses arms. Dr.Seinfeld: There are many other verses that I could quote from this context to show that Isaiah was rather ecstatically predicting a return of the Israelites who had been dispersed by the Assyrians DFT: Yes, I agree with you that Isaiah was predicting a return of the Israelites who had been dispersed by the Assyrians. My question to you is this... When did the return occur? Did it occur when the Jews returned under Cyrus to build the second temple? Or did it occur in the 20th Century? Or is there still a future return? Are you an atheist? If so, then what purpose does it serve to represent Judaism in your attack on Christianity? (if you don't believe in Judaism in the first place)
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
drseinfeld	Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 6286 06/27/05 06:35:03	I am an atheist. I don't believe in judaism but since christianity claims there are OT prophecies of Jesus, and since christianity came from judaism, I can attack christianity with judaism. Whether I am atheist, jew, christian, hindu, muslim, or whatever, is Isaiah 61:1-2 speaking of Jesus? I say no. According to the link I gave you, the ten lost tribes are still lost so the prophecy failed. But the return of these exiles (failed or fulfilled) is what these verses are talking about. What even hints at a second meaning (of Jesus) in these verses?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
David from Texas	Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2001 06/27/05 06:56:16	*Quote:* Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus drseinfeld I am an atheist. I don't believe in judaism but since christianity claims there are OT prophecies of Jesus, and since christianity came from judaism, I can attack christianity with judaism. Then your attack is unfounded since you don't believe in Judaism in the first place. I cannot take your assertions seriously if you do not believe in them in the first place. *Quote:* Whether I am atheist, jew, christian, hindu, muslim, or whatever, is Isaiah 61:1-2 speaking of Jesus? I say no. How could you say no if you don't believe that Isaiah was a prophet? You have no basis to judge what Isaiah was saying if you don't believe in Judaism. All that you can really say is that it appears to you that Isaiah is saying this or that... You have no basis to make any claims about what Isaiah was truly saying. You seem to be more preoccupied with being anti-Christian than anti-Judaism. Is there a reason for that? *Quote:* According to the link I gave you, the ten lost tribes are still lost so the prophecy failed. But the return of these exiles (failed or fulfilled) is what these verses are talking about. What even hints at a second meaning (of Jesus) in these verses? My question was more "generic" (did not refer specifically to Jesus). Since Judaism believes that the Messiah has not come yet, then I interpret those prophecies very similarly to Judaism in the sense that Messiah is coming. Christians interpret this as the second coming, Judaism interprets it as the first coming (or only coming?).
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
drseinfeld	Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 6286 06/27/05 07:30:19	My attack is not unfounded. I am looking at the straight-forward meaning of the text. Just because I don't believe in judaism doesn't mean squat. What was Isaiah saying? (whether I believe it or not) That is the question. Isaiah is talking about the returning exiles. That is the plain reading. What makes the text about Jesus? You said, "How could you say no if you don't believe that Isaiah was a prophet? You have no basis to judge what Isaiah was saying if you don't believe in Judaism." I am sure you don't believe in islam. So, I could say that since you don't believe in that religion, that you can't say Dt. 18:15 is not about Muhammad. But of course you would say that verse is not about Muhammad. I see christianity as a bigger threat than judaism in the at the moment.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
David from Texas	Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	#14	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2001 06/27/05 11:30:16	*Quote:* Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus drseinfeld My attack is not unfounded. I am looking at the straight-forward meaning of the text. Just because I don't believe in judaism doesn't mean squat. I disagree. The fact that you do not believe in neither Judaism or Christianity means that you have no justification for making statements such as... "I think you're talking about dual prophecy, which is unbiblical." "The OT is binding, so the NT is not authorized." Who are you to say what is "unbiblical" or "binding" if you don't even believe in Christianity or Judaism? You are a joke, and cannot be taken seriously. *Quote:* I am sure you don't believe in islam. So, I could say that since you don't believe in that religion, that you can't say Dt. 18:15 is not about Muhammad. You have committed yet ANOTHER error with the statement above. I believe in Christianity, and therefore I have a basis for saying that Dt. 18:15 is not about Muhammad. YOU, on the other hand, are NOT a believer in any of these three religions! (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) Perhaps you should cut your losses now before you dig yourself deeper into your hole. *Quote:* I see christianity as a bigger threat than judaism in the at the moment. Why? If you believe in neither, then what does it matter to you?
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
cyborg	Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	#15	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1918 06/27/05 11:45:59	*Quote:* Who are you to say what is "unbiblical" or "binding" if you don't even believe in Christianity or Judaism? Since when did one have to swallow the fantasy to critique it? Do I have to believe that the events depicted in Star Wars occured a long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away before I can talk critique the concepts, the internal logic etc...? I bet you wouldn't even give a second thought to doing the same thing to other religions. *Quote:* Why? If you believe in neither, then what does it matter to you? How dense are you? Would it matter to you if Muslims were running your country? I think it would.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
David from Texas	Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	#16	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2001 06/27/05 11:55:50	*Quote:* Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus cyborg Quote: Who are you to say what is "unbiblical" or "binding" if you don't even believe in Christianity or Judaism? Since when did one have to swallow the fantasy to critique it? Do I have to believe that the events depicted in Star Wars occured a long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away before I can talk critique the concepts, the internal logic etc...? I bet you wouldn't even give a second thought to doing the same thing to other religions. Actually, you are wrong. I would not for a second, consider using the Koran to try and disprove the Talmud. Why? Because I don't believe the Koran... The Bible is my solid foundation. DrSeinfeld pretended that the OT is his foundation, and it was easy to pick him apart. I suspect that he is a secular Jew who thinks of himself now as an atheist, and that his roots in Judaism prejudiced his analysis (and continues to do so). *Quote:* Quote: Why? If you believe in neither, then what does it matter to you? How dense are you? Would it matter to you if Muslims were running your country? I think it would. My questions as above were rhetorical. Of course I know that it matters to him... I want to know why.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
drseinfeld	Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	#17	[url]	[-]
Posts: 6286 06/27/05 12:14:39	The OT and NT are part of the same bible unlike the Koran and Talmud. I am an ex-Lutheran. The christian right for example, poses a bigger threat to liberty in the U.S. than judaism. If judaism says the law is in effect, the the NT is not valid.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
cyborg	Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	#18	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1918 06/27/05 17:06:51	*Quote:* I would not for a second, consider using the Koran to try and disprove the Talmud. Why? Because I don't believe the Koran... Erm, that's not the issue here - since he hasn't used any other book to show the internal inconsistancy of the Bible. *Quote:* I suspect that he is a secular Jew who thinks of himself now as an atheist, and that his roots in Judaism prejudiced his analysis (and continues to do so). LOL.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
David from Texas	Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	#19	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2001 06/28/05 05:24:40	*Quote:* Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus drseinfeld The OT and NT are part of the same bible unlike the Koran and Talmud. Ahhh... but you have committed yet another fallacy. My statement regarding the Koran and Talmud was in referrence to the assertion made by Cyborg that it is ludicrous to expect one to believe the events in Star Wars before being able to critique them. Cyborg's statement was ridiculous because people who debate known fictional events to determine if the events really happened are either incredibly ignorant or delusional (such as those who claim that the events in the da Vinci code really happened). Star Wars is not part of the Bible, whereas the OT and NT are parts of the Bible. You are pitting one of the sections of the Bible against the other. My statement was not in reference to what you said, but to what Cyborg said. *Quote:* I am an ex-Lutheran. I have ancestral Jewish roots, and I suspect that you do too... How common is it for a Seinfeld to have no Jewish ancestry? By the way, one of my Lutheran colleagues is also Jewish. If you have Jewish roots, then you may be curious to know that you and Karl Marx have several things in common. Marx was a Jewish Lutheran who became an atheist. *Quote:* The christian right for example, poses a bigger threat to liberty in the U.S. than judaism. If judaism says the law is in effect, the the NT is not valid. When I read the above, I laughed. Could you imagine what it would be like in this country if the law of Moses was put back into effect? The animal rights activists would become martyrs to their cause by offering themselves to be sacrificed instead of animals. Killing of witches would be revived. Foreigners would be treated severely... and on and on. This is not to suggest that Judaism is a real threat to liberty by any means... because Judaism no longer follows the OT law anyway. What you seem to be referring to is the conviction of believers. I agree that Christians are more convicted in their beliefs than those who practice Judaism. The liberties that you are afraid of losing under the influence of Christianity are relatively inconsequential to most people. Like you, I am also against attempts by Christians to "rule" in our society because I believe that our Kingdom is not of this world anyway... Christians have no business trying to run this world because Jesus and His followers did not teach or instruct believers to run the world system. To "rule" the world is to be of the world. Christians are instructed to be in the world, but not of the world.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
drseinfeld	Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	#20	[url]	[-]
Posts: 6286 06/28/05 07:37:34	For the bible to be inerrant, the two testaments must agree. The law is in effect and Jesus didn't bring in a new covenant since judaism doesn't believe in salvation through a crucified demi-god. My name is not actually Seinfeld. Jerry Seinfeld is my fav comedian and he has an honorary doctorate, hence my user name. There are christian reconstructionists who want to bring OT law to the U.S. but they are a fringe group. My concern is christians with political power who want to use the govt. to enforce their religion. We don't have a jewish right with the kind of power and influence as the christian right. Here is what cyborg said: "Since when did one have to swallow the fantasy to critique it? Do I have to believe that the events depicted in Star Wars occured a long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away before I can talk critique the concepts, the internal logic etc...?" Cyborg was not saying that people were debating if known fiction was true. He was talking about debating coherency and consistency, etc. within the fiction.As one might say, "Even fiction is suppose to make sense." Even if I don't believe in either testament, I can examine them for consistency. I suppose schoolteachers who don't believe in Zeus have no business teaching greek mythology.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply

Replies

Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	06/23/05 07:43:40	drseinfeld
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	06/23/05 18:17:11	David from Texas
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	06/24/05 04:37:13	drseinfeld
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	06/24/05 15:55:25	David from Texas
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	06/25/05 07:01:10	drseinfeld
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	06/25/05 22:42:05	David from Texas
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	06/26/05 04:25:49	Diskeyezed
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	06/26/05 07:04:12	drseinfeld
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	06/26/05 16:02:23	David from Texas
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	06/26/05 19:52:40	drseinfeld
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	06/27/05 04:30:24	David from Texas
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	06/27/05 06:35:03	drseinfeld
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	06/27/05 06:56:16	David from Texas
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	06/27/05 07:30:19	drseinfeld
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	06/27/05 11:30:16	David from Texas
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	06/27/05 11:45:59	cyborg
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	06/27/05 11:55:50	David from Texas
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	06/27/05 12:14:39	drseinfeld
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	06/28/05 05:24:40	David from Texas
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	06/28/05 07:37:34	drseinfeld
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	06/27/05 17:06:51	cyborg
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	07/11/05 12:43:45	FastHack
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	07/12/05 17:04:44	David from Texas
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	07/12/05 19:13:37	Iznomneak
could or couldn't?	07/13/05 17:49:07	Diskeyezed
It just shows how careless David truly is.	07/15/05 21:19:07	Yark Hutprancer
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	07/03/05 19:16:25	Rev Etherman
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	07/09/05 15:44:05	cds113089
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	07/09/05 19:48:05	BookMark My Words
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	08/26/05 06:40:45	Saeng
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	08/26/05 06:46:27	Keith and Company
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	08/26/05 06:57:31	Saeng
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	08/26/05 07:06:37	cyborg
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	08/26/05 07:09:32	Saeng
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	08/26/05 07:19:22	Keith and Company
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	08/26/05 07:31:00	Saeng
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	08/26/05 07:40:02	cyborg
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	08/26/05 07:49:35	Keith and Company
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	08/26/05 09:18:25	Saeng
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	08/26/05 09:26:02	Keith and Company
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	08/26/05 15:00:19	Saeng
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	08/26/05 16:36:37	Keith and Company
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	08/26/05 16:41:33	Argy Lacedom
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	08/26/05 20:59:38	Saeng
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	08/27/05 04:12:27	Keith and Company
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	08/27/05 08:08:23	Saeng
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	08/27/05 08:30:58	Keith and Company
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	08/27/05 09:11:37	Saeng
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	08/27/05 15:10:10	Keith and Company
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	08/27/05 17:03:27	Argy Lacedom
Re: Isaiah was not talking about Jesus	08/26/05 07:22:31	Keith and Company