23 Dec 08
Originally posted by black beetlesuch poetry, such eloquence, such art and tastefulness, such thoughtful expression ! ahh beetle yah leggeddy beastie, my kind regards to you and the beautiful Maria!
Enjoy a mellow Glenlivet 15 for starters
when warmed in your palms it smells a bit peaty
smoked enough
with a memory of a vivid spring
and the spirit of fresh water
with a touch of caramel
and a glance of a lil crispy brown sugar
and at least but not at last
have a toast to the ones you love
😵
23 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI jus lov pure malt ye bletherin dunderheid😵
such poetry, such eloquence, such art and tastefulness, such thoughtful expression ! ahh beetle yah leggeddy beastie, my kind regards to you and the beautiful Maria!
Best regards to you too, haggis bagpipes malt lass and all, Jan. 25 iz comin😵
23 Dec 08
Originally posted by no1marauderOh come on now No.1. You make some excellent points in your posts (not withstanding the occaisional superfluous ridicule), but for you to claim to hold the position that you are open to what you can learn from the religious posters, who's opinions you hold in disdain, seems a little incongruous to be honest. So maybe you could consider cutting Robbie some slack, as at worst he is perhaps only following your example.
If you don't want to even consider the possibility of error in your beliefs, then this Forum is the wrong place for you. You should just go talk to people who will nod their heads and exclaim "You're soooooooooooooooooo right, Robbie!" every time you speak.
If you have no interest in the quest for knowledge and think you already have all the answers, then you are wasting your time here.
23 Dec 08
Originally posted by divegeesterI might be the only poster on RHP who made a significant change in their spiritual beliefs due in no small part to discussions in the Spirituality Forum.
Oh come on now No.1. You make some excellent points in your posts (not withstanding the occaisional superfluous ridicule), but for you to claim to hold the position that you are open to what you can learn from the religious posters, who's opinions you hold in disdain, seems a little incongruous to be honest. So maybe you could consider cutting Robbie some slack, as at worst he is perhaps only following your example.
23 Dec 08
2 edits
======================================
Jesus doesn't fit several of the details in the chapter. a) As mentioned above, Jesus was never sick. Some say that he was sick during the crucifixion, but physical trauma (e.g. execution) is not considered sickness in the normal sense of the word. b) Jesus had no children. Some say this refers to disciples or spiritual children, but the word "zera" is common in the Tanach and, when applied to people, always means linear descendants, not someone's disciples or followers. c) Jesus was not buried with the wicked. One cannot even say he died with the wicked since the Hebrew "rashaeem" is plural and, according to the crucifixion story, one of the thieves next to him ended up in heaven and so was not wicked. d) Jesus did not have long life. Missionaries say he had long life in heaven, but that, again, is stretching the meaning of the word. e) verse 9 "Nor was there deceit in his mouth." doesn't apply because, according to the gospel accounts, Jesus lied to his family about going to Jerusalem. (John 7:8-10), and lied in saying that he never taught in secret (see John 18:20, vs. Matt. 16:20, Mark 8:30 and others).
The Jews for Judaism analysis of Isaiah 53 points out that a) contrary to verse 2, Jesus is never described as physically unattractive; b) far from being rejected and despised as verse 3 says, the Gospel writers describe him as being popular; c) contrary to verse 7, Jesus did a lot of talking; and d) instead of being non-violent (verse 9), Jesus overturned tables, chased people from their jobs, and promised to bring swords.
===========================================
This is another example of the Atheist running to seek assistance from the theistic Jewish religion.
The Atheist is not for God, does not believe in God, etc. But to oppose the faith of Christians he runs to get assistance from the Jewish faith.
Who better to have honed in thier skills to reject the divinity of Christ than the Jesus rejecting Jew? So he puts forth writings of the Jewish religion to reinforce his atheism.
A strange phenomenon.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
23 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillHardly. Instead, you have no response to the many examples of a square peg not fitting a round hole, so you exclaim "Look, a kitty!"
======================================
Jesus doesn't fit several of the details in the chapter. a) As mentioned above, Jesus was never sick. Some say that he was sick during the crucifixion, but physical trauma (e.g. execution) is not considered sickness in the normal sense of the word. b) Jesus had no children. Some say this refers to disciples or spi rth writings of the Jewish religion to reinforce his atheism.
A strange phenomenon.
That also is hardly a strange phenomenon, it's a basic psychological reaction.
23 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Badwaterlol, many examples? perhaps you will provide references for the more than forty messianic prophecies that were provided, of which Isaiah 53 was but one and the attempts made to discredit it were judged to be baseless and tenuous to the extreme, in my opinion, plus it was extremely biased and failed to make mention of any of the points that may have indeed taken place, or conveniently ignored them, rather dastardly, don't you think.
Hardly. Instead, you have no response to the many examples of a square peg not fitting a round hole, so you exclaim "Look, a kitty!"
That also is hardly a strange phenomenon, it's a basic psychological reaction.
jaywill i think is correct, why would someone who is an atheist, ( i realise this is an assumption for i suspected that marauder may indeed have a spirituality based on a major faith or even a minor one, who can tell?, although i did suspect that he was Jewish considering his inclination towards Jewish websites, but could be wrong), use another religious persuasion to try to discredit another? what are his motives one wonders? therefore if it is true, and at present we have no way of knowing, for he is yet to reveal a particular religious persuasion, but seems content to try to discredit another, then jaywill is justified, if not then i am sure he would reconsider.
23 Dec 08
3 edits
Originally posted by BadwaterHardly, I have plenty of response.
Hardly. Instead, you have no response to the many examples of a square peg not fitting a round hole, so you exclaim "Look, a kitty!"
That also is hardly a strange phenomenon, it's a basic psychological reaction.
Would you like me to do a line by line response of no1marauder's comments on Isaiah 53?
I'm sure I can fit it in this evening if not now.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
23 Dec 08
1 edit
The silly prophesying, fortune telling, that so many Christians wish to engage in is flawed on a fundamental level. The prophesies of the OT are written for the audience of the time and do not foretell Jesus as Messiah. They are no better than trying to read the future from the writings of Nostradamus (as I and others have stated before). They do not specifically foretell of Jesus; they are 'fit' after the fact. Then, when errors are pointed out, the facts are dismissed as athiesm! Both of you, RC and jaywill, have a fantasy mindset that is incredulous, to say the least.
The ancient Jews were working on the messianic tradition for about 400 years before Jesus showed up. It was an active tangent of the Jewish faith of the time with many that stepped up. Some of the prospective messiahs were bound to come close to the fortune telling target. Jesus comes close too - but not close enough.
And please, spare me your invented connect-the-dots spiel that purport to 'prove' that Jesus is the messiah foretold in Isaiah. Except that you probably won't. So I'll indulge your little fantasy for a moment: Even if Isaiah does specifically describe Jesus of Nazareth - so what? What does it prove? I say that it proves nothing. It is not a proof of Jesus as messiah. I say that if you weren't going to 'prove' it that way you'd 'prove' it a different way, because the 'proof' to you is exactly like attaching OT prophecy to prove Jesus is messiah; it is done after the fact and was already a foregone conclusion.
23 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauder===================================
RC: [b]But Jehovah himself took delight in crushing him; he made him sick. If you will set his soul as a guilt offering, he will see his offspring,
That's referring to Jesus in your theology?
Here's a site which gives a more logical interpretation: http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/Isaiah53.html
It summ context shows shows many differences from what the Christian Bible says about Jesus.[/b]
Jesus doesn't fit several of the details in the chapter. a) As mentioned above, Jesus was never sick.
=====================================
Isaiah 53:3 says "Surely He has borne our sicknesses". The point here is not that He was sick but that in the eyes of God He has borne our sicknesses. Just as the offerer of the life stock laid his hands on the slain cattle, identifying with the cattle, so the sinners identify with Christ. "He carried up OUR sins in HIS body onto the tree" says the Apostle Peter.
Our sins upon Him does not mean that He sinned. Nor our sicknessess being borne by Him means that He was sick.
========================================
Some say that he was sick during the crucifixion, but physical trauma (e.g. execution) is not considered sickness in the normal sense of the word. b)
============================================
Any human would be sick after the treatment Jesus received. But the divine view is concerning Him bearing our sicknesses. Him bearing man's sins does not mean that Jesus sinned. Nor Him bearing our sicknessess mean that He had our diseases.
================================
Jesus had no children. Some say this refers to disciples or spiritual children, but the word "zera" is common in the Tanach and, when applied to people, always means linear descendants, not someone's disciples or followers.
==================================
Jesus called His disciples "Little children" after His resurrection in John 21:5. Also the book of Hebrews refers to this prophecy of the Son of God:
"Behold, I and the children which You [the Father] have given Me." (Hebrews 2:13. from Isaiah 8:18).
We Christians regard the New Testament as the oracles of God, not as a faulty error prone commentary on the Hebrew Bible. So if the writer of the New Testament says that a certain Old Testament prophecy like Isa. 8:18 or Isaiah 53 refers to Christ, that is for us the end of the matter. The New Testament saying so is authoritative period. So Isaiah 8:18 refers to the Messiah uttering something about the children Jehovah has given Him.
==================================
c) Jesus was not buried with the wicked.
=====================================
Since both the Old and the New Testaments discribe the descendents of Adam as sinners in need of salvation, all men can be called wicked.
Solomon wrote: "See, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes." (Ecc. 7:29)
God made man upright (Gen 1:34). But since then man has become not upright but full of all kinds of devious schemes. So to be buried among men in general is to be buried among the wicked.
Jeremiah tells us that "The heart is deceitful above all things, And it is incurable; Who can know it? I, Jehovah, search tje heart." (Jer. 17:9) The King James says "desperately wicked".
To be buried among men who have had a heart is therefore to be buried among those who have been desperately wicked in their heart.
===================================
One cannot even say he died with the wicked since the Hebrew "rashaeem" is plural and, according to the crucifixion story, one of the thieves next to him ended up in heaven and so was not wicked.
=====================================
The account says that the thief went to Paradise and not to Heaven. But that is another point.
He was not buried with the thief. He died with the thief. And those who are saved (Okay, as you understand - go to heaven) are the wicked who have been justified. Salvation justifies the wicked. It also transforms them through sanctification.
All those who are saved were formerly wicked. That is why they are spoken of as being saved.
======================================
d) Jesus did not have long life.
========================================
This is a very weak criticism. I think you would have had to walk in the sandels of Jesus before you could comment on how "long" His life was.
Haven't you come home from work and said "It was a LONG day." Of course you do not mean that it was more than that standard number of hours of any other day. You mean many troublesome things happened to make it seem long.
Saying "Hey, Jesus didn't have a long life" is a very weak complaint. You and I could not endure what Jesus endured for 10 minutes, let alone for 33.5 years.
==================================
Missionaries say he had long life in heaven, but that, again, is stretching the meaning of the word.
=====================================
You are not talking to missionaries now. You are speaking with me. And I pointed out that a "long life" is a subjective matter to Jesus which you cannot qualify.
For 30 years God incarnate lived among ignorant and sinful people. He did so by blending in with them. They knew Him as the neighberhood boy and man. I bet that was a LONG time of suffering for Jesus.
Don't tell me that He didn't have a long life.
===================================
e) verse 9 "Nor was there deceit in his mouth." doesn't apply because, according to the gospel accounts, Jesus lied to his family about going to Jerusalem. (John 7:8-10), and lied in saying that he never taught in secret (see John 18:20, vs. Matt. 16:20, Mark 8:30 and others).
=======================================
I will take more time to examine this complaint.
But Peter said no deceit was found in His mouth and Pilate was not able to find any fault with Him. So for now suffice it to mention that both enemies and friends said that they found no fault in Him.
The accusations were false accusations. I will examine your texts latter. But I regard this as slander and false accusation of Christ, which is nothing new for His opposers.
======================================
The Jews for Judaism analysis of Isaiah 53 points out that a) contrary to verse 2, Jesus is never described as physically unattractive; b)
=======================================
He is never discribed one way or the other, thank God.
His life in Nazareth is not marked with any particular attention given to His appearance.
Not particularly attractive and down right ugly or "unattractive" are not necessarily the same. I don't think the prophet was saying any more than that this Suffering Servant was not particularly noted for being attractive. It does not have to mean that He was ugly or "unattractive".
For sure after He was tortured He was unattractive as His appearance was scared and marred.
=====================================
far from being rejected and despised as verse 3 says, the Gospel writers describe him as being popular;
======================================
This is arguable. After three and one half years of ministry and healing perhaps thousands of people, there were only 120 faithful enough to pray together.
Where were all those hordes of people fed miraculously, healed, and with demons cast out of them. By wordly standards He would have been a failure to only have 120 people left as a company after three years of such activity.
==========================================
c) contrary to verse 7, Jesus did a lot of talking; and d) instead of being non-violent (verse 9),
==================================
The prophecy says that He was as a dumb sheep before the shearers. This speaks of His not saying much as He was being tried in court.
Of course Jesus spoke much. Isaiah's point was this:
"Like a lamb that is led to the slaughter and like a sheep that is dumb hefore its shearers, So HE did not open His mouth." (v.7)
Jesus had very little to say in His defence though they prodded Him and tried to provoke Him. This therefore is a groundless complaint also.
==============================
Jesus overturned tables, chased people from their jobs, and promised to bring swords.
===================================
The prophecy concerns being led to the slaughter. It speaks of His time during the trials.
The critic is desperately grasping for excuses.
======================================
So then, while the first impression on reading a Christian translation of Isaiah 53 may be to think of Jesus, looking deeper shows that the Hebrew text does not sound like Jesus, and the context shows shows many differences from what the Christian Bible says about Jesus.
=========================================
No it doesn't.
The first line says "Who has believed our report?"
This means that though the prophets and the prophet Isaiah spoke and spoke concerning Christ, so many are still blinded in unbelief.
We spoke. But who has believed? Of the nation of Israel, though they heard, not many have believed.
You enumerated some rather weak reasons to rationalize why you have not believed though the prophet has spoken.
23 Dec 08
Originally posted by jaywillThis is about as perfect an example of far fetched stretching of text as can be thought of. Since the site given already answers all these types of arguments, I'll leave it to the curious to read it.
[b]===================================
Jesus doesn't fit several of the details in the chapter. a) As mentioned above, Jesus was never sick.
=====================================
Isaiah 53:3 says "Surely He has borne our sicknesses". The point here is not that He was sick but that in the eyes of God He has borne our sicknesses. Just as the ...[text shortened]... have not believed though the prophet has spoken.[/b]
23 Dec 08
Originally posted by Badwaterhaha the pure folly of the rationalist, your baseless arguments are based on a supposition and assumption, that of course being that there is no divine element involved, thus as you dismiss it, you cannot grasp the understanding nor the import of the words as your testimony betrays, so you must grasp at imperfect human reasoning which cannot prove either that Christ was indeed not the Messiah, thus your hollow empty words have the same impetus as the sound of ice melting in the tundra.
The silly prophesying, fortune telling, that so many Christians wish to engage in is flawed on a fundamental level. The prophesies of the OT are written for the audience of the time and do not foretell Jesus as Messiah. They are no better than trying to read the future from the writings of Nostradamus (as I and others have stated before). They do not specif ...[text shortened]... Jesus is messiah; it is done after the fact and was already a foregone conclusion.
23 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderif i may remind you of your far fetched and almost incredulous claims that Christ was also not the messiah, for example that he talked too much, haha, or that he was good looking or otherwise, haha, or that he was popular and accepted by Jews, haha, it is to laugh. man you and ol badwater should have your own tv show, pure entertainment, thanks!
This is about as perfect an example of far fetched stretching of text as can be thought of. Since the site given already answers all these types of arguments, I'll leave it to the curious to read it.
23 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf ignorance is truly bliss, you must be the happiest moron alive.
if i may remind you of your far fetched and almost incredulous claims that Christ was also not the messiah, for example that he talked too much, haha, or that he was good looking or otherwise, haha, or that he was popular and accepted by Jews, haha, it is to laugh.
EDIT: Isaiah 53:2: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.