The 25 fulfilled prophecies of Isaiah chapter 53

Well I now see that one site I listed in post 279 did include Gauis Seutonius. I've listed 10 before, I'll have to do research to find the 10th source.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
We're talking about it 2000 years later, and the pope is all over the news, how is that for evidence.
Click to expand...

People are talking about Muhammad 1500 years later, and they're talking about the Buddha 2500 years later, and they're talking about Hinduism 3700 years later. Are all these religions true because people still observe them?
 
kmortis said:
well, that's like asking "was John born?". The answer is, invariably, "yes".

[...]

That a man named "Jesus" lived in that day is a certainty.
That a man worked as an itinerant preacher is a certainty.
Click to expand...

I disagree. While the odds are in favour of the myth having some grounds in reality, it doesn't follow, especially in the light of the complete lack of evidence, that anyone named Jesus that fits the bill lived in that era. He could've lived a hundred years before and the legend could've been adapted to the times, or the "Jesus" of the bible may be based on earlier mythologies not related to an actual person. I admit that the odds of the historical Jesus seem more probable but I wouldn't call them certain.
 
DOC said:
Quote from Sir William Mitchell Ramsey:

"Luke is a historian of the first rank- this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians".
Click to expand...

Quote from Belz...:

"Luke didn't have a clue."

Can we stick to the evidence instead of opinions ?
 
DOC said:
We're talking about it 2000 years later, and the pope is all over the news, how is that for evidence.
Click to expand...

DOC, by now your honesty is in question. NO ONE is disputing that people BELIEVE in the Christian god.

And people are always asking for non-Christian sources
Click to expand...

Of course. The only Christian source is the bible. We need corroboration. We have none.

well they got them, 10 of them. Sorry there are no photos but there are 24,000 manuscripts compared to 7 for Plato, and 20 for the Roman Historian Tacitus.
Click to expand...

There are no such things. I know of no reference to Jesus himself outside of Josephus, and this has already been covered.



You haven't answered to my points about the spread of Islam, I notice.
 
DOC said:
I never said there were 10 manuscripts. There is a about 24,000 ancient manuscripts of New Testament writings.
Click to expand...

You introduced the number 24,000 without saying what it was.

What were the 10 non-christian written sources, if not manuscripts?

While I have your attention:
zooterkin said:
DOC said:
I think most scholars believe Jesus actually existed. We have more non-Christian written sources for Christ and/or Christians (10) than we have written sources for Tiberius Caessar(9).
Click to expand...

Just to be sure we're comparing like with like, what are these 9 written sources for Tiberius Caes(s)ar?
Click to expand...
 
DOC said:
Well here is 9, they left out Seutonius which makes 10. If you want eyewitnesses you have to go to the bible. This is logical because if someone was an eyewitness it is probable they would become a Christian. If they were an eyewitness and didn't believe in Jesus, why waste valuable (for that time) writing materials on someone you don't believe in.
Click to expand...

Which Gospel, exactly, claims to be written by a witness ? In fact none of them ever says "I", methinks. I do seem to remember Luke's introduction implying that he never actually saw Jesus.
 
It occurs to me to wonder how the author of Luke can even be considered a historian, if he was writing about contemporary events.

I mean, doesn't a historian, by definition, write about the past?

Further, what does this (or the last few pages of this thread) have to do with Isaiah?

Or is this another attempt at proof by numerous irrelevant, unrelated and questionable "facts"?
 
zooterkin said:
You introduced the number 24,000 without saying what it was.

What were the 10 non-christian written sources, if not manuscripts?:
Click to expand...

The ususal apologist standard fare. Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonis, Talmud, and the likes. Heck, they will even count Lucian's Peregrine:

It was now that he came across the priests and scribes of the Christians, in Palestine, and picked up their queer creed. I can tell you, he pretty soon convinced them of his superiority; prophet, elder, ruler of the Synagogue--he was everything at once; expounded their books, commented on them, wrote books himself. They took him for a God, accepted his laws, and declared him their president. The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day,--the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. Well, the end of it was that Proteus was arrested and thrown into prison. This was the very thing to lend an air to his favourite arts of clap-trap and wonder-working; he was now a made man. The Christians took it all very seriously: he was no sooner in prison, than they began trying every means to get him out again,--but without success.​
And there is more about Proteus and the Christians ...
http://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/luc/wl4/wl420.htm
 
It's amusing how DOC has this amazing ability to derail his own thread. Can't blame him though, if he kept on topic, he wouldn't be able to throw out all those red herrings to obfuscate his OP's total fail.
 
X said:
Further, what does this (or the last few pages of this thread) have to do with Isaiah?

Or is this another attempt at proof by numerous irrelevant, unrelated and questionable "facts"?
Click to expand...

It's amusing how DOC has this amazing ability to derail his own thread. Can't blame him though, if he kept on topic, he wouldn't be able to throw out all those red herrings to obfuscate his OP's total fail.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know its all DOC's fault.

But threads also have a tendency to drift when someone out of the blue brings up a website I used almost two years ago in a Thomas Jefferson thread.

Or when someone brings up in only the 3rd post-- Native Americans, evolution, the Big Bang, Thomas Jefferson, and drugs. And does it out of context and with half truths.

If people would quit using out of the blue ad hom(ish) statements against me, these threads certainly wouldn't drift so much. But I do have a right to defend myself (with information) against these ad hom attacks.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Well here is 9, they left out Seutonius which makes 10. If you want eyewitnesses you have to go to the bible. This is logical because if someone was an eyewitness it is probable they would become a Christian. If they were an eyewitness and didn't believe in Jesus, why waste valuable (for that time) writing materials on someone you don't believe in.
Click to expand...

Good job. You reference the standard set of sources which attest that
1.) Christians existed.
2.) That they worshiped a guy named christ
3.) and a cult leader (likely the same christ) was killed.

I see no problem with any of those points. Just Like I have no problem believing that Elvis existed. But that doesn't mean he still lives, despite accounts to the contrary.

What you still need to prove here is that Jesus actually fullfilled the prophecies of Isaiah.


I have noticed that you didn't answer:
If Jesus does Fullfill Isaiah, where are his children?
Did Jesus do it with Mary?
 
DOC said:
If people would quit using out of the blue ad hom against me, these threads certainly wouldn't drift so much. But I do have a right to defend myself (with information) against these ad hom attacks.
Click to expand...


Or you could simply ignore them.

Anyway, back to Isaiah. Why do you consider something written in the past tense to be prophecy? Isn't prophecy supposed to be about the future?
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Yes, I know its all DOC's fault.
Click to expand...
Yes it is. You refuse to answer questions directly. You throw out useless red herring and logical fallacies instead of answering questions or supporting your arguments. These red herrings and useless little logical fallacies have a great affect at derailing your thread.

Yes DOC, it is your fault you derail your own threads.
 
paximperium said:
Yes it is. You refuse to answer questions directly.
Click to expand...

My last 7 threads which I would estimate have averaged 25,000 hits say otherwise. What is the one question you (and only you since I don't have unlimited time) want me to answer directly?
 
DOC said:
My last 7 threads which I would estimate have averaged 25,000 hits say otherwise.
Click to expand...
No they do not my little delusional fundie.
What is the one question you (and only you since I don't have unlimited time) want me to answer directly?
Click to expand...
If Jesus does Fullfill Isaiah, where are his children?
Did Jesus do it with Mary?
Why do you consider something written in the past tense to be prophecy? Isn't prophecy supposed to be about the future?
 
DOC said:
My last 7 threads which I would estimate have averaged 25,000 hits say otherwise.
Click to expand...
Nope.



Now, to get on track.
Here's a list of problems I see with the link you are trying to make.

1.) If Jesus does Fullfill Isaiah, where are his children?
Did Jesus do it with Mary?
2.) Why is the prophecy written in past tense?
3.) What kind of insane crazy person thinks that being born as a baby is unattractive?
4.) If he was "He was despised and rejected by men", why did Jesus have followers?
5.) If he was "Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not", why did he have followers?
6.) "he was led like a lamb to the slaughter," The Gospel account says otherwise. In fact, according to the story, Jesus knew full well why he was being killed. How can this be rectified?
7.) "and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth." And this too if false. The different gospels have jesus saying multiple things during his crusifiction. from "why have you forsaken me" to "Lord to your arms I commend my spirit." How do you explain this inconsistency?
8.) " though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth." This too is false. Jesus explained that the whole point of his parables were to keep others confused about his message.Matthew 13:11-15 That's rather deceitful, don't you think?
9.) "and he will divide the spoils with the strong". Yet, jesus said, "Blessed are the meek..." Seems that Jesus wasn't interested in the "strong". How can you explain this inconsistency without being blatantly dishonest in interpretations?
10.) "by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities". This is a very weird one. Why would God refer to Jesus as "his servant"? I though Jesus was his son/him? Stranger and stranger...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom