The 25 fulfilled prophecies of Isaiah chapter 53

DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...


They...are...not...ad...hominem...attacks.

You have had "ad hom" explained for you and defined for you and described for you and examples provided for you often enough that you ought to be able to repeat each and every one of those posts in your sleep.

At least stop saying something is an "ad hom" when it is not.

You can say something is a personal attack. You can say it's an insult. You can say someone is attacking the arguer, not the argument, but if something does not follow this pattern

"You are wrong because you are stupid,"

IT'S NOT AN AD HOM.
 
Elizabeth I said:
They...are...not...ad...hominem...attacks.

You have had "ad hom" explained for you and defined for you and described for you and examples provided for you often enough that you ought to be able to repeat each and every one of those posts in your sleep.

At least stop saying something is an "ad hom" when it is not.

You can say something is a personal attack. You can say it's an insult. You can say someone is attacking the arguer, not the argument, but if something does not follow this pattern

"You are wrong because you are stupid,"

IT'S NOT AN AD HOM.
Click to expand...
Well clearly you're wrong as you are a fan of equines....and likely a jew.
 
Belz... said:
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.
Click to expand...


The closest would be the epilogue to John's gospel.
 
DOC said:
Yeah, but how many of the sites have quotes of Jefferson saying, "I am a real Christian" along with a photo of his signature.
Click to expand...

It just shows that you have to be really lazy to go to some fanatic anti-semetic web site. You could have found plenty of other sources. Why the Star of David on the Mickey Mosue hat, why do you deny that it is obvious that is an over the top whacked out web site?

Thomas Jefferson was a Christian who decried the excesses of the church at the time, he stated he was a christian many times, but as you have demonstarted by going to that fanatic website, there are problems when people organise their faith for political purposes.

I doubt many people would deny TJ was Chrsitian, but he sure did not like the churches of the time.
 
Dancing David said:
I doubt many people would deny TJ was Chrsitian, but he sure did not like the churches of the time.
Click to expand...
I doubt he's a christian.
I mean, he's a christian in the loosest of loose definitions. but if we assume that the central element of christianity is "believing that christ is god, and died and ressurected to save us from our sins", then he's most definitely not a christian.
 
joobz said:
I doubt he's a christian.
I mean, he's a christian in the loosest of loose definitions. but if we assume that the central element of christianity is "believing that christ is god, and died and ressurected to save us from our sins", then he's most definitely not a christian.
Click to expand...

We should take this to another thread, but that defintion is solely the modern fundamentalist creed.

I would imagine that TJ partook of the Arius to some extent and therefore denied the first part of the equation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
 
Dancing David said:
We should take this to another thread, but that defintion is solely the modern fundamentalist creed.
Click to expand...
No. I got my concept near directly from the Nicene Creed.
"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.

Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.

And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come."

Dancing David said:
I would imagine that TJ partook of the Arius to some extent and therefore denied the first part of the equation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism
Click to expand...
It's possible, but even at the time of The Nicene council, Arius was concidered heretical and therefore I am quite comfortable with calling Jefferson not a christian.
 
Last edited:
Thats cool, council of Nicea was rather late in the cementing of the pwoer of the patriarchs isn't it. Is that where they instituted celibate priests?

Oh , whoops, 325 AD that puts it right in the power grab of the patriarchs and the establishment of the canon.

Yup that is when they definitly started to squelch the 'jesus as man' stuff and dealt the fatal blow to the gnostics and other mystics.

Celibacy was later.

I was thinking however in the context of the 'reformation' and how the objections to the trinity were fairly standard amongst many of Jefferson's contemporaries.

Like this stuff here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrinitarianism
 
Dancing David said:
Thats cool, council of Nicea was rather late in the cementing of the pwoer of the patriarchs isn't it. Is that where they instituted celibate priests?

Oh , whoops, 325 AD that puts it right in the power grab of the patriarchs and the establishment of the canon.

Yup that is when they definitly started to squelch the 'jesus as man' stuff and dealt the fatal blow to the gnostics and other mystics.

Celibacy was later.

I was thinking however in the context of the 'reformation' and how the objections to the trinity were fairly standard amongst many of Jefferson's contemporaries.

Like this stuff here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrinitarianism
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree that the history of christianity is quite diverse in what was believed. But when I speak of christianity and in particular, when I discuss whether Jefferson is or isn't a christian, I must refer to the context that it is being mentioned.

Christians (like DOC) want to call Jefferson a christian because it would imply that Jefferson Supports DOC's views of religion. This is clearly and fully false (and quite dishonest) as Jefferson was completely against any of the magical thinking that surrounds the christian faith.

Your point in the grander sense is quite valid. Jefferson can be considered christian when we consider the looseness with which that belief system has had. But that doesn't at all reflect the argument that DOC has tried to make.


DOC, and others like him, love using flexible definitions and loose meanings to imply something completely different. The best example of this is when a christian claims proof of god. They will speak of god in the asbtract diest sense and state how that god is unknowable, unprovable, blah blah blah. And since you can't disprove this abstract god, then that must mean that the christian god is true. This is simply a false and dishonest argument. The unprovable nature of the deist god doesn't mean that the christian god isn't unprovable.

Similarly, Just because Jefferson is christian in the "loosest sense of the word" doesn't mean that Jefferson supports the nonsense that DOC's views represent.
 
paximperium said:
Why do you consider something written in the past tense to be prophecy? Isn't prophecy supposed to be about the future?
Click to expand...

Not according to this former orthodox Rabbi who later became a Christian minister. From the article "Isaiah 53" By The Late Rev. Sam Stern:

"The learned rabbis know their own rule that the writing of prophecy can refer to the past, present or future. A Biblical prophet may speak in the past tense, but the pronouncement can apply also to the future. Isaiah 53 is just this kind of pronouncement about the future—a prophecy by Israel’s greatest prophet of the coming of the Messiah to suffer and die for the sins of the world"

http://www.thechristianrabbi.org/isaiah53.htm

Also in another prophecy that many say predicts Christ, Daniel chapter 7 vs. 13-14, Daniel speaks in the past tense.

I was watching in the night visions,
And behold, One like the Son of Man {human like},
Coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days{God},
And they brought Him near before Him.

Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
Which shall not pass away,
And His kingdom the one
Which shall not be destroyed.
 
Last edited:
Wait, a DOC post that's on-topic?

Is this one of the signs of the end times?
 
DOC said:
Not according to this former orthodox Rabbi who later became a Christian minister. From the article "Isaiah 53" By The Late Rev. Sam Stern:

"The learned rabbis know their own rule that the writing of prophecy can refer to the past, present or future. A Biblical prophet may speak in the past tense, but the pronouncement can apply also to the future. Isaiah 53 is just this kind of pronouncement about the future—a prophecy by Israel’s greatest prophet of the coming of the Messiah to suffer and die for the sins of the world"

http://www.thechristianrabbi.org/isaiah53.htm

Also in another prophecy that many say predicts Christ, Daniel chapter 7 vs. 13-14, Daniel speaks in the past tense.

I was watching in the night visions,
And behold, One like the Son of Man {human like},
Coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days{God},
And they brought Him near before Him.

Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
Which shall not pass away,
And His kingdom the one
Which shall not be destroyed.
Click to expand...

Well, if the prophecy is recounted as a vision, then the past tense does make sense: "I had a vision; here is what I saw." The vision is in the past tense even if the prophecy is yet to be fulfilled because the vision itself has already occurred. The prophecy quoted in the OP does not appear to be presented as a vision, though.
 
DOC said:
"The learned rabbis know their own rule that the writing of prophecy can refer to the past, present or future. A Biblical prophet may speak in the past tense, but the pronouncement can apply also to the future. Isaiah 53 is just this kind of pronouncement about the future—a prophecy by Israel’s greatest prophet of the coming of the Messiah to suffer and die for the sins of the world"
Click to expand...


That makes even less sense when reading Isaiah 53. The parts in the past tense aren't visionary, but a metaphorical description of history (Israel's, to be exact). The writer then switches to the future tense to indicate the prophetic parts of the statement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom