The 25 fulfilled prophecies of Isaiah chapter 53

[Wildy]

Both? It is a joke but the Jews are also out to kill ya!

Oh noes the Jews are out to get me. They don't scare me, what with all their money and resources...

 

[kmortis]

When your OP lies in tattered shreds, derail, derail, derail.

DOC, in classic Old Testament prophecy, the history leading up to the issue is described, the issue is described, the required actions to correct the issue are described, then the expected punishment for failure to carry out those actions is described. Please explain how Isaiah fits this format and yet manages to support your point.

(Hint, it doesn't.)

I notice you didn't complain about the long derail that was posted in the 3rd post of this thread by someone else. I think I know the reason, it wasn't posted by me.

No, I didn't complain as it wasn't an obvious dodge of outstanding questions relating to the OP. Speaking of dodging questions relating to the OP, how about addressing the majority of my post which you snipped?

*Ahem*

DOC, in classic Old Testament prophecy, the history leading up to the issue is described, the issue is described, the required actions to correct the issue are described, then the expected punishment for failure to carry out those actions is described. Please explain how Isaiah fits this format and yet manages to support your point.

So, in your mind its OK for someone to derail Doc's thread as long as you perceive it's not about dodging questions. Do you believe post #3 was inappropriate and a derail?

The very first line of post #3 is completely on topic and you have since avoided addressing that issue kmortis brought up.

The best way to handle inappropriate posts or derails is to ignore them and focus on the OP.

So, care to address any of the serious points people have raised, or would you rather continue your pathetic, whinging martyrdom and hope that people fail to realize that you will not, or cannot, address the issues?

So, DOC, gonna stop dodging Hokulele's question now? I included it twice above, even bolded it for easier viewing. Or do you want to whine some more over my "derailing in post #3"? If you want a slug-fest, I'll be more than happy to oblige, but I'd rather see you try to lie your way out of this one try to defend your point by answering a direct question directly.

 

[kmortis]

Let's see how we're going so far.

Um...coming into this world as a baby is unattractive? What? how else should he have done it? UPS?

He's not answered this yet. Nor for any of the other people who've asked it.

On a completely related note, I'm so happy to see yet another DOC thread starting. I'm going to start a DOC drinking game. Take a drink of the beverage of your choice whenever any of the following are posted by DOC.
1) Thomas Jefferson saying that "Jesus was the most moral man...EVER!!!!!!1111!!!oneeleventy"

Yup. We got this.

2) A reference to DOC's post count

Not this one though.

3) A reference to the response count of any of DOC's previous threads.

No explicit numbers, but he's made reference to them. although, since the other threads were brought up by another poster, this only warrants a sip.

4) any mention of Lee Strobel

Amazingly, Mr. Strobel has yet to factor into the conversation. I thought about changing this to any of DOC's favorite poster children for bad thought. So, it now includes Strobel, Suklow, Geisler, "100 most influential people" and others.

5) Native Americans are better off because of Christians coming to the new world.

How has he managed to miss this one?

6) Christianity getting people off of drugs

Or this one?

7) 98% of Atheists not knowing about the big bang

Ahh, here's a money shot. Drink, my friends, drink.

8) Evolution being "absurd"

1000 times drink!

9) Any complete dodge of a direct question - this is a sipping offense due to frequency

You should be completely plastered due to this one.

10) "DOC is a liar post that adds no value"

Haven't had these words, exactly, but the intent has been there.

11) misuse of logical fallacy

"I'm not as think as you drunk I am."

I'm sure that other veterans of DOC's threads will be able to add to this list.
Now for the "finish the bottle" offenses
1) DOC admitting that his logic was faulty

Since I'm drinking everclear, I'm so glad this hasn't occur.

2) Him admitting that he may have been misled

We're safe here too

3) Answering a direct question directly, without evasion or delay

Here too.

Now, the final rule is that if you play this, you must post in this thread. If nothing else, it'll make the later posts WAY more entertaining.

Well, there we go. He's not done too badly. Mainly kept it to a few select items. At least the bottle busters haven't been breeched.

 

[Belz...]

you are right. It uses the word descendants.
A descendant is the offspring of a person.


Nope.
You are bending words to retrofit your wishes into reality.

Sorry buy offspring and descendants are not children of god.


The irony here, doc, is that you claim that "descendants" are a metaphor for christians as christians are called "the children of god".


Yet, you also claim that "son of god" means the actua son of god, even though that was historically used as a metaphor.

so i ask, why is "son of god" not a metaphor, yet descendant is a metaphor?


let me give the honest answer to that question: Because you want it to be.

Doc ?

 

[dafydd]

ya know, whenever you mention Jesus having sex, I can only picture the classic Blond Jesus singing Marvin Gaye's "Let's get it on".


.................................
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/54904a1299a001832.gif[/qimg]

For an Aramaic Jew,he looks a lot like a young Gregg Allman.

 

[DOC]

In this scenario he attempt to deflect that simple fact that he lies constantly and refuses to admit his falsehoods repeated by the nitpick of claiming that "never" is false because he has admitted error twice.

You were warned twice about this type of post in my "Evidence for why we know the New Testament Writers told the truth" (History and Literature section) by moderators. Obviously you don't give a darn about what the moderators tell you or the Randi rules.

I have not lied in any of my threads and you have not given any evidence of one lie in the 2 and a half years I"ve been on this system. This kind of unproven post and behavior hurts the credibility of the Randi system if it is allowed to continue. And not only that, although you might not realize it, it seriously hurts your own credibility by continuing to break Randi rules even though warned. I will report this post.

 

[Hokulele]

Obviously you don't give a darn about what the moderators tell you or the Randi rules.

Obviously you do not give a damn about addressing the challenges to your OP. Please explain how Isaiah either follows the standard prophecy format, or why you are allowed special pleading for Isaiah 53.

 

[paximperium]

You were warned twice about this type of post in my "Evidence for why we know the New Testament Writers told the truth" (History and Literature section) by moderators. Obviously you don't give a darn about what the moderators tell you or the Randi rules.

Obviously you don't give a damn about the OP since you have long since abandoned your failure of a post.

Since you have nothing to add concerning the OP, the other posters here are free to discuss your debating tactics since that is all that is truly interesting left to discuss.

I have not lied in any of my threads and you have not given any evidence of one lie in the 2 and a half years I"ve been on this system.

That is of course a lie which is open to anyone who reads yours posts.

This kind of unproven post and behavior hurts the credibility of the Randi system if it is allowed to continue.

As has been stated repeatedly by the mods, stating that a poster lies as evidenced by your behavior and posts is within the bounds of the rules.

And not only that, although you might not realize it, it seriously hurts your own credibility by continuing to break Randi rules even though warned.

My credibility is fine. As I've said repeatedly, listening to advice from someone with no credibility concerning this issue is like listening to Hitler give advice about mercy.

I will report this post.

Please do.

 

[paximperium]

Weird...DOC Deja Vu:

Another Doc's a liar post with no explanation. You've already been warned twice by moderators in this thread about attacking the arguer. You obviously don't take their warning seriously.

 

[DOC]

That is of course a lie which is open to anyone who reads yours posts.

As has been stated repeatedly by the mods, stating that a poster lies as evidenced by your behavior and posts is within the bounds of the rules.

What evidence? You have not given one lie or evidence to support it and you won't because you know it won't stand a chance when analyzed.

ETA: Your a habitual rule breaker and you should be off the system if your rule breaking behavior continues.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

So why don't you set a good example by sticking to the topic and honestly addressing the (on-topic) issues that others have raised? Why not start with Joobz' question which Belz quoted in post 484.

 

[paximperium]

What evidence? You have not given one lie or evidence to support it and you won't because you know it won't stand a chance when analyzed.

Well I am really glad you brought in that website where Thomas Jefferson wrote I am a real Christian.

And of course I denied and still deny ever knowing the kind of organization that sponsors that website. You will notice that nowhere on the page I brought in does it give any indication of the kind of organization it is. This is just another example of some skeptics attacking the messenger instead of the message. But in a way I'm glad some people have that mentality (in this instance) because now a lot more people know that Thomas Jefferson stated he was a real Christian.

You quoted it without investigating? That's your fault, and extremely irresponsible of you.

Really? I notice a whole bunch of links along the side, titled things like "jews/911," "NWO," "Blacks," "Whites," "Holocaust," etc. all of which would immediately grab my attention, and one click indicates what sort of organization they are.

Yeah. I don't think you're perceived quite the way you think you are.

What this shows is that you just do a cursory search for anything that you think supports your position without actually looking into it in any detail. Still, that's better than being the sort of racist who would actually read such a crackpot website.

Yeah, 'cause we all know that all that stuff Jefferson said about not believing in the divinity of Jesus, or any of his reported miracles, or about Revelation being the scribblings of a madman etc. etc. etc. doesn't count as long as you can find one passage to take out of context.

Evidence of DOC lying to hide his racism or just plain dishonest incompetence. Which are you DOC?

ETA: Your a habitual rule breaker and you should be off the system if your rule breaking behavior continues.

Well, my behavior obviously magics your claims into truth.

Now are you going to continue playing this game or will you actually answer the questions pertaining to the OP? How about answering Joobz and Hokulele's questions that you have continuously refused to answer?

 

[DOC]

changed second to the last line.

Evidence of DOC lying to hide his racism or just plain dishonest incompetence. Which are you DOC?

So the best evidence you have of your claim that I'm a liar is that I didn't hit links on a website that I brought in. Did it ever occur to you that I was more interested in the subject matter at hand like Thomas Jefferson saying "I am a real Christian" than I was about hitting links on the website. Did it ever occur to you that a person who is posting 400 or 500 times on a thread doesn't have the time to hit links on every website he brings in.

And also by your logic if the above doesn't make me a liar it makes me dishonest.

Translation: No evidence that I'm a liar or dishonest. And if you think the above is evidence, well that says something about the logic you use.

But you implied I lied several times. So what is your next example Mr. Pax.

 

[joobz]

That is of course a lie which is open to anyone who reads yours posts.

Well, the problem here is that identifying out and out lies can be tricky. You must show that the person who is lying intended to decieve.

In this way, I think a case could be made for DOC lying by highlighting the number of times he has repeatedly used quote mines as supported evidence. The best example is his "archeologist who said Luke is a fine historian". DOC uses this quote to imply that if Luke was right about historical points, he must also have been right about the ressurection. AND, he intentionally ignores the full quote that is made by the historian, which gives the false impression of the historian agreeing with DOC's implied conclusion. However, the full quote goes on to say that one must take the bible as a propoganda piece when viewing it.


DOC knows what the full quote says, yet he continues to use the "luke a great historian" argument.
Further, we now have evidence of a Priest stating that Luke got something wrong and called the census nonsense.

Coupling this with the fact that his original argument is also a logical fallacy (and was informed of it as such), we can state rather clearly that DOC lies when he makes the "Luke is a great historian" argument.

 

[joobz]

Did it ever occur to you that I was more interested in the subject matter at hand like Thomas Jefferson saying "I am a real Christian" than I was about hitting links on the website.

That is exactly what I think. You are very interested in presenting ANYTHING that supports your preconceived notion. You are not interested in determining of those things are true or not.

Why not get back on Topic and answer this question:

you are right. It uses the word descendants.
A descendant is the offspring of a person.


Nope.
You are bending words to retrofit your wishes into reality.

Sorry buy offspring and descendants are not children of god.


The irony here, doc, is that you claim that "descendants" are a metaphor for christians as christians are called "the children of god".


Yet, you also claim that "son of god" means the actua son of god, even though that was historically used as a metaphor.

so i ask, why is "son of god" not a metaphor, yet descendant is a metaphor?


let me give the honest answer to that question: Because you want it to be.

 

[kmortis]

That is exactly what I think. You are very interested in presenting ANYTHING that supports your preconceived notion. You are not interested in determining of those things are true or not.

Why not get back on Topic and answer this question:
so i ask, why is "son of god" not a metaphor, yet descendant is a metaphor?

or this one...

Please explain how Isaiah either follows the standard prophecy format, or why you are allowed special pleading for Isaiah 53.

 

[joobz]

or this one...

I think in Hok's question is the answer to both questions.
special pleading.


ETA:
Personally, when I hear the phrase special pleading, I instantly reread the argument in the Doug and Wendy Whiner voice.

 

[Geezer]

For the life of me I will never understand why they keep using Tacitus as a non-christian reference for the existance of Jesus.
All he does is mentioning a group of people that calls themselves christians and as any good historian explain where they say they take their name, nowhere does he mention the name Jesus noe does he refer to any other source than the christians for said events.

He doesn't for example say "hey I met this old soldier who was in Jerusalem when they nailed this dude to a cross, seems to have started a new religion or something"

Oh and he wrote about it ca 100 AD

 

[kmortis]

I think in Hok's question is the answer to both questions.
special pleading.

That's as maybe, but it's still not DOC answering a direct question and dodging around doing everything in his power to avoid it.


On the plus side, I got a good buzz on.

 

[Hokulele]

But you implied I lied several times. So what is your next example Mr. Pax.

Either go start a thread about this over in Community or address the questions that relate the OP as have been raised by kmortis and joobz.