• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

The 25 fulfilled prophecies of Isaiah chapter 53

DOC said:
Where did he give his source -- what post?
Click to expand...
You quoted Pax (Post #557). All you need to do is scroll up a tiny tiny bit to Post #556 to see my source.

Go ahead, scroll up. I'll wait
Scroooollll. up..
There you go. Right there...
 
joobz said:
You quoted Pax (Post #557). All you need to do is scroll up a tiny tiny bit to Post #556 to see my source.

Go ahead, scroll up. I'll wait
Scroooollll. up..
There you go. Right there...
Click to expand...

I don't want a video, I have dial up and it takes a long time to download on my computer. Surely there must be a written source somewhere and not a video.
 
DOC said:
Actually according to Norman Geisler's book in which he quotes the book "The 53rd Chapter of Isaiah according to Jewish interpreters" the concept that Isaiah 53 being associated with the Jewish nation didn't really gather steam until about 1000ad. It also states that even before the time of Christ many Jewish rabbis associated Isaiah 53 with the Messiah.
Click to expand...
So you are saying that Jesus (aka God) knew Isaiah really well and didn't think Chapter 53 had anything to do with him. Why do you believe Geisler and not Jesus ?
 
DOC said:
I don't want a video, I have dial up and it takes a long time to download on my computer. Surely there must be a written source somewhere and not a video.
Click to expand...
That's completely dishonest of you.
A video interview of a scholar outright saying "The census is complete nonsense" IS the prime source.
 
DOC said:
I don't want a video, I have dial up and it takes a long time to download on my computer. Surely there must be a written source somewhere and not a video.
Click to expand...

All right, but don't come back in another 50 posts whining that nobody gave you a source for this.

Somebody call the waahmbulance!
 
DOC said:
Then why does Jesus quote Isaiah often as Wiki Answers states.
Click to expand...


If you had even bothered to read your Wiki answer, you would note that the only actual quotation of an Old Testament verse by Jesus given as an example is from . . .


. . . wait for it . . .



. . . Leviticus.


Please list more than one example of Jesus quoting from Isaiah.
 
joobz said:
That's completely dishonest of you.
A video interview of a scholar outright saying "The census is complete nonsense" IS the prime source.
Click to expand...

So your saying evidence is someone saying something is true. Well the authors of the New Testament write something is true, and the author of the Book "Examine the Evidence" writes something is true too.
 
Hokulele said:
If you had even bothered to read your Wiki answer, you would note that the only actual quotation of an Old Testament verse by Jesus given as an example is from . . .


. . . wait for it . . .



. . . Leviticus.


Please list more than one example of Jesus quoting from Isaiah.
Click to expand...
So then you are saying Wiki is wrong when they say Jesus quotes Isaiah often.
 
DOC said:
So your saying evidence is someone saying something is true. Well the authors of the New Testament write something is true, and the author of the Book "Examine the Evidence" writes something is true too.
Click to expand...


The person interviewed provided evidence to support his position rather than a simple bald assertion.

Duh.
 
DOC said:
I don't want a video, I have dial up and it takes a long time to download on my computer. Surely there must be a written source somewhere and not a video.
Click to expand...
Still waiting for YOUR source.
 
DOC said:
So your saying evidence is someone saying something is true. Well the authors of the New Testament write something is true, and the author of the Book "Examine the Evidence" writes something is true too.
Click to expand...
No. I'm saying that My prime source is the direct quote from the person making that quote. That's a prime source. A secondary source would be to quote a source quoting another source. That's quite plain and simple. Nothing complex here. Simple honesty.

I'm saying that there is a modern, christian scholar, who clearly states that Luke got a key element of the bible story WRONG. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. It's evidence that contradicts (quite plainly) your claim of Luke being a great historian.

If you listen to the Priest discuss this, you'll see that he describes Luke as creating a narrative to tell the Jesus story. This is a nice way of saying, Luke made crap up to fill in plot holes. This fact flies in direct and complete opposition to your claim that "the biblical writers were telling the truth".

They weren't. They were telling the truth as they wanted it to be, or better yet, as they believed it to be.
 
joobz said:
No. I'm saying that My prime source is the direct quote from the person making that quote. That's a prime source. A secondary source would be to quote a source quoting another source. That's quite plain and simple. Nothing complex here. Simple honesty.

I'm saying that there is a modern, christian scholar, who clearly states that Luke got a key element of the bible story WRONG. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. It's evidence that contradicts (quite plainly) your claim of Luke being a great historian.
Click to expand...

So then if Sir Isaac Newton (who some say is the greatest scientist who ever lived) writes a 30,000 word book on the Book of Daniel (which he did) we should accept that as evidence for the truth of the book of Daniel since he is even more famous than your scholar.
 
Last edited:
So then if Sir Isaac Newton (who some say is the greatest scientist who ever lived) writes a 30,000 page book on the Book of Daniel (which he did) we should accept that as evidence for the truth of the book of Daniel since he is even more famous than your scholar.
Click to expand...

Damn...did you see those goalposts whip by here? And I think they were carrying an armload of argument from authority, argument from quantity, and argumentum ad populam, too.
 
DOC said:
So then if Sir Isaac Newton (who some say is the greatest scientist who ever lived) writes a 30,000 page book on the Book of Daniel (which he did) we should accept that as evidence for the truth of the book of Daniel since he is even more famous than your scholar.
Click to expand...
Because Newton isn't a Biblical scholar. duh..
 
DOC said:
And I'm still waiting for some kind of written (Not verbal) source that what Joobz says is true.
Click to expand...
No. You made YOUR own claim. Back it up.
You were provided a source but have refused to look at it.
Still waiting for your source or will your withdraw it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom