Isaiah 53, 700 B.C: Historical Evidence of the Divine Omniscience.

[Nishant Xavier]

Another Video on Isaiah 53: Good to see Creative Christians making excellent use of digital media for the Cause of the Gospel. Isaiah 53 is irrefutable. It is sufficient to prove to Jews that Jesus Christ is the True Messiah and to Atheists that God is Omniscient, since it pre-dates Christ's Birth.

"The Prophecy of Isaiah 53 (New Animation)
https://youtu.be/cmMRoE-58P0

And, no, Bucky, the Divine Son of God, the Natural Son of God, is Divine and Pre-Existent. He alone has Power to save from the Fire, as we see in Daniel 2, which also pre-dates Christ's Birth and refutes other Pharisaic claims: "He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."(Daniel 3:25)

A Divine, Pre-Existent and Powerful Son of God Who rushed down from His Father's Throne in Heaven to save Daniel's 3 friends from the fire: The Gospel of Christ hidden in a riddle in the OT by an all wise God. Only the Son of God has Power to save from Eternal Fire and that's what this story mystically conveys.

As St. John the Apostle explains, everyone who receives Jesus Christ as his Savior becomes a son of God, an adopted son. That's not the same as Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Natural Son. So the other objection fails also. The Son of God is real, He is no metaphor, He came down from Heaven, He is the most influential man in history, and 2.6 BN people worship Him while a further 2 BN Muslims believe He is the Messiah, though they wrongly think, influenced by Judaism, that He is only the Prophet - because they don't understand, like the Jews, who the Messiah was supposed to be: The Son of God and Savior of the world, who dies and offers Himself in Sacrifice to save us from our sins. When we say this year is 2023, what do we mean? 2023 years since the coming of Jesus Christ, that's how influential Jesus Christ has been, and He is the Son of God.

[no one]

For the entity that knows all, why is your god so fucking stupid?

I've only asked several times.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Another text wall another failed refutation 

[Bucky Ball]

Another Video on Isaiah 53: Good to see Creative Christians making excellent use of digital media for the Cause of the Gospel. Isaiah 53 is irrefutable. It is sufficient to prove to Jews that Jesus Christ is the True Messiah and to Atheists that God is Omniscient, since it pre-dates Christ's Birth.

"The Prophecy of Isaiah 53 (New Animation)
https://youtu.be/cmMRoE-58P0

And, no, Bucky, the Divine Son of God, the Natural Son of God, is Divine and Pre-Existent. He alone has Power to save from the Fire, as we see in Daniel 2, which also pre-dates Christ's Birth and refutes other Pharisaic claims: "He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."(Daniel 3:25)

A Divine, Pre-Existent and Powerful Son of God Who rushed down from His Father's Throne in Heaven to save Daniel's 3 friends from the fire: The Gospel of Christ hidden in a riddle in the OT by an all wise God. Only the Son of God has Power to save from Eternal Fire and that's what this story mystically conveys.

bla bla bla

Thanks for your irrelevant nonsense. We're talking about JEWISH culture, NOT what Christians over the centuries CHANGED it to mean.
Presentism : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism..._analysis)

Totally false. All total bullshit by this ignorant fundamentalist.
I already told you, we know the use of prophecy as omen reading, which is what you're doing, was forbidden. 
More total drivel from the faker, with no education. As you were told yesterday, no Jew, INCLUDING all the prophets, has ANY notion of a divine son of god. Not pre-existent or otherwise. A Jew who said that there was an equivalent being who was his son, would get stoned to death, which they attempted to do with Jesus. "Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him" John 10:31

No Jew would EVER posit that there was a being equivalent to Yahweh. So stick your "divine son" up your ass, and go get an education. What an ignorant fool. But please, keep embarrassing yourself on a daily basis, and thanks for providing such easy targets to knock down. 

You post all mere nothing-burgers, mere assertions with no evidence. THE "son of god" has a form ? LOL
You do know also I hope that Daniel is known to be a fake, totally. It's a tale. 

Book of Daniel is a 2nd-century BC biblical apocalypse with a 6th century BC setting. Ostensibly "an account of the activities and visions of Daniel a noble Jew exiled in Babylon, it combines a prophecy of history with an eschatology (a portrayal of end times) both cosmic in scope and political in focus, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Da...9336-1]and its message is that just as the God of Israel saves Daniel from his enemies, so he would save all Israel in their present oppression https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Da...r2005218-3][/url]

Do you people actually read the rubbish you post.  

Once again, just as yesterday, your total ignorance of Jewish culture is here for all to see. 
https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/artic...son-of-god

Son of God : 
"Term applied to an angel or demigod, one of the mythological beings whose exploits are described in Gen. vi. 2-4, and whose ill conduct was among the causes of the Flood; to a judge or ruler "children of the Most High"; in many passages "gods" and "judges" seem to be equations; comp. Ex. xxi. 6 [R. V., margin] and xxii. 8, 9); and to the real or ideal king over Israel (II Sam. vii. 14, with reference to David and his dynasty; comp. Ps. lxxxix. 27, 28). "Sons of God" and "children of God" are applied also to Israel as a people (comp. Ex. iv. 22 and Hos. xi. 1) and to all members of the human race.

"Yet the term by no means carries the idea of physical descent from, and essential unity with, God the Father. The Hebrew idiom conveys nothing further than a simple expression of godlikeness. In fact, the term "son of God" is rarely used in Jewish literature in the sense of "Messiah". Though in Sukkah.52a the words of Ps. ii. 7, 8 are put into the mouth of Messiah, son of David, he himself is not called "son of God." The more familiar epithet is "King Messiah," based partly on this psalm (Gen. R. xliv.). In the Targum the of Ps. lxxx. 16 is rendered "King Messiah", while Ps. ii. 7 is paraphrased in a manner that removes the anthropomorphism of the Hebrew: "Thou art beloved unto me, like a son unto a father, pure as on the day when I created thee."

THAT'S what the Hebrew prophets thought about your the subject, and THAT is how Hebrew prophets understood "son of god". You cannot come along centuries LATER and attempt to make it say something it never did. 

You do know I hope that Christians did not always believe Jesus was divine, and they ARGUED about it in at least two councils, and they were busy in their "kitchen" cooking up Christianity.
In 325, the first ecumenical council (First Council of Nicaea) determined that Jesus Christ was God, "consubstantial" with the Father, and rejected the Arian contention that Jesus was a created being. This was reaffirmed at the First Council of Constantinople (381) and the Council of Ephesus (431).

I hope you also know that in the "Heavenly Court" there were many many "divine beings". Being *divine* in Hebrew thought did not make you a god.  
Please post something equally stupid tomorrow, and we'll continue your education.

Deuteronomy 18:10-14
10 Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,
11 or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.
12 Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD; because of these same detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you.
13 You must be blameless before the LORD your God.
14 The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the LORD your God has not permitted you to do so.

ta ta

[Angrboda]

This is probably a good time to review the criteria which a prophecy must satisfy to be considered a good prophecy.

1. It must be specific enough that it cannot be misinterpreted as being fulfilled when it was not;
2. It must predate the event (duh);
3. The probability of the prophecy coming true by chance is low enough that its fulfillment is unexpected;
4. It must be the only relevant prophecy that pertains (if dice are predicted both to land heads and tails, neither is a successful prediction);
5. It must not have been fulfilled by conscious intentions to do so which existed at the time of prediction or because of the prediction.

Both Isaiah and Daniel violate multiple criteria and thus neither qualify as good prophecies.

[Bucky Ball]

I wonder if NX realizes how insanely stupid and intellectually dishonest, and structurally flawed his form of argumentation is, in these posts.
First he takes a quote, often out of context, such as Isaiah, from an ancient text. He actually knows next to nothing about the ancient cultural context, or even the literary
context, or its background, as we showed here yesterday.

Then He creates a (false) comparison to something some people believe today, because some of the words happen to be similar.
He then slaps on his *present* understandings from his *present* beliefs onto the ancient text. And viola.
Besides the fact that this is a well known methodological error ("presentism"), he actually thinks that his false use of similar words which meant different things at the time they were written, to claim a "prediction" for his present beliefs, from an ancient source that had no such similar concept at all, and that method will produce something worth considering.
His method (actually its the method of pretty much all fundies), is flawed, his knowledge of the ancient world is totally flawed, and no thoughtful person would accept this method or anything he claims as a result of his examination, or assertions. He actually thinks this flawed method should produce the truth.

But this is pretty much a universally used, false methodology in Fundamentalism.

[Anomalocaris]

I wonder if NX realizes how insanely stupid and intellectually dishonest, and structurally flawed his form of argumentation is, in these posts.
First he takes a quote, often out of context, such as Isaiah, from an ancient text. He actually knows next to  nothing about the ancient cultural context, or even the literary
context, or its background, as we showed here yesterday.

Then He creates a (false) comparison to something some people believe today, because some of the words happen to be similar.
He then slaps on his *present* understandings from his *present* beliefs onto the ancient text. And viola.
Besides the fact that this is a well known methodological error ("presentism"), he actually thinks that his false use of similar words which meant different things at the time they were written, to claim a "prediction" for his present beliefs, from an ancient source that had no such similar concept at all, will produce something worth considering.
His method (actually its the meth of pretty much all fundies), is flawed, his knowledge of the ancient world is totally flawed, and no thoughtful person would accept this method or anything he claims as a result of his examination, or assertions. He actually thinks this flawed method should produce the truth.

I am not sure “realize” is achievable with just 3 malfunctioning brain cells

[Bucky Ball]

Another well known false misappropriation / mistranslation of Isaiah is the business of the "virgin birth".
The so-called "virgin birth" is one of the PRIME examples where there is development of an off-the-wall notion, based on a translation, of a MIS-translation, of a translation, which is then taken out of context, and solidified as doctrine, and driven over the cliff.

Isaiah 7 talks about King Ahaz, son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, who was King of Judah. At the time, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah, son of Remaliah, marched up to fight against Jerusalem, and the campaign was long and protracted. See the Syro-Ephraimite War, (Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syro-Ephraimite_War ), and it happened in the 8th Century (734) BC. When Ahaz was loosing faith, Isaiah went to visit him, and told him to "buck up", keep the faith, and continue the war, and told him that the SIGN from god, that they were favored, was that one of his wives, (a "woman of marriageable age") would be found to be with child. The SIGN was the CHILD, (and NOT the manner of the birth). ...."And they shall name him Emmanuel" which means "god is with us". The CHILD was the SIGN.

Any devout Jew in the time of the Roman occupation, would know that story, from Isaiah, and when they heard the words "a woman of marriageable age") will be found to be with child" they would connect the stories in their brains, and recognize that the gospel text's intention was to remind them of the Isaiah story, and would "harken" back to it, and realize the intent of the author was to claim that THIS child also was a sign. The general intent of the Gospel of Matthew was to claim the fulfillment of the various prophesies regarding the messiah, and this one was another one of those claims/stories of fulfillment.

Matthew, writing in Greek about the "virgin birth" of Jesus, quotes the Septuagint text of Isaiah 7:14-16, which uses the Greek word "παρθένος" (parthenos,), (we still use the term "parthenogenesis") while the original Hebrew text has "עלמה" (almah), which has the wider meaning of an unmarried, betrothed or newly-wed woman such as in the case of Ahaz' betrothed Abijah, daughter of Zechariah. He NEVER meant to imply that he was asserting "gynecological" claims, and THAT whole business was "off-the-wall", a mistranslation, taken to ridiculous extremes, by interpreters who missed the point. THE CHILD was the sign, and Matthew never said Jesus was born of a virgin.

Also interesting that Matthew (1:25) only says that Joseph "knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son". Why say that, if he never "knew" her ?

[GrandizerII]

Now, let's back to the issue: Grandizer, any comments on the Rabbi I cited who understood Isaiah 53 was about the Messiah: (1) "Rabbi Shimon Ben Yochai: “The meaning of the words ‘bruised for our iniquities’ [Isaiah 53:5] is, that since the Messiah bears our iniquities, which produce the effect of his being bruised, it follows that whoso will not admit that the Messiah thus suffers for our iniquities, must endure and suffer them for them himself.“

Hard to say without checking the direct source myself. I don't want to just go with a copy paste from a Christian site.

Do you have a link to the primary source itself?

(2) The Babylon Talmud also says this of the Messiah: “His name is ‘the leper scholar,’ as it is written, “Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted”. Finally, (3) a well known Jewish Prayer for Yom Kippur, a Post-Christian one at that, openly states: “Our righteous Messiah has turned away from us we have acted foolishly and there is no one to justify us. Our iniquities and the yoke of our transgressions he bears and he is pierced for our transgressions. He carries our sins on his shoulder, to find forgiveness for our iniquities. By his wounds we are healed.”

See above. Where can I locate these sources?

Now, let's come back to the Prophet Isaiah himself: let me use your own translation. You wrote: "The verse does not say, “He was wounded for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities,” which could convey the vicarious suffering ascribed to Jesus. Rather, the proper translation is: “He was wounded because of our transgressions, and crushed because of our iniquities.” Ok, how does the meaning change exactly?

It's not necessarily that the meaning changes, at least not considerably so. It's just that the former interpretation is more preferable for Christian interpretation.

If I say I suffered FOR your wrongdoings, I'm likely to be implying that I am volunteering to do this for your sake.

The point of the latter translation (using the word "because") is to show that the verse is not meant to imply some vicarious suffering in place of those who did the wrongdoing (so that those who did the wrongdoing may then be redeemed) but simply that those who did the wrongdoing caused harm to the victim.

Whether He was crushed "for" our transgressions or "because" of our transgressions, the meaning is ultimately the same. Christ died for our sins and because of our sins. Finally, note that in Isaiah 49, the Servant and Israel are clearly distinguished as two separate entities, the Servant as a Messianic Figure, Israel as the people He came to save along with the Gentiles: "And now the Lord says he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob [Israel] back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the Lord and my God has been my strength—6 he says: “It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob [Israel] and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth.”

Read Isaiah 49:3 again. It clearly states who the servant is. It's not Jesus or any Messiah, for that matter. It's Israel.

He said to me, “You are my servant,
Israel, in whom I will display my splendor.”

Now going by the context of Isaiah 49 and elsewhere, it seems quite clear that Israel has been in disarray for quite some time, and so that's how you're supposed to understand the passage you quoted here in light of that context. The Israelites left to fend for their existence are the ones tasked by God to do that restoration.

Admittedly, it can be difficult to properly understand the passage without also looking at the context of the surrounding texts and the context of those times, and translations done by Christians can render such understanding even more challenging as well, because often times they're just as concerned (or even more so) with ensuring these passages are understood as Messianic than they are with ensuring an accurate translation (that may not be favorable to what they hold to be true).

This is the Prophecy Simeon cited in the Jewish Temple when the Child Jesus was brought to him, saying "A light to enlighten the Gentiles, And the glory of Your people Israel" (Luk 2:32). Jewish Tradition has understood these Servant Passages of the Messiah, as the Rabbis I cited show.

You're talking about Luke here, which is a New Testament account authored by Christians.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Nishant, why do you support pedophilia? Interested in it?