Freethought & Rationalism Archive

douglas · 12-05-2006, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzim77

Isaiah says the LORD will do these things, "in the last days". The point is, that you have not shown that Jesus can not be the Messiah from Isaiah 2

Why then does he say in the preceeding verse...

Quote:

3 Many peoples will come and say,
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob.
He will teach us his ways,
so that we may walk in his paths."
The law will go out from Zion,
the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.

Is he not speaking of Jesus' ministry? So apparently he does this in the "now" times, but will only do verse 4 in the "end" times? Isaiah does not draw this distinction.

dzim77 · 12-06-2006, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by douglas

Is he not speaking of Jesus' ministry?

So apparently he does this in the "now" times, but will only do verse 4 in the "end" times? Isaiah does not draw this distinction.

IMO, the whole passage, Isa. 2:2-4 are concerning the second coming of Christ.

Notice a parallel passage in Micah 4:

Quote:

1It shall come to pass in the latter days
that the mountain of the house of the LORD
shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
and it shall be lifted up above the hills;
and peoples shall flow to it,
2and many nations shall come, and say:
"Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD,
to the house of the God of Jacob,
that he may teach us his ways
and that we may walk in his paths."
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,
and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.
3He shall judge between many peoples,
and shall decide for strong nations afar off;
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war anymore;
4but they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree,
and no one shall make them afraid,
for the mouth of the LORD of hosts has spoken.
5For all the peoples walk
each in the name of its god,
but we will walk in the name of the LORD our God
forever and ever.
6In that day, declares the LORD,
I will assemble the lame
and gather those who have been driven away
and those whom I have afflicted;
7and the lame I will make the remnant,
and those who were cast off, a strong nation;
and the LORD will reign over them in Mount Zion
from this time forth and forevermore.

Here in Mic.4 it is clear that the prophecy is referring to the time when the Lord will establish his kingdom and reign forever... what you referred to as the "end times".

I think this adds weight to the idea that Isa. 2 is referring to the end times as well.

dzim77 · 12-06-2006, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greyline

I meant the living beings in which era? In which era do the "we" in this statement live?

"We are living in the last days."

If "we" means all people since Jesus, that's 2000 years of "last days", in which case "last" seems like a strange adjective to use. It could just as likely mean another 2000 years in the future, or 200,000 years.

If "we" means 21st century people, where does Jesus specify he meant people living ~2000 years after him?

According to the NT, the "last days" or the "last age" extends from the post-resurrection of Jesus until the time of the second coming. In that light, we are currently living in the last age.

Prophesies can fall into three basic categories... 1. those already fulfilled, 2. those currently being fulfilled, 3. those to be fulfilled at the end of the age (the second coming)

Jack the Bodiless · 12-06-2006, 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzim77

IMO, the whole passage, Isa. 2:2-4 are concerning the second coming of Christ.

There is no "second coming of Christ" mentioned anywhere in the OT. The Jewish Messiah is only supposed to come once. The "second coming" is an NT concept introduced to explain the failure of Jesus to do what he was supposed to do. And, of course, it was supposed to happen soon after the first coming: within one generation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzim77

Prophesies can fall into three basic categories... 1. those already fulfilled, 2. those currently being fulfilled, 3. those to be fulfilled at the end of the age (the second coming)

For completeness, you should also mention: "4. those that have already failed, and cannot now be fulfilled, as the time for their fulfillment has passed".

Indeed, IIRC apologists have divided these into three further categories:

1. Those that were specified as conditional, and the Bible says that the conditions changed (they averted the prophesied doom by repenting or whatever).

2. Those that were specified as conditional, and did not come to pass, so we will conveniently assume that the conditions changed.

3. Those that were NOT specified as conditional, and did not come to pass, so we will even-more-conveniently assume that they WERE conditional, and the conditions changed.

dzim77 · 12-06-2006, 11:03 AM

Quote:

dzim77
IMO, the whole passage, Isa. 2:2-4 are concerning the second coming of Christ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

There is no "second coming of Christ" mentioned anywhere in the OT. The Jewish Messiah is only supposed to come once. The "second coming" is an NT concept introduced to explain the failure of Jesus to do what he was supposed to do.

When I said the passage is concerning the second coming, I was explaining my view of when the prophecy will be fulfilled given our current perspective in history.

Isaiah made the prophecy without the full understanding of a first and second coming of the Messiah, yes. In his context, he forsees these things taking place 'in the last days'... at a point in history which IMO has not come yet.

The analogy is that of a person standing on the ground and viewing two mountains, in the same line-of-sight, miles off in the distance. From his perspective, the mountains appear to be very near to eachother - one immediately behind the other... they may even appear to be one and the same mountain. From a bird's-eye-view, however, it is revealed that there actually are two mountains and they are far apart. In a similar way, as far as the OT prophets were conerned the 'last days' were one jumbled series of events, but 'in the fulness of time', Jesus and the NT writters reveal to us the bird's-eye-view... that there are actually two comings of the Messiah and that the time between those two comings are the 'last days'. Thus we have the Messiah as both a suffering servant and a conquering king in the OT... however in the NT we see that the Messiah was to be a suffering servant in his first coming and a conquering king upon his return. So you can see that the OT prophets were not in error in what they prophecied concerning the Messiah... they just were shown limited perspective.

Once again, the passage does not by any means disqualify Jesus as Messiah.

Diogenes the Cynic · 12-06-2006, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzim77

When I said the passage is concerning the second coming, I was explaining my view of when the prophecy will be fulfilled given our current perspective in history.

Isaiah made the prophecy without the full understanding of a first and second coming of the Messiah, yes. In his context, he forsees these things taking place 'in the last days'... at a point in history which IMO has not come yet.

What is your basis for saying that Isaiah did not have a full understanding? Can you cite anything at all from Hebrew scripture that says the Messiah is supposed to die, come back to life, be a god or save anyone from their sins?

In point of fact, Jesus accomplished none of the OT Messianic prophecies and the OT Messiah is not the Messiah until he fulfills the prophecies. The death of any prospective Messiah before he fulfills the prophecies is pretty much proof positive that he wasn't the Messiah. You can invent this whole "second-coming" nonsense if you want to, but none of that has any basis in the Hebrew Bible and the same dodge can be used just as easily for virtually any dead Jew since Isaiah.

Quote:

The analogy is that of a person standing on the ground and viewing two mountains, in the same line-of-sight, miles off in the distance. From his perspective, the mountains appear to be very near to eachother - one immediately behind the other... they may even appear to be one and the same mountain. From a bird's-eye-view, however, it is revealed that there actually are two mountains and they are far apart. In a similar way, as far as the OT prophets were conerned the 'last days' were one jumbled series of events, but 'in the fulness of time', Jesus and the NT writters reveal to us the bird's-eye-view... that there are actually two comings of the Messiah and that the time between those two comings are the 'last days'. Thus we have the Messiah as both a suffering servant and a conquering king in the OT... however in the NT we see that the Messiah was to be a suffering servant in his first coming and a conquering king upon his return. So you can see that the OT prophets were not in error in what they prophecied concerning the Messiah... they just were shown limited perspective.

Who did the OT prophets get their messages from? Did God have a bad cell phone connection or something?

The "suffering servant" is not the Messiah, by the way. There is nothing in the OT that says or implies that the Messiah will suffer or die or be anything but a conquering king.

Quote:

Once again, the passage does not by any means disqualify Jesus as Messiah.

By your logic, it doesn't disqualify anybody at all because anybody might come back to life and fulfill the prophecies.

But if you want an easy disqualification for Jesus (as the Gospels depict him), here it is. The Messiah has to be a direct patrilinear descendant of David (adoption doesn't count. The mother doesn't count). By the criteria of Hebrew scripture, it is impossible for the Messiah to be born of a virgin.

dzim77 · 12-06-2006, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

What is your basis for saying that Isaiah did not have a full understanding? Can you cite anything at all from Hebrew scripture that says the Messiah is supposed to die, come back to life, be a god or save anyone from their sins?

Sure. Suffering, death, atonement for sin, coming back to life... it's all in Isa. 53

Quote:

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed. ...

8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth. ...

11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied ;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.

Quote:

Who did the OT prophets get their messages from? Did God have a bad cell phone connection or something?

nope, God apparently chose not to reveal the fullness of his plan to the prophets, just what they needed to know at the time according to his wisdom. ie... to give the people of Israel hope and the promise of a Messiah and of the ultimate victory of God

Quote:

The "suffering servant" is not the Messiah, by the way.

Well, that's very convenient for you. Who then, do you suppose Isa.53 is referring to that would be chosen by God to suffer and die for the sins of his people?

Quote:

There is nothing in the OT that says or implies that the Messiah will suffer or die or be anything but a conquering king.

then who is this fellow - 'the one they have pierced'? ...

Quote:

"And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be great...On that day a fountain will be opened to the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to cleanse them from sin and impurity." -Zech 12:10-13:1

Quote:

But if you want an easy disqualification for Jesus (as the Gospels depict him), here it is. The Messiah has to be a direct patrilinear descendant of David (adoption doesn't count. The mother doesn't count). By the criteria of Hebrew scripture, it is impossible for the Messiah to be born of a virgin.

reference please?

ps... I'm suprised you so willingly accept the virgin birth. You have great faith!

The Evil One · 12-06-2006, 12:29 PM

The Suffering Servant is a symbol of the the people of Israel as a whole, is he not?

Diogenes the Cynic · 12-06-2006, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzim77

Sure. Suffering, death, atonement for sin, coming back to life... it's all in Isa. 53

Isaiah 53 is not about the Messiah.

Quote:

nope, God apparently chose not to reveal the fullness of his plan to the prophets, just what they needed to know at the time according to his wisdom. ie... to give the people of Israel hope and the promise of a Messiah and of the ultimate victory of God

Your basis for this assertion is what?

Quote:

Well, that's very convenient for you.

Just a statement of fact. Sorry.

Quote:

Who then, do you suppose Isa.53 is referring to that would be chosen by God to suffer and die for the sins of his people?

The Suffering servant is a poetic personification of Israel (Isaiah says so). It's not a Messianic prophecy and it's not a prediction of what WILL happen but an allegory about what already HAD happened to Israel. Isaiah 53 has never been read as a Messianic prophecy in Judaism.

Quote:

then who is this fellow - 'the one they have pierced'? ...

"...you are my servant, Israel."

Quote:

reference please?

Here's one.

Quote:

11) According to the Jewish Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of King David. (Jeremiah 23:5, 33:17; Ezekiel 34:23-24) Although the Greek Testament traces the genealogy of Joseph (husband of Mary) back to David, it then claims that Jesus resulted from a virgin birth, and, that Joseph was not his father. (Mat. 1:18-23) In response, it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption.

There are two problems with this claim:

a) there is no Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;

b) Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn’t have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Mat. 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30).

To answer this difficult problem, apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through his mother Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four basic problems with this claim:

a] There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph’s genealogy, not Mary’s.

b] Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn’t help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother. Cf. Num. 1:18; Ezra 2:59.

c] Even if family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Sam. 7:14;

Quote:

ps... I'm suprised you so willingly accept the virgin birth. You have great faith!

As you might guess, I accept no such thing. That's why I qualified my statement by saying that "Jesus as the Gospels depict him" could not qualify as the Messiah.

douglas · 12-06-2006, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dzim77

reference please?ps... I'm suprised you so willingly accept the virgin birth. You have great faith!

Matthew 1:1-17

Matthew shows Jesus' lineage from David, but conveniently skips over explaining how this is possible if Joseph never did the dirty dead with Mary.

But, you make a valid point. If you're crazy enough to believe in the virgin birth, it's probably easy for you to overlook this little detail.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

12-06-2006, 12:29 PM	#18
The Evil One Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: England Posts: 2,561	The Suffering Servant is a symbol of the the people of Israel as a whole, is he not?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.