Friday, June 22, 2012

David Wood vs. Sami Zaatari: What Was the Message of Jesus?

106 comments:

Tom said...

Hi David, I am new on your site...

"Thank you Jesus for providing us with the wisdom and means to refute the perversions of satan".
Thank you David and Team for running this site to refute all the adulteration against christianity.

1)To the issue that we find the divinity of the Jesus mostly in Gospel of John is because the 4 Gospels has been divided to 4 "themes",
Matthew : Jesus is the Messianic King
Mark : Jesus is the Messianic Servant
Luke : Jesus is the Universal Saviour
John : Jesus is God in the Flesh

2)I believe the jews are very "worldly" people as such when God said He will send the Messiah, to me they are literally expecting a visual King, like Solomon or David and restore them physically in this world, they were not expecting the Messiah to come as a humble carpenter's son. Therefore their rejection

3)The laws of the God of Abraham is perfect, you break one you break All... as such when you repent you have to recount/repent All...(634 ) If that is the case... every secound you are repenting! The Laws of the Old Testament are there to show prideful man that they cannot booost to God that he can keep All His laws, as it was clearly exibited in the story which sami quoted from the New Testament.
The Laws are there to show man you need God's unmerited Grace.
" The wages of sin is death", therefore there must be a punishment, hence the Sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ.

4)Jesus, was showing us any laws that is broken in the mind has committed sin... therefore the man who lusted has broken not 1 law But ALL the laws... that is How perfect the God of Abraham is !!!!!

tiwas said...

Sami's only point was arguing about why the disciples didn't know that Jesus were going to die and keeps repeating them. (Even though David already addressed his point)

Yet, it seems the topic that is "What was the Message of Jesus?" was not really discussed thoroughly.

It was there during the opening statement like when Sami tried to explain what was Jesus message which according to him was about the 'true monotheism'.

Sami also keeps avoiding answering 'why Allah deceive Jesus followers'.

And Sami's blunder: James followers tried to kill Paul!! Where did he got that from?!

Derek Adams said...

I think Sami has improved alot, his presenting is great to.

Perhaps he should debate in a church more often. hehehe

D335 said...

"folowers of James tried to kill Apostle Paul"

that's it... Zaami Zatari, making it up as he goes along.

Even Ahmad Deedat would not make something unreliable that bad out of his mouth.

Euxhen said...

Hello David

Do we have any verifiable Muslim documents which proves that the name "Islam" was in existent before 7AD?

I was reading at http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/debate/part3.htm#D7

But i'am looking for some extra material. Are there any?

Thank you in advise.

Don said...

Hi David. i just want to know why you blocked me on Youtube page of yours.
Thanks God Bless you

David Wood said...

I usually block people for (a) using obscene language, (b) calling for violence against Muslims, (c) posting insults without adding anything to the discussion, (d) posting an excessive number of comments (e.g. posting a comment over and over again in order to take up entire pages of the comments section).

Since I have no clue who you are, I'm not sure which of those categories you fell into (or whether it was some other reason that I can't think of right now).

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Sami claimed that no unbiased scholar holds that the Gospel of John is authentic history.


Apparently he is ignorant of Richard Bauckham and his book Jesus and the eyewitnesses. In it he claims that John is not only authentic history but offers convincing evidence that it is an eyewitnesses account.


Richard Bauckham is professor of New Testament studies and Bishop Wardlaw Professor at the University of St. Andrews, Scotland. A fellow of both the British Academy and the Royal Society of Edinburgh.

Not your typical know-nothing fundamentalist.


Peace

D335 said...

@Euxhen
good point
In fact we can find islam's pagan origin of 5 prayers per day, BUT NO islam or muslim before the time of muhammad.

But then again, muslim apologetics always trying to sell some bogus meanings that:
- islam means submissions to the one and only God "Tauhid"(as they presented Deuteronomy 6:4 4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one)---> which brings the question of why use the bible if it's corrupted? And still do not answer the use of the term islam/muslim/tauhid before the time of muhammad.
-christians and jews changed the bible ... again... and again. Silly argument.

Don said...

my youtube name is lionkiller900

Haecceitas said...

Sami's presentation was good in terms of being clear and fluent. He was able to raise so many points that David didn't have enough time to address them all in sufficient detail. That's the only reason why the debaters seemed a bit more evenly matched than is usually case in David's debates. But that line about followers of James trying to kill Paul was a pretty clear demonstration that Sami doesn't exactly know what he's talking about.

I'm eagerly waiting to see the other debate. As that debate took place in Dearborn, you should have invited Mayor O'Reilly and the Police Chief Haddad to be in the first row of the audience. ;-)

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I haven't heard the debate yet.

Did Sami really say that the followers of James tried to kill Paul?

John Lollard said...

I'm sorry to anyone who thinks I have to find Sami a total disgraceful and disagreeable heathen, but I think he did a very good job in this debate.

This was probably one of the best Muslim presentations I have seen, as he stayed a Muslim the entire time (unlike the more scholarly Muslim debaters) and yet didn't digress to just calling everyone blasphemers, or circular reasoning like from the "Did Muhammad Exist" debate, or silly bromides like "Where does Jesus say 'I am God, worship me'?". He did have some decontextualizations that I wish David had addressed (like Mark 8:29 has a parallel in Matthew 16:16 that defeats Sami's point), but overall I didn't see his use of Scripture as the violent manhandling, chopping destruction that most Muslims do to it. He was wrong about it, no doubt, as any Muslim has to be to be a Muslim, but he did a better job than I'm used to seeing.

Again, sorry if you think I'm supposed to express nothing but angry scorn and rebuke against him, but I think Sami did a very good job in this debate so far as Muslim debaters go. I'm proud that Christian defenders of the Truth look for the strongest arguments and opponents possible and not mere strawmen, like so many Muslims apologists have done in picking opponents. I'd like to see debate opponents against Christianity be as lucid and convincing as possible, so that when their argument is defeated on the basis of Truth and reason and evidence, the Truth is all the more apparent. But that might just be me.

All to say, great debate, one of the best ones yet, thank you David for engaging in it, and for all the other work you do in spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the Muslim people.

Don said...

well the debate was great though but, however, though David did a good Job in this debate, he didnt hit most of parts of Zami's objections were it should hurt him the most. because to Me most of what he said i cant take seriously. I wish Sam Shamoun was their so he can destroy this guy with series of evidence.
Sami said that the idea of Jesus not being God was not official till the 3rd Century. HMMM!!is it? if the Christians did not believe that he is God then why in the world did he reject Paul in the first place. also what about Peter, James, Timothy, John the Beloved, etc.

Don said...

seriuosly i wish Sam Shamoun was choosen to debate this man because David sounds like a nice guy and been trying to calm and very good in answering but most of the objections he (Zami) raised are really very very very pathetic. the one he raised was the death of Jesus prophecied to be killed or dead and risen in 3 days. its just like saying Jesus name was officially called Jesus butwas prophecied to be born of virgin birth in Isaiah 9. thats how it is in chapter 53, at least in the chapter it says he will be led to the slaughter and then he was professied exactly in Zachariah 12:10 and was said to be looked upon on whom was pierecd.

Don said...

well the debate was great though but, however, though David did a good Job in this debate, he didnt hit most of parts of Zami's objections were it should hurt him the most. because to Me most of what he said i cant take seriously. I wish Sam Shamoun was their so he can destroy this guy with series of evidence.
Sami said that the idea of Jesus not being God was not official till the 3rd Century. HMMM!!is it? if the Christians did not believe that he is God then why in the world did he reject Paul in the first place. also what about Peter, James, Timothy, John the Beloved, etc.

cheryl_maree said...

I just watched David's opening statement. I am amazed at how Sami just sits there and does not hear the message and my question is why? Why can't he see and hear?

Anthony Rogers said...

Starting at the 1:01:45 mark of the debate, Sami is either issuing a bold-faced lie or he didn't do his homework. He claimed not only that Isaiah 53 says nothing about the resurrection of Jesus, but also that this is admitted on Answering Islam.

I can't speak for all writers at AI or whether anyone has ever made such a statement, but not only have I argued for the resurrection from Isaiah 53, I EVEN DID SO IN REPLY TO SAMI ZAATARI in October of 2009.

Silencing A Muslims Dawagandist

Sami's hubris is incredible at this point.

Derek Adams said...

Anthony, it's probably admitted on AI.org in the same sense that "hebrews 5:11" is taken to be an admission Jesus never died (even though 11 other verses in the epistle confirm his death), so in other words, a distortion and misinterpretation.

I say you DEMAND a public apology! DRAMATIC!

Anthony Rogers said...

One of Sami's recurrent claims is that no one should have been surprised when Jesus died if His death was foretold in the Old Testament.

Ironically, Isaiah 53 not only predicts the death of the Servant/Messiah, but the passage also predicts the befuddlement and unbelief of those to whom these things are foretold and who witness them happening.

According to Sami, everyone would have believed the prophetic report, i.e. the revelation of Messiah's death would have been understood by them if it was foretold.

But Isaiah himself says the very opposite. He wonders in amazement at the unbelieving response and interpretation they put on the events as it all plays out before their eyes.

Repeatedly the passage speaks of people being startled, shocked, and thinking his death was for some other reason than that He was dying as a sacrifice for sin.

How funny that in the very process of arguing against the idea that the death of Christ was predicted in the OT Sami ends up confirming it. Way to go, Sami.

Derek Adams said...

Well Anthony, that means the disciples were surprised but Jesus must have misinterpreted Isaiah 53 because he expected they should have known and even rebuked them for not knowing about his Resurrection:

He (Jesus) said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself. Luke 24: 25-27

Note Jesus explains to them the scripture concerning him, but the disciples could have rebuked Jesus for calling them fools, since the same scripture in Isaiah 53 prophecies their bewilderment.

Jesus rebuke of them also pressuposes that it was common knowledge that the Messiah would suffer these things and ressurect, and we have archaeological evidence demonstrating this was indeed a common belief.

Anthony Rogers said...

Derek said: "Note Jesus explains to them [i.e. the disciple - AR] the scripture concerning him, but the disciples could have rebuked Jesus for calling them fools, since the same scripture in Isaiah 53 prophecies their bewilderment."

That's a non-sequitur. The fact that it was foretold that people would be spiritually blind fools in the face of something clearly predicted doesn't mean Jesus was wrong to call them fools for being slow of heart to believe what was clearly predicted.

David Wood said...

Don said: "my youtube name is lionkiller900"

Considering what a quick Google search of your comments turned up, I'm guessing you were blocked for exceedingly foul language.

Derek Adams said...

Rogers so your position is something like this?

1) The prophecy states they would be bewildered

2) Jesus gives his judgement of them as foolish and slow of heart (since Isaiah 53 contains a clear prediction about the Resurrection)

3) While Jesus knew they were bewildered he can still expect them to know and judge them because it's a clear prediction in scripture.

Of course the real non-sequitor here is what you have stated.

You believe someone who can't possibly know (meaning they are literally incapable of knowing, their minds are clogged) should be held accountable and judged because their is a clear prediction that their incapable minds cannot read. And that is a real non-sequitor.

In addition you read into the text.
The verse doesn't assume Jesus is judging them based on the fact that Jesus is the all knowing God who knows their hearts and is judging them in this sense, the verse in the latter part says:

"Did not the Messiah HAVE TO suffer these things and then enter his glory?”

This clearly assumes this is an actual expectation Jesus had and not merely a divine judgement.

So the correct sequence is this:

1) The prophecy states they would be bewildered

2) Jesus expects them to actually not be bewildered (the scripture according to Jesus teaches the Messiah "had to" have done these things)

3) It follows that Jesus was wrong to expect them to know according to the same scriptures he appealed to.

It was also clearly predicted (according to you) that they would be bewildered. So they could still rebuke Jesus for expecting them to know about his Resurrection. Now if Jesus expected them to have understood this clear prediction, then we can say he must have expected them to understand ALL of the clear prediction not just part of it. We can't just assume the Resurrection was a clear prediction, but the bewilderment was not.

Walter said...

Zaatari's opening statement was especially amusing to listen to with the passages he was citing open in front of me on Bible Gateway.

It was like watching a child walk down a sidewalk while leaping over all the cracks. He'd read a passage, and the very next sentence would present a very large problem to Islam. Either claims by Jesus himself to the divine powers and attributes or things similar to his first citation which was a sentence before Jesus abolished the kosher dietary laws.

It's the type of rank dishonesty that only works when people are sitting down unable to check the sources as fast as he can bring them up. Thank God that this has been put on video so the greater part of those who see it will be able to check everything both speakers are saying and through that be lead to the truth.

Anthony Rogers said...

Derek said: "It was also clearly predicted (according to you) that they would be bewildered. So they could still rebuke Jesus for expecting them to know about his Resurrection. Now if Jesus expected them to have understood this clear prediction, then we can say he must have expected them to understand ALL of the clear prediction not just part of it. We can't just assume the Resurrection was a clear prediction, but the bewilderment was not."

You are assuming that ought implies can. This is a kantian notion, one that I reject. If this is going to be a premise of your argument, then you have to argue for it. Otherwise you are begging the question.

You are simply equivocating on ability and accountability. Man by the fall lost the former, but was not thereby absolved of the latter.

Derek Adams said...

Rogers by the way what evidence do you have that Jesus interpreted the "bewilderment of the disciples" the same as you?

Especially when we have contraire evidence with Jesus showing the common belief that ALL scriptures and ALL the prophets were unanimous on this point of the Messiah having to die and ressurect. So the common man, including Jesus certainly would expect the disciples to believe this, we therefore need powerful evidence suggesting Jesus interpreted the "bewilderment" exactly as you do. I think you are begging question here.

And if I was begging the question, then so were you when you accused me of making a non-sequitor since you hadn't built your case either.

As for the "fall" this is fascinating but this is a theological construct and belief, and we aren't assuming myths here. We will leave this part aside.

We are simply asking a historical question, "what was the true message of Jesus" and "would that disciples of Jesus been surprised at his death and Resurrection?"

As far as we can tell all the evidence is unanimous that the disciples and Jewish people as a whole would have expected a dead and rising Messiah, hence they would of written about one.

Why would Jesus post-Resurrection had to open the minds of a group of zealots who had access to normative common Jewish beliefs of the day that already had such notions? This entails that the account is not fully historical.

Ken said...

Even Paul Williams, the British convert to Islam, takes Sami to task for his argument that the followers of James tried to kill Paul.

http://thedebateinitiative.com/2012/06/23/did-followers-of-james-try-to-kill-paul/#comments

see the comment box.

Anthony Rogers said...

DK,

Now you have confused what Jesus believed and taught with what was "the common belief" of Jewish people in the first century. Even if we pretend that there were Jews who expected the Davidic Messiah to die and rise again before the eschaton, it certainly isn't the case that all or even most Jews did so. Even the contingent of Jews who believed in a second Messiah figure, i.e. Messiah ben Joseph, did not expect him to die and rise before the final battle with Rome and the end of the world. And since we aren't assuming myths here, we will leave aside your table-pounding but unproven assertions that the archaeological record says something to the contrary.

Royal Son said...

Sorry Derek, but I find your argument to be unmerited. You assume that because Jesus rebukes the Disciples for being slow to understand that somehow it makes Jesus unaware of the same passage which speaks of the bewilderment and unbelief of those who hear the report.

I say unmerited because His rebuking actually records the actual fulfillment of the bewilderment as Anthony pointed out, without drawing attention to that particular element of prophecy which would draw your oft repeated claim of fulfillment of prophecy being contrived, as you seem to do with the Matthew mentioning the fulfillment of "Out of Egypt I called my Son" from Hosea.

It seems Derek, that you expect Jesus to just sit back and say "No problem fellas, you were supposed to be bewildered anyway". Could Jesus not rebuke those who knew not the scripture as a fulfillment in order to demonstrate the very fulfillment of their bewilderment as well?

Now a couple of other things need to be inserted here, because it seemed that this was Sami's main driving point:

1. The Talmud actually links the suffering servant to the Messiah, indicating that the thought of a messianic suffering servant was indeed there. The recognition existed as is evident in the writings.

2. Some Jews actually believed that the Messiah would come in one of two ways, depending upon the condition of Israel at His coming - on clouds of heaven if Israel was found worthy, or in a lowly state upon a donkey if they were found unworthy. So instead of recognising the two inevitable comings, they reduced it to a single coming which kind depended upon the state of Israel. One may infer that such Jews considered themselves as worthy and righteous at the time of Jesus' coming and thus expected a mighty deliverer. This could have certainly contributed to the clouding of their reading the scriptures, in particular Isaiah 53.

3. When Jesus spoke of dying and rising from the dead, His followers were quite possibly under the thought that he was referring to the common resurrection at the end of the age. As such this "resurrection on the third day" while easy for us to understand and read back into the events 2000 years ago, certainly was not the automatic thought of Jesus' followers.

Quite interestingly, the Romans who had no background in Torah and were not expecting any kind of mass resurrection at the end of the age seemed to take the prima facie understanding, requesting that the tomb be secured until the third day.

What I would like to know however Derek, is your take on the matter. Specifically:

1. What do you think Isaiah 53 was referring to?

2. How would you explain the post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus?

Knowing that you now operating under a naturalistic worldview, I imagine you would perhaps side with Rashi's explanation of Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel and not the Messiah, and that either you believe Jesus didn't even exist, or some other kind of naturalistic explanation.

Regarding the resurrection, Sami is DEAD WRONG (excuse the pun). The suffering servant who experiences DEATH, is then described later as having his days prolonged to see His offspring.

Sami suggested that this must refer to the resurrection at the end of the age, but note - Sami would be making the SAME MISTAKE as the disciples who likewise looked to the end of the age rather than the time the Messiah was there with them! In essence, Jesus would rebuke Sami for the same mistake!

Lastly, as David pointed out in the debate, the passage perfectly agrees with Christian teaching on the death and resurrection of Jesus and I insert here an ATONING death with global ramifications. This passage cries out with Christian doctrine but is vastly opposed to Islamic doctrine.

sebsite said...

Great job David, you made some key points on our Lord's message. Saami has very pathetic points such as the church officially declared the divinity of Jesus only in Nicaea. David gave many NT evidences. But, I think, if he gave the quotations from pre-Nicaean fathers (such as apostolic fathers, Clement of Rome, Policarp of Smirna, Ignatious of Antioch, Pappias,and other apologists Justine the Martyr, Quadrathus, Aristhides of Athens, Apolonaris of Hearapolis, Theophelous of Antioch etc..etc) it would be better.

Zack_Tiang said...

look forward to watching this when I have the free time.

Jose Joseph said...

Mr Rogers and Derek Adams are having a good exchange, but I have to give the upper hand to Rogers, because of the TKO he gave Derek regarding ability and accountability, ought doesn't imply can and if this is going to be Derek's premise he must argue for it. And Derek's unproven assertion regarding archaeological records. But Mr Rogers hasn't answered Derek's question regarding his interpretation of bewilderment of the disciples.

NITEMARES791 said...

Tom said..."Thank you Jesus for providing us with the wisdom and means to refute the perversions of satan".
Thank you David and Team for running this site to refute all the adulteration against christianity.

My response Tom when others pray to their G-D for providing them the wisdom to refute perversions of satan do you want to kill them as christiians do in the pal talk chat rooms.?
Tom there are many sites which refute the adulterations of the OT made by christians.

Tom said2)I believe the jews are very "worldly" people as such when God said He will send the Messiah, to me they are literally expecting a visual King, like Solomon or David and restore them physically in this world, they were not expecting the Messiah to come as a humble carpenter's son. Therefore their rejection

My response No Tom this is another perversion of satan, Jews rejected your messiah because he did not fulfill all the messiah prophecies. Here is just one example there are many many more.

● Worldwide Reign of Peace
There will be universal disarmament and worldwide peace with a complete end to war (Micah 4:1-4; Hoseah 2:20; Isaiah 2:1-4, 60:18).

Wars have increased dramatically in the world since the advent of Christianity

Micah Chapter 4:3 And He shall judge between many peoples, and shall decide concerning mighty nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
Hosea Chapter 2:20 And in that day will I make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground; and I will break the bow and the sword and the battle out of the land, and will make them to lie down safely.
Isaiah Chapter 2:4 And He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
Isaiah Chapter 60:18 Violence shall no more be heard in thy land, desolation nor destruction within thy borders; but thou shalt call thy walls Salvation, and thy gates Praise.

Here Tom you may want to glance at your nazi Christians. This nazi Christian claims that Jews lie after he writes this. Now did your Messiah fulfill every prophecy as this liar claims. So who will "refute the perversions of satan" here.?

This glorious Messiah Yahshua fulfilled EVERY prophecy of the great Jewish prophets of old, regarding the Mashiach, or Messiah.
http://americanholocaustcoming.blogspot.com/2011/10/tragedy-of-jews-who-believe-talmud-lies.html

Tom said 3)The laws of the God of Abraham is perfect, you break one you break All

My response Who informed you of this do you have any verse to prove it or you just make up things.

Also there is no second coming and if he fails again a third coming and if that fails a fourth coming.

PETER

NITEMARES791 said...

Tom Christians claim that Isaiah Chapter 53 is talking about their god. However read this verse in Isaiah Chapter 53:3 and you tell me if it applies. Are you going to say oh ok but if we can find one verse in Isaiah that applies that is good enough for the prophecy. So Tom is it ok for you Christians to pervert.

"First of all, it should not surprise you that the life and death of Jesus seems to be reflected within the verses of Isaiah 53! Remember that the Hebrew Scriptures came before Jesus. The authors of the Christian’s New Testament could use images they found in the Hebrew Scriptures and create a story about Jesus to fit those images. The Hebrew Scriptures served as blueprints do to an architect. But instead of constructing a building, the authors of the New Testament constructed stories about Jesus. This is not only true for Isaiah 53, but is also true for many of the other Biblical texts that stories of Jesus seem to fulfill."

Isaiah Chapter 53:3 He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not

The phrase "… despised and forsaken by men …" cannot be reconciled with the way Jesus is described in the New Testament, according to which he was immensely popular:

In his youth, he was loved by all (Luke 2:40,47,52)

He was a popular preacher (Mark 3:7-9)

He was "praised by all" (Luke 4:14-15)

He was followed by multitudes who later acclaim him as a prophet upon his

triumphant entry into Jerusalem (Matthew 4:25, 21:9-11)

When it was time to take him away to be crucified, Jesus had to be spirited away

since the rulers feared "a riot of the people" (Mark 14:1-2)

NITEMARES791 said...

Royal Son1. The Talmud actually links the suffering servant to the Messiah, indicating that the thought of a messianic suffering servant was indeed there. The recognition existed as is evident in the writings.

My response Isn't it hilarious and hypocritical of these terrorist Christians. They constantly ask the muslims why they are quoting from their bible if they think it is corrupted yet these same Christians who claim the Talmud is evil for teaching their god is false now they use as proof for their god. Is any one aware that Christians made the Jews take out verses from the Talmud for what it said about their god. If the Muslims would demand to take out of the Christian bible that their god died there would be an international scene. Those were the good old days which I hear many Christians reminisce so they can kill all their critics.

"virtually all of the "proofs’ used by missionaries are from rabbinic texts and commentaries such as the Talmud, the Targum and the Zohar. Missionaries use these rabbinic texts to support their assertion that Jesus is Isaiah’s "servant."


These rabbinic texts refer to Isaiah’s "servant" as Moses, the soul, an angel, the righteous of Israel, and the messiah ben Joseph (a descendent of Joseph who is prophesized to die before messiah ben David appears to fulfill all the messianic prophecies). Missionaries falsify their analysis of these texts by ignoring all of these non-messianic references and by pretending that messiah ben Joseph is really messiah ben David. They play these name games to shoehorn Jesus into Isaiah’s text. Problematically, Christian theologians universally reject these texts because they contradict or reject the fundamental Christian faith claims about Jesus."

Royal Son said Regarding the resurrection, Sami is DEAD WRONG (excuse the pun). The suffering servant who experiences DEATH, is then described later as having his days prolonged to see His offspring

ISAIAH 53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand:

But quite obviously, Jesus was never married and had no children. He also died in his thirties, at a young age. Christians may respond by saying that Isaiah meant Jesus’s disciples by the word, "offspring," or that the Christians themselves are like his children, but the word in the Hebrew is "Za-Ra," which means seed, and can only refer to one’s blood-line descendants, his children. One can see this clearly in the following passage from Genesis 15:2-4. Abram is afraid that he has no biological heirs, the only one to inherit him is his servant, Eliezer, whom Abram calls his ‘ben,’ his son. However, Gd tells him that it will not be his ben, his son, to inherit from him, but rather his seed, his ‘zerah.’

GENESIS 15:2-4

And Abram said, "Etrnl Gd what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the son of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus?" 3 Then Abram said, "see to me you have given no seed , and see the son of my house is my heir." 4 Suddenly the word of Gd came to him, saying, "that one will not inherit you. None but him that shall come forth from within your bowels shall be your heir.

So again we see that Jesus did not fulfil the description of the servant in Isaiah 53 because he had no seed, no children, meaning no offspring.

Baron Eddie said...

Zaatari tried to build Christian doctrine from one verse
and that is wrong ... The Bible is not one verse!
I could apply the same standard to Quran and say "don't come to pray" and I stop and say "look what Quran say!" and the verse says "when you are drunk"

Actually, I don't need to do that because Quran has a lot of problems as it is now ...

Baron Eddie said...

Everyone heard Zaatari explained how Christians were deceived by Paul ...

Zaatari showed that he knows more than Mohammad "prophet of Islam", because

Mohammad did not accused Christians with that! ...

Not only that but Mohammad and the writer of Quran gave wrong information
about Christians and what they believed! ...

Quran talk about Christians worship 1. Allah 2. Mary 3. Jesus

Didn't Allah know what Christians believes?

congratulation Zaatari, you overpassed Allah!

Baron Eddie said...

In Surat Al-Ma'idah 116 we read Allah talking to Issa(Jesus)!

What language did Allah talk to Issa?

How about Moses?

Derek Adams said...

Well since Rogers doesn't answer anything and pretends he does making baseless assumptions(second time round). I'll address Royalson.

1) I do not assume Jesus was "unaware" of the passage, I asked for evidence Jesus interpreted the passage the same as Rogers.

2) Jesus rebuking the disciples is not evidence Jesus indirectly was saying "I know you are bewildered" unless you establish first that Jesus believed the prophecy said this. The verse in question is the exact opposite of what you need. We have evidence Jesus did NOT inteprete their bewilderment, as he is pointing out the Messiah in ALL SCRIPTURE and by ALL PROPHETS MUST suffer, die and rise.

3) You said: It seems Derek, that you expect Jesus to just sit back and say "No problem fellas, you were supposed to be bewildered anyway".

Well that's what he did to his murderers. "Father forgive them, FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO". (Same gospel, in Luke, maybe a textual variant here, but it's meaningful and viable variant, meaning it is certainly a contender.)

4) You asked: "Could Jesus not rebuke those who knew not the scripture as a fulfillment in order to demonstrate the very fulfillment of their bewilderment as well?"

Considering, he had to open their minds in order to know scripture, you have a catch 22.

5) Royalson also said: "When Jesus spoke of dying and rising from the dead, His followers were quite possibly under the thought that he was referring to the common resurrection at the end of the age. As such this "resurrection on the third day" while easy for us to understand and read back into the events 2000 years ago, certainly was not the automatic thought of Jesus' followers."

Funny all this demonstrates then, is that it's not a CLEAR PREDICTION, as espoused by Rogers. Not only is it NOT CLEAR, it's so ambiguous that Jesus had to "open the hearts/minds" of the disciples because they were so confused and confounded.

But historically this isn't the case. As you can see Shamoun and Dr Brown list an entire litany of evidences demonstrating the "third day Resurrection" was not a notion about an entire nation or collective persons, but a single messianic individual:

http://answering-islam.org/authors/shamoun/raised3rdday1

(make sure to click on his link at the bottom of the article that goes through a four part series)

6) Next you ask: 1. What do you think Isaiah 53 was referring to?

I think it's guess work. Unless Isaiah wrote a commentary there is no way to know for certainty. We however can speculate. It seems to be it is about a single individual. It's hard to say because in Isaiah 49 it is made clear that Israel is both a single individual servant and a nation, and both readings IN ISAIAH are compatible with the text.

2. How would you explain the post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus?

I think the only one of these "appearances" that can be known for certain is Apostle Paul. And that is granting the assumptions made by most Scholars (the dating, and historicity)

7) You said: "The suffering servant who experiences DEATH, is then described later as having his days prolonged to see His offspring."

The hebrew "Zera" in nearly every case in Isaiah (and else where) refers to biological offspring. Hence it's not at all clear this is compatible with your belief system. In fact you can't just demonstrate "zera" might mean offspring in a spiritual sense, you must show that it must mean this.

8) Finally you said: "the passage perfectly agrees with Christian teaching on the death and resurrection of Jesus and I insert here an ATONING death with global ramifications."

It'"perfectly agrees" if we allow for a few assumptions. 1) Christians can come up with compatibility and play with texts, like Jews can 2) First century Jewish and Roman Christian Authors can match and fit Christ with their own interpretation of Isaiah 53.

Cristo Te Ama said...

@NITEMARES

You said //The phrase "… despised and forsaken by men …" cannot be reconciled with the way Jesus is described in the New Testament, according to which he was immensely popular//

-Yes, thats why the crowed asked for him to be crucified instead of a delincuent.

The verses you quote doesn't mean that it contradicts Isiah 53:3 since reading the whole chapter you can see that when Isaiah describes this 53:3 he is refering to the moment close to his death (not when he was 12) thats why you see verses 53:4 "Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him....

-So now if we read verse 3, we can see that you are wrong.

-Isaiah 53:3 says "He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not."

-This perfectly matches with John 18:40 "Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber."

-Or Matthew 27:15 Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to releasing to the multitude one prisoner whom they wished. 16 And at that time they had a notorious prisoner called Barabbas.[c] 17 Therefore, when they had gathered together, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release to you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?” 18 For he knew that they had handed Him over because of envy.....

then 27:22 Pilate said to them, “What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?”

They all said to him, “Let Him be crucified!”

23 Then the governor said, “Why, what evil has He done?”

But they cried out all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!”

24 When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, “I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.”

25 And all the people answered and said, “His blood be on us and on our children.”

26 Then he released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified.

Also Luke 23:18 And they all cried out at once, saying, “Away with this Man, and release to us Barabbas”— 19 who had been thrown into prison for a certain rebellion made in the city, and for murder.

20 Pilate, therefore, wishing to release Jesus, again called out to them. 21 But they shouted, saying, “Crucify Him, crucify Him!”

22 Then he said to them the third time, “Why, what evil has He done? I have found no reason for death in Him. I will therefore chastise Him and let Him go.”

23 But they were insistent, demanding with loud voices that He be crucified. And the voices of these men and of the chief priests prevailed. 24 So Pilate gave sentence that it should be as they requested. 25 And he released to them, the one they requested, who for rebellion and murder had been thrown into prison; but he delivered Jesus to their will.

Cristo Te Ama said...

@NITEMARES

Then you quoted Micah 4:1-4; Hoseah 2:20; Isaiah 2:1-4, 60:18).
trying to say it is a fail in Jesus record, well it is not, it just has not happen but if you read the book of revelations Chapters 21 and 22 you will see that this will happen, you just need to wait and accept Jesus as your Messiah and you shall see it too.

BTW you said "So Tom is it ok for you Christians to pervert." Pervert? you have Jesus fulfilling all the prophecies the Prophets said, and you say John,Peter,Luke,Paul,etc(Jews) perverted it when it actually matches?

Also you wrote "Here Tom you may want to glance at your nazi Christians." Are you donna use such a low argument saying the Nazis were christians just because some of them (or many) said they were Christians? A christian is a Christian because he/she follows what CHRIST said, not becaus he/she says so, and they did the total opposite to what Jesus taught, but then i suppose i can say you Jews are a bunch of Idolaters because thats what you did all the time in the Biblical times, but any decent Jew will say, they were not behaving like God told them to behave but the way they wanted to behave, and thats why they made so many atrocities and that's why God punished them, i guess you are not one of those Jews...

Cristo Te Ama said...

@NITEMARES
Sorry i forgot to tell you that if you really wanna see a guy who perverted the scriptures you just need to check this name "Johanan ben Zakai", and you will see how he can substitute with just 1 verse the whole center of ancient (real) Judaism. Using the title "Jew" doesn't make you a real Jew of the Bible, since you need a temple and it doesn't exist anymore.

Walter said...

Nightmare791, let's actually look at what you cited and address it carefully phrase by phrase.

Your first error is taking the words of 53:3 and applying it to the entirety of his life. Such a demand for a womb to tomb fulfillment seems a little presumptive especially because the text makes no such statement. I find it especially peculiar that you even cite a chapter where most of these prophecies are fulfilled. (Mark 14) Let's walk through the verse leaning most heavily on just that passage and the following chapter for our citations.

Isaiah Chapter 53:3 He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not

"He was despised"
To despise is to regard with scorn. Mark 14:65 Then some began to spit at him; they blindfolded him, struck him with their fists, and said, “Prophesy!” And the guards took him and beat him. (Also Mark 15:16-20, Mark 15:27-32)

"and forsaken of men"
Mark 15:40 Then everyone deserted him and fled.

"a man of pains,"
See Mark 14:65, Mark 15:16-20. The crucifixion. Need anyone say more?

"and acquainted with disease,"
Not sure which translation you are using, but the word here also means anxiety, grief, evil, or less commonly calamity. Rather normal feelings for someone abandoned and about to be crucified. See Mark 14:35-36

"and as one from whom men hide their face"
You can read this as hiding their identity as fulfilled by the desertion and the denial of Peter. See Mark 14:66-72. Or possibly that almost all of the apostles and disciples hid themselves from him while he was on the cross.

"he was despised, and we esteemed him not"
Above citations Mark 14:65, Mark 15:16-20, Mark 15:27-32

Out of good will, I will amend the original text with insertions enclosed in brackets to support your reading to demonstrate the degree which it must be corrupted to agree with you.

Isaiah Chapter 53:3 [NIGHTMARES791's New World Translation] He was [always] despised, and [always] forsaken of men, a man of [continual] pains, and [forever] acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men have [always] hidden their face: he was [always] despised, and we [always] esteemed him not

Even the nature of all your popularity citations are addressed in Isaiah 53:2. As the gospels and other scriptures never commend him for popularity on the basis of "beauty or majesty". Everything you cited speaks of his teaching in particular. You must learn to read carefully and not mentally insert words which are not present because if you cannot read, you will never be able to address anything but a straw man.

Anthony Rogers said...

Derek, don't be too upset I haven't given you more attention. I think a TKO is sufficient for now. If you need help on this, go ask your sidekick Jose. And by mutual agreement Royalson will be happy to pick up where I left off.

Jabari said...

@NITEMARES791
Based on the arguments you give, I can only conclude that you are a Jew. They seem like arguments coming from a Jew. I also notice that you call us, Christians, "Nazis and terrorists." Those type of insults aren't needed, though I must say that if this because of the supposed Christian anti-semitism of the past. I should let you know that is contrary to the teaching of our Lord and Savior. I don't want to go into the many verses backing me up.

I want to respond to many arguments against Jesus Christ being the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament (I'll get to the argument that Jesus isn't the Messiah because he didn't bring the peace described in Isaiah 60:18 and similar verses).

This is part 1 of 2 (or part 1 of 3) of my response to your arguments.
You said.....
The phrase "… despised and forsaken by men …" cannot be reconciled with the way Jesus is described in the New Testament, according to which he was immensely popular:

In his youth, he was loved by all (Luke 2:40,47,52)

He was a popular preacher (Mark 3:7-9)

He was "praised by all" (Luke 4:14-15)

He was followed by multitudes who later acclaim him as a prophet upon his

triumphant entry into Jerusalem (Matthew 4:25, 21:9-11)

When it was time to take him away to be crucified, Jesus had to be spirited away

since the rulers feared "a riot of the people" (Mark 14:1-2)

My response to this is:
Isaiah 53 allude to our Lord's earthly origins, which were lowly and inauspicious as Isaiah 53:2-
"For he shall grow up before him as a tender sapling, and as a root out of dry ground: he hath no form nor lordliness, and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him."
This is a running theme throughout the gospels. People are saying things like,"Can anything good come out of Nazareth? (John 1:49)" He was also rejected and despise in His hometown of Nazareth (Luke 4:18-32). He was despised by his family members, particularly his half-brothers (John 7:4-5).

To be continued.......

Derek Adams said...

Rogers don't get to cocky, you still haven't answered the first post, let alone provided a TKO. My "sidekick" is welcome to demonstrate where you answered me aswell, but he won't since he knows you begged the question first.

NITEMARES791 said...

Part one
Cristo Te Ama said
@NITEMARES You said //The phrase "… despised and forsaken by men …" cannot be reconciled with the way Jesus is described in the New Testament, according to which he was immensely popular//

-Yes, thats why the crowed asked for him to be crucified instead of a delincuent.

The verses you quote doesn't mean that it contradicts Isiah 53:3 since reading the whole chapter you can see that when Isaiah describes this 53:3 he is refering to the moment close to his death (not when he was 12)
My response
No I don’t see that, that is made up by you to insert your falsities.
Here I quote othe responders to your nonsense.
“Just for funsies lets "give" the missionary the fact that Jesus was isolated in the last ONE DAY of his life. I disagree that this fits line 3 -- but what the heck, let's "give him that. Ask him when was Jesus sick? Isaiah 53:3 says "Ish machavot" which speaks of a man who is habitually or permanently sick. They tell us Jesus suffered a quick and painful death covering only one day.When was Jesus accustomed to illness? When was he described as being in pain?

Luke 18:31-33(KJV) – (31) Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and all things that are written by the prophets
concerning the Son of man shall be accomplished. (32) For he shall
be delivered unto the Gentiles, and shall be mocked, and spitefully
entreated, and spitted on: (33) And they shall scourge him, and put
him to death: and the third day he shall rise again. [See also Mark
10:33-34; John 1:10-11]

This verse Isiah 53:3 describes a pathetic entity, forsaken and afflicted with sickness, being despised by the multitudes that could not even bear to look at it.
Descriptions of the Messiah as being forsaken, sickly, and despised by all
are not found anywhere in the Hebrew Bible.

The cross-referenced verse, Luke 18:31, is out of context with respect to the
language in the Hebrew Bible, where the expression (ISH mach'oVOT), a man of pains, appears in connection with the servant. When a person is described in the Hebrew Bible as "a man of …", the common implication is that such a condition has been present for a prolonged period of time. For example, the phrase (ISH E-loHIM), a man of God, in
the Hebrew Bible (e.g., 1Samuel 9:6) signifies that the person was devoted to
God for a long time, perhaps even for a lifetime. Other examples of this kind
include references to tribal affiliations, such as (ISH BinyaMIN), a
man of [the Tribe of] Benjamin (e.g., Judges 20:41). Therefore, when the
phrase "… a man of pains, and accustomed to illness …" is said to apply to Jesus,
one must ask: Where in the New Testament is Jesus described as having
been afflicted with disease, and for how long did this condition last? If he
were in this condition, one would have to wonder why God would choose to
put Himself into such an afflicted and decrepit body, and how Jesus could
qualify as an "unblemished sacrifice" being in such an "imperfect" body.”

NITEMARES791 said...

Part 2
Cristo Te Ama said thats why you see verses 53:4
Indeed, he bore our illnesses and our pains –he has carried them, yet we had regarded him
plagued, smitten by God, and oppressed.

My response No that is not why we have 53:4 this you made up.
“Matthew 8:17(KJV) - That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the prophet,
saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.
Using terminology similar to that found in the previous verse, this verse provides
further elaboration on the perceived condition of the servant. It is still a pathetic
entity, and not only is this entity afflicted with illnesses and pains, it was figured to
have been plagued, oppressed, and smitten at the hand of God.

The Messiah is never described in the Hebrew Bible in these terms, and
certainly not as someone smitten by God. As the one who will oversee the
completion of the messianic agenda, he will be blessed by God, and will be a
great and powerful leader.

The use of the cross-referenced verse, Matthew 8:17, is likely to have been
motivated by the author’s desire to promote the idea of vicarious punishment,
an unfortunate misinterpretation of Isaiah 53:4.

Where in the New Testament is Jesus ever described in terms of such
language, especially as being smitten by God? Nowhere is Jesus described
as being sickly, oppressed, and smitten by God. While on the cross, Jesus
allegedly complained to God about being forsaken (Matthew 27:46; Mark
15:34), yet King David said that a righteous person is not forsaken by God:
Psalms 37:25 – I was young, I also aged, and I have not seen a righteous man
forsaken and his seed seeking bread.
Was Jesus righteous? If, as missionaries claim, he was God, how could he
forsake himself, or be unable to help himself while on the cross?”
.
Cristo Te Ama said
5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him....

-So now if we read verse 3, we can see that you are wrong.

-Isaiah 53:3 says "He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not."

-This perfectly matches with John 18:40 "Then cried they all again, saying, Not this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber."

My response What are you talking about where is your god in any pain here it sounds like the people are in pain to get rid of your god I wonder why?

NITEMARES791 said...

Part 3
Cristo Te Ama said-Or Matthew 27:15 Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to releasing to the multitude one prisoner whom they wished. 16 And at that time they had a notorious prisoner called Barabbas.[c] 17 Therefore, when they had gathered together, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release to you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?” 18 For he knew that they had handed Him over because of envy....

then 27:22 Pilate said to them, “What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?”

They all said to him, “Let Him be crucified!”

23 Then the governor said, “Why, what evil has He done?”

But they cried out all the more, saying, “Let Him be crucified!”


My response again What are you talking about where is your god in any pain here it sounds like the people are in pain to get rid of your god I wonder why?

Tell me something you describe here some one who people wanted to be killed. Now don’t you Christians claim that your god performed all these miracles so why didn’t the people believe? Could it be that your books are all lies and there were no miracles. When Moses came with miracles every one believed.

Exodus Chapter 14:31 And Israel saw the great work which the LORD did upon the Egyptians, and the people feared the LORD; and they believed in the LORD, and in His servant Moses. Also lo and behold the Egyptians also believed. Exodus Chapter 12:30 And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead. 31 And he called for Moses and Aaron by night and said: 'Rise up, get you forth from among my people, both ye and the children of Israel; and go, serve the LORD, as ye have said. 32 Take both your flocks and your herds, as ye have said, and be gone; and bless me also.'

So isn’t it your gods fault than the multitude did not believe, either he didn’t perform the miracles claimed in the book or the miracles were not sufficient to warrant him being called a god? After all every miracle in your book about raising dead feeding hungry were all done before by men? Oh I don’t think cursing trees was done before.
The rest of the verses you quoted are nonsense it says nothing about the condition of your god.

Again I challenge any Christian here to a debate with 25 million dollar reward if they win. Since I posted this here a month ago not one Christian took up the offer.

NITEMARES791 said...

Cristo Te Ama Said @NITEMARES
Sorry i forgot to tell you that if you really wanna see a guy who perverted the scriptures you just need to check this name "Johanan ben Zakai", and you will see how he can substitute with just 1 verse the whole center of ancient (real) Judaism. Using the title "Jew" doesn't make you a real Jew of the Bible, since you need a temple and it doesn't exist anymore.
My response
I don’t know what you are talking about but I have many quotes of your own Christians claiming your scriptures are perverted. These Christians are the biggest scholars the world has ever heard.
Dr. Herbert Marsh, Nineteenth--Century English Bishop:

It is a certain fact that several readings in our common printed text are nothing more than alterations made by Origen, whose authority was so great in the Christian Church (A.D. 230) that emendations which he proposed, though, as he himself acknowledged, they were supported by the evidence of no manuscript, were very generally received.2
2. Michaelis, Introduction to the New Testament, ed. Dr. Herbert Marsh
Dr. Conyers Middleton, Eighteenth Century:

There never was any period of time in all ecclesiastical history in which so many rank heresies were publicly professed nor in which so many spurious books were forged and published by the Christians, under the names of Christ, and the apostles, and the apostolic writers, as in those primitive ages. Several of these forged books are frequently cited, and applied [in] defense of Christianity, by the most eminent fathers of the same ages, as true and genuine pieces.8
8. Middleton, vol. 1, p. 59
Dr. I. Hooykaas, Nineteenth--Century Reverend:

Not one of these five books (four Gospels and Acts) [was] really written by the person whose name it bears, and they are all of more recent date than the heading would lead us to suppose.9
9. Drs. H. Oort, I. Hooykaas, and A. Kuneh, The Bible for Learners, trans. Philip A. Wieksteed (Boston, 1878), vol. 3, p. 24
St. Faustus, Fifth--Century French Bishop
It is certain that the New Testament was not written by Christ himself, nor by his apostles, but a long while after them, by some unknown persons, who, lest they should not be credited when they wrote of affairs they were little acquainted with, affixed to their works the names of the apostles, or of such as were supposed to have been their companions, asserting that what they had written themselves was written according to these persons to whom they ascribed it.11
11. Taylor, Diegesis., p. 114
I have many many more.
Cristo Te AmaUsing the title "Jew" doesn't make you a real Jew of the Bible, since you need a temple and it doesn't exist anymore.

My response. Who informed you of this do you make things up from your own mind.
Abraham was a Jew he didn’t have any temple so with Isaac, Jacob the twelve tribes, Moses and Aaron.

NITEMARES791 said...

Cristo Te AmaUsing the title "Jew" doesn't make you a real Jew of the Bible, since you need a temple and it doesn't exist anymore.

My response. Who informed you of this do you make things up from your own mind.
Abraham was a Jew he didn’t have any temple so with Isaac, Jacob the twelve tribes, Moses and Aaron.
Cristo Te Ama Said @NITEMARES

Then you quoted Micah 4:1-4; Hoseah 2:20; Isaiah 2:1-4, 60:18).
trying to say it is a fail in Jesus record, well it is not, it just has not happen but if you read the book of revelations Chapters 21 and 22 you will see that this will happen, you just need to wait and accept Jesus as your Messiah and you shall see it too.

It is actually a failure if you are trying to authenticate your falsities from the Torah the Torah does not mention any second coming.

Cristo Te Ama Said
BTW you said "So Tom is it ok for you Christians to pervert." Pervert? you have Jesus fulfilling all the prophecies the Prophets said, and you say John,Peter,Luke,Paul,etc(Jews) perverted it when it actually matches?
My response Again your god did not fulfill any prophecies you can find prophecies in the Torah which can fit millions of people fulfilling one or two does not make you a messiah.
Cristo Te Ama
Also you wrote "Here Tom you may want to glance at your nazi Christians." Are you donna use such a low argument saying the Nazis were christians just because some of them (or many) said they were Christians? A christian is a Christian because he/she follows what CHRIST said, not becaus he/she says so, and they did the total opposite to what Jesus taught, but then i suppose i can say you Jews are a bunch of Idolaters because thats what you did all the time in the Biblical times, but any decent Jew will say, they were not behaving like God told them to behave but the way they wanted to behave, and thats why they made so many atrocities and that's why God punished them, i guess you are not one of those Jews...

My response Yes we have heard this baloney many times before. Before a poster wrote in Christianity the leaders martyred themselves in Islam the leader has others martyring for them. When the Jews sinned as you so aptly said they worshiped idols they did not go on killing sprees when you Christians sinned you went on killing sprees. Did worshiping idols hurt any one but themselves? Also what happened to these idolaters in the Torah they were punished did your god punish any of these not real Christians. When the Jews sinned G-D sent prophets to them to warn them tell me how many prophets did your god send. Better yet in the Torah you claim that your god came all the time down to fight with Jacob to visit Abraham etc. why didn’t your god come down and tell them they were bad like he came to the Pharisees.

NITEMARES791 said...

Royal Son Said
2. Some Jews actually believed that the Messiah would come in one of two ways, depending upon the condition of Israel at His coming - on clouds of heaven if Israel was found worthy, or in a lowly state upon a donkey if they were found unworthy. So instead of recognising the two inevitable comings, they reduced it to a single coming which kind depended upon the state of Israel. One may infer that such Jews considered themselves as worthy and righteous at the time of Jesus' coming and thus expected a mighty deliverer. This could have certainly contributed to the clouding of their reading the scriptures, in particular Isaiah 53.
My response another Christian falsity. The verse does not say “on clouds of heaven” it says Daniel - Chapter 7:13. I saw in the visions of the night, and behold with the clouds of the heaven, one like a man was coming, and he came up to the Ancient of Days and was brought before Him. No Jews believed the Messiah will come in two ways this is another perversion of the perverters.

Tom said...

To : Nitemares791

To my beleive that ".. if you break one law you break all...."

Nitemares wrote:
" Who informed you of this do you have any verse to prove it or you just make up things".

James 2:10
"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all"....

When I first read your statement calling me a nazi christian, I was stunned, becos I am an ardent believer & supporter in the nation of Isreal, that the Isrealites are God's convenant children & only a imbecile mind would go against The God of Abraham after He has made a convenant.
I have engaged muslims who try to pit me against Jews by saying "hey, they killed your God" & I refute strongly those back stabbing staements, and here you are calling christians, nazi.... I had wanted to pour out my venom on you... But then I realised Hey, historically it has been shown they are insecure & "full of themselves", that is why you are still "wondering in the wilderness"

I said Jews are "visual" and "worldly" people... and the verses you quote precisely proofs those 2 words. Tks.

Nothin'ButTheTruth said...

@NITEMARES791 Jesus isn't the Messiah because he didn't bring the peace described in Isaiah 60:18.

OK, does verse 18 come alone?

If you keep on reading, you'll see something you didn't see.

U supposedly think that Isaiah 60:18 is what going to happen when the Savior or Messiah comes.

but u are wrong! It will happen after the Judgement

Let's see what the rest Of Isaiah 60 says,

60:19
The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the LORD shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory.

60:20
Thy sun shall no more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself: for the LORD shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy mourning shall be ended.

60:21
Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever, the branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be glorified.

60:22
A little one shall become a thousand, and a small one a strong nation: I the LORD will hasten it in his time.

This is exactly what we see in Revelation 21

21:23
And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.

21:24
And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.

21:25
And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.

21:26
And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

21:27
And there shall in no wise enter into it any thing that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life.

Others have refuted your misunderstanding of 53:3 so I'm not going to say more.

Anthony Rogers said...

Derek,

Just because you are too inept to see how you were routed doesn't mean you weren't. Proof and persuasion are two different things. And as you know, I don't answer you in any hope of persuading you as an apostate (q.v. Hebrews 6 & 10), so it is sufficient for me to have proven a point for the benefit of others who can see.

Derek Adams said...

Rogers, I am very glad you admit you are a partial fatalist. But "begging the question" and merely assuming what people believed in the first century without appealing to the New Testament documents (like me) will not be sufficient for most Christians.

In fact even if we had one statement of Jesus implying what was believed about the Messiah was a common belief, this would be enough. Of course we don't need to play Bible ping-pong we already know the rest of the NT corroborates what I've said, unless you can show otherwise.

Anyway I'm happy to let Royalson take it from here, but he will need all the assistance he can get on this one, as your bogus claim that the disciples bewilderment is part of Isaiah 53, we know that is astounding wishful thinking.

Anthony Rogers said...

Derek said: "Rogers, I am very glad you admit you are a partial fatalist."

Derek, you gutter sparrow you, quit being a philosophical seed-picker (spermologos, q.v. Acts 17:20); you know full well that my position is much more robust and quite different from "partial fatalism," a term that has more in common with what was believed by the pagan philosophers of ancient Athens. I am not the modern counterpart of Epicurus in this discussion. That distinction is all yours.

Derek said: "But 'begging the question' and merely assuming what people believed in the first century without appealing to the New Testament documents (like me) will not be sufficient for most Christians."

Are you seriously pretending that the NT documents teach that "the common belief" among first century Jews was that the Messiah would die and rise again in three days? And are you seriously suggesting that it is question begging to say otherwise? You can't be that dumb. Not only do I know better than to think that you are, but you yourself have to know that I know you are more competent than that in what the Scriptures teach. And whatever the case may be in this regard, you most certainly did not appeal to the NT in any even remotely feasibly way to prove any such thing.

Derek said: "In fact even if we had one statement of Jesus implying what was believed about the Messiah was a common belief, this would be enough. Of course we don't need to play Bible ping-pong we already know the rest of the NT corroborates what I've said, unless you can show otherwise."

That's right, just one statement would be enough. Let me know when you find it.

Derek said: "...your bogus claim that the disciples bewilderment is part of Isaiah 53, we know that is astounding wishful thinking."

Read the passage, dear boy. It repeatedly speaks of people being startled, shocked, astonished, etc., looking upon the sufferings of God's Servant/the Messiah. And the very passage you appealed to in Luke shows that the disciples on the road to Emmaus did not at all believe or expect the Messiah to die as He did. After recounting the fact of the crucifixion, they said: "We HAD hoped that He was the one who was going to redeem Israel." In other words, the crucifixion dashed their hopes that He was the Messiah against the rocks. Hence the reason that Jesus went on to open up the Scriptures to the disciples and open the minds of the disciples to the Scriptures.

The fact that people would need their blind eyes opened is writ large across the Bible, and finds acute expression in both Isaiah and Luke.

16 Now Jesus came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, as was his custom. He stood up to read, 17 and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written,

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives
and the regaining of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord s favor.”

20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21 Then he began to tell them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled even as you heard it being read." (Luke 4)

Now if you wouldn't mind, please quit misrepresenting me and provoking me to reply. Your apostasy is your reward, and I have no interest in piling embarrassment upon embarrassment to your already undesirable lot in life. Why don't you just be a good Epicurean and seek that which is more likely to bring you temporary and fleeting pleasure?

Cristo Te Ama said...

@NITEMARES

-You told me Abraham,Isaac Jacob were Jews, and they didn't have a temple so it's ok according to you, the difference is that you try to follow the Torah which is the Law, the law of Moses, i.e you don't eat pork right? why? because of the Law of Moses, but it was Moses and Aaron who actually were the first who started making the sacrifices since it was what God revealed to them, so yep if you expect to be a Jew as we know from the Bible, the ones obeying the Law of Moses you are failing big time, hence you are not a Jew.

-Then you said : "This verse Isiah 53:3 describes a pathetic entity, forsaken and afflicted with sickness, being despised by the multitudes that could not even bear to look at it.
Descriptions of the Messiah as being forsaken, sickly, and despised by all
are not found anywhere in the Hebrew Bible." // Actually it is, it's just that you are being dishonest with yourself and you don't want to face it, and i can't help you with that. BTW you didn't refute my statement, he did was rejected, forsaken, not steemed, and now that you see that it actually happened, you come and say " it is pathethic and it's not in the Bible" wow....


-Then you said: "… a man of pains, and accustomed to illness …" is said to apply to Jesus,
one must ask: Where in the New Testament is Jesus described as having
been afflicted with disease, and for how long did this condition last?./// Actually the verse says "man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief" or "a man of suffering, and familiar with pain." but let's use the way you are translateing it, we can find an easy example that even using the word as sickness it is refering to Jesus wounds, i.e Jeremiah 10:19 using the same word: Woe to me because of my injury!
My wound is incurable!
Yet I said to myself,
“This is my sickness, and I must endure it.”


-Them you repeat again "The Messiah is never described in the Hebrew Bible in these terms, and
certainly not as someone smitten by God." Yes it is in Isaiah 53, thats actually the reason why we are talking, again i must tell you that it's just you don't want to accept it, as many Jews wouldn't accept what God revelead to them because their own desires.

-Then you said: "Nowhere is Jesus described
as being sickly, oppressed, and smitten by God."//My answer is read Matthew 26:39 "Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.”

OR 26:52 “Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. 53 Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?”

-Jesus suffered in the cross because he was in total submission to the Father, and it was his will that he shall do the sacrifice for the mankind, thats why the bible also says John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life"// If you haven't read the whole NT i highly recommend you to read it before engaging on discussions.

Cristo Te Ama said...

NITEMARES
-Then you said: My response What are you talking about where is your god in any pain here it sounds like the people are in pain to get rid of your god I wonder why?
-My answer is please before engaging in discussion take the time to read the whole NT, so you can do it well, why i said this, because if you keep reading you will get your answer:
>John 18:22 22 When Jesus said this, one of the officials nearby slapped him in the face. “Is this the way you answer the high priest?” he demanded.

>John 19:1 Then Pilate took Jesus and had him flogged. 2 The soldiers twisted together a crown of thorns and put it on his head. They clothed him in a purple robe 3 and went up to him again and again, saying, “Hail, king of the Jews!” And they slapped him in the face.

4 Once more Pilate came out and said to the Jews gathered there, “Look, I am bringing him out to you to let you know that I find no basis for a charge against him.” 5 When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said to them, “Here is the man!”

6 As soon as the chief priests and their officials saw him, they shouted, “Crucify! Crucify!”

But Pilate answered, “You take him and crucify him. As for me, I find no basis for a charge against him.”

7 The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.”

8 When Pilate heard this, he was even more afraid, 9 and he went back inside the palace. “Where do you come from?” he asked Jesus, but Jesus gave him no answer. 10 “Do you refuse to speak to me?” Pilate said. “Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you?”

11 Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.”

12 From then on, Pilate tried to set Jesus free, but the Jewish leaders kept shouting, “If you let this man go, you are no friend of Caesar. Anyone who claims to be a king opposes Caesar.”

13 When Pilate heard this, he brought Jesus out and sat down on the judge’s seat at a place known as the Stone Pavement (which in Aramaic is Gabbatha). 14 It was the day of Preparation of the Passover; it was about noon.

“Here is your king,” Pilate said to the Jews.

15 But they shouted, “Take him away! Take him away! Crucify him!”

“Shall I crucify your king?” Pilate asked.

“We have no king but Caesar,” the chief priests answered.

16 Finally Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified.

-So as you can see he was in pain, he was despised, etc as Isaiah 53 says, you just had to finish reading the book, i guess it is too much to ask?

Cristo Te Ama said...

@NITEMARES

-About "Again I challenge any Christian here to a debate with 25 million dollar reward if they win. Since I posted this here a month ago not one Christian took up the offer". Try to be serious, you are acting like a tipical Muslim here, thinking that giving any "answer" is actually refuting the arguments, not caring about if your "refutations" are valid or makes sense at all, and i think i have been proving that you have not even read the NT so how are you asking such thing like this? A JOKE I GUESS.

- I don’t know what you are talking about but I have many quotes of your own Christians claiming your scriptures are perverted. These Christians are the biggest scholars the world has ever heard.
Dr. Herbert Marsh, Nineteenth--Century English Bishop:
AlSo you said "Not one of these five books (four Gospels and Acts) [was] really written by the person whose name it bears, and they are all of more recent date than the heading would lead us to suppose" It's funny because that's what many Atheists Schollars say about the Deuteronomy i.e, yet we have so many Manuscripts, over 22.000 of the NT that we can be sure that the message of it is preserved, also there are many quotations from the first Christians as Justin Martyr,Theophilus bishop of Antioch, Irenaeus, tertulian, etc. BTW you quote me 2 Schollars and it's supposed to be the best proof, yet there is a Vast mayority that says the opposite, and yep it's not a secret that some verses of Mark gave some problems, yet thx God we have John,Luke,and Matthew to corroborate it.

-BTW Johannan Ben Zakkai is the "Jew" who created the Judaism you know now, the one based on Hosea 6:6,the one who said "well we have no temple anymore, what should we do?" since he knew the temple was absoloutly neccesary, so he just started to look on the bible how to "fix" this issue and voula!! new Judaism is on the table!! Thats why i told you that saying you are a "Jew" doesn't make you a Jew of the Bible.

Cristo Te Ama said...

@NITEMARES

-Then you said "It is actually a failure if you are trying to authenticate your falsities from the Torah the Torah does not mention any second coming."
>Nice logic you have, so the temple of Solomon is a Pagan temple!! why? because in Genesis nowhere it mentions a temple!!!!! so if in the Genesis there is no Solomon Temple named then it means it's a Pagan place, but wait a minute!!! later on the Bible God DECIDES TO REVEAL IN THE MOMENT HE THINK IS THE RIGHT MOMENT that the Jews must built a temple. Also we could say that YHWH is not the name of GOD!!!! why?? Because in Genesis it's not written!!! That means Moses made up all the YHWH name!!!?? Wait later on GOD DECIDED TO REVEAL AT THE MOMENT HE THOUGHT WAS THE BEST HIS NAME!! Oh thx God i almost became an Atheist for such argument(irony off). Are you serious, The comming of the Messiah is predicted and he came and he revealed in the moment he thought was correct that he would come back to fulfill what Daniel saw in Daniel 7:13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."

And thats what The Messiah will do:
-Matthew 24:30, Matthew 26:64, Mark 13:26, Mark 14:62, Luke 21:27, Revelations 1:7, Revelations 1:13, Revelations 14:14, Revelations 11:15.

Cristo Te Ama said...

@ITEMARES
-Then you said: My response Yes we have heard this baloney many times before. Before a poster wrote in Christianity the leaders martyred themselves in Islam the leader has others martyring for them. When the Jews sinned as you so aptly said they worshiped idols they did not go on killing sprees when you Christians sinned you went on killing sprees. Did worshiping idols hurt any one but themselves? Also what happened to these idolaters in the Torah they were punished did your god punish any of these not real Christians. When the Jews sinned G-D sent prophets to them to warn them tell me how many prophets did your god send. Better yet in the Torah you claim that your god came all the time down to fight with Jacob to visit Abraham etc. why didn’t your god come down and tell them they were bad like he came to the Pharisees.

- So we are going to Discuss what sin is worst? because Killing is a violation of the 5th commandment Exodus 20:13, yet Exodus 20:3-4 says that you are violating the first of the 10 Commandments, so yep the Nazi "christians" did wrong but worshipping Idols according to God is not better at all. BTW the bible leaves clear that the Jews were all the time making the opposite to what God wanted, thats why they lost their land in example and it was not only about Idolatry. About why GOd didn't punish those Nazi "christians" i don't know if it was a punishment from God, but i know that when Germany lost the war, the ppl really had a bad time there in Germany from the Russians, and they actually lost their land. But i won't get into Gods brain, and i wont even try since Isaiah 55:8 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
9 “As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts."

- So telling me that Christianity is bad for what the Nazi "Christians" did, even when CHRIST (from which get the name from) taught the total opposite doesn't affect me at all, as i said a Christian is a Christian by following what God commanded him/her in the Bible.

Peace

Living Way said...

If in the audience I would have asked, why would Mr.Zaatari even need an orthodoxy document. We believe in a God Who can change heart and life as Bible - the Gods word has been doing for centuries. Its very sad to believe in a god who needs a piece of paper to reveal himself to his own people.

NITEMARES791 said...

To save space I deleted allot of his answer you can look at the original post I left the first line in of each.
Cristo Te Ama said @NITEMARES

-You told me Abraham,Isaac Jacob were Jews, and they didn't have a temple so it's ok according to you, the difference is that you try to follow the Torah which is the Law, the law of Moses, i.e you don't eat pork right? why? because of the Law of Moses,

My response.
Are you sick in the head what does eating pork have to do with sacrifices. No they were not the first ones making sacrifices stop reading lying pagan web sites. Abraham kept all the laws.
Genesis Chapter 26:5 because that Abraham hearkened to My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.'
Genesis Chapter 4:4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering
Genesis Chapter 22:13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in the thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt-offering in the stead of his soGenesis Chapter 46:1 And Israel took his journey with all that he had, and came to Beer-sheba, and offered sacrifices unto the God of his father Isaac

Cristo Te Ama said
-Then you said : "This verse Isiah 53:3 describes a pathetic entity, forsaken and afflicted with sickness, being despised by the multitudes that could not even bear to look at it.

My response No i dont see anything and you saying I see doesnt make it true you are pathetic.

Cristo Te Ama said
-Then you said: "… a man of pains, and accustomed to illness …" is said to apply to Jesus,
one must ask: wounds, i.e Jeremiah 10:19 using the same word: Woe to me because of my injury!My wound is incurable!Yet I said to myself,“This is my sickness, and I must endure it.”

My response.This is talking about the house of Israel can you read English.
Jeremiah - Chapter 10:1. Hearken to the word that the Lord spoke about you, O house of Israel
Cristo Te Ama said
-Them you repeat again "The Messiah is never described in the Hebrew Bible in these terms, and
certainly not as someone smitten by God." Yes it is in Isaiah 53, thats actually the reason why we are talking, again i must tell you that it's just you don't want to accept it, as many Jews wouldn't accept what God revelead to them because their own desires.

My response.
Again you are assuming that that verse is talking your messiah I say not you have not proven anything yet.
Isaiah 53:9: And he gave his grave to the wicked, and to the wealthy in his deaths, because he committed no violence, and
there was no deceit in his mouth.
"in his deaths," for Jesus to fulfill this verse, he must therefore come back to earth and die at least another time. How many deaths did your god have.
Cristo Te Ama said
-Then you said: "Nowhere is Jesus described
as being sickly, oppressed, and smitten by God."//My answer is read Matthew 26:39 "Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you ?”

My response
What? your god prays to his father what kind of pagan are you your god has a father? I can also say if you dont listen to me I will get twelve legions of angels after you. Where does it say here he was sickly, oppressed, and smitten by God
Cristo Te Ama said
-Jesus suffered in the cross because he was in total submission to the Father, and it was his will that he shall do the sacrifice My response I seems you have read nothing. Again 53 says a continues suffering can you read English.? Any one in the street can claim this what kind of god submits to others.

NITEMARES791 said...

Part one.

Nothin'ButTheTruth said...

NITEMARES791 Jesus isn't the Messiah because he didn't bring the peace described in Isaiah 60:18.
My response

Yes this is correct and he actually didn’t bring anything, came down and even according to you healed a few sick raised some dead bla bla and left. No book did he leave nothing.

Nothin'ButTheTruth said

OK, does verse 18 come alone?If you keep on reading, you'll see something you didn't see.

My response

When ever I read new things than I see something I didn’t see being I read later on so I did see it

Nothin'ButTheTruth said

U supposedly think that Isaiah 60:18 is what going to happen when the Savior or Messiah comes.

My response

Yes I supposedly think so.

Nothin'ButTheTruth said

but u are wrong! It will happen after the Judgement

My response

I checked all the verses you posted and I even did a find search and not one word of judge or judgement is there. Maybe you should change your name to Nothin'ButTheLies

Nothin'ButTheTruth said

Let's see what the rest Of Isaiah 60 says,

60:19 60:20 60:21 60:22

This is exactly what we see in Revelation 21

I don’t care what you find in revelation however I can assure you your god you wont find in any of my books the true books from the true creator. In fact how about this I will give you a gizzzzillion dollars if you can even find your gods name in my books. Here are my books show me this name. Jesus

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm

Nothin'ButTheTruth said

My response

Others have refuted your misunderstanding of 53:3 so I'm not going to say more.

Please tell me who refuted me so I can give them the 25 million I owe them.

NITEMARES791 said...

Part 2

Nothin'ButTheTruth Obviously you have not read anything, read verse 4 it happens at the same time.

Isaiah - Chapter 2:2. And it shall be at the end of the days, that the mountain of the Lord's house shall be firmly established at the top of the mountains, and it shall be raised above the hills, and all the nations shall stream to it.3. And many peoples shall go, and they shall say, "Come, let us go up to the Lord's mount, to the house of the God of Jacob, and let Him teach us of His ways, and we will go in His paths," for out of Zion shall the Torah come forth, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.4. And he shall judge between the nations and reprove many peoples, and they shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift the sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore

Chapter 32: 15. Until a spirit be poured us from on high, and the desert shall become a fruitful field, and the fruitful field shall be regarded as a forest. 16. And justice shall dwell in the desert, and righteousness shall reside in the fruitful field. 17. And the deed of righteousness shall be peace, and the act of righteousness [shall be] tranquility and safety until eternity 18. And My people shall dwell in a dwelling of peace, and in secure dwellings and in tranquil resting-places.

Zephaniah - Chapter 3: 8. Therefore, wait for Me, says the Lord, for the day that I will rise up to meet [with you]. For it is My judgment to assemble nations, to gather kingdoms, to pour out My fury upon them; yea, all the kindling of My wrath, for with the fire of My jealousy all the earth shall be consumed. 9. For then I will convert the peoples to a pure language that all of them call in the name of the Lord, to worship Him of one accord

Amos - Chapter 9:13. Behold days are coming, says the Lord, that the plowman shall meet the reaper and the treader of the grapes the one who carries the seed, and the mountains shall drip sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt. 14. And I will return the captivity of My people Israel, and they shall rebuild desolate cities and inhabit [them], and they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine, and they shall make gardens and eat their produce. 15. And I will plant them on their land, and they shall no longer be uprooted from upon their land, that I have given them, said the Lord your God.

Micah - Chapter 4:2. And many nations shall go, and they shall say, "Come, let us go up to the Lord's mount and to the house of the God of Jacob, and let Him teach us of His ways, and we will go in His paths," for out of Zion shall the Torah come forth, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. 3. And he shall judge between many peoples and reprove mighty nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nations shall not lift the sword against nation; neither shall they learn war anymore.

I have plenty more if you need them.

NITEMARES791 said...

Tom said... To : Nitemares791

To my beleive that ".. if you break one law you break all...."Nitemares wrote:

" Who informed you of this do you have any verse to prove it or you just make up things".James 2:10"For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all"....

My response That is fine as long as you don’t claim it is in the Torah

Tom said
When I first read your statement calling me a nazi christian, I was stunned, becos I am an ardent believer & supporter in the nation of Isreal, that the Isrealites are God's convenant children & only a imbecile mind would go against The God of Abraham after He has made a convenant. I have engaged muslims who try to pit me against Jews by saying "hey, they killed your God" & I refute strongly those back stabbing staements, and here you are calling christians, nazi.... I had wanted to pour out my venom on you... But then I realised Hey, historically it has been shown they are insecure & "full of themselves", that is why you are still "wondering in the wilderness"

My response Jews consider Christians idol worshipers the Torah says G-D says no man can see my face and live. So tell me how did all those who saw your god live. Yes I know but how can it say speak face to face in the Torah. This has been answered five million times you can Google for the answer. So when you come to missionize you are killing Jews since the crime of idol worship is death.

“Missionaries are out to ensnare each and every Jewish neshama [soul], because they believe that their messiah, whom they call Yeshua (aka Jesus) will not return until a majority of Jews convert and the Jews are in possession of Eretz Yisrael. While they have always used newspaper ads, billboards, leaflets, telemarketing-style phone campaigns, and door-to-door canvassing to reach their Jewish victims, they have now added viral YouTube videos and social networking on Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter”

Tom said..."Thank you Jesus for providing us with the wisdom and means to refute the perversions of satan". Thank you David and Team for running this site to refute all the adulteration against christianity.

My response I was responding to this. How is it your allowed to refute and I am not? Do you not find this hypocritical, in the Christian terrorist rooms on pal talk they will not let you refute them or even let you speak if they know you are going to refute them? No Tom you did not want to pour your venom on me you wanted to kill me like most fundamentalist Christians on pal talk wishing the glory of their good old days of killing critics. If you don’t believe me come to pal talk and ill show you. There is a room in the pal talk Christian section titled why are Christians so mean and angry. This is true I have never met a more vile people than these Christian fundamentalist. For your information I have a pal talk room and my two admins are both Christians and they claim the same thing about you fundamentalist.

Nitemares791 Said
Here Tom you may want to glance at your nazi Christians. This nazi Christian claims that Jews lie after he writes this. Now did your Messiah fulfill every prophecy as this liar claims. So who will "refute the perversions of satan" here.?

My response
If you would have read it correctly you would see I did not call you a nazi as you claim. I was making a point as to why Christians don’t refute these Nazis or the kkk web sites or other hate sites claiming to be Christian. See I ask who will refute them.

Tom said
“historically it has been shown they are insecure & "full of themselves”

My response and historically it has been shown that you Christians were very violent. Yes Jews were insecure that is why they didn’t go around the world trying to convert every one to Judaism and killing all heretics and those who disagree with them. You are wandering in the depth of hellfire.

NITEMARES791 said...

Jabari said... @NITEMARES791

Based on the arguments you give, I can only conclude that you are a Jew. They seem like arguments coming from a Jew. I also notice that you call us, Christians, "Nazis and terrorists." Those type of insults aren't needed, though I must say that if this because of the supposed Christian anti-semitism of the past. I should let you know that is contrary to the teaching of our Lord and Savior. I don't want to go into the many verses backing me up.

My response

I am glad you recognize intelligence when you see it. About the Nazis see my reply to Tom I see how you both can read and we should trust you to interpret our text. I will decide what is needed or not long has past the days when you Christians decided for every one what they can do or say. I responded how this is condoned by your god read my response to Cristo Te Ama.

Jabari said

I want to respond to many arguments against Jesus Christ being the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament (I'll get to the argument that Jesus isn't the Messiah because he didn't bring the peace described in Isaiah 60:18 and similar verses).

Jabari said
My response to this is:

Isaiah 53 allude to our Lord's earthly origins, which were lowly and inauspicious as Isaiah 53:2-"For he shall grow up before him as a tender sapling, and as a root out of dry ground: he hath no form nor lordliness, and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him."This is a running theme throughout the gospels. People are saying things like,"Can anything good come out of Nazareth? (John 1:49)" He was also rejected and despise in His hometown of Nazareth (Luke 4:18-32). He was despised by his family members, particularly his half-brothers (John 7:4-5).

My response like I said before there are how many people on the planet about 80% of them can claim that Isaiah is describing them.

3. Despised and rejected by men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness, and as one who hides his face from us, despised and we held him of no account.

Where does it say family members here please don’t waste my time with your brainwashed nonsense from lying web sites.

NITEMARES791 said...

Jabari said He was despised by his family members, particularly his half-brothers (John 7:4-5).

My response No they just thought he was not normal who would know him more than his own family members and you worship him. It seems the only evidence given by anybody is I heard he said he was a god and some worshiped him as god. No wonder why no one would debate me.

John 7 No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him.

Where does it say despised is lying your nature.

My G-D challenges any other gods out there if they can do the miracles he did than they can say they are god. Did your god do them?Yes you can say in the past he did all those things. Than you should worship any one now who claims he is a god and he did all the miracles in the past. A Prophet has to perform much lower miracles than this to prove he is a Prophet.
Deuteronomy - Chapter 4:33. Did ever a people hear God's voice speaking out of the midst of the fire as you have heard, and live?34. Or has any god performed miracles to come and take him a nation from the midst of a[nother] nation, with trials, with signs, and with wonders, and with war and with a strong hand, and with an outstretched arm, and with great awesome deeds, as all that the Lord your God did for you in Egypt before your eyes?

Derek Adams said...

Rogers It brings me great pleasure reading one of the greatest Christian Apologist out there scramble to find any verse in Isaiah showing the bewilderment of the disciples. In fact you were so desperate you tried to apply a generalization found in Luke 4 about blind people in general to the very disciples themselves. Ho ha ha. I admit , I thoroughly enjoyed the temporal pleasure provided by your pathetic mishmash of an answer. As for your pretending that apostates engage in hedonist lifestyles, that must be the non-sequitor you derived from the Bible, you'll need stats to back that up. Personally I am found guilty of such things even on this blog. ha ha ha . Very enjoyable read indeed.

Once you find a verse, give me a call.

Until then, the fact remains. Jesus expected the disciples to know such a common belief.

Hey but isn't it hilarious that you accuse the disciples of such stupidity and blindness and retardation, but the great roman soldiers knew better:

Matthew 27:62 The next day, the one after Preparation Day, the chief priests and the Pharisees went to Pilate. 63 “Sir,” they said, “we remember that while he was still alive that deceiver said, ‘After three days I will rise again.’ 64 So give the order for the tomb to be made secure until the third day. Otherwise, his disciples may come and steal the body and tell the people that he has been raised from the dead. This last deception will be worse than the first.”

Jesus didn't need to open their minds and hearts?

Whoops looks like it doesn't take divine intervention after all.

NITEMARES791 said...

Cristo Te Ama said @NITEMARES

-Then you said "It is actually a failure if you are trying to authenticate your falsities from the Torah the Torah does not mention any second coming."
>Nice logic you have, so the temple of Solomon is a Pagan temple!! why? because in Genesis nowhere it mentions a temple!!!!!

My response What are you talking about? In fact it does mention a Temple Abrahams house was a temple. It seems you are taking some sort of drugs. I’m glad you admit that you don’t have to have a Temple to be righteous. Genesis Chapter 7
1 And the LORD said unto Noah: 'Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before Me in this generation

Cristo Te Ama said
so if in the Genesis there is no Solomon Temple named then it means it's a Pagan place, but wait a minute!!! later on the Bible God DECIDES TO REVEAL IN THE MOMENT HE THINK IS THE RIGHT MOMENT that the Jews must built a temple. Also we could say that YHWH is not the name of GOD!!!! why?? Because in Genesis it's not written!!!

My response Again what are you talking about it is written.
Genesis Chapter 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Go read the Hebrew it says YHWH
Stop reading false web sites.
Cristo Te Ama said
That means Moses made up all the YHWH name!!!?? Wait later on GOD DECIDED TO REVEAL AT THE MOMENT HE THOUGHT WAS THE BEST HIS NAME!!
My response
No he revealed it all along, the true creator has many names in the Torah not all of them he revealed at the same time.

Cristo Te Ama said
Oh thx God i almost became an Atheist for such argument(irony off). Are you serious, The comming of the Messiah is predicted and he came and he revealed in the moment he thought was correct that he would come back to fulfill what Daniel saw in Daniel 7:13 “In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man,coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."
My response
What authority was your god given do all nations and peoples of every language worship your god?
Cristo Te Ama said

And thats what The Messiah will do:
My response
You are right so thanks for proving your god was not the messiah he did not do all these things.

NITEMARES791 said...

Cristo Te Ama Since you are a Bible scholar I have two questions for you if you can please answer I would greatly appreciate it. Thank You.

Genesis Chapter 25:21 And Isaac entreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren; and the LORD let Himself be entreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived. 22 And the children struggled together within her; and she said: 'If it be so, wherefore do I live?' And she went to inquire of the LORD. 23 And the LORD said unto her: Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; and the elder shall serve the younger

My first question is where was your god living at this time that Rebekah went to see your god.

Genesis Chapter 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. 2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. 3 And they said one to another: 'Come, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly.' And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. 4 And they said: 'Come, let us build us a city, and a tower, with its top in heaven, and let us make us a name; lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.' 5 And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

My second question what exactly did these people do that was wrong.

Thanks again

NITEMARES791 said...

Cristo Te Ama Said
- So we are going to Discuss what sin is worst? because Killing is a violation of the 5th commandment Exodus 20:13, yet Exodus 20:3-4 says that you are violating the first of the 10 Commandments, so yep the Nazi "christians" did wrong but worshipping Idols
according to God is not better at all. BTW the bible leaves clear that the Jews were all the time making the opposite to what God wanted, thats why they lost their land in example and it was not only about Idolatry.

My response
You keep claiming that Jews worshiped Idols
It is funny how you Christians claim that Jews worshiped idol in the desert you claim your god came down in manifestation so how do you know it was an idol maybe it was your god came down in manifestation of a golden calf. You are always accusing the muslims of limiting their god that he cant come down as man. So you ask me well did the animal claim to be your god. Lets analyze this Christians claim that their gods disciples would not worship their god if they were not 100% sure that he was their god. So how do you know this well its common sense why would you worship some one if you are not 100% sure that he is god. Yet you Christians are claiming that millions of jews were worshiping a god who they were not sure he was a god.
Exodus Chapter 32:24 And I said unto them: Whosoever hath any gold, let them break it off; so they gave it me; and I cast it into the fire, and there came out this calf.'
This was more miraculous than your virgin birth and it had millions of more witnesses.
Tell me something you claim Jews were idol worshipers so why in sam hill did you follow the Jews that worshiped your god. You are always bragging how the first disciples were jewish. The Pharisees at that time were the Levites and they did not worship the Idol when your god came the Pharisees said don’t worship that man. So what do you do you worship him good for following the idol worshipers. So you have been worshiping idol for 2000 years.

NITEMARES791 said...

Part 1
Cristo Te Ama Said So telling me that Christianity is bad for what the Nazi "Christians" did, even when CHRIST (from which get the name from) taught the total opposite doesn't affect me at all, as i said a Christian is a Christian by following what God commanded him/her in the Bible.

My response No it did not teach the opposite.

"Nazi anti-Judaism was the work of godless, anti-Christian criminals. But it would not have been possible without the almost two thousand years' pre-history of 'Christian' anti-Judaism..." Hans K√ľng

Matthew 27:25: "Then answered all the people and said, 'His blood be on us, and on our children'!" The author of the Gospel of Matthew wrote that the responsibility for the execution of Yeshua of Nazareth (Jesus Christ) was willingly accepted by first century CE Jews on behalf of themselves and their next generation of children

Could Jesus have hated anyone when he spoke words of forgiveness and non-resistance to wickedness? Did he not say, "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:27), "Do not resist him that is wicked; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:39) and, alternately, "To him that strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also" (Luke 6:29)?

Answer: These verses are taken as representative of the extraordinary forgiveness taught and exercised by Jesus. However, the sublime dictum to "turn the other cheek" was not practiced by Jesus himself. According to the Gospels, Jesus preached turning the other cheek, loving one's neighbor and praying for them, and forgiving those who wrong you. When did Jesus manifest such behavior in his personal relationships, during his lifetime, for others to emulate? Was it his cursing of the Pharisees (Matthew 23), his threat of violent retribution on cities that rejected his message (Matthew 11:20-24, Luke 10:13-15), or his condemnation to death of Jews who would not accept him (Luke 19:27)? The fact of the matter is that he himself never turned the other cheek. Jesus never forgave anyone who rejected his claims. He responded to his opponents, not with passive resistance, but by Answering criticism with criticism, reviling and threatening his adversaries (for example, Matthew 23).

NITEMARES791 said...

Part 2

Your own Christians greatest scholars admit your book teaches hate so don’t lie.

An increasing number of Christian scholars and clergy have concluded that the root of anti-Semitism in the Christian world community is ultimately found within the New Testament. In his book, Elder and Younger Brothers: The Encounter of Jews and Christians, the late Professor A. Roy Eckhardt [former Professor of Religion at both Lehigh University (PA) and Oxford University (UK), and an ordained minister] asserts that the foundation of anti-Semitism and the responsibility for the Holocaust lie ultimately in the New Testament.1 In another book, Your People, My People: The Meeting of Jews and Christians, Professor Eckhardt insists that Christian repentance must include a reexamination of basic theological attitudes toward Jewry and the New Testament in order to deal effectively with the problem of anti-Semitism and its prevention.2 The general message scholars such as Professor Eckhardt are trying
to convey is that, using the New Testament as its authoritative source, "The Church"has stereotyped the Jewish people as an icon of unredeemed humanity; they became an image of a blind, stubborn, carnal, and perverse people. This dehumanization is the vehicle that formed the psychological prerequisite to the
atrocities that followed.

http://www.thejewishhome.org/counter/AntiJewishNT.pdf

Jesus did not limit himself to his immediate opponents, such as the Rabbis and teachers. He spoke against all those who dared not believe in him, branding them as outcasts, subject to divine punishment. We thus hear his pronouncement

(John 3:36), He who believes in the Son has everlasting life. But he who does not believe in the Son shall not see life, but shall suffer the everlasting wrath of G-d.

He may have preached love, but it was a very restricted love. He thus said
(John 3:5), I surely say to you: Unless a man is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of G-d.

In contrast to this, the Rabbis, whom Jsus hated so much, did not place any such limitations on G-d's love. It was the Rabbis of the Talmud who made the statement
(Tosefta, Sanhedrin 13), The righteous of all nations have a share in the World to Come.

So you can fool every one else not the Nitemare. I have lots more if you want.

NITEMARES791 said...

Walter said...Nightmare791, let's actually look at what you cited and address it carefully phrase by phrase.Your first error is taking the words of 53:3 and applying it to the entirety of his life. Such a demand for a womb to tomb fulfillment seems a little presumptive especially because the text makes no such statement.

My response Yes it does mean entire life or most and I explained it before you listen to lying Christian web sites that’s why you think it is not there. Why don’t you come to my paltalk room so I can teach you the truth.
Again I will tell you your method can be applied to at least a million men on this planet.

Walter said
I find it especially peculiar that you even cite a chapter where most of these prophecies are fulfilled. (Mark 14) Let's walk through the verse leaning most heavily on just that passage and the following chapter for our citations.

My response
No chapter or even one word is talking about your god in the entire OT.

Walter said Isaiah Chapter 53:3 He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: he was despised, and we esteemed him not
"and acquainted with disease,"
Not sure which translation you are using, but the word here also means anxiety, grief, evil, or less commonly calamity. Rather normal feelings for someone abandoned and about to be crucified. See Mark 14:35-36

My response unfortunately for you I don’t need a translation I read the original and it does not say anxiety, grief evil etc. When you stop lying to find your god than come talk to me I cant waste my time with every lying crackpot here.

Foolster41 said...

Nightmare:

"An increasing number of Christian scholars and clergy have concluded that the root of anti-Semitism in the Christian world community is ultimately found within the New Testament."

Could you a link to these studies that show the verses quoted from the NT that backs this claim? This is hardly a new claim (I've been arguing with someone making this claim) and I've yet to see solid scriptural evidence to back this. You mention a plurality of scholars, but then only mention one name, giving a false impression of concenous.

Also, the argument simply fails logically anyway since Jesus was a Jew, his followers were all Jews. Nowhere in the NT does Jesus condemn all Jews (for being Jews), since that would mean condemning himself and all his followers. The argument that the NT is somehow anti-semetic therefore is a lie, and frankly, bigoted.

"In contrast to this, the Rabbis, whom Jsus hated so much, did not place any such limitations on G-d's love."
No, they only put large religious ritual restrictions on the followers that were never intended by God when he gave the original law. (See: Matt 23)

"So you can fool every one else not the Nitemare. I have lots more if you want."
No, you HAVE been fooled.

NITEMARES791 said...

Cristo Te Ama by the way you say you defend the Jews well lo and behold I defend the Christians against the muslims in my room. Despite what you claimed falsely that G-D loves violence more than idol worship that is not true. In fact Christian haters are often surprised that I read Sam Shamouns web site http://answering-islam.org/New/new.html and David Woods web site. If you go on my blog you will see I quote David Wood on almost every article and I attribute it to him.http://unsavoryislam.blogspot.com/

We encourage that Christians proselytize to muslims since they proselytize to you. However since Jews don’t proselytize to Christians they should not be proselytizing to Jews.

Like I said I have two Christian admins and most of my room is Christians and they hate liars like you and they claim you give Christians a bad name.

Go to any Christian pal talk room and try this write your god is false they will dot or bounce you. If any one comes to my room and says that I laugh I never dot or bounce them. A dot means suppressing free speech. Yes violating pal talk rules can get you dotted but saying your god is false is not breaking any rules. This shows that if this Christian who dots were living in the good old days he would make sure that guy never says such thing again.

Jose Joseph said...

nightmares honestly your spams are annoying debate David wood on abn so he can expose your weak points. I doubt any one here is reading your nonsense. better yet email Mike brown so he can just destroy your damage control.

NITEMARES791 said...

Jose Joseph said nightmares honestly your spams are annoying debate David wood on abn so he can expose your weak points. I doubt any one here is reading your nonsense. better yet email Mike brown so he can just destroy your damage control.

Big shot what are you a joke first off I challenged these people first to debate me on paltalk no one has done so. Second your Brown has been destroyed many times but you won’t read it. Third I am replying to all your lies so it is you that is spamming lies. Big shot why don’t you come to debate. Yes you are right and just like the Islamic savages you didn’t read anything I wrote than claim victory. No JEW has ever lost a debate to a Christian.

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/?searchword=blumenthal&searchphrase=all&limit=&ordering=newest&view=search&Itemid=99999999&option=com_search

Foolster41 said...

"Like I said I have two Christian admins and most of my room is Christians and they hate liars like you and they claim you give Christians a bad name."
Ah, you're not an anti-Christian bigot, "I have Christian Friends" I see. *eye roll*

NITEMARES791 said...

Foolster41 said..."Like I said I have two Christian admins and most of my room is Christians and they hate liars like you and they claim you give Christians a bad name."
Ah, you're not an anti-Christian bigot, "I have Christian Friends" I see. *eye roll*

My response
You better believe I'm an anti Christian bigot especially to filth like you. You mean like im not an anti-Jewish bigot "I support Israel" I see. *eye roll*

Jabari said...

@Nitemares791

Cristo te ama says:
Could Jesus have hated anyone when he spoke words of forgiveness and non-resistance to wickedness? Did he not say, "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44, Luke 6:27), "Do not resist him that is wicked; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matthew 5:39) and, alternately, "To him that strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also" (Luke 6:29)?

You Answer: These verses are taken as representative of the extraordinary forgiveness taught and exercised by Jesus. However, the sublime dictum to "turn the other cheek" was not practiced by Jesus himself. According to the Gospels, Jesus preached turning the other cheek, loving one's neighbor and praying for them, and forgiving those who wrong you. When did Jesus manifest such behavior in his personal relationships, during his lifetime, for others to emulate? Was it his cursing of the Pharisees (Matthew 23), his threat of violent retribution on cities that rejected his message (Matthew 11:20-24, Luke 10:13-15), or his condemnation to death of Jews who would not accept him (Luke 19:27)? The fact of the matter is that he himself never turned the other cheek. Jesus never forgave anyone who rejected his claims. He responded to his opponents, not with passive resistance, but by Answering criticism with criticism, reviling and threatening his adversaries (for example, Matthew 23).

My Response:
You say that our Lord never excercised the command He gave his followers to turn the other cheek. And you cited places where He rebuked the religious leaders of his days and condemned the cities that rejected Him. I swear you have be acting very deceptively because our Lord did observe the command to turn the other cheek. He observed that command by refusing to call down fire on the Samaritans who rejected Him (Luke 9:51-56). He also observed the command to forgive those who wronged Him, most well known would be the thief on the cross (Luke 23:34). He also said that He could have called down over 12 legions of angels to come an assist Him. So that's another example of turning the other cheek. Also He forgave the sins of the paralytic at the beginning of Mark 2 (those sins were against Him, of course). Also I should let you know that Luke 19:27 is part of a PARABLE (wish non-Christians, Jews and Muslims in particular, would stop taking this verse out of context)!!!! The parable is telling us Christians to work on our talents so that when the Lord Jesus comes back He'll be pleased. As for the curses He pronounced on the cities, I should let you know that He was going to judge those cities on the LAST DAY!!!! He wasn't looking at worldly punishment.
I'll pick up on this later.

Foolster41 said...

Why pertell am I filth? Because I'm refuting your lie that Chrisitanity is anti-semetic? (Which I notice you can't actually back up with facts, and resort to ad honim name calling when I challange you.). You calling me "filth" is completely uncalled for, and I think an Apology is in order.

No, saying someone is not Christian doesn't mean automatically not being anti-semetic/Anti-Jewish.

I AM a Chistian that supports Isreal's right to exist and defend itself. It's not who I know, but it is my actual stand. I dpn't try to use people I know to try to cover bigotry.

That you think Christianity = Anti-semetism (despite the challanges to this to the contrary) just shows your bigotry, and bigotry's not something to be proud of.

If you're not going to at least engage in debate, then maybe you'd be more happy with your bigotry over at Daily Kos?

Also, notice the conundrum: I assume they know how you attribute Christianity with automatically being anti-semetic. That means either they are also anti-semetic, or not really Christians. and I wonder how they feel about you calling their faith anti-semetic. That can't be good for a friendship, or even a working relationship.

David Wood said...

Foolster41 said: "Why pertell am I filth? Because I'm refuting your lie that Chrisitanity is anti-semetic? (Which I notice you can't actually back up with facts, and resort to ad honim name calling when I challange you.). You calling me "filth" is completely uncalled for, and I think an Apology is in order."

I'll take it a step further. Nitemares is banned from this site until he learns to communicate like an adult.

Anthony Rogers said...

Derek said: "In fact you were so desperate you tried to apply a generalization found in Luke 4 about blind people in general to the very disciples themselves. Ho ha ha."

Why think that nervous laughter will mask your gaffe here? In granting that this is a generalization, the onus is on you to show that the disciples were an exception. You are the one positing an exception to the general truth, so you are the one who has the burden here. Moreover, as I pointed out in my last reply, your claim that the disciples were an exception and were not blind, and that Jesus expected that they would have believed rather than that they should have believed (which is nothing more than a return to the 'ought implies can' fallacy), runs aground on Luke 24, the very passage you originally appealed to and then ignored in your last reply.

Furthermore, while the general truth is sufficient in lieu of any contrary evidence from you proving an exception in the case of the disciples, the passage in Luke 4 goes on to make the very opposite point than the one you arbitrarily asserted. In other words, it goes on to say that Jesus was not sent to open the blind eyes of everyone in general; rather, He was sent to certain persons in particular (which surely includes the apostles):

"20 Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant, and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fixed on him. 21 Then he began to tell them, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled even as you heard it being read.” 22 All were speaking well of him, and were amazed at the gracious words coming out of his mouth. They said, “Isnt this Josephs son?” 23 Jesus said to them, “No doubt you will quote to me the proverb, Physician, heal yourself! and say, What we have heard that you did in Capernaum, do here in your hometown too. ” 24 And he added, “I tell you the truth, no prophet is acceptable in his hometown. 25 But in truth I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in Elijahs days, when the sky was shut up three and a half years, and there was a great famine over all the land. 26 Yet Elijah was sent to none of them, but only to a woman who was a widow at Zarephath in Sidon. 27 And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, yet none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.” 28 When they heard this, all the people in the synagogue were filled with rage. 29 They got up, forced him out of the town, and brought him to the brow of the hill on which their town was built, so that they could throw him down the cliff. 30 But he passed through the crowd and went on his way." (Luke 4)

Derek said: "Jesus expected the disciples to know such a common belief."

Once again you have asserted something nowhere taught in the NT and not believed by any reputable scholar. It was not a common belief.

Derek said: "Hey but isn't it hilarious that you accuse the disciples of such stupidity and blindness and retardation, but the great roman soldiers knew better."

The Roman soldiers didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, knuclehead; so they would have had no problem taking Jesus words literally at this point.

BTW, foolishness and stupidity are not the same thing. For example: you are a fool, but I don't think you are stupid. :)

Anthony Rogers said...

Nitemare,

I know you are banned, but since I trounced you twice on PT that means you owe me $50,000,000. I will contact you to collect my winnings. I plan to split it with David and Sam.

Jose Joseph said...

I want to give everyone a heads up, Derek Adams and Anthony Rogers as everyone knows are having an exchange on this thread and Derek has decided to write what he calls the devastating blow against Rogers , I recommend everyone to look forward to his post.

Derek Adams said...

Hey Anthony,

As Jose said, I decided to write a more extensive post on this subject:

http://www.answeringabraham.com/2012/06/were-disciples-incompetent-fools-who.html

Royalson, looking forward to your post.

-Dk

Royal Son said...

Jose Joseph,

I wasn't aware that someone who has already lost via TKO was still a contender.

I have a response of my own due to arrive shortly as well.

Interested to know your thoughts Jose. Do you agree with DK's conclusions? Do you intend to contribute to the discussion and defend the Christian faith as so many brothers and sisters here do, or are you quite content to sit back and watch as a spectator?

I don't personally consider myself to be anyone of esteemable worth or standing to give a powerful defense of the faith, but I pray the Lord uses what little I have to bless the Body of Christ. I hope Jose, that you have the same burning desire as I and so many brothers and sisters here to provide an answer for the Hope that is within us.

Peace.

Anthony Rogers said...

Jose, you mean Derek finally plans to write something cogent? And this late in the game? Fat chance. Time to tap in Royalson; Derek is a bore.

Derek Adams said...

I agree it is time for Rogers to tap out, after all of his fallacies and errors who wouldn't be humiliated enough to pass the burden onto royalson.

I trust royalson will offer a much better performance.

Anthony Rogers said...

That was incredibly bad, Derek. I will content myself with replying to you on PT. For now...talk to Royalson.

Derek Adams said...

I don't know why you blocked my comment.

But since Rogers has been knocked out.

Royal you are up.

Royal Son said...

Answering Abraham said:

1) I do not assume Jesus was "unaware" of the passage, I asked for evidence Jesus interpreted the passage the same as Rogers.


My Response:

I think you assume Jesus interpreted it differently because of His rebuke. I have already addressed why such an act on His part was not contrary to the passage or interpretation thereof. You are trying to make a point of contention about this where none exists as I will demonstrate.

Answering Abraham said:

2) Jesus rebuking the disciples is not evidence Jesus indirectly was saying "I know you are bewildered" unless you establish first that Jesus believed the prophecy said this. The verse in question is the exact opposite of what you need. We have evidence Jesus did NOT inteprete their bewilderment, as he is pointing out the Messiah in ALL SCRIPTURE and by ALL PROPHETS MUST suffer, die and rise.


My Response:

That doesn't make sense. You said that His rebuke is not evidence that Jesus was indirectly saying "I know you are bewildered". What do you think He was rebuking them for? He specifically says "O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken !" (Luke 24:25). You think Jesus said this not knowing they were bewildered? Then you said that such thinking could not be possible unless Jesus believed that the prophecy spoke of such bewilderment. You are going to have to tell us what "foolish men" and "slow of heart" means and how it cannot possibly be referring to bewilderment.

In any case, since you are insistent that scripture does not speak of this bewilderment, I present the following scriptures in response:



Isaiah 53:4-6 says 4 Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. 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. 6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Here we can see two perspectives at odds with each other. The first being that of the reporters (53:1) that this servant was stricken by God. The second perspective , the actuality, being that this death was for atonement, not only so but a peace bringing death. Verse 6 says that these sheep have gone astray. Did Jesus predict that His people would go astray? Most certainly:

Luke 18:27-29 - 27 "You will all fall away," Jesus told them, "for it is written: " 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered.' 28 But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee." 29 Peter declared, "Even if all fall away, I will not." 30 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "today--yes, tonight--before the rooster crows twice you yourself will disown me three times." 31 But Peter insisted emphatically, "Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you." And all the others said the same.

Jesus speaks of His disciples falling away as fulfillment of prophecy, particularly Zecharaiah 13:7

7 "Awake, O sword, against my shepherd, against the man who is close to me!" declares the LORD Almighty. "Strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered, and I will turn my hand against the little ones.

And we even see an example of such falling away, Peter is predicted to deny Jesus three times, which we see fulfilled later on in Luke 22:62.

I could stop here DK. I've already demonstrated both from Isaiah 53 and Zechariah 13, where this bewilderment is predicted, Jesus application of it in Luke 18:27-29, and then we have the fullfillment in Luke 22:62 and Luke 24:25,37-38.

David Wood said...

Blocked what comment?

Royal Son said...

However, I will bring more into view now with Isaiah 42:1-9 which reads

Isaiah 42:1-9 - 1 "Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen one in whom I delight; I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations. 2 He will not shout or cry out, or raise his voice in the streets. 3 A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out. In faithfulness he will bring forth justice; 4 he will not falter or be discouraged till he establishes justice on earth. In his law the islands will put their hope." 5 This is what God the LORD says-- he who created the heavens and stretched them out, who spread out the earth and all that comes out of it, who gives breath to its people, and life to those who walk on it: 6 "I, the LORD, have called you in righteousness; I will take hold of your hand. I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people and a light for the Gentiles, 7 to open eyes that are blind, to free captives from prison and to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness. 8 "I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols. 9 See, the former things have taken place, and new things I declare; before they spring into being I announce them to you."

We note in verse 1 that the servant is the one who is God's delight. The Targum reads: "Behold, my servant, the Messiah, whom I bring, my chosen in whom one delights: as for my Word, I will put my Holy Spirit upon Him; He shall reveal my judgment unto the nations." Such a one becomes the new convenant for the Jews and a light for the Gentiles to open eyes that are blind, etc. This is exactly what Jesus does in Luke 24!

Further on in chapter 42 we examine verses 18 through 20 we read:

18 "Hear, you deaf; look, you blind, and see! 19 Who is blind but my servant, and deaf like the messenger I send? Who is blind like the one committed to me, blind like the servant of the LORD? 20 You have seen many things, but have paid no attention; your ears are open, but you hear nothing."

Notice a distinction between the servant in verse 1 who is the delight of the Lord, and the Servant in verse 18 and 19 whom the Lord says is blind and deaf. It speaks of both the servant and the messenger. Well who are the ones to carry the message of Jesus? Who are the ones who give the report (Isa 53:1,Luke 24:47-48)? They are the disciples. Yet such a messenger spoken of in verse 19 here of Isaiah 42 is deaf!

Let us continue with Isaiah 49

Verse 2 reads: 2 He made my mouth like a sharpened sword, in the shadow of his hand he hid me; he made me into a polished arrow and concealed me in his quiver.

We see that while Christ's word is sharp, yet he has been CONCEALED.

The chapter goes on to speak of the day of salvation:

8 This is what the LORD says: "In the time of my favor I will answer you, and in the day of salvation I will help you; I will keep you and will make you to be a covenant for the people, to restore the land and to reassign its desolate inheritances,

What is ZION'S reaction and the Lord's response?

14 But Zion said, "The LORD has forsaken me, the Lord has forgotten me." 15 "Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! 16 See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands; your walls are ever before me. 17 Your sons hasten back, and those who laid you waste depart from you. 18 Lift up your eyes and look around; all your sons gather and come to you. As surely as I live," declares the LORD, "you will wear them all as ornaments; you will put them on, like a bride.

Royal Son said...

This claim that the LORD had forsaken Zion and had forgotten her mirrors perfectly the attitude of the two men on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24:20-21) and also the disciples in the upper room (Luke 24:38-39).

However, we would also do well to read a few chapters back in Luke during one of the times He announced His impending crucifixion. In Luke 18:31-34 it reads:

31 Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, "We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. 32 He will be handed over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him, spit on him, flog him and kill him. 33 On the third day he will rise again." 34 The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.

Let us summarise thus far:

1. Isaiah 53 records the estimation of the reporters (a mere death) against the actual situation (atoning death, followed by a resurrection).
2. Jesus predicts His disciples will fall away, as a fulfillment of Zechariah 13:7
3. Isaiah 49 records the reaction of those of Zion who were dismayed following the Lord's death, mirroring the feeling of those on the road to Emmaus and in the Upper Room
4. The meaning is hidden from the disciples in the midst of Jesus speaking of the impending events and this is against the backdrop of being a fulfillment of scripture.

Answering Abraham said:3) You said: It seems Derek, that you expect Jesus to just sit back and say "No problem fellas, you were supposed to be bewildered anyway".

Well that's what he did to his murderers. "Father forgive them, FOR THEY KNOW NOT WHAT THEY DO". (Same gospel, in Luke, maybe a textual variant here, but it's meaningful and viable variant, meaning it is certainly a contender.)


My Response:

Even if we were to assume that the variant is original, we have three groups of people: 1) The murdering Jews 2) The Romans 3) Jesus' Disciples. With regards to the first group, I don't think that I need to point out the numerous instances where Jesus rebuked these people for not following their own scripture, for example:

Mark 7:6-15 | 6 And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written : '8THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME. 7 '9BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.' 8 "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the 10tradition of men." 9 He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your 11tradition. 10 "For Moses said, '12HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER '; and, '13HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH '; 11 but you say, 'If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is 14Corban (that is to say, given to God),' 12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother ; 13 thus invalidating the word of God by your 15tradition which you have handed down ; and you do many things such as that."

The rebukes toward this group of people does not negate His attributes of mercy and compassion to intercede for them as a High priest. What is interesting however, is that you have appealed to a verse that strengthens my point, not yours, for you are acknowledging now that such knowledge is veiled from these people, this is just like the knowledge being veiled from the disciples in Luke 18:34.

As for the Romans, they certainly didn't know what they were doing because they were not acquainted with the Old Testament Prophets.

That brings us to the third group of people, Jesus' Disciples, and well, I have already shown that the sheep are scattered which Jesus says is fulfilled in them (the disciples falling away), one of whom being Peter who Jesus said would deny Him three times.

Royal Son said...

Answering Abraham said: 4) You asked: "Could Jesus not rebuke those who knew not the scripture as a fulfillment in order to demonstrate the very fulfillment of their bewilderment as well?"

Considering, he had to open their minds in order to know scripture, you have a catch 22.


My response:
Not a catch 22 at all DK. It is by God's grace that our minds can be opened and if God witholds His grace from us, which He is certainly within His rights to do so, He is still able to righteously rebuke our sinful, slow hearts. Or do you think God is obliged first to open our minds before He's allowed to rebuke us? That seems to be the presupposition you're operating under.

Answering Abraham said:

5) Royalson also said: "When Jesus spoke of dying and rising from the dead, His followers were quite possibly under the thought that he was referring to the common resurrection at the end of the age. As such this "resurrection on the third day" while easy for us to understand and read back into the events 2000 years ago, certainly was not the automatic thought of Jesus' followers."

Funny all this demonstrates then, is that it's not a CLEAR PREDICTION, as espoused by Rogers. Not only is it NOT CLEAR, it's so ambiguous that Jesus had to "open the hearts/minds" of the disciples because they were so confused and confounded.

But historically this isn't the case. As you can see Shamoun and Dr Brown list an entire litany of evidences demonstrating the "third day Resurrection" was not a notion about an entire nation or collective persons, but a single messianic individual:


I totally disagree with you there DK. A beautiful rainbow doesn't stop being a beautiful rainbow because the blind man says He can't see it. The nature of scripture is not determined by its readers/hearers but by its source. Just as the clear prophecies do not stop becoming clear because DK says He can't see it. The problem here DK is not a matter of whether there's enough evidence or not, but rather a matter of what is driving your presuppositions. That is why, an individual like yourself will dismiss a litany of evidence all under the guise of honest skepticism, when in fact I would question whether you are ever skeptical of your own skepticism sir? It is plainly obvious that you cannot allow for predictive prophecy and so you're going to fight tooth and nail to ensure that no such predictive prophecy could have been made. Allow me to echo the words of Christ my Savior to you: "He said to them, "How foolish you are, and how slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!" - Luke 24:25

Answering Abraham said:

6) Next you ask: 1. What do you think Isaiah 53 was referring to?

I think it's guess work. Unless Isaiah wrote a commentary there is no way to know for certainty. We however can speculate. It seems to be it is about a single individual. It's hard to say because in Isaiah 49 it is made clear that Israel is both a single individual servant and a nation, and both readings IN ISAIAH are compatible with the text.


My Response:

The concept of the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 cannot possibly be referring to the nation of Israel. You're going to have a very steep mountain to climb to try and push that interpretation. Yes, Isaiah speaks of the Servant in an individual sense and national sense separately, but the fact of the matter was the Israel as a nation sinned and needed redemption. This is what Isaiah presents to us. Isaiah 53 has a sinless servant to redeem God's people in an atoning and healing death. There is no way you can even begin to demonstrate that Israel as a nation fits.

Royal Son said...

Answering Abraham said: 2. How would you explain the post-crucifixion appearances of Jesus?

I think the only one of these "appearances" that can be known for certain is Apostle Paul. And that is granting the assumptions made by most Scholars (the dating, and historicity)


My Response:

That's not explaining what actually happened in the other cases that were mentioned. Funny that you grant Paul as the only one that can be known for certain. Is that because you think Paul simply hallucinated? Of course, that would sit well with your presuppositions wouldn't it? And how did you come to such a conclusion regarding this? And how do you explain the origin of the non-pauline writings which record the post resurrection appearances? I wonder if you will be skeptical about your skepticism on this one.

Answering Abraham said:
7) You said: "The suffering servant who experiences DEATH, is then described later as having his days prolonged to see His offspring."

The hebrew "Zera" in nearly every case in Isaiah (and else where) refers to biological offspring. Hence it's not at all clear this is compatible with your belief system. In fact you can't just demonstrate "zera" might mean offspring in a spiritual sense, you must show that it must mean this.


My Response:

I hope you're aware DK that skepticism is not an evidence for your position. You already implicitly concede that Zera is not limited to a physical offspring, which is indeed correct. Since you are the person making the objection therefore, I am going to use your kind of skepticism against you. Prove that zera MUST refer to physical offspring. In fact, the Lord Himself refers to Israel as His Son, His Firstborn. Are you going to insist that God is being literal here? God repeatedly speaks about putting His laws into His people's hearts and that they would become His people. In light of all of these points which you cannot deny, I see no good reason for you to insist that this must be speaking in a literal sense. I call your skepticism into question DK.

Answering Abraham said:

8) Finally you said: "the passage perfectly agrees with Christian teaching on the death and resurrection of Jesus and I insert here an ATONING death with global ramifications."

It'"perfectly agrees" if we allow for a few assumptions. 1) Christians can come up with compatibility and play with texts, like Jews can 2) First century Jewish and Roman Christian Authors can match and fit Christ with their own interpretation of Isaiah 53.


My Response:

Oh this is a game now? What is wrong with making compatible interpretations? You seem to have no trouble doing that yourself in order to force prophecy out the window. The fact of the matter is DK, that you can read Isaiah 53 to a person who has never read it before and they will identify the chapter as pointing to Jesus, even people who aren't Christian. It has happened over and over again. If any would is playing with texts DK, I would say it is you.

Royal Son said...

Just a little postscript here. In one post you made the joking remark about the Romans being able to interpret the scriptures while the disciples could not. Quite simply DK, the Romans weren't expecting a Messiah. They probably never even studied the Tanach. Nor did they carry the traditions. What is interesting though DK, is that right before Isaiah 53, we find this little nugget in 52:13-15:

13 See, my servant will act wisely; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. 14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him-- his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness-- 15 so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand.

Here we see that nations and kings would understand that which they had never even heard of before. Israel on the other hand would exhibit the deafness and blindness as noted above.

I finish off with one last thought regarding bewilderment:

Isaiah 53:1 WHO HAS BELIEVED THE REPORT? OR TO WHOM HAS THE ARM OF THE LORD BEEN REVEALED?

I pray DK, that by the Lord's grace, you will believe the report. Until then I can only leave you in your bewildered state to the mercy of the Lord.

Royal Son said...

DK - You actually have thought your comments were blocked on another occasion just recently in this thread when you messaged me on Paltalk. I can assure you, David is not trying to block your comments. Basically all comments are to be moderated, they don't automatically go through, and well - David has a life. Things happen, and so he can't approve every message the moment you click on Publish.

Brother David, I would like to express my appreciation of your dedicated service on this blog as well as debates and other areas to the Lord. You are a pattern and a brother I look up to very much. May the Lord bless you and your family.

Derek Adams said...

Apologies David, came through.

Royalson, I'll address the rest tomorrow.

Unless I just tag Jose in.

Jose time to pick a side. Note this topic has no bearing on your theism, we are questioning things like prophecy and inerrancy and Resurrection here. What do you think ? Be honest, and take over me, for a few rounds, or make it three versus one!

Sam said...

Hey guys, this thread is about the Woods vs. Zaatari. Why is it that often times the comments do not reflect the theme of the post in question, but goes into tangents?

If you guys are interested in debating the issue of Isaiah 53 and the apostles' inability to understand the meaning of prophecies such as this one, then can I suggest creating another thread specifically to this issue?

At least that will keep the comments focused on the actual topic of this thread.

Royal Son said...

My apologies to all for diverting the focus away from the debate.