jewish

[BilliardsBall]

Sure, millions know of a prophecy. Big deal. Plenty buy in to your idea that Jesus has anything to do with peace because you reinterpret what that means when your initial definition didn't get to the conclusion you wanted. Equally big deal. You also claim that there are Tanach prophecies about Jesus. Amusing. Wrong, but hilarious so thanks for that.

Ah, so you decide that a definition is correct because it allows you to draw the conclusion you want. If there is a problem with it, you just shift the definition so you can isolate the character you need to find. ANY definition is acceptable if it points to Jesus, even if it flies in the face of the text. Got it.

and since Jesus is dead, and not God and he did not defeat anyone (unless you change to a definition of "defeat" which includes "lose to") it can't apply to him. Great!

There are hundreds of prophecies that Jesus has fulfilled.

Why would a Prince of Peace DEFEAT people in battle?

 

[rosends]

There are hundreds of prophecies that Jesus has fulfilled.

No, there aren't.

Why would a Prince of Peace DEFEAT people in battle?

To bring about a state of peace. Why would a "Prince of Peace" die while there is still war?

 

[Harel13]

Why would a "Prince of Peace" die while there is still war?

Probably gave up on peace...

 

[rosends]

Probably gave up on peace...

so should we discuss "prince"? Equally ridiculous.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There are alternatives to Prince of Peace
This verse may reflect a coronation rather than a birth. Upon his shoulder: the reference may be to a particular act in the ritual in which a symbol of the king’s authority was placed on his shoulder.

You must realize that Jewish scholars have similar ways to remove HUNDREDS of prophecies about Jesus, very concerning.

 

[BilliardsBall]

right, so the whole, "Atheists know he's the Prince of Peace" thing really doesn't matter to you for the prophecy to be fulfilled.

no need for concern God is in charge and takes good care.

Huh? The text doesn't say "atheists know" but as I've explained millions of atheists certainly know the reference!

 

[BilliardsBall]

It is quite common for Jewish names to make statements about God, without such names meaning that the person is actually God. "A wonderful counselor is the mighty God," is one such example. So is "The everlasting Father is the prince of peace."

Yes, certainly. My own name means "gift of God" in Hebrew.

However, we'd now have a random doxology in Isaiah, without context. A child is born and he shall be called but Hezekiah WAS NOT called those things that we know of!

 

[BilliardsBall]

Around and around we go -- as Ive said many times before, this verse refers to King Hezekiah, not the messiah.

Marvelous! Whom did Hezekiah counsel? Who called him eternal father? How did he fight several wars while being Prince of Peace?

What you've "said often" is not fact-based.

 

[pearl]

You must realize that Jewish scholars have similar ways to remove HUNDREDS of prophecies about Jesus, very concerning.

Nothing about removal, but interpretation.

 

[Harel13]

so should we discuss "prince"? Equally ridiculous.

I meant that he gave up on peace and, uh, made a run for it.

 

[rosends]

I meant that he gave up on peace and, uh, made a run for it.

sounds exactly like what a prince would do...

 

[metis]

You must realize that Jewish scholars have similar ways to remove HUNDREDS of prophecies about Jesus, very concerning.

Nope, and even the likes of Aquinas knew and taught that if one takes a literalistic view of the messianic prophecies that Jesus could not be declared the "Messiah" because he didn't fulfill all of them. Thus, he took the position that an exclusively literalistic approach is the wrong way to look at scriptural interpretation.

 

[dybmh]

Huh? The text doesn't say "atheists know" but as I've explained millions of atheists certainly know the reference!

But it doesn't matter if they know the reference to Prince of Peace without the other 3 titles. That is slicing up the prophecy and claiming fulfillment on 25% accuracy. Basically you over extended when trying to make a point using what Atheists know about the story in Isaiah.

 

[Flankerl]

He still can't explain how a prophecy of some dude being born 700 years into the future helps Hezekiah in any way against the Assyrian invasion.

Evangelicals are hilarious.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nope, and even the likes of Aquinas knew and taught that if one takes a literalistic view of the messianic prophecies that Jesus could not be declared the "Messiah" because he didn't fulfill all of them. Thus, he took the position that an exclusively literalistic approach is the wrong way to look at scriptural interpretation.

I would respond He fulfilled all the prophecies that are clearly about His life, death and resurrection, and prophecies about the church age, but none of the prophecies about His glorious Return and Armageddon, which is precisely HOW these things should work!

 

[BilliardsBall]

But it doesn't matter if they know the reference to Prince of Peace without the other 3 titles. That is slicing up the prophecy and claiming fulfillment on 25% accuracy. Basically you over extended when trying to make a point using what Atheists know about the story in Isaiah.

Not so. I was taught by secular and atheist professors to earn a Religion degree, they knew the other names of the prophecy, certainly.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nothing about removal, but interpretation.

Pardon me, of course, INTERPRET hundreds of prophecies obviously about Yeshua to make them non-Messianic in nature!

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, there aren't.


To bring about a state of peace. Why would a "Prince of Peace" die while there is still war?

Space would not permit a full listing here.

Of concern is your extraordinary claim--demanding extraordinary evidence--that thousands of interpreters interpreted hundreds of prophecies all wrongly, all with the same bias--the more so since faith says Jesus is Lord WITHOUT needing some or many of those prophecies to exist!

The Prince of Peace died during Roman occupation times to fulfill a PROPHECY to SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SIN. An extraordinary claim "Why not kill the Romans now? To save ISRAEL from sin!" which added to the turmoil of Jesus's times--and He will usher in a MILLENNIUM of PEACE per the PROPHETS, who further taught ARMAGEDDON will come FIRST.

I have endlessly heard our brothers say "But He didn't beat our swords to plowshares!" while ignoring our prophet who said elsewhere, "He will beat our plowshares to swords!"

 

[dybmh]

Not so. I was taught by secular and atheist professors to earn a Religion degree, they knew the other names of the prophecy, certainly.

OK, ok, but the prophecy says "call" not "know". Would they as secular atheists "call" Jesus "Mighty God" and "Wonderful Counselor" and "Prince of Peace? If you say yes, I guess I'll believe you. But it is hard to believe.

And then there's still the issue with "the government is on his shoulders" which isn't true. Notice that the entire prophecy is connected by "and". "The government will be on his shoulders" is first *and* he will be called ...

 

[rosends]

Of concern is your extraordinary claim--demanding extraordinary evidence--that thousands of interpreters interpreted hundreds of prophecies all wrongly, all with the same bias--the more so since faith says Jesus is Lord WITHOUT needing some or many of those prophecies to exist!

Well, it would require a small group of people with an agenda to seek so that they find, as it were and then have loads of people subscribe to an authority without thinking for themselves. Gosh...that never happens.

The Prince of Peace died during Roman occupation times to fulfill a PROPHECY to SAVE HIS PEOPLE FROM THEIR SIN.

Except that's not a prophecy, nor an aspect of the messianic identity. Talk about "extraordinary claims" -- that is an invention used to justify that agendized approach to the text.

and He will usher in a MILLENNIUM of PEACE per the PROPHETS, who further taught ARMAGEDDON will come FIRST.

Except that didn't happen. No peace during his time. Not a prince of peace. Any claim that this is about some nebulous future "second coming" is another extraordinary claim.

I have endlessly heard our brothers say "But He didn't beat our swords to plowshares!" while ignoring our prophet who said elsewhere, "He will beat our plowshares to swords!"

that second one (Joel 4:10) hasn't happened either.