Bible Contradictions

[mwtech]

I used to be a Christian and only recently become an atheist after studying the Bible enough to notice the flaws. I believe the Bible in itself to be contradictory enough to prove itself wrong, and I enjoy discussing it with other people, especially Christians who disagree. I would really like to have a one on one debate with any Christian who thinks that they have a logical answer for the contradictions in the Bible. The one rule I have is that you can't make a claim without evidence, whether from the Bible or any other source. I am interested in logical conversation, and I don't believe that any Christian can refute the contradictions I have found without making up some rationalization that has no evidence or logical base.

[bluethread]

[Replying to bluethread]

It all depends if you see Christ defining, fulfilling those things made available by the Holy Spirit of the Father in the OT, or if you take a "vice versa" view. The Holy Spirit was given to man by Christ. The OT has the spirit come "upon" them. Again the OT is dim at best, until the light created the clearness and removed the darkness. The lesson of the Jews is hard to swallow, especially if you don't seek the knowledge to determine God from "like God" (angel of light).

It is the difference between a God who murders and a God who doesn't. John Chapter 8 defines this. It is backed by Paul as well as the non Canon Gospels. If one wants to return to the time before the way, the truth came, that is their prerogative. The first Bible Canon did not include the OT because of the seeing it's contradictions of how men didn't realize they were spiritually ignorant of two Gods.

Following the words of men is dangerous, IMO. The secret place is where truth reveals itself. If it were as easy as reading, all would be saved. The world reads as well as the seeker.

No, it depends on the context of the quote. If there is some mystical gnostic message behind the words that Yeshua is recorded to have spoken, then that would be in addition to those words, would it not? My point is that the historical, grammatical, and literal context does not indicate that He is referring to the Tanakh when He says lies. Also, I know of nowhere in the Apostolic Writings where Yeshua caste aspersions on anything in the Tanakh.

[mwtech]

[Replying to post 117 by LightSeeker]

I understand the feeling of comfort and the idea that this life is just the beginning. What I don't understand is, if you say the bible is written by men and contains lies and contradictions, how can you claim to know what the true message of Jesus is? Is it just something you make up for yourself to suit your own preconceived beliefs, or do you actually see your religion as something concrete? How do feel so sure that there is a real heaven or eternity? How do you know Jesus was really God's son? What way is there to determine what of the bible is lie and what is truth for you? I don't mean to bash your religion. I just actually want to understand what thought process is involved in getting you to what you believe right now.

[LightSeeker]

[Replying to bluethread]

Interesting. What brought on gnostic? A term from the 1300s to describe followers of gnosis, Greek for knowledge. Gnostics and gnosticism is a defined word. If you use the term gnosis, ie. knowledge, then yes, I am guilty of seeking knowledge. I surely don't trust man enough to tell me where it is, where it doesn't. That means I am following them.

If you see truth in all these Jewish terms, including calling God Yahweh, then have at it. The Jews thought they were on a first name basis with God as well. My humbleness in a Father so beyond our thinking, yet that loves us, I cannot fathom being so arrogant by speaking a name given him by others. Christ simply said "Father". I think I'll go with him on this one.

[LightSeeker]

[Replying to post 122 by mwtech]

No problem, my friend.

I have no religion. I seek truth. I proclaim nothing. Only that if you ask, I say "this is what I believe, this is why I believe it". I was an Orthodox doctrine believer for many years (25). I have studied different doctrines. None are right. But many are right. It depends on what you look for and your guidelines for finding it. It's easy to read "many are called but few are chosen" and think that your belief is one of the few. That is what ignorance does.

As for ourselves, let each one of us dig down after the root of evil which is within one, and let one pluck it out of one's heart from the root. It will be plucked out if we recognize it. But if we are ignorant of it, it takes root in us and produces its fruit in our heart. It masters us. We are its slaves. It takes us captive, to make us do what we do not want; and what we do want, we do not do. It is powerful because we have not recognized it. While it exists it is active. Ignorance is the mother of all evil. Ignorance will result in death, because those who come from ignorance neither were nor are nor shall be. [...] will be perfect when all the truth is revealed. For truth is like ignorance: while it is hidden, it rests in itself, but when it is revealed and is recognized, it is praised, inasmuch as it is stronger than ignorance and error. It gives freedom. The Word said, "If you know the truth, the truth will make you free" (Jn 8:32). Ignorance is a slave. Knowledge is freedom. If we know the truth, we shall find the fruits of the truth within us. If we are joined to it, it will bring our fulfillment. - Gospel of Philip

We read, and it makes sense or it doesn't. To dictate whether it is truth or not is the Spirits job, it's reason for being here. To be "free" to me, is to know, not to be told by others what to know.

[mwtech]

James himself uses the word in two different contexts…

James 1:12
Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him.

And James 1:13-16
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. Do not err, my beloved brethren.

The first is pretty simple – you’ll be tested in life but, if you grind your way through it and are approved you have a great treasure waiting for you. [The word ‘dokimos’ given as ‘tried’ in the KJV was used as a complimentary term in Greek – for example: people who gave full weight of precious metal in their coins were ‘approved.’]

In the other context, however [verses 13-16], the same word is used of the mental process that may cause failure in such a trial – it isn’t the hard tests that God subjects you to in life that produce misbehaviour, it’s your own mind succumbing to enticement. James defines the difference between trial and temptation. So God will ‘test’ you, but you will ‘tempt’ yourself if aspects of those tests get at you and you choose to go the wrong way

I am aware that there are two meanings that the word tempt can take. I don't disagree that biblical authors knew this too. My argument is that whether or not you call what Abraham went through a test, he was tempted by God to do it.

In Abraham’s case, let me set aside the moral dimension for a moment. Here the word can only mean ‘test.’ God ordered Abraham to do something really difficult, terrible in fact. The word ‘temptation’ cannot be applied: God didn’t offer Abraham any inducement; there was no benefit that any man who loved his son could possibly see and desire. So, in the sense that James defines – God tests but you see personal benefit in some aspect of things that test you and go the wrong way – Abraham was ’tested’ by God, not ‘tempted.’

I have to disagree with you here. You say that it could not be tempation because there was no incentive for Abraham. I thtemptation is incentive, even if it may not be completely pleasant. Abraham is regarded as one of the most faithful servants of God. He lived to do God's will, and took pleasure in doing it. The fact that he is willing to do something as extreme as sacrificing his son, proves how much it means to him to do what God wants. Abraham is tempted to kill his son, not because it pleases him to do so, but because doing it will please God. The motivation behind temptation doesn't mean it wasn't temptation. He could be motivated by a desire to kill his son, which is obviously not the case, or he could be motivated by his desire to please God, which clearly is the case. The temptation was there no matter the motive, command, or authority behind it.

I am not going to comment on each individual passage you provide because I don't think whether or not Abraham and Isaac believed in resurrection or not is relevant to the original point--that what Abraham went through was temptation.

Finally then, one last idea…

Genesis 21:12
And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

The New Testament prophets pick up on this specific promise – the line of descent by which the promises would proceed would be the progeny of Isaac. Yet when Abraham was ordered to go and do away with his son, Isaac had no wife and no children. Someone who was completely convinced that God would keep his promises, and who also believed that the promises required Isaac to have children, would realise that the order could not possibly mean the end of Isaac – either God would let him do the deed and then raise Isaac immediately in order to get the line of progeny under way, or God would not let him do the deed. We can see that he had reasoned that the second of these two outcomes was what would happen because he told Isaac that God would provide a lamb.

I conclude, therefore, that God knew that Abraham would do as he was told, and also knew that his faithful friend had correctly understood his character – had understood that God would never permit him to do anything so awful.

The scripture you quoted as evidence that everyone knew that Isaac would be the one through whom the promise was fulfilled, took place after Abraham had already begun the sacrifice. This holds no bearing in the temptation argument because this knowledge came about after the temptation. Abraham's faith could have just as easily lead him to believe that God would give him another son, just as he had given him isaac, and the new child would fulfill his promises. We do not know what Abraham thought. All we know is that God told him to sacrifice his son, and that Abraham desired to follow God's commands and tried to sacrifice his son. I would call this temptation for reasons explained above.

The reason why all this was done, however, is the truly terrible thing. God himself would have to allow wicked men to do to his own son, what Abraham had rightly realised he would never permit him to do to his. No other means of salvation was possible. Men and women had to be shown the beauty of God’s character in the life of a man and also shown the depravity of human nature in what men would do to him – salvation is God’s gift to those who are so appalled by what human nature can sink to that they earnestly desire to be given God’s character instead.

Again, this is not relevant to whether or not God was tempting Abraham.

[bluethread]

[Replying to bluethread]

Interesting. What brought on gnostic? A term from the 1300s to describe followers of gnosis, Greek for knowledge. Gnostics and gnosticism is a defined word. If you use the term gnosis, ie. knowledge, then yes, I am guilty of seeking knowledge. I surely don't trust man enough to tell me where it is, where it doesn't. That means I am following them.

The Gnostics were known for professing to have special knowledge, thus the general use of the term to refer to personal revelation or some inside secret. So, if you do not accept the use of historical, grammatical and literal context, on what basis do you intend on discussing certain passages?

If you see truth in all these Jewish terms, including calling God Yahweh, then have at it. The Jews thought they were on a first name basis with God as well. My humbleness in a Father so beyond our thinking, yet that loves us, I cannot fathom being so arrogant by speaking a name given him by others. Christ simply said "Father". I think I'll go with him on this one.

I do not see truth in the uses of "Jewish" terms. I see them as useful in establishing clear definitions. Many English words, apart from being transliterated into meaninglessness, have a lot of western baggage. When I use Hebrew terms it makes it clear that I am not talking about the western concept. For example, Yeshua did not use the term "Father". That term might have existed as something like fader or vader among the Germanic barbarians. Given that, it is not surprising that Darth Vader is Luke's father, but I digress. What Yeshua would have called Adonai was Abba. In fact, He is quoted as saying, "Abba(H), Pater(G), all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will , but what thou wilt." In most cases I use the English, but with regard to names, and in other cases where meaning is important, I will use primarily the Hebrew and sometimes the Greek.

[dianaiad]

What do you say to the Christian who, when confronted with biblical contridictions, says 'yeah, so?"

The bible was not, after all, written by God. It was written by men who were attempting to explain God's teachings through their own culture, learning and filters.

Scripture was NEVER supposed to be a science text, or a primary source history text.

So, what do you say to me?

I have no problems at all acknowledging that the bible has contradictions; how could it not? It was written by men, who are imperfect. The idea is to get the teachings of God as they apply to us, from the teachings written that applied to the folks at the time each book was written.

In other words, you can't get me to change my mind and 'not believe' because bats are not, after all, birds, and because hares chew something...but not their cuds.

My response to you is...yeah, and so?

What is your next move?

What I would say to you is, why do you believe in God, and how do you apply that belief to your daily life if not with the Bible?

I understand that it has contradictions and is not a science or history text. That does not mean that it is not scripture, and valuable.

you are proposing a false dichotomy here that, if some theist were to try it, would have you landing all over him...and rightly so.

Besides, I'm a Mormon. I have the bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price and prophets right here, right now, writing stuff that's good to learn from. There's also personal prayer and the answers to same.

I don't believe in God because the bible says so. I believe that the bible is scripture because God says so...or confirmation close enough for me, anyway.

If a person were to never have been told that there is a God, there is no reason for them to believe that the God of Abraham exists. This is observable by the fact that civilizations on every continent other than the one the biblical authors lived on just made up their own Gods, who we have just as little reason to think exist. If a person today was never told there was a god, but was taught about science and knew why the world worked the way it did, they'd have no reason to assume there must be a God. I believe the only reason Christians believe in God is because other Christians believe in him. The only evidence they have for his existence is the bible.

Evidently not. At least, not in my case. Your mileage may vary, of course.

BTW, I'm not one of those folks who think that truths are dependent upon context; that is, if a religious or moral truth is found somewhere other than the bible, it doesn't become untrue simply because of where it is found.

I do not figure that the bible, and other writings that purport to be scripture, are any of 'em useful in the cause of science or history....though I honestly do not see, as valuable as the scientific method is in learning physical facts and the rules that seem to govern physical processes, that it (the scientific method) has done a really good job of giving us moral and ethical guidelines in how to use...or not use...the things learned through science.

People often say 'the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. I find this to be irrelevant to the existence of God because it is not the place of the non-believer to prove the non existence of something humans made up.

True. It's not.

It IS, however, the place of a non-believer to prove a claim of 'there ain't no such thing," if he's stupid enough to make such a claim.

You do, I'm certain, see the difference between: "I see no evidence to support the idea of a deity' and "there's no such thing as God," yes?

At least, in terms of who has the burden of proof?

It is the job of believers to present evidence of existence. Without it, there is no reason to believe a claim. If I said I believed in Zeus, and I gave you the same amount of evidence I've been given by Christians, you would still have no reason to believe he existed. In the case of any proposed God, the absence of evidence leaves you with just as little reason to believe in said God as there was before anybody mentioned him to begin with.

With all due respect, I have made no such claim. In fact, all the arguing here has been coming from you.

Also, what purpose do you have for the Bible if you know it to be so imperfect? There is no way to know what is true and what is false. Many liberal Christians say they just 'go with their gut,' but if you are just going to ignore some things and apply others, why involve the bible at all? You would arrive at the same conclusions without it anyway. Knowing what is right isn't a good enough way of knowing the truth anyway. Many people think the bible is right about homosexuality being wrong. That doesn't make it true.

What, are you going to argue about whether homosexuality is right or wrong here? That's changing the topic with a vengeance. Don't do it here, though. We have a whole subforum just for that.

This ain't it.

BTW, don't you 'go with your gut' when you make moral judgments about the things you see, hear and read? What's the matter with that? Why do YOU get to go with your internal sense of right and wrong, etc., but bible believers cannot? Not only that, but you seem to be claiming that bible believers not only cannot use their own judgement in reading the bible, they have to use the interpretation of it that YOU prefer.

Now, how much sense does that make, really?

So please, tell me, if you don't use the bible to support the existence of God or as a moral guidance, what in the world is it good for?

Never said I didn't use it to support the existence of God or as a moral guide. I do both. What I DID say was that it was not without error, and that I don't believe in God because the bible says to.

Like I said: you are setting up a false dichotomy. It doesn't have to be either without error or completely false. There's a great deal of middle ground there. I suggest you try dealing with the arguments of those who take that middle ground.

[edform]

[...] perhaps you can list an OT prophecy or two that Jesus failed to fulfil

People from the Nations looking to Israel for spiritual leadership and teaching.
Peace among the nations.
Messiah would judge the poor and afflicted.
And the jealousy of Ephraim will depart.

The word which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem.
Now it will come about that
In the last days
The mountain of the house of the Lord
Will be established as the chief of the mountains,
And will be raised above the hills;
And all the nations will stream to it.
And many peoples will come and say,
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
To the house of the God of Jacob;
That He may teach us concerning His ways
And that we may walk in His paths.�
For the law will go forth from Zion
And the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
And He will judge between the nations,
And will render decisions for many peoples;
And they will hammer their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation will not lift up sword against nation,
And never again will they learn war.

Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse,
And a branch from his roots will bear fruit.
The Spirit of the Lord will rest on Him,
The spirit of wisdom and understanding,
The spirit of counsel and strength,
The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord.
And He will delight in the fear of the Lord,
And He will not judge by what His eyes see,
Nor make a decision by what His ears hear;
But with righteousness He will judge the poor,
And decide with fairness for the afflicted of the earth;
And He will strike the earth with the rod of His mouth,
And with the breath of His lips He will slay the wicked.
Also righteousness will be the belt about His loins,
And faithfulness the belt about His waist.

Then in that day
The nations will resort to the root of Jesse,
Who will stand as a signal for the peoples;
And His resting place will be glorious.

Then it will happen on that day that the Lord
Will again recover the second time with His hand
The remnant of His people, who will remain,
From Assyria, Egypt, Pathros, Cush, Elam, Shinar, Hamath,
And from the islands of the sea.
And He will lift up a standard for the nations
And assemble the banished ones of Israel,
And will gather the dispersed of Judah
From the four corners of the earth.
Then the jealousy of Ephraim will depart,
And those who harass Judah will be cut off;
Ephraim will not be jealous of Judah,
And Judah will not harass Ephraim.
They will swoop down on the slopes of the Philistines on the west;
Together they will plunder the sons of the east;
They will possess Edom and Moab,
And the sons of Ammon will be subject to them.
And the Lord will utterly destroy
The tongue of the Sea of Egypt;
And He will wave His hand over the River
With His scorching wind;
And He will strike it into seven streams
And make men walk over dry-shod.
And there will be a highway from Assyria
For the remnant of His people who will be left,
Just as there was for Israel
In the day that they came up out of the land of Egypt.

23 Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘In those days ten men from all the nations will grasp the garment of a Jew, saying, “Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.�

A well-chosen set of examples which I will address as one, hinging as they do on the same idea. The items in the list are promises of a new era in which the wickedness of men will no longer dominate the affairs of the nations and the grasping self-aggrandising behaviour of the strong will no longer rob the weak and the poor of justice and even of the ability to eat. You chose all but one of your examples from Isaiah, so we need to begin with that prophet’s credentials.

Under the Mosaic Law, those among the Children of Israel who claimed to be prophets were not to be accepted as genuine unless they were actually – and consistently – able to reveal things that did happen…

Deuteronomy 18:20-22
…the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

This law [and a warning in Deuteronomy 13:1-5 against following prophets whose words came about, if they used their success to lead people away from God] defined who was and was not a prophet. Having satisfied themselves with both tests, the words of approved prophets were carefully preserved, a practice that reflects well on some aspects of the character of the children of Israel since, with few exceptions, the prophets were less than complimentary, sometimes even savagely critical, of the character and behaviour of those to whom God sent them.

Isaiah is just such a prophet – his opening chapter is a model for all who want to learn the difficult art of damning with accurate criticism, yet his words were very carefully stored and handed down from generation to generation – the Shrine of the Book in the Givrat Ram district of Jerusalem has at its centre a circular display cabinet with a particularly well preserved and intact version from the caves at Qumran displayed round its perimeter. Widely regarded as Israel’s greatest national treasure, it is not identical to a modern Masoretic Text version of Isaiah but it is extremely close – Isaiah’s prophecy is approximately 2700 years old and was 600 years old when the Qumran scroll was copied.

If this is the mechanism by which the writings of the prophets were qualified for the canon of the Hebrew Scriptures, it follows that one approach to reading them must be to seek the historical context against which the prophet spoke and wrote. In Isaiah’s case that context is very easy to discern; the book is wholly given over to the story of a single heroic figure: Hezekiah the King. The short-term forecasts that Isaiah made, therefore, which by coming to pass caused the people to revere and preserve his writings, must have been prior disclosure of events that would occur in the life of Hezekiah – as an example, the words…

Isaiah 9:2-6
The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined... …For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

…must have reference first to Hezekiah. Since Jerusalem at the time in question was occupied by jack-booted Assyrian troops, some actually domiciled in the Temple and others in the house of the Princes in the royal enclosure – the Citadel of David - on Mount Zion, the pregnant Abijah, daughter of Zechariah the Priest and Hezekiah’s mother was sent away privately, taking up residence in Galilee. Isaiah’s short term prophecy promised that this royal child would bring peace, prosperity and security to Israel and this is precisely what Hezekiah did after God had destroyed 185,00 men of the armies of the Assyrians and their local confederates in a great storm [not a plague]. For 15 years after this enormous defeat of the Assyrians, till Hezekiah died, the entire Levant trembled at the prospect of falling foul of Hezekiah’s god and perishing like the Assyrians and as a result the nation had peace and prosperity on an unimaginable scale – the seed money was, of course, the Assyrian loot from three years of active campaigning which fell into Hezekiah’s hands intact.

So your Isaiah quotations are…

Isaiah 2:1-4 – a promise of a time of peace when the Temple at Jerusalem would be the religious centre of the world and ambassadors from all surrounding nations would journey to Jerusalem seeking peace with Hezekiah, but particularly with his mighty god who had wiped out the conquerors of the universe in a night.

Isaiah 11:1-5 and 6-16 – A promise of a royal child of the house of David – from the rootstock of Jesse which had been trampled down and made powerless by the Assyrians – would become a king of surpassing power, a paragon of virtue, justice and godliness. In his day the scattered people of the land – once fleeing exiles from the Assyrian sword – would be re-gathered and united in their God-given land and would become the effective rulers of all of the Levant – Many of the returnees would come all the way back from Assyria where Sennacherib had transported them [See the Taylor Prism in the British Museum on which Sennacherib had his praises sung in purple prose and where he recorded that he transported over 200,000 of the people of Israel and Judea to Babylon – then compare with the fact that the Assyrian records fall silent with shame after their huge route at the hands of the God of Israel and the Assyrian’s piled the Jewish captives with goods and supplies and begged them to go home. This chapter of Isaiah promised that God would alter the weather patterns of the desert lands so that the vast stream of returning Israelites would be able to make the journey home in safety and a degree of comfort. A similar alteration of the prevailing conditions, including silting up a major waterway in the Nile delta would facilitate the return journey of the huge numbers of Israelites who had fled for safety to Egypt.

I’ve only been able to flash through the concept that Isaiah’s proximate focus was the life and times of his cousin, Hezekiah, but it’s not a new concept – a number of the rabbinical scholars have made similar observations over the years. The same scholars always added, however, that Isaiah intended his portrait of a godly king as a distant view of someone else, as well as an immediate view of Hezekiah with short term forecasts of his doings and God’s. There is a delicious little discussion in Sanhedrim 99.1 in which the very learned Hillel said…

Messiah is not likely to come to Israel, for they have already devoured him in the days of Hezekiah...

The old boy meant to shock his listeners by the ambiguity of his words, and the idea, that Hezekiah was to such a degree Messiah that no further Messiah could be expected, was duly, strongly argued against – Hillel must have smiled to himself at the woodenness of his fellows’ thinking, but his fundamental point, that Hezekiah was an outstandingly godly man, by whose presence the certainty of God's love for Israel was demonstrated, was agreed. The gloss against Hillel's enormous claim
Is actually…

Messiah will come no more to Israel, for Hezekiah was the Messiah.

My contention therefore is that Isaiah does speak of a Hezekiah-like king, or to phrase it better, a greater king than Hezekiah whose reign will proceed in such a way that what described and forecast of Hezekiah’s life and times also accurately describes the life and times of the distant king – of Messiah in fact.

The Zechariah passage you cited is different from the Isaiah stuff – Zechariah’s credentials are established by other parts of his writings and the words you cite are a direct, long term prophecy of events that will succeed the coming of Messiah.

Your main point, of course, is that Jesus did not fulfil the things you have cited and I will partly concede the point – there is a substantial part of what Isaiah wrote in the passages you listed that has always been applied to the birth, and public life of Jesus and I won’t waste time going in to those bits in detail, they are too well known and objections to them can be raised separately if needs be.

The balance of the Isaiah texts and all of the Hezekiah describe events, in advance, that have not happened in connection with Jesus. But Isaiah spoke clearly of the unjust death of the man he saw in his visions, as I discussed in my post of yesterday to Goat. Isaiah 53 unmistakably describes someone who would be unjustly put to death when the punishment he suffered was actually due to the people of Israel.

Isaiah 53:5 [CJB]
But he was wounded because of our crimes, crushed because of our sins; the disciplining that makes us whole fell on him, and by his bruises we are healed.

Isaiah then goes on to describe the rewards that God will give this dead man – in other words, resurrection is promised by the prophet. The benefits granted to him in his renewed life for his exemplary behaviour are expanded from 53 into 54 and on to the end of the prophecy and their sum is a description of the Kingdom of God.

It is unreasonable, therefore to say that Jesus cannot be Messiah because he did not bring about this or that promise when he had to die as part of the prophecy and be raised to new life and, according to Daniel would have to spend some time with God…

Daniel 7:13-14
I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.

The inference that the time with God would be long is supplied by the vast sweep of history Daniel had described to him before humankind will be relieved of its control of the earth.

The same idea is confirmed by Psalm 110…

The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

It was, it is obvious, always God’s plan to interleave a long interval between the resurrection of his Messiah with his resulting invitation to sit at God’s right hand and the point at which the Kingdom of God will be set up.

In fact it is a striking feature of the Hebrew Scriptures that large numbers of its godly heroes are suspended from action for a time, or rejected by Israel, before returning to duff-up the bad guys or otherwise take up their complete duties. A short list would include…

Psalm 110 cited above describes a ruler important enough for David to call 'Lord' who will have to sit at God's right hand until God has subjugated his enemies...

Daniel 7 cited above describes someone looking just like a human being will be brought into God's presence and granted a great kingdom.

Isiah 53, cited above describes someone who will die, yet will live to see a great multitude of offspring, whose lives he will lengthen, and whom he will have justified by the fact that they know about him and by his personal intercession on their behalf.

In Micah 5:1-4 The 'judge' of Israel will be beaten with a rod by the children of Israel and, because of this sinful behaviour, God will give them up to invaders and destroyers. And, despite their rejection of his judge, God will cause the promised child of Bethlehem to rescue the nation and eventually the brethren of the judge and the formerly treacherous children of Israel will be united with the judge as their ruler and king to the ends of the earth.

Micah 5:1-4
Now gather thyself in troops, O daughter of troops: he hath laid siege against us: they shall smite the judge of Israel with a rod upon the cheek. But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath brought forth: then the remnant of his brethren shall return unto the children of Israel. And he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God; and they shall abide: for now shall he be great unto the ends of the earth.

Those are a few broken-sequence prophecies – there are dozens of them but this post is becoming much too long. So to finish, here are a few examples of God-given rulers that Israel rejected and who had to take up their leadership role again after an interval...

Moses was rejected by Israel and went into the wilderness for 40 years before returning to become their rescuer on God's behalf.

David was rejected by his brothers and spent a long time on the run, even though he was the anointed of God

Joshua was prepared to lead the armies of Israel after the spying of the land but he had to spend another 40 years in the wilderness before they would follow him.

Israel's complete refusal to believe Joshua's report was significant, since they would repeat the same rejection of Joshua 1500 years later.

Joseph was rejected by his brethren and had to go to the gentiles to acquire a position and status that the children of Israel could no longer refuse.

Elijah was persecuted by Israel in their gross and disgraceful idolatry until he was taken up into heaven and reserved for a second coming at which time he will be believed.

Gideon was rejected by his own father's house and the men of his city. They had decided to kill him but his father intervened and in some unreported way he escaped from death. Gideon was from a low status despised family.

Jepthah, the son of an unnamed harlot, was thrust out by his brethren, but eventually they pleaded with him to return and rescue them.

Samson was born by miraculous means and was betrayed by his brothers, but, after winning the greatest of all Israel's victories over the Palestinians, he was finally accepted by his family.

Ed Form

[edform]

[Replying to post 116 by Strider324]
Perception.
If a group of men meet your idea of Christianity, would you follow them? If you did, do you follow the men, Christ or the idea of the mens idea of Christ. At one time, I used to believe the church represented Christ. The from much (40+ years) of study, I found that church is mans concept of Christ. Choosi9ng one o0f the 2000 different religions may bring you closer to truth................or it may not.
Truth is not proclaimed. Doesn't need to be. It is, and we seek it. The opposite is ignorance. Ignorance of love is the root of all sin. Christ said his words were spirit John 8). If we physically read Christs words, we can repeat them ( to others)and still not understand. He spoke in spirit, and we need to understand in spirit. Otherwise, the scriptures are nice stories, like Tolkien.

I am very wary of organised religious bodies and groups; so many of them are way, way down the wrong road – and that’s just a first principles judgement – EG. If they support going to war which is totally at odds with Jesus’s absolute dismissal of violence. If I find people who have worked things out in much the same way as I have, I would certainly keep company with them.

I disagree with what I think is your idea, that the ‘spirit’ needed to understand what Scripture says is a supernatural agency dwelling in us. The word spirit in the context actually means 'the right attitude of mind' – if we go to God’s book and seek its teachings in prayer being very careful to avoid injecting our own ideas into it, we will find it meaning and obtain its guidance. As soon as we bring nonsense like immortality of the human soul, the existence of a supernatural devil and the ridiculous Trinitarian fiction to its pages we will see nothing to put us right because our eyes are closed…

2 Thessalonians 2:11
…for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie…

Ed Form

[Danmark]

Samson was born by miraculous means and was betrayed by his brothers, but, after winning the greatest of all Israel's victories over the Palestinians, he was finally accepted by his family.

What do you mean by "miraculous means?"
Do you believe Samson really existed and he had superhuman or 'miraculous strength,' that we cannot explain by resort to normal, observable human physiology; that he was capable of toppling buildings?