hello, i am certainly new to all of this.
i have recently been studying the prophecy's, and i was wondering if they are of any importance at all?
I did not say you were lacking anything. Please read more carefully.
You said this place was not spiritually encouraging. I am in this place and not encouraging spirituality, so, yeah, you did say that whether you realized it or not.
I am asking you what this spirituality is that this place, and therefore me, is lacking. Until you tell me what it is, you really can't say that it's lacking.
hello, i am certainly new to all of this.
i have recently been studying the prophecy's, and i was wondering if they are of any importance at all?
The bottom line is, no one would ever have thought that two writing styles for two different topics in one book, Isaiah (that has historically always been recognized as one book, going back to 200 BC in the Septuagint), had to have multiple authors unless it predicted events in detail over a century in advance.
Again, you are attempting to tell people what they think while ignoring many other books of the Bible where the same textual analysis has revealed multiple authors and sources or that the books and passages could not possibly have been written by who they claim to have been written by when they were supposed to have been written.
You are making false claims about what scholars think when all you have to do is read what they have written to know what they think and why.
Also, there are several serious issues with chronology in the book of Isaiah. The first 39 chapters speak of the destruction as imminent. The second section speaks of it has having happened and restoration of Israel as a future event. The third section speaks of the restoration has having happened. Why would a person writing prophecy speak of it all in three different contextual time frames, will happened, happening now and has happened? If your model is to be believed, it was all future events, so why the change in mentioning yourself, writing style and tense?
hello, i am certainly new to all of this.
i have recently been studying the prophecy's, and i was wondering if they are of any importance at all?
So one person can't have two different writing styles for two different topics?
Who made that claim? Show me who made it and I will happily refute it.
hello, i am certainly new to all of this.
i have recently been studying the prophecy's, and i was wondering if they are of any importance at all?
From what I have seen just about all here have compassion for their fellow man so you are in a good place though not spiritually encouraging
Until you can tell me what this "spirituality" thing is that I am lacking, you aren't saying anything.
hello, i am certainly new to all of this.
i have recently been studying the prophecy's, and i was wondering if they are of any importance at all?
Have you researched the original reason why the "Two-Isaiah" theory originated?
It was because the skeptic could not believe that a detailed prophecy was written in advance.
That's actually not it at all. It's mainly that in some portions, Isaiah talks about himself quite a bit, then suddenly disappears from the text. At the same line of demarcation for that change, God also changes from a god seeking vengeance to a god of love and mercy. Also, after chapter 39, the writing style changes twice, once in the portion of returning home and secondly in the portion after they have returned him.
Finally, the Talmud claims that King Hezekiah wrote Isaiah.
So, next time you decide to tell "skeptics" what they think, you may not wish to confuse "skeptic" with "scholar" and actually have taken the time to read what they have written that will tell you what they actually think rather than make up something 100% inaccurate.
hello, i am certainly new to all of this.
i have recently been studying the prophecy's, and i was wondering if they are of any importance at all?
Yes, we can clearly see in the Gospel of Luke (and also Matthew) that the people had interpreted Daniel to be saying that the Messiah should be arriving around 33 A.D.
No, it doesn't say that at all. First, these were written dozens of years after the event in a language different from the people that would have been speaking in the narrative by people who did not witness the events.
Second, no one mentioned a year in any of those scriptures, certainly not 33 AD as that dating scheme is a later invention. It would have been gibberish to people then.
hello, i am certainly new to all of this.
i have recently been studying the prophecy's, and i was wondering if they are of any importance at all?
EA916 resoundingly yes prophets and their prophecies are important. Indeed there was an expectation of messiah based on Daniel's prophecy during the period of the 1st century.
And none of those expectations were met.
hello, i am certainly new to all of this.
i have recently been studying the prophecy's, and i was wondering if they are of any importance at all?
Isaiah, if it was written by one author, predicted Cyrus by name over a century in advance, giving precise details of what he would do.
That's why I brought it up.
Which is completely unrelated to the prophecy you brought up. If you want to discuss a prophecy about Cyrus, please cite the chapter and verse, what it said would happen and we can discuss.
Until then, you've failed to provide a prophecy that accurately predicted what would happen.
hello, i am certainly new to all of this.
i have recently been studying the prophecy's, and i was wondering if they are of any importance at all?
Well, another issue, is that skeptics will always attempt to date the writing of a book *after* the prophecy is fulfilled.
I didn't mention any of that. I have no idea why you are bringing it up.
The fact of the matter is that you not provided a prophecy that says what will happen with evidence that the things happened.
hello, i am certainly new to all of this.
i have recently been studying the prophecy's, and i was wondering if they are of any importance at all?
I respectfully disagree. There is one in particular that even the most skeptical scholars on earth admit was written at least 160 years before Jesus' birth:
That scripture doesn't say anything about Jesus. In fact, if you don't arbitrarily stop at verse 26, it also says that this "Anointed One" would, in the middle of the 62x7s, abolish sacrifice and cause an abomination and desolation in the temple, which clearly didn't happen, so I've no idea how you are imagining this prophecy was in any way fulfilled.
Even Jewish, non-Christian scholars have said that the 69 "sevens" means 69 multiplied by 7 years.
That takes us directly to the year 33 A.D. when Jesus died as Messiah.
Except it says there will be 70 7's, one seven, sevens, and 62 7's. Nowhere does it say or allude to 69.
You've still not shown us a prophecy that tells us what will happen, who will do it and when.
