The mythology surrounding Lucifer/Satan/The Devil

[DontTreadOnMike]

So you know the education, and personal thoughts of a man who lived 2000 years ago?

How is that possiable? Is because they are describing the same thing? What if they are simply describing what they have both been shown to be true?

If you want to argue that, you have to show that divine revelation is true. But since it just happens in the head of the author without any evidence that other people can see, how do we differentiate that from imagination or delusion?

If we want to say that the Bible is a true and reliable historical document, we have to treat it the same as every other document. It shouldn't get any special treatment. You can't say the Bible is the word of God and inspired by God just because it says so in the Bible. We don't give any other religious texts or historical documents the benefit of the doubt. To expect us to believe that the Bible is divinely inspired just at it's word is special pleading.

You can believe it if you want, but just understand that "This is true because magic." isn't an argument, it's just an unfounded personal belief.

 

[drich0150]

If you want to argue that, you have to show that divine revelation is true. But since it just happens in the head of the author without any evidence that other people can see, how do we differentiate that from imagination or delusion?

So you do agree that there is no way for you to know the mind or education of a man who lived 2000 years ago. Further more you have no Idea whether or not John received his revelation from God or from the writings of Isaiah. Is that what you are saying here? Because that is indeed the question your are responding to..

If we want to say that the Bible is a true and reliable historical document, we have to treat it the same as every other document. It shouldn't get any special treatment.

Do you even know what you speak of here? Do you the qualifications of a "Historical document" It simply has to exist. Look at Egyptian Hieroglyphs. In most cases only one copy exists and that is enough for us to account for the lives and history of ancient Egyptians (their gods and all) without any contest.

You can't say the Bible is the word of God and inspired by God just because it says so in the Bible.

You are aware the bible is a collection of 66 different books and letters right? It is not just one book. The word means book of many books.
Every legitimate writing that points to God or His inspired work has either been Incorporated into the book of books or is considered supplementary to those books. Because of this fact Your argument contains a fatal fallacy in the logic you have used.

It's like saying you can not use any historical writings as a guide line to accurately portray an historical event. You must provide a source material that can not be considered a historical writing. When in fact anything written in or of a past event can be considered a historical writing.
Do you see where your argument here fails?

We don't give any other religious texts or historical documents the benefit of the doubt.

Again not true. Especially when we go back that far. The legitimacy of a text simply depends on the our ability to translate and the number of verifying manuscripts we have to confirm.

(Ask how man manuscripts we have of the books of the bible. Then ask how many manuscripts we have of the next historical document)

To expect us to believe that the Bible is divinely inspired just at it's word is special pleading.

No. Proof is provided to all those who Ask, Seek, and knock as outlined in Luke 11

You can believe it if you want, but just understand that "This is true because magic." isn't an argument, it's just an unfounded personal belief.

So what happened to the questions on Satan and using the bible to justify your beliefs and claims??? Do you not see the hypocrisy in your work here when compared to your opening post? Is winning an argument so important that you are willing to even abandon your original statement/question, by going against the very way you constructed it, just so you can try and save face?

Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? If so is this an acceptable practice in every other aspect of your life or just when dealing with God/The bible?

 

[Xpistis sopheiaX]

If anyone is interested, Elaine Pagels wrote a pretty interesting book on the evolving view of satan in a book called "The origin of satan" or something like that. It seems obvious this view has evolved over the years. However it is probably upsetting to some that all of Christian theology wasn't set in stone from day one, even though the Bible was written over hundreds of years.

I think I heard/read (if I remember correctly) the New Testament view of the devil is based somewhat on Zoroastrianism?

Even if all the gospels of the Bible are divinely inspired, I think it would be conceivable that they are influenced by other religions and traditions. It sounds to me like the middle east, in the first and second centuries, was a theological blender.

People seem to expect Christianity to have some sort of theological purity and/or uniqueness. I don't see any evidence for that or any necessity for it either.

Scripture and theology is meant to describe truth and experience. If multiple people and theologies describe the same thing then what is the difference?

 

[Theofane]

So you're basically just repeating the modern view. Read the OT verses themselves and pretend you know nothing about the NT. That's how the original authors and audience of the OT would have read them. In that context, there's no reason to think that the verse is referring to Satan and the king of Babylon as one being. That is a modern invention, a clumsy way to make the old testament fit with modern theology. Judaism and Christianity changed over time just like a game of telephone. But now, with modern technology, it's easy to get our hands on earlier versions of the message and so Christians are forced to somehow consolidate what they currently believe whit what the Bible actually says. This awkward re-purposing of unrelated texts is the result.

I don't think you're an atheist at all.

 

[Theofane]

Who woud benefit the most from having people doubt the existence of Satan?

Satan himself, of course!

 

[GrayAngel]

If you want to argue that, you have to show that divine revelation is true. But since it just happens in the head of the author without any evidence that other people can see, how do we differentiate that from imagination or delusion?

If we want to say that the Bible is a true and reliable historical document, we have to treat it the same as every other document. It shouldn't get any special treatment. You can't say the Bible is the word of God and inspired by God just because it says so in the Bible. We don't give any other religious texts or historical documents the benefit of the doubt. To expect us to believe that the Bible is divinely inspired just at it's word is special pleading.

You can believe it if you want, but just understand that "This is true because magic." isn't an argument, it's just an unfounded personal belief.

You think you're going to change our minds with that argument?

The Bible is not just a history book. They're words from God. That's how Christians should and will interpret it. And, as we've repeatedly demonstrated, our interpretations don't stretch the imagination at all.

Have you read the Ezekiel passage I shared, all that stuff about a blameless earthly king who also happened to be a cherubim angel who was in the garden of Eden and fell from God's mountain?

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

So you do agree that there is no way for you to know the mind or education of a man who lived 2000 years ago.

I can make pretty good guesses. For example, the authors of the Bible 2000 years ago didn't know about the germ theory of disease, or that there are 8 planets, etc.

Further more you have no Idea whether or not John received his revelation from God or from the writings of Isaiah. Is that what you are saying here? Because that is indeed the question your are responding to..

I don't know if the loch ness monster is real either. But I don't believe it just because it hasn't been conclusively disproven. Do you believe everything you read and hear until it's disproven? You must have a pretty wacky world view. I have some homeopathic crystal pyramids to sell you if that's the case. They vibrate in the 18th dimension and heal amputees.

Do you even know what you speak of here? Do you the qualifications of a "Historical document" It simply has to exist. Look at Egyptian Hieroglyphs. In most cases only one copy exists and that is enough for us to account for the lives and history of ancient Egyptians (their gods and all) without any contest.

Sure the Bible is a historical document. But whether or not it is historically accurate is another thing. If we want to be able to say it is reliable, then it has to go through every test that other documents go through. If we only have one document that describes an event, then of course we have to tentatively accept it if the account is believable because it's our only source. But the Bible isn't the only document that describes the events it describes, and you know what? It gets a lot of things wrong. But that's not even the issue here. You're asking me to believe that a few authors, separated by centuries, writing about two different things were actually writing in code about the same thing because magic.


Ask yourself, would you accept the arguments you're giving to me from a muslim in defense of the Qu'ran?

You are aware the bible is a collection of 66 different books and letters right? It is not just one book. The word means book of many books.
Every legitimate writing that points to God or His inspired work has either been Incorporated into the book of books or is considered supplementary to those books. Because of this fact Your argument contains a fatal fallacy in the logic you have used.

Of course I know that. And it explains my position on the character of Satan very well. Isaiah and Revelation are two different books written by two different authors separated by centuries of time writing about two different things. So why shoe-horn them into each other? I mean yeah, it's likely that the author of Revelation was referencing language from Isaiah, because he had access to the book of isaiah, not because of magic. But the author of Isaiah didn't have access to Revelation obviously, so why assume that he was talking about the same thing? Why not just assume that he was talking about what he said he was talking about, the king of babylon?

It's like saying you can not use any historical writings as a guide line to accurately portray an historical event. You must provide a source material that can not be considered a historical writing. When in fact anything written in or of a past event can be considered a historical writing.
Do you see where your argument here fails?

I don't mean to toot my own horn but I know a thing or two about historical documents. My wife is an archaeological anthropologist. I know how historical documents are processed and digested. NO historical document is considered 100% infallible and certainly no document is EVER taken own it's own to be true just on face value. "The Bible is inspired by God because the Bible says it's inspired by God" is never acceptable to a historical scholar. Maybe to a religious person, but never to a historian. You can only ever decide for yourself if you believe that, but you can't ever use that circular reasoning to form an argument to convince someone else.

Again not true. Especially when we go back that far. The legitimacy of a text simply depends on the our ability to translate and the number of verifying manuscripts we have to confirm.

Right, and do you know how many other documents contradict things in the Bible? I believe the official number is "LOTS!" Even different copies of Biblical texts from different time periods contradict each other. The Bible is incredibly valuable as a historical source, but like with EVERY historical text, even the most reliable ones, nothing is ever considered 100% reliable. That's what I mean when I say the Bible shouldn't get special treatment. There are tons of unrelated texts that are at least as reliable if not more than the Bible, and even those are never taken on face value, so why should the Bible be different?

(Ask how man manuscripts we have of the books of the bible. Then ask how many manuscripts we have of the next historical document)

Ask how many of those manuscripts contradict each other?
Did you know that the story of Jesus saving the adulteress from being stoned didn't show up in copies of John until the 3rd or 4th century?

No. Proof is provided to all those who Ask, Seek, and knock as outlined in Luke 11

A muslim will tell me the same thing. A mormon will tell me if I pray, God will give me a burning in my bosom that will let me know their religion is true. Who do I believe? How do I know that it's not just in my imagination? What objective evidence do you have? Why should the feeling I get from praying to your God for answers be different from the feeling I get from praying to a different God? Would you accept that proof from a Muslim?

So what happened to the questions on Satan and using the bible to justify your beliefs and claims??? Do you not see the hypocrisy in your work here when compared to your opening post? Is winning an argument so important that you are willing to even abandon your original statement/question, by going against the very way you constructed it, just so you can try and save face?

Do you not see the hypocrisy in that? If so is this an acceptable practice in every other aspect of your life or just when dealing with God/The bible?

Let me reword it for you. I don't care what you believe. You can believe anything you want. But I don't see why Christians WOULD want to believe something they can't logically justify. However, you are free to do so. Just don't use feelings and divine revelation to try to prove it to me because those things are indistinguishable from imagination without objective outside evidence. Make sense?

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

I don't think you're an atheist at all.

Ok then what am I? haha

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Who woud benefit the most from having people doubt the existence of Satan?

Satan himself, of course!

The world would benefit greatly if people stopped believing that diseases and natural disasters were the work of demons and instead turn to science to solve their problems.

 

[GrayAngel]

The world would benefit greatly if people stopped believing that diseases and natural disasters were the work of demons and instead turn to science to solve their problems.

Demons were never the cause of disease or natural disasters. The three are completely different things. Demons manipulate people, torture the soul, and in great numbers, they can take over a person's functions. Disease is disease, and God is the only one in charge of natural disasters.

The early superstitions of the Catholic church might have used demons as an explanation for every unfortunate circumstance, but there's no Biblical basis for it.

 

[DontTreadOnMike]

Demons were never the cause of disease or natural disasters. The three are completely different things. Demons manipulate people, torture the soul, and in great numbers, they can take over a person's functions. Disease is disease, and God is the only one in charge of natural disasters.

The early superstitions of the Catholic church might have used demons as an explanation for every unfortunate circumstance, but there's no Biblical basis for it.

It's good that you know that disease is caused by germs, if only we could get news to the 3rd world that disease and mental disorders aren't caused by demons and witches. And while we're at it, maybe we should tell our politicians that hurricanes and earthquakes aren't caused by gay people and abortion.

 

[Theofane]

The world would benefit greatly if people stopped believing that diseases and natural disasters were the work of demons and instead turn to science to solve their problems.

And what of the problems we can't solve with science?

 

[food4thought]

If you want to argue that, you have to show that divine revelation is true. But since it just happens in the head of the author without any evidence that other people can see, how do we differentiate that from imagination or delusion?

Here we get into another topic altogether, the inspiration of Scripture.

If we want to say that the Bible is a true and reliable historical document, we have to treat it the same as every other document. It shouldn't get any special treatment. You can't say the Bible is the word of God and inspired by God just because it says so in the Bible. We don't give any other religious texts or historical documents the benefit of the doubt. To expect us to believe that the Bible is divinely inspired just at it's word is special pleading.

I don't say it is inspired just because it says so, I believe it to be inspired because of internal evidence like prophecy fullfilled. I think this is a debate for a different thread, though.

You can believe it if you want, but just understand that "This is true because magic." isn't an argument, it's just an unfounded personal belief.

There are many reasons to believe Scripture is inspired, and "it's magic" isn't one of them.

 

[drich0150]

I can make pretty good guesses. For example, the authors of the Bible 2000 years ago didn't know about the germ theory of disease, or that there are 8 planets, etc.

What does this have to do with anything?

Speaking to what someone doesn't know, does not mean you can represent the mind or intention of an individual.

I don't know if the loch ness monster is real either. But I don't believe it just because it hasn't been conclusively disprove. Do you believe everything you read and hear until it's disprove? You must have a pretty wacky world view. I have some homeopathic crystal pyramids to sell you if that's the case. They vibrate in the 18th dimension and heal amputees.

You are trying to avoid a very direct question. Do you need me to repeat it, or will you simply answer my question to you?

Sure the Bible is a historical document.

Something you omitted the first go round. You implied that the bible could not be considered a historical document unless it went through an intense process of scrutiny.

But whether or not it is historically accurate is another thing.

As with EVERY other document.

If we want to be able to say it is reliable, then it has to go through every test that other documents go through.

Again using Egyptian hieroglyphs as the standard can you list the processes that biblical scrutiny has failed that the hieroglyphs did not.

If we only have one document that describes an event, then of course we have to tentatively accept it if the account is believable because it's our only source.

So what happens when 24,000 different manuscripts all speak and verify each other.

But the Bible isn't the only document that describes the events it describes, and you know what? It gets a lot of things wrong.

Such as?

But that's not even the issue here. You're asking me to believe that a few authors, separated by centuries, writing about two different things were actually writing in code about the same thing because magic.

Ah, no. If we look at something more recent, like American History and find a myriad of writers separated by centuries, but all still writing about one subject and because their is continuity apart from the authors foresight and knowledge of the events beyond their life times.. is it due to some sort of magic in your estimation as well?

The writers of the bible wrote of what they knew. They recorded what they saw and what was revealed. It is from our perspective that we can compile these writings and see the bigger picture. It is not magic. It's call perspective. This perspective is only due to our position in time in relation to the events that were recorded.

Ask yourself, would you accept the arguments you're giving to me from a Muslim in defense of the Qu'ran?

They do not make these arguments. I studied the Qu'ran in accordance to their claims, and they simply did not pan out. Christianity is unique even from Judaism in what we claim about the scripture.

IF anyone or any Group made these claims it would be very easy for anyone to find out if they were true.

Of course I know that. And it explains my position on the character of Satan very well. Isaiah and Revelation are two different books written by two different authors separated by centuries of time writing about two different things. So why shoe-horn them into each other?

If you took the time to read my response to your OP you will note that not Christians do this.

I mean yeah, it's likely that the author of Revelation was referencing language from Isaiah, because he had access to the book of Isaiah,

Do you know where the book of revelations was written? Then you will know that John did not have access to the book of Isaiah.

not because of magic.

Straw man Fallacy.

But the author of Isaiah didn't have access to Revelation obviously, so why assume that he was talking about the same thing?

Again take the time to reread my first post.

Why not just assume that he was talking about what he said he was talking about, the king of Babylon?

Because of how the Hebrew text was complied in the original manuscript.

I don't mean to toot my own horn but I know a thing or two about historical documents. My wife is an archaeological anthropologist.

Toot toot.

I know how historical documents are processed and digested. NO historical document is considered 100% infallible and certainly no document is EVER taken own it's own to be true just on face value.

Again this is not what you originally represented in opening tangent, that started this discussion.

"The Bible is inspired by God because the Bible says it's inspired by God" is never acceptable to a historical scholar.

So what document could have been written that said that the bible was inspired by God that would not be considered to be apart of the bible or one of the supporting books? This again is another failed fallacy in your logic.

Maybe to a religious person, but never to a historian.

Because in order to be considered a "historian" one must agree to accept the failed logic you keep trying to sell.

You can only ever decide for yourself if you believe that, but you can't ever use that circular reasoning to form an argument to convince someone else.

How is that statement ANY different that what you are doing from a "historical" perspective? Anytime anyone brings a document that supports the bible position the "historian" simply says that the source material is "religious" in nature and the material or at least the part the supports the bible is quickly dismissed.
Look at the selective dismissals in the works of Josephus. You are truly soap boxing a secular brand circular logic concerning "religious/historical writings."

Right, and do you know how many other documents contradict things in the Bible?

There are more contradictions in the original manuscripts of Shakespeare, than there is in all of the manuscripts that compile the bible. The manuscripts that make up the bible are the most complete and most accurate of any historical document we have.
Manuscript Evidence for the Bible (by Ron Rhodes)
The Bible's Manuscript Evidence
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Manuscripts of the Bible
Manuscript evidence for superior New Testament reliability|Accuracy of the New Testament | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

I believe the official number is "LOTS!"

Source material please.

Even different copies of Biblical texts from different time periods contradict each other.

This is an out and out lie or a statement born in ignorance and misinformation.
Otherwise please show the source material that lead you to your conclusion. (Here your wife work will not be sufficient.)

The Bible is incredibly valuable as a historical source, but like with EVERY historical text, even the most reliable ones, nothing is ever considered 100% reliable. That's what I mean when I say the Bible shouldn't get special treatment. There are tons of unrelated texts that are at least as reliable if not more than the Bible, and even those are never taken on face value, so why should the Bible be different?

Please list these texts.. If you are looking for the first time you will find that the Homer's Iliad will be the next closest manuscript we have in number and in consistency. If you do a goggle search you will find there is only a handful of scripts available. most of which are incomplete and or contradict the others.

That said know, Your statement is correct in every other instance except where God has preserved His word.

Ask how many of those manuscripts contradict each other?

I did and if you will take the time to look at the reference material I left, you will find the answer as well.

Did you know that the story of Jesus saving the adulteress from being stoned didn't show up in copies of John until the 3rd or 4th century?

That's funny because the oldest manuscript we have dates from around that time.

A Muslim will tell me the same thing.

No they will not, as Luke 11 is not apart of their doctrine.

A Mormon will tell me if I pray, God will give me a burning in my bosom that will let me know their religion is true. Who do I believe?

Why not try what they say, and find out for yourself. why do you have this need to have others experience and prove life to you?

How do I know that it's not just in my imagination?

No disrespect intended, But From what I have read so far, i do not think you are capable of concocting what the Lord will reveal to you. (None of us are)

What objective evidence do you have?

Why do you need anything? I am not here to prove anything to you. The Proof comes directly from God. This is His promise and not mine. My job is to point you to the method in which you are to petition God for the Evidence you seek.

Why should the feeling I get from praying to your God for answers be different from the feeling I get from praying to a different God?

Ask Him

Would you accept that proof from a Muslim?

I have tried. I have asked questions to them and to their God that neither has answers for. I have not been able to ask a question from the God of the bible that I did not find an answer for yet. In fact that is why I am here. I have run out of questions and contempt for God, so I use all of your questions and contempt to try find a flat spot in The bible and His work. So far no dice.

Understand this does not mean you will like the answers or will completely understand the answers you will be given. It's just you/I will always be given one.

Let me reword it for you. I don't care what you believe. You can believe anything you want. But I don't see why Christians WOULD want to believe something they can't logically justify.

Can you logically justify all forms of Love? Do you still want to be loved and Love?

However, you are free to do so. Just don't use feelings and divine revelation to try to prove it to me because those things are indistinguishable from imagination without objective outside evidence. Make sense

What does any of this have to do with Satan/Lucifer or your ability to represent the mind of a man that lived 2000 years ago?

Further more why do you assume we have no outside evidence? If God Himself Spoke to you and it was as real as reading what I have written or as clear as speaking to someone on the phone would you consider this evidence? What if you could ask any question you wanted and always got an answer? would this be enough? What if it was not enough for others in your peer group, would it be enough for you?

 

[golgotha61]

If anyone is interested, Elaine Pagels wrote a pretty interesting book on the evolving view of satan in a book called "The origin of satan" or something like that. It seems obvious this view has evolved over the years.

The belief in demons and an evil force has always existed in Hebrew religion. The Old Testament describes the Hebrew religion that was a national religion and so the reference to a personal evil entity was not used. God dealt with evil nationally as we see in His judgements usually against Israel's sin as a nation even if the sin of one person was the cause for His anger and judgement. This was specifically done because God called out a people that He intended to be a "nation of priests", and not a person to represent Him as Christ would do in the New Testament.

God's plan was further revealed in his progressive revelation in the Bible when He revealed Himself in the person Christ. He revealed Himself as a personal God and appealed to the individual on a personal basis so the idea of a the personification of evil followed His plan of revelation.

However it is probably upsetting to some that all of Christian theology wasn't set in stone from day one, even though the Bible was written over hundreds of years.

Not at all, just as God's self revelation is progressive throughout the Bible, so was the development of Christian theology. The Bible was written over a period of approximately 2000 years.

I think I heard/read (if I remember correctly) the New Testament view of the devil is based somewhat on Zoroastrianism?

Zoroastrianism was not monotheistic and so its influence on Judaism and consequently Christianity is perhaps not as profound as some may think, since monotheism is the centerpiece of these two religions. According to International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, "there is nothing in the formal theology of Judaism that can be described as borrowed from the Mazdean teachings". Mazdean is under the umbrella of Zoroastrianism.

Even if all the gospels of the Bible are divinely inspired, I think it would be conceivable that they are influenced by other religions and traditions. It sounds to me like the middle east, in the first and second centuries, was a theological blender.

The divine inspiration of the Bible is the guarantee of of its truthfulness and authenticity. The influence of other religions on the early church and the Gospel message is exactly the subject and purpose of the Pauline epistles.

People seem to expect Christianity to have some sort of theological purity and/or uniqueness. I don't see any evidence for that or any necessity for it either.

There are many theological doctrines within Christianity, so the expectation of any purity of theologies other than the basic theology pertaining to the life, death, and resurrection of Christ is not necessarily true. Christianity is unique among other religions, this is pretty obvious.

Scripture and theology is meant to describe truth and experience. If multiple people and theologies describe the same thing then what is the difference?

I am not sure what you mean here but all of Scripture is the self revelation of God. Theology is the pursuit of a knowledge of God.

 

[razeontherock]

Christian theology evolved over time. That's my take.

I would refine that statement by saying Catholic doctrine developed, after the time of the Apostles. They readily admit this. My primary concern is to separate all that out, and see what the original version was. And I am not nearly alone in that quest!

 

[razeontherock]

You know, that would make sense except for one thing. People look at that verse and say that it refers to Satan because of the titles "lucifer" and "morning star" and the reference to falling from up high. But Satan gets those nicknames from that verse in the first place. Sure, revelation refers to Satan like that too, but that's because the author of revelation had his own interpretation of isaiah just like modern Christians do. But no one thought that verse referred to Satan at the time of it's writing and probably not for centuries.

Hopefully I have been beaten to the punch? I do see your point here. It totally defies the entire premise of the Bible.

We know that those people contributing to the writing of Scripture had no idea about (at least) much of what they said. Take Caiaphas' lone recorded prophesy about one man dying for the sins of the people, for example.

Hermeneutics are important, and that includes hearing a passage as the original audience did. That's just a beginning though ...

 

[razeontherock]

Perhaps we should blame it on Jesus.

This is the only time the name Lucifer is used in the Bible and as you can see it is used in the "sense of brightness". This seems to align with Jesus description of Satan's fall from heaven as a "bright shining" event.

Both verses even describe Satan's expulsion as the "fall from heaven".

Sshhh - don't confuse them with facts

I mean what, do you want to make this simple or something?

It really is that simple, folks. And the Bible never says God works in mysterious ways. G-d gave us a brain, and expects us to use it!

 

[razeontherock]

Solely as a way of addressing a point I just made to the OP, to "flesh out the idea:"

If someone could show me from the Bible that Isaiah and Ezekiel DID NOT have this understanding, I would immediately abandon my current understanding of these texts.

Why? You shouldn't! Consider:

"And Philip ran thither to [him], and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? (Acts 8:31) And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him. The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus."

There is NO WAY that Isaiah understood the significance of this passage. (As just ONE example) In no way does that mean you should let anyone buffalo you out of what you may have learned it to signify.

 

[razeontherock]

If you want to argue that, you have to show that divine revelation is true. But since it just happens in the head of the author without any evidence that other people can see, how do we differentiate that from imagination or delusion?

it's just an unfounded personal belief.

With fulfilled prophecies. That defy the law of probabilities. And have changed the entire course of human history. so yah, you're "unfounded" accusation is ... wrong. (To put it mildly )