Discovering God

[roseglass6370]

I posted a link to this book on the other thread I started, but realized it might be good to share separately.

The book is called "Discovering God" by Dennis McCallum. (http://www.amazon.com/Discovering-Go...8145031&sr=8-4) If you are seeking solid proof for Christianity, this book offers insight into Biblical claims and Old Testament prophecies with great support.

One example mentioned is in the Old Testament prophecies recorded in chapter 53 of the book of Isaiah. In this chapter, a highly detailed description is given of Christ that was recorded approximately 500 years before Jesus' birth. (Carbon dating of the Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls has been performed at least four times dating it alone as being from approximately 335-107 BC, although the original manuscript was, as mentioned, likely written much earlier based on textual descriptions of events.) This description of Christ describes many things that could not have been purposefully duplicated by any individual. Other old testament prophecies, including those in Daniel, even calculate the date of His birth, something definitely beyond any human's control.

Anyway, McCallum's book goes heavy into these prophecies and other common questions about Christianity in greater detail. It's only $3.99 new on Amazon and is a very short read. (The older edition I have is less than 200pgs.)

I'd suggest going into the reading with an open mind, however, which I think most of you must have to be on a Christian forum, engaged in *generally* civilized debate.

 

[LoAmmi]

One example mentioned is in the Old Testament prophecies recorded in chapter 53 of the book of Isaiah. In this chapter, a highly detailed description is given of Christ that was recorded approximately 500 years before Jesus' birth. (Carbon dating of the Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls has been performed at least four times dating it alone as being from approximately 335-107 BC, although the original manuscript was, as mentioned, likely written much earlier based on textual descriptions of events.) This description of Christ describes many things that could not have been purposefully duplicated by any individual. Other old testament prophecies, including those in Daniel, even calculate the date of His birth, something definitely beyond any human's control.

Except, of course, the servant in Isaiah is mentioned as Israel no less than four times and a study of the Hebrew behind it reveals the servant is given plural descriptions within Isaiah 53.

 

[LoAmmi]

I am pointing out that the prophecies people use are almost never so cut and dry. There are multiple interpretations.

 

[roseglass6370]

Except, of course, the servant in Isaiah is mentioned as Israel no less than four times and a study of the Hebrew behind it reveals the servant is given plural descriptions within Isaiah 53.

Could you point out to me where the Servant is mentioned as being Israel? I just reread all of chapter 53 and nowhere in there is Israel ever mentioned by name or by association. I've heard that argument before and every reference I've been given is outside the realm of the passage and could be clearly ascribed as not pertaining to the "him" described in the passage.

Furthermore, the Servant is even given traits that could not refer to Israel. Example: "...He had done no violence. Nor was there any deceit in His mouth." (Isa 53:9) Israel had inflicted God's wrath previously due to such sins. Also notable is Isa. 53:8 - "...He was cut off our of the land of the living for the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due." If "he" was to be in the plural in reference to all of Israel in this situation then the verse could be paraphrased as "(Israel) was cut off of (Israel) for the transgression of (Israel)." That simply doesn't make sense, especially if Israel was just described as having committed neither of those sins previously mentioned. How could Israel atone for Israel's own sins that Israel was said to never have committed?

Also, in reference to the plural meaning of him argument, the Hebrew word is lamo which Benjamin Davidson’s Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon describes as being used to refer on occasion in both the singular and plural forms. It is used singularly when paired with singular nouns which happens many, many times in this chapter.

I've heard these arguments before and am familiar with both. No one I've discussed this with has been able to solidly support either claim. If you can I would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks!

 

[LoAmmi]

Why are you reading Isaiah 53 on its own without the rest of Isaiah?

 

[smaneck]

Why are you reading Isaiah 53 on its own without the rest of Isaiah?

That's a perfectly valid thing to do, LoAmmi. Surely you are aware that Isaiah has multiple authors.

 

[roseglass6370]

Why are you reading Isaiah 53 on its own without the rest of Isaiah?

While Isaiah does have multiple authors, I have of course read all of Isaiah.

I understand your argument. However, as I mentioned, reading "He/Him" as referring to Israel has other flaws apart from other references to Israel outside of ch. 53.

In 52, for example, if the "servant" were to refer to Israel numerous verses would make little sense, 52:13-14 for example, would read: "Behold, [Israel] will prosper. [Israel] will be high and lifted up and greatly exalted. Just as many were astonished at you, my people, so [Israel's] appearance was marred more than any man." This verse is clearly comparing Israel to someone else. You cannot compare Israel to Israel.

 

[EmmaXO]

That's a perfectly valid thing to do, LoAmmi. Surely you are aware that Isaiah has multiple authors.

I'm surprised you would think reading only one chapter without it's context is a valid way to read the bible.

You read only 53 and you get a terribly incomplete picture. Isaiah 53 only makes sense in context. Reading only 53 is like jumping into the middle of a book in the middle of a paragraph.

He said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor." Isaiah 49:3

For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me. Isaiah 45:4

"Remember these things, O Jacob, for you are my servant, O Israel. I have made you, you are my servant; O Israel, I will not forget you. Isaiah 44:21

When we get in the business of ignoring context things stop making sense.

Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

Read only this verse and it seems Jesus wants you to stab out your eye. Did he mean this literally? No, of course not.

Sorry for answering for you, Loammi.

 

[smaneck]

I'm surprised you would think reading only one chapter without it's context is a valid way to read the bible.

I didn't say it shouldn't be read without its context, but the entire book of Isaiah is not the context.

You read only 53 and you get a terribly incomplete picture. Isaiah 53 only makes sense in context. Reading only 53 is like jumping into the middle of a book in the middle of a paragraph.

He said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor." Isaiah 49:3

For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me. Isaiah 45:4

"Remember these things, O Jacob, for you are my servant, O Israel. I have made you, you are my servant; O Israel, I will not forget you. Isaiah 44:21

Then the context is Deutero-Isaiah, not Isaiah.

 

[Enkil]

Except, of course, the servant in Isaiah is mentioned as Israel no less than four times and a study of the Hebrew behind it reveals the servant is given plural descriptions within Isaiah 53.

Except that we both know this interpretation is rather on again off again, depending on who you ask, and even in ancient paraphrases by Jews before the time of Christ, they also interpreted it as referring to the Messiah. That seems to me the most natural understanding, whereas Israel as the "offering for sin" for many seems like a rather tortured rendition.

But we've gone through that back and forth, you and I.

 

[roseglass6370]

I'm surprised you would think reading only one chapter without it's context is a valid way to read the bible.

You read only 53 and you get a terribly incomplete picture. Isaiah 53 only makes sense in context. Reading only 53 is like jumping into the middle of a book in the middle of a paragraph.

He said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will display my splendor." Isaiah 49:3

For the sake of Jacob my servant, of Israel my chosen, I summon you by name and bestow on you a title of honor, though you do not acknowledge me. Isaiah 45:4

"Remember these things, O Jacob, for you are my servant, O Israel. I have made you, you are my servant; O Israel, I will not forget you. Isaiah 44:21

When we get in the business of ignoring context things stop making sense.

Matthew 5:29 If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.

Read only this verse and it seems Jesus wants you to stab out your eye. Did he mean this literally? No, of course not.

Sorry for answering for you, Loammi.

Still, despite this claim, other issues arise if "Him/He" in this passage, or even 52, were to refer to Israel. I addressed these in my other responses:

1) Israel is compared to the Servant in chapter 52, implying the two are separate.
2) The Servant is described as having "done no violence" and as having no "deceit in His mouth." Israel did both such things.

Also, look at 53:6. Substitute Israel for "Him" in this instance... The verse then reads:

"All of us like sheep have gone astray. Each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Israel."

...So, that would mean... "...but the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on...us?"

That doesn't make sense. The servant is described as being without sin and baring sin for Israel's sake. Israel sinned. Israel is therefore not sinless and cannot bare Israel's sin.

 

[Enkil]

Could you point out to me where the Servant is mentioned as being Israel? I just reread all of chapter 53 and nowhere in there is Israel ever mentioned by name or by association. I've heard that argument before and every reference I've been given is outside the realm of the passage and could be clearly ascribed as not pertaining to the "him" described in the passage.

Furthermore, the Servant is even given traits that could not refer to Israel. Example: "...He had done no violence. Nor was there any deceit in His mouth." (Isa 53:9) Israel had inflicted God's wrath previously due to such sins. Also notable is Isa. 53:8 - "...He was cut off our of the land of the living for the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due." If "he" was to be in the plural in reference to all of Israel in this situation then the verse could be paraphrased as "(Israel) was cut off of (Israel) for the transgression of (Israel)." That simply doesn't make sense, especially if Israel was just described as having committed neither of those sins previously mentioned. How could Israel atone for Israel's own sins that Israel was said to never have committed?

Also, in reference to the plural meaning of him argument, the Hebrew word is lamo which Benjamin Davidson’s Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon describes as being used to refer on occasion in both the singular and plural forms. It is used singularly when paired with singular nouns which happens many, many times in this chapter.

I've heard these arguments before and am familiar with both. No one I've discussed this with has been able to solidly support either claim. If you can I would love to hear your thoughts. Thanks!

Very good! You basically made all the points I did in 4 or 5 pages of debate with this guy, all in a single post and in a much better way, including a point on the Hebrew word I did not make.

 

[LoAmmi]

Except that we both know this interpretation is rather on again off again, depending on who you ask, and even in ancient paraphrases by Jews before the time of Christ, they also interpreted it as referring to the Messiah. That seems to me the most natural understanding, whereas Israel as the "offering for sin" for many seems like a rather tortured rendition.

But we've gone through that back and forth, you and I.

As I said, the point is that there is no certainty in the interpretation.

Also, I could easily argue that the New Testament modeled the story of Jesus after this and it is not the reality of the story. There is no evidence outside of the NT that it happened anywhere near as described.

 

[roseglass6370]

Also, I could easily argue that the New Testament modeled the story of Jesus after this and it is not the reality of the story. There is no evidence outside of the NT that it happened anywhere near as described.

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources - Probe Ministries

 

[LoAmmi]

Ancient Evidence for Jesus from Non-Christian Sources - Probe Ministries

You just posted evidence that Jesus existed. That has nothing to do with the story being reliable.

 

[roseglass6370]

Why would members of the early church dedicate themselves - to the point of death - for a lie?

 

[LoAmmi]

Why would members of the early church dedicate themselves - to the point of death - for a lie?

Which ones do you know were killed for their beliefs? How many of those were direct eye witnesses?

Why did people who follow Joseph Smith dedicate themselves, to the point of death, for what you consider to be a lie?

 

[Enkil]

Why did people who follow Joseph Smith dedicate themselves, to the point of death, for what you consider to be a lie?

Actually, Joseph Smith was quite the unwilling martyr. :l

 

[LoAmmi]

Actually, Joseph Smith was quite the unwilling martyr. :l

Were those that followed him ones? Did I mention Joseph Smith himself?

 

[Enkil]

Were those that followed him ones? Did I mention Joseph Smith himself?

Joseph Smith is allegedly like Paul the Apostle or any of the other Apostles who were murdered (though they see him as greater). The difference is that Smith was shooting back, whereas the Apostles died confessing that Jesus is the Messiah.