Are any of these prophecies fulfilled by Jesus?

[qs]Yikes, bro. You are swimming upstream, but unlike a salmon, there is no payoff for your doing so.First, that the prophecy is at least about the Ahaz and son is not really questioned by anyone. That ought to at least make you question your reasoning. Christians typically insist on a dual prophecy.Others have explained why your reading is wrong based on the text. I'm just suggesting that your mistake was completely avoidable.Second of all, your reasoning amounts to 'Not about Ahaz's boy, therefore easily Jesus? Really? Would the form of that argument convince you if someone else used it about some other topic. For someone who prides himself on the ability to drop the names of fallacies, I find your reasoning here quite amusing.[qs] Actually I addressed that point. It can't be Ahaz's boy either because it would be 65 years before one of the kings fell, making Ahaz's boy an old man when it happened.It could as easily be a prophecy about Jesus as any other. Not more easy, just as easy. I find your inability to read what I write equally amusing. The fact you seem to read deeply into my writing things that aren't there should worry you.

quote:

---

Actually no. Its just as likely that the prophecy was about something else that happens much later. You'll note that the prophecy says 'your enemies' instead of naming the two countries.

---

The context makes it rather clear which enemies are meant. And then there's the rest of the prophecy to consider. Why does everyone seem to ignore everything after verse 16 ?

It certainly doesn't make sense to interpret it as saying that the kings will be destroyed before the child is even born.It says the child is born, eats good stuff, and before he grows up the kings will be destroyed.It only makes sense that the child is born before the kings are destroyed.And its not an uncommon thing. Take a look at the next chapter:

quote:

---

Isa 8

​

1 The Lord said to me, Take a large scroll and write on it with an ordinary pen: Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz.
2 So I called in Uriah the priest and Zechariah son of Jeberekiah as reliable witnesses for me.
3 Then I made love to the prophetess, and she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the Lord said to me, Name him Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz.
4 For before the boy knows how to say ‘My father’ or ‘My mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria.

---

Same deal. A kid will be born, but before he grows up X will happen. It doesn't make sense for that to be saying that it will happen before the kid is even born.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Well, it could be. You're biasly assuming that the prophecy actually came true. Maybe Isaiah was just wrong and it took longer than was thought.

So you expect us to read your sources, but ignore sources others present. YOu did not address my post you just poo pooed it. Classic and typical. You don't want to debate you want to preach.

Except that your dates are a bunch of hooey. Something like a decade passed between the prophecy, the dual attack and the killing of the kings.ABE:I have to question the tactic of proving that Jesus is the Messiah, by arguing that the Bible is actually wrong, and that it did not properly predict what happened to Ahaz. What kind of literal-inerrant Bible worshipper are you?extra ABE:I think you may be right about one of the kings not dying right away. But that just causes more problems for Bible literalists.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You did not say "Just as easy". Here is what you actually said: My reading is just fine.

First riduculously stupid creationist blunder. That's the opposite of what geologists do.As someone else once wrote on this forum (I can't remember who it was). You created a straw man argument. You think that we all are ignorant or uinformed about geology. News to you, we have a few geologists on this forum.You insulting those tens of thousands of practicing geologists from all over the world is not doing you any favours.Will ignore the rest of your post.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Lokiare was not making a straw man argument. He was accusing us of having done so. His point was that you could use the Bible text to verify the text after using outside sources to confirm portions of the text. Just as you can use reference fossils to date layersBut the analogy does not work. The rock aging method does work. But no matter how much time you spend counting Civil War cannon, you will never be able to verify that Rhett Butler told Scarlett, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" using that kind of evidence. Gone with the Wind is still fiction. Just as the Illiad is still fiction regardless of whether Troy existed.

If you have any questions on biblical prophecy, just ask. And I shall answer you accordingly.IHSDavidThis is the only sub-board I am allowed to post in, so let them fly.... this could be your last chance to get answers.Edited by Davidjay, : No reason given.

You have no bible questions or prophecy questions, then stop your incessant whining that the Lord didn't give you enough evidence.Excuse, excuse excuse..... drop it. Buck up, and take responsibility for your silence, you have the opportunity, ask.Jesus said Ask and Ye shall Receive.

- but the evil adulterous generation shall not receive the sign because they are unable to start good relationship with God.

Matthew 16:

quote:

---

1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.

​

2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.

​

3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?

​

4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas.

---

Red sky, red sky. Same sign, different interpretation.