Ceeboo wrote:Thanks for joining the Bible study.
Please! Enough with the smarm!
Nobody has 'joined the Bible study' They are just commenting on the strange stuff you post.
Ceeboo wrote:Thanks for joining the Bible study.
honorentheos wrote:Look Ceebs, if you asked a Jew what they thought, they'd tell you that Isaiah 53 isn't speaking of Jesus but of Isreal.
And if one approaches it with that predetermined view,not would read that way you especially if you start in chapter 52 where it starts specifically telling the captive Israelites to remain clean and flee their captivity. The servant in those passages that is abused and looked down on by the mighty is meant to be captive Israel.
Personally, I see it as a mirror of your own assumptions being reflected back at you. Is it historically justifiable? I don't think so.
Chap wrote:Ceeboo wrote:Thanks for joining the Bible study.
Please! Enough with the smarm!
Nobody has 'joined the Bible study' They are just commenting on the strange stuff you post.
Ceeboo wrote:I'm not talking about the Bible in Bible study
honorentheos wrote:Look Ceebs, if you asked a Jew what they thought, they'd tell you that Isaiah 53 isn't speaking of Jesus but of Isreal.
Having said that, with great love and respect to my Jewish neighbors, the Isaiah passage is clearly speaking of Jesus - no question about it.
Yes, Israel is being spoken of - No doubt. Likewise, Jesus is being spoken of as well - No doubt.
honor wrote:Personally, I see it as a mirror of your own assumptions being reflected back at you. Is it historically justifiable? I don't think so.
ceeboo wrote:
...Personally, I think it's crystal clear and to deny it reflects something about those doing the denying.
Since any fool can start a quarrel...
honorentheos wrote:How you framed them is the point of this Bible study.
Lemmie wrote:You're the OP.
Ceeboo wrote: it's crystal clear and to deny it reflects something about those doing the denying.
Ceeboo wrote:Lemmie wrote:You're the OP.
Lemmie - I was really trying to be gracious, kind and thoughtful with you. I wrote out a few fairly lengthy replies to you - Not to convince you of anything, but because you asked me questions and I tried to answer them from my view, as a believer.
And this is now the second eye roll yo have given me in the thread. Why?
I know you didn't mean that to personally insult the person you were responding to, even though it seemed rude.ceeboo wrote:Personally, I think it's crystal clear and to deny it reflects something about those doing the denying.
hmm. Maybe you don't understand how your statements, like the one I quoted, come across.ceeboo wrote: I was really trying to be gracious, kind and thoughtful with you