Bible Options Bible Study Software
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
On Isaiah 53
#31
baruch Wrote:
MessianicJew Wrote:I don't use logic, I believe logic is man-made.

Computers are man-made. Why don't you stop using them, too, and give the rest of us a break. Count me out for the rest of this discussion.

...Because there are man-made things that are good such as a Tabernacle, Altar, Synagogue etc. and then there are man-made things that are bad, like a golden-calf, idols, agent orange etc....

And Logic is bad, because logic is a thinking process that dictates which reasoning process is correct or not...it is also used to tell those who believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that they are "irrational" and "illogical". It is a humanist atheist thinking process. Plain & simple.

You counted yourself out when you decided to post a thread about how Isaiah 53 is about Israel.
#32
baruch Wrote:I didn't intend you to think that he was a surfer with flowing beautiful hair and blue eyes. I was saying that he wasn't infested with disease and shocking in appearance, making people turn their faces from him. He was attractive and charismatic. I'm not saying that people were sexually attracted to him, but that he drew people to himself. Isn't that what "attractive" means?

Can we try to make these responses more focused? The responses are getting too long, and I have to cut part and post it in a second post. Let's keep it more focused, please.

Jesus was crucified! He was beaten unrecognizable! Yeah, that happens to people who are attractive and charismatic. They're brought before Kings, mocked with a crown of thorns over their heads, scourged with lashings and then beaten so bad they cannot be recognized. Gee, sounds a lot like Isaiah 53...
#33
MessianicJew Wrote:Jesus was crucified! He was beaten unrecognizable! Yeah, that happens to people who are attractive and charismatic. They're brought before Kings, mocked with a crown of thorns over their heads, scourged with lashings and then beaten so bad they cannot be recognized. Gee, sounds a lot like Isaiah 53...

I am sorry that Jesus was beaten senseless, and it's a very sad story. But, that has nothing to do with the fact that the servant in Isaiah is not someone who showed up as a charismatic leader, drew multitudes and was later put to death because the leadership thought he would take over. He is a servant who was deformed and ugly and disease-ridden. He was mistreated by people because they thought he was ugly - as a curse from God. I'm sorry, but Jesus sounds absolutely nothing like the servant in Isaiah 53.
#34
UGH third time writing this out >.> Stupid computer >.<;;

ANYways.

Hi Baruch ^_^

I read through your paper, and I will probably read it again at another point to try and pick up more. It is interesting.

So honestly I don't understand why people reject the interpretation of Isaiah 53 and the surrounding passage as Israel. I see it as valid of an interpretation as interpreting it to refer to messiah. The idea that it is only one and not the other does not sit well with me.

Regarding your commentary on how this portion of Isaiah can not refer to Jesus, I will say a few things:

1) I don't recall the New Testament ever talking about Jesus's appearance, and it seems to me that 52:14 and 53:2-3 talk about Jesus's appearance and are not ment to concider charisma or personality at all.

2) There is plenty of indication in the New Testament that plenty of people just plain didn't like Jesus, even if he did have a large following.

3) There was certainly plenty of shock and disbelief when the Gospels were first proclaimed. Can you really expect any idea or historical event to shock for more than a few hundred years? Honestly I don't see how the Gospel being generaly known in our culture in this present age has anything to do with what is stated in 52:15 and 53:1. I mean, how long would people be suprised to see Israel exaulted? I would expect it wouldn't be longer than two or three generations, if that long.

4) Regarding the mixed plural and singular, this is one of the things that leads me to beleive both interpretations of this passage are good. Unless it is impossible to express the ideas written here with only plural or only singular pronouns?

5) I have heard a messianic Jewish Rabbi state that Jesus came to "make the Torah correctly known", which would fit the verse 53:11. No it is not a Christian interpretation.

I do have some questions though:

In 53:10, is the term "see his seed" meaning strictly physical decendants a part of the hebrew, or is it a tradition to interpret it this way?

I know that in other places Israel is refered to with a feminine pronoun, are there other places in scripture where Israel is refered to with a masculine pronoun or is this the only place?
#35
MessianicJew Wrote:And Logic is bad, because logic is a thinking process that dictates which reasoning process is correct or not...it is also used to tell those who believe in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that they are "irrational" and "illogical". It is a humanist atheist thinking process. Plain & simple.

The thing is, most often they are not being logical. Whether or not you see God in the universe is not a matter of logic... it is an interpretation based on what you percieve in the same way any theory is: you can say things happen this way or that, but you cannot prove that they actualy happen in one way or another. God is the same way.

And because of that it is as logicaly reasonable to interpret a world where God exists as it is to interpret a world without God.

Anyone who tells you God is illogical doesn't know what they're talking about, period.
#36
baruch Wrote:I am sorry that Jesus was beaten senseless, and it's a very sad story. But, that has nothing to do with the fact that the servant in Isaiah is not someone who showed up as a charismatic leader, drew multitudes and was later put to death because the leadership thought he would take over. He is a servant who was deformed and ugly and disease-ridden. He was mistreated by people because they thought he was ugly - as a curse from God. I'm sorry, but Jesus sounds absolutely nothing like the servant in Isaiah 53.

3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

Jesus was despised and rejected of men, Jesus was full of sorrow, read the New Testament. The Jews rejected him, they despised him, and esteemed him not. When Jesus stood before Pilot, who did the Jews ask for to be let go? Was it Jesus Christ?
#37
Jews for Jesus believe that after Isaiah 48:20, the servant is an individual.
#38
Dewdrop Wrote:Anyone who tells you God is illogical doesn't know what they're talking about, period.

I appreciate your support and response.

Dewdrop Wrote:And because of that it is as logicaly reasonable to interpret a world where God exists as it is to interpret a world without God.

Isn't the above an oxymoron? Because it is not Biblical & reasonable to interpret a world where God exists as it is to interpret a world without God.

This is the problem with Logic, one person says Logic can lead you to God, the other says it is illogical and irrational. You cannot do this when you align your thinking process according to the Bible and not Logic as your guide.



#39
MessianicJew Wrote:Isn't the above an oxymoron?

No it isn't actualy. The idea is kind of abstract though I think... I will try and explain it.

The major difference between logic and the Bible is the Bible says a lot about content. Because it has content, it is right to say you can not believe the Bible is true and also believe there is no God.

But logic by itself has no content. It can only describes the structure of thought. That is, you have conjunctions like and, or, xor which show what kind of combinations of ideas can be true and the structure still be logicaly valid. You have if-then statements which show if one thing is true than another thing must be true. But none of this is represented by words or scentences when you study logic. We use symbols to present pure logic, to study the way the structure is built. The way the structure looks without content.

That is to say, the Bible is a specific logical structure with content filled in. When someone says it is illogical to believe in God because science "disproves" Him it is because they are also using a specific logical structure with content filled in. The fact of the matter is that it is not the place of logic itself to prove or disprove God. But most people don't really understand the relation between logic and science I think.

For that matter it isn't really science's place to disprove God eaither, but that is something else.

I hope that was understandable :p It is hard for me to get a grip on sometimes.
#40
ThomasDGW Wrote:SMR, and Baruch, I opened up the article and read through parts of it, but I did not comment for the simple reason that I never have considered the personal pronouns a big part of the argument.  I did not see anything there that seems to refute my belief in Isaiah 53 being a picture of Jesus.  Furthermore, to really evaluate the validity of that argument, I would have to do a lot of study in Hebrew grammar, and I am busy doing other studies right now. I participated heavily in other discussions on Isaiah 53 and you can peruse those to see my point of view.

ThomasDGW,

Well thank you for at least taking a look at parts of it.

I think it is very important to understand what it means in the language it is written in. How could that not be a big part of the arguement? How are we listen to a missionary's arguement if they don't even understand what is really written?

The Jewish people have been told that it cannot be speaking of Israel for this reason or that. This article explains how it most definitely CAN be speaking of Israel by understanding the language it is written in plus references to other parts of the Tanach with similiar themes.

As far as your other discussions on Isaiah 53, I'll let Baruch take a look if he is interested. I have seen some of your points of view, but to be honest, I don't remember too much of them.

I would think, as Baruch has stated, that he is also looking for comments on his "wrap up" (towards the end) of why Jesus cannot be the subject of Isaiah 53.

Thanks for taking some time to look at it.


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)