• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Prophecies fulfilled by Jesus?

-Peacemaker-

.45 Cal
On a probably less important note... did you notice that Matthew said "Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled" while showing me that the text is supposed to be from Zechariah? Another indication that the gospel writer was inept, or he expected his audience to be.


Let me show you the artscroll version of the passage at hand:

I said to the people "If it is proper in your eyes, give Me My fee, and if not refrain." So they weighed out My fee: thirty silver coins. The Lord said to me, "Throw it to the treasurer of the Precious Stronghold, which I have divested from them." So I threw it into the Temple of the Lord, to the treasurer.


This is one of those that isn't even a prophecy, much less a messianic prophecy.

I request that you give this whole chapter a good read, and come to me with questions you may have about it.

Zechariah - Chapter 11 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

What happened to the mention of the potter?
 

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
As always, a compelling apologetic exists to explain all





Apologetics Press - Who was Matthew Quoting?

Who was Matthew Quoting?

by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
Eric Lyons, M.Min.

After reporting in his gospel account about Judas’ suicide and the purchase of the potter’s field, Matthew quoted from the prophets as he had done many times prior to chapter 27. He wrote: “Then was fulfilled what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying, ‘And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the value of Him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced, and gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me’ ” (27:9-10). For centuries, these two verses have been contemplated by Christians and criticized by skeptics. The alleged problem with this passage, as one modern-day critic noted, is that “this is not a quote from Jeremiah, but a misquote of Zechariah” (Wells, 2001). Skeptics purport that Matthew misused Zechariah 11:12-13, and then mistakenly attributed the quotation to Jeremiah. Sadly, even some Christians have advocated this idea (see Cukrowski, et al., 2002, p. 40). What can be said of the matter?
As with all alleged contradictions, critics and skeptics should have investigated further (i.e., study with diligence and handle the Scriptures correctly—2 Timothy 2:15) before making such boisterous claims that Matthew mishandled the prophets’ words. Three considerations help clarify the situation. First, notice carefully that Matthew did not say that Jeremiah wrote this particular prophecy; rather, he indicated that this prophecy was spoken by Jeremiah. Similar to how Paul’s quotation of Jesus (recorded in Acts 20:35—“It is more blessed to give than to receive”) was from something Jesus verbally stated that never was recorded by one of the gospel writers, it may be that Jeremiah once spoke the prophecy in question, but never had Baruch, his amanuensis, put it in written form. Truly, one should not automatically expect to find a written account of a prophecy when the New Testament writer mentions it as having been spoken. Also, it should not be surprising to us if the Holy Spirit saw fit to inspire Jeremiah to speak these words, and then a few years later to inspire Zechariah to put a similar sentiment in written form.
Second, in Jesus’ day, rabbinical practice entailed identifying quotations by the name of the first book in a group of books that had been clustered by literary genre. Writing in the journal Bibliotheca Sacra over a half a century ago, Charles Feinberg commented on this point, saying, “The Talmudic tradition [e.g., Baba Bathra 14b—[SIZE=-1]DM/EL[/SIZE]] shows that the prophetic writings in order of their place in the sacred books was Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, etc. This order is found in many Hebrew [SIZE=-1]MSS[/SIZE]…. Matthew, then quoted the passage as from the roll of the prophets, which roll is cited by the first book” (1945, p. 72). Furthermore, in all of the quotations from Zechariah in the New Testament, no mention is ever made of his name in conjunction with the prophecies (cf. Matthew 21:4; 26:31; John 12:14; 19:37). Thus, it is logical to conclude that Matthew merely referred to this whole division of the Old Testament by naming its first book (Jeremiah), just as Jesus referred to the “writings” section of the Old Testament by the name of its first book, Psalms (Luke 24:44). Jeremiah could have served as the designation for quotations from any of the included books. (Another example is found in Mark 1:2-3 where Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1 are blended and attributed to Isaiah.)
Third, and perhaps most important, Old Testament context is critical in sorting out the use of the Old Testament in the New Testament. New Testament writers frequently were guided by the Holy Spirit to weave the thought of several Old Testament contexts into a single application. Matthew referred to a series of details in the following order: the thirty pieces of silver (vs. 3); Judas threw the silver down in the temple (vs. 5); the chief priests took the silver and bought the potter’s field (vs. 6-7); and the field is named (vs. 8).
Matthew then quoted from the Old Testament (vss. 9-10). Notice the comparison between Matthew’s wording and the Old Testament references:
Matthew
Zechariah
“And they took the thirty pieces of silver”
“So they weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver.”
“the value of him who was priced, whom they of the children of Israel priced”
“And the Lord said to me, ‘Throw it to the potter’—that princely price they set on me.”
“And gave them for the potter’s field, as the Lord directed me”
“So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord for the potter.”


Jeremiah
“Arise and go down to the potter’s house…there he was, making something at the wheel” (18:2-3).
“Go and get a potter’s earthen flask…and go out to the Valley of the Son of Hinnom” (19:1-2).
“Even so I will break this people and this city, as one breaks a potter’s vessel” (19:11).
“Please buy my field that is in Anathoth…. So I bought the field…and weighed out to him the money—seventeen shekels of silver” (32:8-9).

Matthew’s use of Zechariah is clearly paraphrastic, drawing from its wording while adjusting locus. In Matthew, the chief priests took the money returned by Judas; in Zechariah, Zechariah requested wages from the people. In Matthew, Judas threw the money on the ground before the chief priests; in Zechariah, Zechariah was told to throw the money “to the potter,” which was achieved by throwing it into the house of the Lord for the potter. Matthew’s greatest emphasis is on the acquisition of a potter’s field. Zechariah says nothing about a field.
It is not until one peruses the pages of Jeremiah that one sees the striking resemblance, first to Zechariah, and then to Matthew’s narrative. Zechariah’s allusion to the potter harks back to the imagery and symbolism of Jeremiah. But Matthew’s allusion to the potter’s field harks back to Jeremiah—not Zechariah. So Matthew was demonstrating the overriding superintendence of the Holy Spirit, Who was combining and summarizing elements of prophetic symbolism both from Zechariah and from Jeremiah.
A superficial assessment of the surface tension between Matthew and Jeremiah fails to grasp the complexity and sophistication of the ultimate Mind behind Matthew’s handling of the sacred text. The one who assumes error on the part of Bible writers inevitably fails to probe the depths of inspired writ to discover the ingenuity and power that reside there.
REFERENCES

I hate to sound like a broken record, but this seems to be written either by someone who doesn't know any better, or who expects you not to know any better.


Seriously... Read Zechariah 11. Read Jeremiah 18, 19, and 32.

If you want to break it down into specifics, I suppose we can go that route... but in general, having read this apologetic you present... it's not very compelling. It's rather sloppy and nonsensical.
 

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
Also... where the hell does the concept of betrayal come from? Who was being betrayed in either Zechariah or Jeremiah that this whole Judas thing is supposed to be a parallel to?

It's like the gospel writer searched the scriptures for any mention of money... any mention at all... wrote down all the references he could find on separate pieces of paper, mixed them all together, and pulled one out of a hat. The one he found was thirty pieces of silver... and having absolutely no idea whatsoever what the context of this verse was, decided to write it into the narrative.

We don't have a mixup in translation, interpretation, or anything of the sort.

We have both the gospel writer and the guy who complies these lists just making stuff up.

Just making stuff up.

And the guy writing the apologetic... he has no idea what's going on... all he knows is, it's written in the book of Matthew so it MUST be meaningful, and critics must just not get it.

Nobody was even trying with this one. It's kinda embarrassing.
 

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
I gave you the link to Zechariah 11. I want to show you the footnotes from the artscroll for the verses you highlighted.

Understand that the speaker of verse 12 is God.

Footnote to Zech 11:12 If you want Me to be your Shepherd, you must pay My fee, namely, you must righteously observe My laws. But as the verse goes on, only thirty people were truly righteous.

Footnote to Zech 11:13 By throwing the deeds of these thirty righteous people into the Temple, Zechariah symbolized that the Temple would be rebuilt because of their merits.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
According to the NRSV
Zechariah 11:1-3 is a "Taunt against Israel's norther neighbors. The regions personified and characterized by three trees, two of which are fabled --cedars of Lenanon (Ezek 31.3) and oaks of Bashan (Ezek 27.6) which was in northern Transjordan. Shepherds and lions probably symbolize communal leaders. The destruction will affect foliage as far away as the Jordan Valley."

Zechariah 11:4-17 Diverse oracles and reports, all using the metaphor of a shepherd for the community's leader (13:7-9). 4-6:An unnamed person, perhaps the prophet Zechariah, is charged to lead the community, which is doomed. 7-14: The symbolic action is reported by the individual who wields and then destroys two shepherd's staffs, symbolizing the end of a covenantal relationship.12-13: Thirty shekels of silver: Exodus 21:32 stipulates this amount as restitution for a slave gored by an ox. Other ancient texts understand this to be a trifling amount of money. 15-16: The deity commands a second symbolic action, again involvinga shepherd's implements. 17: Woe oracle against the community's leader.

According to this I see no correlation between Zechariah 11 and Judas in the NT. Numerology was common in the Ancient Near East, and who knows what the number 30 could represent. Also the NRSV has the 30 shekels of silver thrown into the treasury; However the Syriac Version translates to "potter"
 
Last edited:

-Peacemaker-

.45 Cal
I agree the explanation below Jeremiah is confusing. I chose that apologetic because I thiought it was an interesting explanation about how Jeremiah is mentioned in Matt but Zechariah is what's quoted.
 

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
I agree the explanation below Jeremiah is confusing. I chose that apologetic because I thiought it was an interesting explanation about how Jeremiah is mentioned in Matt but Zechariah is what's quoted.

Its main feature is that we have to just take Jesus' word for it... which is something I'm not inclined to do. I have no reason to believe that Jeremiah spoke the words that were written by Zechariah, nor do I buy that people quoting scripture would refer to the first of a series of books to reference a book that was not the first book. They'd just say "The Prophets" or "The Torah".

The first and second considerations kinda cancel each other out. If you have one, you don't need the other, but he's asking you to consider all three. Either he doesn't know what he's talking about, or he hopes that you don't.

And his second consideration.... I don't know if you ever bother to follow up on citations, but I checked out Baba Bathra 14b, and it listed first among the writings section of the "Old Testament" the book of Ruth.

So when the apologetic says "just as Jesus referred to the “writings” section of the Old Testament by the name of its first book, Psalms (Luke 24:44).", it's clear that he's just clueless. I don't know if he's the one doing the lying, or if he's been very easily lied to.

Either way, it doesn't help make the case that Zech 11 belongs in this list of 48 prophecies allegedly fulfilled by Jesus.

BTW... are you keeping track of the numbers? Are we counting each chapter as a one out of 48? (which would bring us to 3 at this point), or the various "prophecies" contained therein (which would make this something like 15 if we count the three from Zech 11 and the 12 I picked out from Pegg's list regarding Psalms 22 and Isaiah 53)?

Do you have anything else regarding Zech 11, or are we ready to move on?
 
Last edited:

-Peacemaker-

.45 Cal
BORN OF A VIRGIN

Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 700 B.C. Mattthew 1:20-23 [20] But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. [21] She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." [22] All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: [23] "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel" --which means, "God with us.
 

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
This is the sort of passage that has very long threads dedicated to it. To spare ourselves going into this with dozens of pages, let me just point out very simply:

1. THIS IS NOT A MESSIANIC PROPHECY!
2. This prophecy was fulfilled approx 550 years before Jesus.

And let me preemptively mention that the woman was already pregnant when the prophecy was spoken. The sign was for King Ahaz regarding the threat of the two kingdoms led by Rezin and Pekah. (You might learn something if you read the first 10 verses of chapter 7.)

The sign was not the birth of the child. The sign was what would happen during the course of this child's life (especially in the early stages of his life). Mentioning the woman giving birth is for the purpose of establishing a time frame. Behold, the young woman HAS CONCEIVED and will give birth.

We know that this means the child in question would be born no more than 9 months after this prophecy was spoken.

The actual prophecy is everything that happens AFTER the verse in question. And I have never heard anyone try to relate any of it to Jesus. You're talking about a random verse both mistranslated and taken severely out of context, and doesn't even apply to Jesus in the slightest.

He wasn't called Immanuel. Ever. By anybody. The verse in Isaiah asserts that the mother will name the child. Matthew has Joseph naming the child. Isaiah has the mother naming the child Immanuel. Joseph is told to call his child "Jesus".

But all of that is just bonus. "Icing on the cake" as I said before.

Heck, even the controversy over the word "almah" is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion.

Bottom line:

1. THIS IS NOT A MESSIANIC PROPHECY!
2. This prophecy was fulfilled approx 550 years before Jesus.

Unless you can address these two points in any way, I think we can move on to the next one.
 
Last edited:

-Peacemaker-

.45 Cal
We have "experts" that have apologetics for EVERYTHING. That is the one thing this exercise has proved. You know my websites and I know your's as far as where we'll find the apologetics we're going to cut and paste. Let's go to the next one

FROM THE ROOT AND STUMP OF JESSE

Isaiah 11:10 In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious. 700 B.C.
Isaiah 11:1-5 [1] A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. [2] The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him-- the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD-- [3] and he will delight in the fear of the LORD. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears; [4] but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked. [5] Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness the sash around his waist. 700 B.C.
Romans 15:12 And again, Isaiah says, "The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; the Gentiles will hope in him." Matthew 1:1-2a, 5-6, 16 [1] A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham: [2] Abraham was the father of Isaac, ... [5] ... Obed the father of Jesse, [6] and Jesse the father of King David. [16] and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ
 

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
We have "experts" that have apologetics for EVERYTHING. That is the one thing this exercise has proved. You know my websites and I know your's as far as where we'll find the apologetics we're going to cut and paste. Let's go to the next one

Actually, I'm not terribly familiar with the sites you use. I read them as you post them. I didn't even bother going to a website regarding Isaiah 7. It's just a matter of reading comprehension (regarding the scripture itself).

Unless I explicitly state otherwise, I won't assume what your reactions are going to be. You might surprise me. I won't refrain from saying what I think about it... but I was hoping you might make the effort to find something (or know something offhand/by your own reading of the text) regarding the very two specific points I mentioned (which is something not often done).


But since you're ready to move on... let's.

FROM THE ROOT AND STUMP OF JESSE
Isaiah 11:10 In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his place of rest will be glorious. 700 B.C.
Isaiah 11:1-5 [1] A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a Branch will bear fruit. [2] The Spirit of the LORD will rest on him-- the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD-- [3] and he will delight in the fear of the LORD. He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes, or decide by what he hears with his ears; [4] but with righteousness he will judge the needy, with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth. He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth; with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked. [5] Righteousness will be his belt and faithfulness the sash around his waist. 700 B.C.
Romans 15:12 And again, Isaiah says, "The Root of Jesse will spring up, one who will arise to rule over the nations; the Gentiles will hope in him." Matthew 1:1-2a, 5-6, 16 [1] A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham: [2] Abraham was the father of Isaac, ... [5] ... Obed the father of Jesse, [6] and Jesse the father of King David. [16] and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ
We can kind of skip past the parts where I wholeheartedly disagree that Jesus was righteous, just, wise, that he had any power and/or ruled over anything, etc... and go to the heart of two matters:

Isaiah 11 and the genealogy of Jesus.

First, Isaiah 11.

Let's take a look at the whole chapter.

1. And a shoot shall spring forth from the stem of Jesse, and a twig shall sprout from his roots.
2. And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, a spirit of wisdom and understanding, a spirit of counsel and heroism, a spirit of knowledge and fear of the Lord.
3. And he shall be animated by the fear of the Lord, and neither with the sight of his eyes shall he judge, nor with the hearing of his ears shall he chastise.
4. And he shall judge the poor justly, and he shall chastise with equity the humble of the earth, and he shall smite the earth with the rod of his mouth and with the breath of his lips he shall put the wicked to death.
5. And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faith the girdle of his loins.
6. And a wolf shall live with a lamb, and a leopard shall lie with a kid; and a calf and a lion cub and a fatling [shall lie] together, and a small child shall lead them.
7. And a cow and a bear shall graze together, their children shall lie; and a lion, like cattle, shall eat straw.
8. And an infant shall play over the hole of an old snake and over the eyeball of an adder, a weaned child shall stretch forth his hand.
9. They shall neither harm nor destroy on all My holy mount, for the land shall be full of knowledge of the Lord as water covers the sea bed.
10. And it shall come to pass on that day, that the root of Jesse, which stands as a banner for peoples, to him shall the nations inquire, and his peace shall be [with] honor.
11. And it shall come to pass that on that day, the Lord shall continue to apply His hand a second time to acquire the rest of His people, that will remain from Assyria and from Egypt and from Pathros and from Cush and from Elam and from Sumeria and from Hamath and from the islands of the sea.
12. And He shall raise a banner to the nations, and He shall gather the lost of Israel, and the scattered ones of Judah He shall gather from the four corners of the earth.
13. And the envy of Ephraim shall cease, and the adversaries of Judah shall be cut off; Ephraim shall not envy Judah, nor shall Judah vex Ephraim.
14. And they shall fly of one accord against the Philistines in the west, together they shall plunder the children of the East; upon Edom and Moab shall they stretch forth their hand, and the children of Ammon shall obey them.
15. And the Lord shall dry up the tongue of the Egyptian Sea, and He shall lift His hand over the river with the strength of His wind, and He shall beat it into seven streams, and He shall lead [the exiles] with shoes.
16. And there shall be a highway for the remnant of His people who remain from Assyria, as there was for Israel on the day they went up from the land of Egypt.

World peace, ingathering of the exiles back into the nation of Israel, universal knowledge of God. None of this has occurred, thus this particular root, shoot, spout, sprout, stump, or twig of Jesse has yet to appear on the scene.

I cannot stress this enough... you cannot hope to separate the first third of this chapter from the other two thirds and be taken seriously. Can't do it.

You suggested early on that issues with translation would be the problem in every (if not, nearly every) case. That's not the case.

The problem with every (if not, nearly every) case is the text being violently ripped out of context.

If there are 8 billion descendants of Jesse (a number I picked at random for the sake of argument), not a single one of them can be said to have fulfilled this prophecy if anything described in the chapter hasn't come true.

It's like asserting that the fact he was Jewish is a prophecy fulfilled. I'm Jewish, yet you don't consider me the messiah. There must be something more, and you have yet to show me anything more so far in this thread.

So, in simple terms, the fact that he didn't fulfill anything written in Isaiah 11 is an indication that he isn't the fellow being spoken about in Isaiah 11. You can't ignore the rest of the chapter. When you bring me a lack of prophecy fulfillment and call it a fulfilled prophecy, it must be either pure ignorance or willful deception. (Again, I'm not saying these things about you, but about the gospel writers.)


Onto the genealogy of Jesus. One of those things that I have gone on about for pages and pages in the past...

Here's a few reasons (in no particular order) why the genealogy of Jesus provided by Matthew can be dismissed as having any messianic relevance.

1. The author leaves out a bunch of names and then has the audacity to count the number of generations, despite it being absolutely wrong. There's a red flag. This is obviously something that can't be trusted at all.

2. The name Jechoniah is on the list. This is a man who was cut off from the messianic line. The name Jechoniah in a genealogy of Jesus automatically bumps Jesus off the list of possible candidates for being the Messiah.

3. The whole "virgin birth" thing. That cancels out the relevance of the whole list. It also cancels out any possible connection to David in any meaningful way. The genealogy described is that of Joseph, not Jesus.

And of course, Joseph having Jechoniah in his line disqualifies him from passing along the messianic heritage, even if we throw out the virgin birth and say Joseph was Jesus' father.

And no, tribal affiliation (i.e. the 12 tribes) doesn't transfer by way of adoption, nor does it travel down through the mother. (so if we have a proposed lineage of Mary back to David, it is utterly irrelevant.)

So if you believe that Jesus has no biological father, Jesus has no messianic claim to be the stump, root, shoot, branch, or twig of Jesse or David.
 

Poisonshady313

Well-Known Member
We have "experts" that have apologetics for EVERYTHING. That is the one thing this exercise has proved. You know my websites and I know your's as far as where we'll find the apologetics we're going to cut and paste. Let's go to the next one

For the record, in post 111, absolutely nothing was copy/pasted.

Everything in that post came from me.

I hope you don't think that this thread is solely for the purpose of digging up apologetics and hurling them at one another.

If you can find a reason why you disagree with something that I say, please say it.

I like to think we each use these apologetics for the same reasons... we know we've found somewhere someone put into words more effectively the point we intend to put across.

I know that's why I use them.

Don't think for a moment that whenever you post something, I go running to an apologetic website hoping to find something that addresses what you've said.

I know that they'll be better at providing verses to back up what's being discussed than I am from memory.

But this isn't a game of my sources vs your sources.

It's me and you. Your claim, and my showing you why your claim is false.

You may find fault with my reasoning/support, as I have found fault with your reasoning/support. And if we know there's an apologetic out there that states more efficiently what we know we're trying to say, there's nothing wrong with them lending a helping hand.


But don't just assume that I already know what your apologetic is going to be and decide to move on. If I've said something you find fault with, say so and support yourself.
 

-Peacemaker-

.45 Cal
My point, and it's nothing against you, me, or anyone else, is that I doubt either one of us have some fresh insight to add to each of our sides of the debate. Unless perhaps you have a PHD in Hebrew studies and even then it's no gaurantee. We both work off the scholarship of our respective faiths. The attention turns to the scholars we trust to interpret and teach us faithfully. Could these men possibly suffer from a spiritual blindness? Our attention also turns to our ability to hear the message of God. If spiritual blindness is a fate has befallen either one of us than this exercise will be fruitless.
Isaiah 44:18

They know not, nor do they discern, for he has shut their eyes, so that they cannot see, and their hearts, so that they cannot understand.

Isaiah 29:10

For the Lord has poured out upon you a spirit of deep sleep, and has closed your eyes (the prophets), and covered your heads (the seers).
 
Last edited:

Harmonious

Well-Known Member
My point, and it's nothing against you, me, or anyone else, is that I doubt either one of us have some fresh insight to add to each of our sides of the debate. Unless perhaps you have a PHD in Hebrew studies and even then it's no gaurantee. We both work off the scholarship of our respective faiths. The attention turns to the scholars we trust to interpret and teach us faithfully. Could these men possibly suffer from a spiritual blindness? Our attention also turns to our ability to hear the message of God. If spiritual blindness is a fate has befallen either one of us than this exercise will be fruitless.
Isaiah 44:18

They know not, nor do they discern, for he has shut their eyes, so that they cannot see, and their hearts, so that they cannot understand.

Isaiah 29:10

For the Lord has poured out upon you a spirit of deep sleep, and has closed your eyes (the prophets), and covered your heads (the seers).
I can respect your desire to agree to disagree, especially when it comes to discrepancies in translation.

But when it comes to reading things in context... I'm rather curious why you haven't responded to Poisonshady's challenges when he has suggested that you put the verses from your supposed "prophecies" back into their proper context, where his main complaint is ripping things out of context.

But...

If you want to leave it at "we'll agree to disagree", that is your choice.
 

-Peacemaker-

.45 Cal
I can respect your desire to agree to disagree, especially when it comes to discrepancies in translation.

But when it comes to reading things in context... I'm rather curious why you haven't responded to Poisonshady's challenges when he has suggested that you put the verses from your supposed "prophecies" back into their proper context, where his main complaint is ripping things out of context.

But...

If you want to leave it at "we'll agree to disagree", that is your choice.

I expended most of my energies on the Isaiah 53 debate. There were about 4-8 individual prophecies in that collection of verses. I thought the Jewish contextual argument was downright ridiculous that the righteous servant could possibly be the nation of Israel. It's preposterous given that Isaiah makes very clear throughout the rest of the chapter that they're quite adulterous. The thought that it pleases God for them to suffer is even more ridiculous given that according to Judaism's reading they're suffering unjustly at the hands of the gentiles. The Jewish assumption is that this suffering will cause sorrow among the gentiles and that sorrow will lead them to repentance and hence "be healed". I guess someone can see the future in Judaism's reading of this passage as they're downright predicting the gentiles will make a choice to repent of anti-Semitism, a choice still a long way off. It's almost like this contextual reading turns Isaiah 53 into Judaism's version of Minority Report with Tom Cruise. If you haven't seen the movie it's all about judging people for crimes they have yet to even commit. "Seers" are able to see the future in this movie and that's how they "know" a crime would be commited so it's sort of similar though not an identical comparison. My thought is that some Rabbis or scholars felt they couldn't say "you know, we don't really know who or what this passage refers to" and they had to fit something in there so they used Israel as a nation. At least say Isaiah 53 sounds nothing like anyone Judaism is familiar with or understands. Not to mention the fact that the NT explicitly speaks of spiritual blindness which prevents people from seeing that Jesus is who he says he is. It says it is only by God's Holy Spirit that it can it be revealed to a person who Jesus is. If that's the case, then the root of all these disagreements isn't intellectual, it's spiritual, and no amount of reasoning can possibly overcome it.
 
Last edited:

esmith

Veteran Member
If those of the Jewish faith do not mind I would like to para-phrase what my Jewish Study Bible says about Isaiah 53. (Note the majority of the following is word for word)

Isaiah 53.1-11 is called the "Surprised Observers' Speech" The notes begin by saying the identity of the speakers who express their shock at the career of the servant in unclear. Are they the kings and nations of the world (see 52:15). If so, then the servant is probably the nation of Israel, and the nations are stunned that such an insignificant and lowly group turns out to have been so important to the divine plan. (See Deut 7.7). Alternatively, the speakers may the the Judeans themselves, in which case the servant is either a pious minority (the ideal Israel, in contrast to the mass of Judeans whose faith and behavior miss the mark God set for them) or some individual within the Israelite community. 4-6: Either the servant suffered on behalf of the speakers (i.e, the guilty were not punished at all), or he suffered along with the guilty, even though he did not share in the guilt of his fellow Israelites. The former idea (i.e., the notion of vicarious suffering) would be unusual for the Bible; the latter idea (the idea of corporate guilt) is not. 8-9:Scholars debate whether these lines describe the literal death of the servant or the severe straits he was in. Exaggerated descriptions of one's plight as equivalent to death is common in the Bible. (see Pss. 18.5-6; 30.4; Jonah 2.3,8. 10:11 The servant is vindicated. Either he is saved from a fate like death, or he is actually described as being resurrected. In the latter case, his resurrection is probably a metaphor for the renewal of the nation at the end of the exile. Similarly, in Ezek. ch37 Israel in exile is described as dead; the nation is brought back to life when the exile ends. 11-12: God's concluding speech. God describes the vindication of the servant, echoing and confirming the themes of the spectators' speech.

Why do you say that the servant can not be the nation of Israel. What makes you assume that God is pleased by the suffering of the servant?

I must agree with you when you say that your disagreements is not based on intellectual reasoning but strictly on a spiritual bases.

I only ask you one question...why can not the Christian beliefs stand on their own, but must be validated by reading into the Hebrew Bible prophecies that foretell of the Christian belief in Jesus.?
 

Harmonious

Well-Known Member
I expended most of my energies on the Isaiah 53 debate. There were about 4-8 individual prophecies in that collection of verses. I thought the Jewish contextual argument was downright ridiculous that the righteous servant could possibly be the nation of Israel. It's preposterous given that Isaiah makes very clear throughout the rest of the chapter that they're quite adulterous. The thought that it pleases God for them to suffer is even more ridiculous given that according to Judaism's reading they're suffering unjustly at the hands of the gentiles. The Jewish assumption is that this suffering will cause sorrow among the gentiles and that sorrow will lead them to repentance and hence "be healed".
I was about to respond with a snarky, snappy response, and thought better of it.

The fact is that it is YOU who are letting your desire for what you wish to be there to get in the way of the fact that God uses this "prophecy about Jews going to sin, and then prophecy about Jews being punished by the nations of the world, and then prophecy about the Jews being redeemed and the nations punished for inordinate cruelty" formula ALL OVER TANACH.

We see this in Leviticus 26, where God promises all kinds of rewards when the Jews obey God's decrees, commandments and statutes, and all kinds of punishments if the Jews rebel, and when it looks like there is no hope left, God says (Leviticus 26:40-45):

Then they will confess their sin and the sin of their forefathers, for the treachery with which they betrayed Me, and also for having behaved toward Me with casualness. I, too will behave toward them with casualness and I will bring them into the land of their enemies - perhaps then their unfeeling heart will be humbled and then they will gain appeasement for their sin. I will remember My covenant with Jacob and also My covenant with Isaac, and also My covenant with Abraham will I remember, and I will remember the Land. The land will be bereft of them; and it will be appeased for its sabbaticals having become desolate of them; and they must gain appeasement for their iniquity because they were revolt3ed by My ordinances and because their spirit rejected My decrees.

But despite all of this, while they will be in the land of their enemies, I will not have been revolted by them nor will I have rejected them to obliterate them, to annul My covenant with them - for I am Hashem, their God. I will remember for them the covenant of the ancients, those whom I have taken out of the land of Egypt before the eyes of the nations, to be God unto them - I am Hashem.

Are you really going to say that this type of thing is beyond the pale of your imagination, when it is right there in Leviticus for your reading pleasure?

God does another one of those interesting formulas in Deuteronomy 32.

God does this all throughout Isaiah, and Jeremiah, and all over the Twelve smaller books of prophets.

I'm not sure why fitting the context of Isaiah Chapters 52, 53, and 54 together give you such a hard time.

I guess someone can see the future in Judaism's reading of this passage as they're downright predicting the gentiles will make a choice to repent of anti-Semitism, a choice still a long way off.
So you say, but it's done all over the place. Poisonshady pointed it out, and you decided that it can't be done.

You want to talk about spiritual blindness. But for some reason, you have a reading comprehension problem, with SIMPLE CONTEXT.

It means SO much to you for this servant to be Jesus that you have NO problem ignoring the fact that it is a simple formula of dire prophecy that God places elsewhere.
 

Harmonious

Well-Known Member
If those of the Jewish faith do not mind I would like to para-phrase what my Jewish Study Bible says about Isaiah 53. (Note the majority of the following is word for word)

Isaiah 53.1-11 is called the "Surprised Observers' Speech" The notes begin by saying the identity of the speakers who express their shock at the career of the servant in unclear. Are they the kings and nations of the world (see 52:15). If so, then the servant is probably the nation of Israel, and the nations are stunned that such an insignificant and lowly group turns out to have been so important to the divine plan. (See Deut 7.7). Alternatively, the speakers may the the Judeans themselves, in which case the servant is either a pious minority (the ideal Israel, in contrast to the mass of Judeans whose faith and behavior miss the mark God set for them) or some individual within the Israelite community. 4-6: Either the servant suffered on behalf of the speakers (i.e, the guilty were not punished at all), or he suffered along with the guilty, even though he did not share in the guilt of his fellow Israelites. The former idea (i.e., the notion of vicarious suffering) would be unusual for the Bible; the latter idea (the idea of corporate guilt) is not. 8-9:Scholars debate whether these lines describe the literal death of the servant or the severe straits he was in. Exaggerated descriptions of one's plight as equivalent to death is common in the Bible. (see Pss. 18.5-6; 30.4; Jonah 2.3,8. 10:11 The servant is vindicated. Either he is saved from a fate like death, or he is actually described as being resurrected. In the latter case, his resurrection is probably a metaphor for the renewal of the nation at the end of the exile. Similarly, in Ezek. ch37 Israel in exile is described as dead; the nation is brought back to life when the exile ends. 11-12: God's concluding speech. God describes the vindication of the servant, echoing and confirming the themes of the spectators' speech.

Why do you say that the servant can not be the nation of Israel. What makes you assume that God is pleased by the suffering of the servant?
Nicely put, and fairly asked.

I must agree with you when you say that your disagreements is not based on intellectual reasoning but strictly on a spiritual bases.
You noticed that, too.
 
Top