Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Spoken like the atheist that you are. Philip, a first century Jew who had read Isaiah, and who was an apostle of Jesus said that Isaiah 53 referred to Jesus. And Jesus, who had read Isaiah said that Isaiah 53 referred to Himself. And your feeble complaints don't change that.
Just a story - that's all. You have a writer who wants Jesus to say certain things and does - gee - go figure. There is no evidence that Jesus or Philip actually said those things. The writer of Acts and the Gospels are just that - a story - to give credibility to their particular view. Get a clue! I would rather stick to the text of Isaiah itself and the orthodox view rather than some sect that developed later that manipulates the text to fit its particular opinion. It should be clear that the view that Is 53 is the original view, not just from the context of Isaiah, but from the view of most Jews at the time and subsequently thereafter. As such your incessant reliance of some later sect's opinions is no more or less relevant but certainly less likely given its timing and bias and the fact that their belief that Jesus was the Messiah drove them to 'FIND' him in the OT - and they certainly did do just that not because he was actually their all along but because texts are ambiguous and can be manipulated in a multitude of ways. As I noted earlier Matthew did this and many of the earlier Jewish believers employed midrash to the text in order to justify that Jesus was 'prophesied' in the OT. So many of the so-called prophecies are of this manipulative type.
Your constant dogma that it is impossible to be Israel is just your bias and unwillingness to grant any possibility to the contrary for fear of your story not being 100% clear. It is a weakness that all religionists like yourself have.
You're the who's repeating already refuted claims. Once again, for all to see, post #182 shows that it is impossible for Israel to be the servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53.
And once again, you continue to ignore the fact that while there were, and are Jews who claim that Isaiah 53 refers to Israel, there were and are Jews who hold to the Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53. In the end, what matters is what the text says. And the text, as shown in post #182 clearly eliminates Israel as the servant in that passage. But since you refuse to actually read post #182, and do so objectively, you will never know and you will continue to bark 'nuh uh' just for the sake of doing so.
The only people on this thread who are denying that Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus are you and Richard, and neither of you are Christian. Oh, and Shiloh who's also not a Christian. For Christians, the simple fact that both Philip and Jesus Himself said that Isaiah 53 refers to Him should be enough. But I spelled out clearly in post #182 why Israel can't be the servant to whom Isaiah 53 refers.
Just because we are not Christians we can't comprehend plain English [or Hebrew or Greek]?...
Just a story - that's all. You have a writer who wants Jesus to say certain things and does - gee - go figure. There is no evidence that Jesus or Philip actually said those things. The writer of Acts and the Gospels are just that - a story - to give credibility to their particular view. Get a clue! I would rather stick to the text of Isaiah itself and the orthodox view rather than some sect that developed later that manipulates the text to fit its particular opinion. It should be clear that the view that Is 53 is the original view, not just from the context of Isaiah, but from the view of most Jews at the time and subsequently thereafter. As such your incessant reliance of some later sect's opinions is no more or less relevant but certainly less likely given its timing and bias and the fact that their belief that Jesus was the Messiah drove them to 'FIND' him in the OT - and they certainly did do just that not because he was actually their all along but because texts are ambiguous and can be manipulated in a multitude of ways. As I noted earlier Matthew did this and many of the earlier Jewish believers employed midrash to the text in order to justify that Jesus was 'prophesied' in the OT. So many of the so-called prophecies are of this manipulative type.
Your constant dogma that it is impossible to be Israel is just your bias and unwillingness to grant any possibility to the contrary for fear of your story not being 100% clear. It is a weakness that all religionists like yourself have.
This is the typical atheistic, skeptical reaction. Just deny it and claim its just a story. If you're going to claim that Acts is just a story, then if you are to be consistent you must claim that Isaiah is just a story, in which case all you have is a character in one story (Acts) stating that the servant of the Lord in another story (Isaiah) is the Messiah with reference to Jesus. But this thread is not going to debate whether Acts is just a story with no historical reality.
Again, a honest and objective reading of not only my post #182, but of the scriptures which I referenced show that it is impossible for Israel to be the servant that is referred to in Isaiah 53. And none of your impotent and biased arguments negate that fact.
Once again, I have shown in post #182 why the contrasts between Israel as the servant of the Lord, and the servant in Isaiah 53 makes it impossible for Israel to be the servant in Isaiah 53. It's right there for the reading in post #182. And not bothering to even read it and to do so objectively is dishonest.
What I find insulting is not that you were once a Christian but no longer are, but that the idea that you were anything like me personally.
What?...You figure if you keep repeating the same thing that Shiloh will be convinced?...
Yes, it does make it impossible for Isaiah 53 to refer to Israel. The attributes of Israel are not the attributes of the servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53.
And let's not forget that the Rabbis view of Messiah, granting that interpretation of Isaiah 53 in the Talmud, is nothing like that of the Christian view of Messiah and Jesus particularly.
I've already shown you some. First, from the Bible itself, Jesus Himself in quoting a part of Isaiah 53 said that it applied to Him, and Philip, in preaching Jesus from Isaiah 53 to the eunuch said it applied to Him. The verses were given in the first post of this thread.
The Babylonian Talmud - Sanhedrin 98b gives a Messianic interpretation to Isaiah 53 though there is no agreement on who the Messiah is. Nevertheless it gives a Messianic interpretation to Isaiah 53 and NOT a nationalistic interpretation.
Not all Jewish sources which give a Messianic interpretation to Isaiah 53 believe that Jesus is the Messiah, but they do say that it refers to the Messiah rather than Israel.
And for reasons already shown in post #182 it is impossible for Israel to be the servant that is referred to in Isaiah 53. Does Isaiah ever refer to Israel as the Messiah? Of course he does, and I have provided the passages in this thread in which the servant does refer to Israel. But the servant in Isaiah 53 is not and cannot be Israel. It refers to the Messiah.
You really didn't read that link that you posted, did you?...
And let's not forget that the Rabbis view of Messiah, granting that interpretation of Isaiah 53 in the Talmud, is nothing like that of the Christian view of Messiah and Jesus particularly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
Indeed...
Considering that I already stated in post #182 and elsewhere that Jews who gave a Messianic interpretation to Isaiah 53, as for instance in Sanhedrin 98b of the Babylonian Talmud, didn't agree on who the Messiah was, just what do you think you are stating that I haven't already?
You really didn't read that link that you posted, did you?...
Empty comments like these which are all too typical of you, and which are backed up by nothing, amount to trolling. And that is all that you are doing.
All anyone has to do is not be fooled by someone thinking that Acts is the standard by which we interpret Isaiah 53. If anything it is a biased source and just another opinion. There is nothing special about a group of people who believed that Jesus was the Messiah and then wrote letters that reflected that belief and tried to shore it up by interpreting passages from the OT to fit that belief - whoopi-do!
All anyone has to do is is read Isaiah not Acts to figure out what the hell it is talking about.
And one might want to read the real Hebrew Tanakh and not an edited version called The Old Testament...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
