Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Isaiah 53 speaks about ISRAEL, and not about the messiah.
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 46 of 176 (715516)
01-06-2014 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by arachnophilia
01-02-2014 9:01 PM


Re: breath and dust
arach writes:
well, no. it uses the words "law of moses", sure. but it bears very little relation to it. and in fact, much of the concepts are utterly antithetical to the law of moses. like, uh, sacrificing your only begotten child. there's a word for that in the law, and it's "abomination".
We agree that God strictly forbade the Israelites to perform human sacrifices of any kind. Proof texts are not necessary I think.
I think we also agree that one of the reasons God judged the Canaanite nations so harshly was because of their child sacrifices.
Does the New Testament say that God sacrificed His Son ? I think I would have to say yes:
quote:
"Indeed, He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not also with Him freely give us all things." (Romans 8:32)
The "abomination" of child sacrifice is in mankind doing what only God would do. This is the reason why God commanded that animals should be used in the offerings and not children as the Canaanite nations did.
When God wanted to prove Abraham's devotion by telling him to offer up his son, his only son, the son of the promise which was long in coming, God STOPPED Abraham and pointed to the ram in the thicket. The animal ram was provided for the sacrifice and Abraham called the place "The Lord Will Provide" Jehovah - jireh (Gen.22:14).
God will provide the unique offering.
Therefore it was an abomination for Abraham or the Canaanites to offer human sacrifice.
From the angle of God being triune, the offering of the Son of God was God offering Himself, for the Son is God.
The obedience of Abraham proved Abraham loved God more than God's blessing, namely Abraham's only son. The obedience of Jesus Christ manifests God in a man loving man more than loving Himself.
The Son of God voluntarily made Himself an offering for sin as the prophecy in Isaiah foretold:
quote:
"But Jehovah was pleased to crush Him, to afflict Him with grief. When He [the Suffering Servant] makes Himself an offering for sin ..." (Isaiah 53:10a)
On one hand concerning the Trinity, God gave His Son, no doubt.
On the other hand concerning the Trinity this was God in Christ reconciling the world to Himself.
In John, the Gospel focusing on Jesus being God incarnate, it records His stepping forward of His own to be captured and crucified:
quote:
"Jesus therefore, knowing all the things that were coming upon Him, went forth and said to them, Whom do you seek?
They answered Him, Jesus the Nazarene. He said to them, I am ... When therefore He said to them, I am, they drew back and fell to the ground.
Then again He asked them, Whom do you seek ? And they said, Jesus the Nazarene. Jesus answered, I told you that I am; if therefore you seek Me, let these go away." (See John 18:4-8)

The Man Jesus of Nazareth confessing "I am" was the confession that He was God incarnate. The sheer power of His pronouncement drove them back to fall upon the ground. For this was the same God Who had said to Moses "I AM THAT I AM" in Exodus 3:14 .
This was the One who was the "I AM" before Abraham had come into existence (John 8:58). God as a Man in Christ voluntarily offers Himself - "When He makes Himself an offering for sin" (Isa. 53:10)
This offered Son has the authority to lay down His life and to take it up again.
quote:
"For this reason the Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it up again. No one takes it away from Me, but I lay it down of Myself.
I have the authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it again. This commandment I received from My Father." (John 10:17,18)

I do not count this as a parent pitted against a child, sacrificing it for crop growth or fertility. Yes, I agree from one angle we have God giving His Son. But from another angle - "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not accounting their offenses to them ... " (2 Cor. 5:19b)
" - the Father is not pitted against the Son. Christ willingly laid down his life and then took it up again (John 10:15,17-18). God sent his Son into the world (John 3:17) to bear Israel's and humanity's curse and alienation on the cross. Yet, God himself came into the world (John 9:39) to save it. With three wills of Father, Son, and Spirit united as one, the Triune God gave his very self to rescue and redeem humankind: "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself." (2 Cor. 5:19).
- Paul Copan
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by arachnophilia, posted 01-02-2014 9:01 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by arachnophilia, posted 01-07-2014 11:32 PM jaywill has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 47 of 176 (715628)
01-07-2014 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by arachnophilia
12-31-2013 8:41 PM


Re: christians: don't read the OT!
GDR writes:
I also think that it is a mistake for Christians to look for messianic proof texts in the OT.
arachnophilla writes:
well, not if atheism is the goal.
Not at all. If you read what I read earlier in the thread it is about taking the whole narrative and putting Jesus in the context of that narrative as opposed to picking out specific verses on their own.
The Jews at the time were primarily looking for the messiah to be a warrior king leading them against their enemies and certainly a case can be made for such a messiah in the OT. However, at the same time there is the message of a servant king that can be found there as well.
We can read the "Sermon on the Mount" and see where Jesus continuously refers back to the Hebrew Scriptures and expands on them, clarifies and even corrects them.
arachophilla writes:
how much of it, exactly, have you read? because i see a bunch of rather disjoint texts and subtexts, all with their own (sometimes conflicting) ideologies and theologies, and their own socio-political points to make. to see an overarching pictures is a bit like seeing pictures in the clouds. if you squint your eyes a lot and imagine really heard, it kind of looks like a jesus.
but when you begin examining the details -- like looking for justification of jesus as the jewish messiah -- it just all kind of falls apart.
for instance, jesus rode into jerusalem on a donkey (zecharian 9:9)... but then didn't sit on the throne, didn't end all wars, and didn't rule the world (zechariah 9:10). which part do you think is important for being the messiah? because i could totally fly to israel, rent a donkey, and ride into jerusalem if that's all it takes. i would say it's the other stuff that defines the messiah. wouldn't you?
and it really just gets more troubling from there. for instance, the entire substitute sacrifice ideology is completely untenable (and worse yet, unnecessary) with a solid reading of the law, where no man may die for another's sin, death isn't demanded of anything except the most heinous social crimes, and offerings are offered instead of sacrifices demanded.
so... no. don't go looking for prooftexts in the OT. because if you go looking, you'll only find disproof texts.
I suppose I've read all of it and right now I'm going through a series that covers the whole thing. (I'm up to Job.)
In the end it all boils down to the whether or not the bodily resurrection of Jesus is historically correct. If not then all that you say is true. If however it is true, as I believe, then we have to consider it differently.
I God resurrected Jesus then that is a vindication of Jesus' message and messianic claims. If however Jesus was not resurrected then He becomes another Gandhi except one with a messianic complex.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by arachnophilia, posted 12-31-2013 8:41 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by arachnophilia, posted 01-07-2014 11:45 PM GDR has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 48 of 176 (715641)
01-07-2014 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by jaywill
01-04-2014 11:59 AM


Re: breath and dust
jaywill writes:
arachnophilia writes:
i take it you think child sacrifice isn't an abomination, utterly abhorrent to yahweh, in the bible?
If you're interested in truthful discussion you might not assume anything until I express my opinion about your paragraph.
so, just the one time was okay, then? help me out here: what is your position on killing your only begotten son for the purposes of atonement?
Edited by arachnophilia, : missing tag

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by jaywill, posted 01-04-2014 11:59 AM jaywill has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 49 of 176 (715643)
01-07-2014 10:58 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by jaywill
01-04-2014 12:58 PM


genealogy
jaywill writes:
I never said I doubted. I did allude to aspects of prophecy not yet fulfilled.
oh. then you doubt that jesus is the messiah, because that prophecy is unfulfilled?
Today in the church age the New Testament locates Jesus Christ in two places:
so... not literally on the throne of a united israel, in jerusalem?
You are searching for problems where none exist.
you are using justifications that don't make sense. this is a bit like the "you won a car... in spirit" argument again. no, see, there's no problem. the car exists within you, and you'll get it when you die! what do you mean you don't see a car? you're looking for problems where none exists.
The prophecy you allude to from Jeremiah 22:28,30 only disqualifies Jesus Christ from being the Messiah if Joseph, a descendent of Jeconiah, was His physical father.
indeed, he can only be king if he is a literal son of david.
Since He was born of the virgin Mary and is related to David through the blood line of Mary and not Joseph, Jeremiah 22:28,30 does not disqualify Jesus from being that Messianic descendent of David.
sure. but not being a son of david, through the patriarchal lineage does. being the physical son of mary just makes him jewish; it can't make him king.
From Nathan of whom the virgin Mary came who was not disqualified to be a mother of a Messiah.
except that the right to the throne does not go as far back as nathan. zedekiah, the last rightful king of judah, would have passed that right onto his children, but they were all put to death. the line then backs up to the next available son of josiah (after jehoahaz, jehoiakim, and zedekiah), which would be his firstborn, johanan. as far as i'm aware, that's the name you'd have to see in the genealogy of the messiah, presuming he had kids before he died. if not, you start looking for the next available son in the previous generation. someone had kids before they died... and nathan would be before the israel/judah split. meaning you'd have to consider all the unrighteous kings of israel and their sons before nathan. and after then, all of solomon's children by his, what was it, 1000 wives? nathan's lineage is like 10,000 places away.
You're dusting off and re-trying failed arguments long ago debunked.
arguing with christians: everything that's not about the messiah is a messianic prophecy, and the verses that specifically define the concept aren't.
That is your unbelief that Christ will have a second coming as He in this church age imparts His life as Holy Spirit into those responding to the Good News of His resurrection and Lordship.
okay, so jesus will be the messiah?
The disqualification of sons of Jeconiah do not stop Jesus of Nazareth from being the promised Davidic Messiah.
it does if jesus is a son of jeconiah, yes. note that he appears in matthew's genealogy.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by jaywill, posted 01-04-2014 12:58 PM jaywill has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 50 of 176 (715645)
01-07-2014 11:23 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by jaywill
01-04-2014 3:35 PM


messiahs and satans
jaywill writes:
Therefore you can hardly accuse John of attempting to "gloss over" a Lukian focus of Jesus being a typical human man.
no, i was accusing you of glossing over the individual focus of the different gospels. i wasn't denying that they overlap. they are not totally foreign and independent works. in fact, part of what tells us about the different emphases is sections where they do overlap.
It is rather like separating salt from pepper with boxing gloves.
It is pretty mysterious.
not exactly, no. and chalking it up to "it's a mystery" is the opposite of knowing. don't you want to know how these stories came down to us? isn't the history of your sacred text interesting to you? i find it fascinating, but you claim to value it far more than i do. perhaps it's because you value it, and you'd rather not know?
What exactly the so-called Q document was, no one knows for sure.
Q is a hypothetical source document for the quotations of christ. for the record, i don't happen to think Q was ever a real document. i think matthew is basically an extensive re-write of mark, and luke used matthew/mark and some secondary sources.
Just because the birth narrative is omitted from Mark and John is no reason to assume that they were "unfamiliar" with it.
you think they'd just leave out something that fantastical? that's almost worse: it means they either thought it was unimportant, or thought it was false. "unfamiliar" was charitable.
The hilarity you speak of I know nothing of.
that's a post for another day. matthew seemingly intentionally misquotes prophets, misattributes lots of quotes to isaiah, and tends to only quote the parts of the prophecies that emphasize the "average" qualities the messiah will have prior to being king. for instance, he has jesus ride two donkeys in jerusalem. if you read zechariah, it tells you that the messiah will ride a donkey into jerusalem (just one, but it says it twice in standard poetic style), to emphasize that the messiah will be unknown and average. matthew doesn't quote the very next verse, which says the messiah will end all wars and rule over the entire world. so the messiah checklist for jesus goes like this:
[X] average guy
[ ] ruling the world
[ ] ending all war
what's matthew saying? that jesus is an average guy... and not the messiah. matthew is a satire, that to jewish eyes emphasizes all of the things that disqualifies jesus as being the messiah, designed to lead you back to source texts that specifically contrast things the messiah will do with things jesus didn't do. pretty much every prophecy in matthew is screwed up in one of the ways i listed above.
You are still being given time to turn and believe in repentance. Then when the end times comes you will not have to join Satan in his miserable destiny.
okay, so, the satan is not defeated yet?
From the book of Genesis this serpent (the Devil) IS one to be defeated.
wrong serpent. the serpent in revelation, "the devil" is a great dragon. you're looking for a dragon in a garden snake. look a chapter earlier, there's a mention of a dragon there. there's also one in job, and in the psalms (try number 74). these speak of a great serpent defeated by yahweh at the beginning of time. and this serpent if the model for the story in revelation.
The night I called the Lord Jesus to turn my life over to Him, I witnessed something of the destroying of the devil subjectively in my life.
like, with your eyes? have you talked to someone about this?
The sentence has been given. The execution awaits a corporate executioner of matured sons of God.
check's in the mail. sincerely, the christian god.
man, at least the jewish god keeps his promises on a relatively short time scale, or just outright breaks them and usually tells you why. but this christian god, he sure likes to keep us on the hook.
The Angel of the Lord can be AN ADVERSARY to someone without being THE Devil or Satan.
those are the same words.
the definite article, in hebrew, just means "this particular adversary" and shouldn't really be inferred to act like a name. there are thoughts, based partly on the above verse, that many angels would step in to fill this role, as it became necessary. that is, being "the" or "a" satan was a task (it's used as a verb here) and not a title.
I never once considered that the angel with the drawn sword invisibly standing before Balaam the greedy prophet, was the Devil.
good, because he's not the devil. he's a satan. are you starting to appreciate the difference now?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by jaywill, posted 01-04-2014 3:35 PM jaywill has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 51 of 176 (715646)
01-07-2014 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by jaywill
01-06-2014 11:44 AM


so off topic we're on topic.
jaywill writes:
We agree that God strictly forbade the Israelites to perform human sacrifices of any kind. Proof texts are not necessary I think.
progress!
I think we also agree that one of the reasons God judged the Canaanite nations so harshly was because of their child sacrifices.
one of many reasons.
Does the New Testament say that God sacrificed His Son ? I think I would have to say yes:
okay.
The "abomination" of child sacrifice is in mankind doing what only God would do.
ah. okay.
this is decent logic on some stuff -- yahweh controls life and death, and we're not supposed to go killing people without his command. things in the mosaic covenant are binding only for the people of israel, yes, and not god. but you really think that god does stuff that he says, "this disgusts me" about?
"But Jehovah was pleased to crush Him, to afflict Him with grief. When He [the Suffering Servant] makes Himself an offering for sin ..." (Isaiah 53:10a)
whoa, did we just get so far off topic that we got back on topic? that's... never happened before.
in any case, the suffering servant will,
quote:
see his seed, prolong his days,
so, no. isaiah 53 speaks about israel, and not about the messiah.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by jaywill, posted 01-06-2014 11:44 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by jaywill, posted 01-08-2014 8:56 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 52 of 176 (715648)
01-07-2014 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by GDR
01-07-2014 9:02 PM


Re: christians: don't read the OT!
GDR writes:
If you read what I read earlier in the thread it is about taking the whole narrative and putting Jesus in the context of that narrative as opposed to picking out specific verses on their own.
yep, and that's a fantastic way to discover atheism. or maybe judaism. because the context -- if you're honestly reading it -- isn't very jesus compatible. which is probably why the people most educated in that context are still called "jews" and "christians".
The Jews at the time were primarily looking for the messiah to be a warrior king leading them against their enemies and certainly a case can be made for such a messiah in the OT. However, at the same time there is the message of a servant king that can be found there as well.
the problem is that there's no much case for anything else. there's no carpenter executed as a heretic, but we'll call him a king in a touchy-feely-save-your-soul kind of way. messiahs exist to solve real problems. the models for the messiah -- moses, david, etc -- all did real things.
I suppose I've read all of it and right now I'm going through a series that covers the whole thing. (I'm up to Job.)
i would heartily suggest two things:
firstly, that you'd either approach it entirely honestly, or not at all. by "entirely honestly" i mean, read it like you've never heard of it before. question everything. read comparative external sources. do your very best to let go of preconceptions about what it's supposed to say or mean, because it frequently doesn't say or mean what people tell you it does.
and secondly, that you either find a really good translation (i prefer the newer JPS tanakh) or preferably learn a bit of the language.
In the end it all boils down to the whether or not the bodily resurrection of Jesus is historically correct. If not then all that you say is true. If however it is true, as I believe, then we have to consider it differently.
well... no. the problem that christianity is untenable from a jewish standpoint doesn't go away. the problem gets worse if jesus was real and was really resurrected. it means all this jewish stuff it's supposedly based on is wrong.
If however Jesus was not resurrected then He becomes another Gandhi except one with a messianic complex.
in some ways, gandhi would have been a better candidate for a messiah anyways. gandhi was influential in keeping india together, and freeing it from english rule. after jesus's death, rome razed the temple in jerusalem, dissolved judah, and still continued to occupy the area. if jesus had done anything like gandhi, there wouldn't be debate about whether or not he's the messiah. he'd fit the jewish requirements just fine.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by GDR, posted 01-07-2014 9:02 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by jaywill, posted 01-08-2014 5:27 PM arachnophilia has replied
 Message 57 by GDR, posted 01-08-2014 9:00 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 53 of 176 (715667)
01-08-2014 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by arachnophilia
01-07-2014 11:32 PM


Re: so off topic we're on topic.
progress!
Do you think I recently figured this out ?
It was always evident to me that God forbade human sacrifice.
this is decent logic on some stuff -- yahweh controls life and death, and we're not supposed to go killing people without his command.
However Genesis 9:6 concerning capital punishment was a general command.
things in the mosaic covenant are binding only for the people of israel, yes, and not god. but you really think that god does stuff that he says, "this disgusts me" about?
Israel was the one and only unique theocratic nation. But too many moral (not ritualistic ) aspects of the law are applicable to all men. The same moral laws, I think, are said to be written on our hearts.
so, no. isaiah 53 speaks about israel, and not about the messiah.
No. Isaiah 53 is about a Suffering Servant dying on behalf of Israel.
We seem to be down to chat mode here. Feel free to shoulder the burden to explain a little more.
Isaiah depicts a number of servants of God - Isaiah the prophet himself, Cyrus the king, Israel the nation, and the Suffering Servant. All of them point to Christ. The Suffering Servant of chapter 53 probably most strongly does so.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by arachnophilia, posted 01-07-2014 11:32 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by arachnophilia, posted 01-08-2014 5:46 PM jaywill has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 54 of 176 (715724)
01-08-2014 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by arachnophilia
01-07-2014 11:45 PM


Re: christians: don't read the OT!
arach writes:
yep, and that's a fantastic way to discover atheism. or maybe judaism.
I am a bit confused. In your criticism of the Christian Gospel which hat do you like to wear - that of an atheist or that of a Tanach believing Jewish theist ?
Or do you just use one set of complaints to act as a kind of "back up" Plan B set of objections if your primary ones show up weak ?
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by arachnophilia, posted 01-07-2014 11:45 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by arachnophilia, posted 01-08-2014 5:50 PM jaywill has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 55 of 176 (715725)
01-08-2014 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by jaywill
01-08-2014 8:56 AM


theocracy
jaywill writes:
Israel was the one and only unique theocratic nation.
well, no. israel was neither theocratic, nor unique. a theocracy does not have independent kings and priests; israel and judah did. it's not really even until josiah -- the second last generation of jewish kings -- that a king even takes a dramatic religious stance. do not mistake the bible's religious adoration of certain kings (david, solomon) and the traditions regarding their authorship of certain books (spoiler alert: they didn't write those books) to mean that the kings were actually religious figures themselves. in fact, most of the book of kings is condemnation of the kings of judah and especially post-schism israel. this alone should tell you that there is a division between church and state in ancient judah.
an nearest we can tell from archaeology, judah and especially israel had religious systems that were functionally identical to their neighbors.
No. Isaiah 53 is about a Suffering Servant dying on behalf of Israel.
We seem to be down to chat mode here. Feel free to shoulder the burden to explain a little more.
sure. israel (here meaning the people, not the norther kingdom) is being condemned to destruction because of the sins of the people.
Isaiah depicts a number of servants of God - Isaiah the prophet himself, Cyrus the king, Israel the nation, and the Suffering Servant. All of them point to Christ.
in that none of them are actually christ, and none of them exactly fit the description of jesus? um. okay i guess?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by jaywill, posted 01-08-2014 8:56 AM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by jaywill, posted 01-09-2014 1:35 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 56 of 176 (715726)
01-08-2014 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by jaywill
01-08-2014 5:27 PM


Re: christians: don't read the OT!
jaywill writes:
I am a bit confused. In your criticism of the Christian Gospel which hat do you like to wear - that of an atheist or that of a Tanach believing Jewish theist ?
i wasn't aware i had to wear a hat.
i'm interested in the text as literature. i don't care for belief, or describing it.
Or do you just use one set of complaints to act as a kind of "back up" Plan B set of objections if your primary ones show up weak ?
no, my statement above is that many people, upon discovering the disparity between judaism and christianity tend to drop faith altogether. though just rejecting the christian addition is a reasonable, if uncommon, solution as well. i wasn't particularly advocating either position.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by jaywill, posted 01-08-2014 5:27 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by jaywill, posted 01-09-2014 12:32 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 57 of 176 (715760)
01-08-2014 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by arachnophilia
01-07-2014 11:45 PM


Re: christians: don't read the OT!
arachnophilla writes:
yep, and that's a fantastic way to discover atheism. or maybe judaism. because the context -- if you're honestly reading it -- isn't very jesus compatible. which is probably why the people most educated in that context are still called "jews" and "christians".
the problem is that there's no much case for anything else. there's no carpenter executed as a heretic, but we'll call him a king in a touchy-feely-save-your-soul kind of way. messiahs exist to solve real problems. the models for the messiah -- moses, david, etc -- all did real things.
I understand what you're saying but, (you might be surprised ) I disagree. Certainly the ancient Jews had a very different idea of what a messiah would be like than what Jesus brought to them. However, with the benefit of hind sight, which is how Peter, Paul etc worked out their theology, there is a fairly clear picture of of a messianic Jesus as understand by the early Christians even before they were actually called Christians, drawn from the Hebrew Scriptures.
It does of course require that the Scriptures be understood as having been God reaching out to us through the imperfect hearts, minds and imaginations of the authors, that had all of their individual and cultural influences at play in what they wrote.
If we get a good reference Bible it is clear that most of what we have recorded of the teachings of Jesus involves a reference to their scriptures. Even to the guys on the road to Emmaus he explained how what He was and had been doing was a fulfillment of the Hebrew Scriptures.
The Jews expected that a messiah would lead them in battle, and give them victory over their enemies. Jesus said yes but it doesn't look like what you think. He essentially said the the enemy isn't the Romans, but evil itself, and the way to defeat evil as personified by the Romans is by loving the enemy, turning the other cheek and going the extra mile.
The Jews expected the messiah to rebuild the Temple and Jesus said yes but again it isn't like what you expect. Jesus told them that He would be rebuild the Temple in the hearts of those that followed Him.
arachnophilla writes:
i would heartily suggest two things:
firstly, that you'd either approach it entirely honestly, or not at all. by "entirely honestly" i mean, read it like you've never heard of it before. question everything. read comparative external sources. do your very best to let go of preconceptions about what it's supposed to say or mean, because it frequently doesn't say or mean what people tell you it does.
and secondly, that you either find a really good translation (i prefer the newer JPS tanakh) or preferably learn a bit of the language.
I think I read it with the idea that I am open to forming new preconceptions. (Does that work for you if you agree to disregard the temporal ambiguity? )
I am actually using a series of books called the The Old Testament for Everyone by John Goldingay. It is his own translation and follows on a series done by NT Wright called The New Testament for Everyone. Here is a link to the study of Job where I am now. Job for Everyone Much of the series is still to be published.
arachnophilla writes:
well... no. the problem that christianity is untenable from a jewish standpoint doesn't go away. the problem gets worse if jesus was real and was really resurrected. it means all this jewish stuff it's supposedly based on is wrong.
Not really. I'd say more misunderstood than wrong. Certainly Jesus understood that everything He was doing was being done in the context of the Jewish Scriptures. Jesus was very much a Jew and very much immersed in the Jewish culture. Essentially Christianity is a Jewish sect.
arachnophilla writes:
in some ways, gandhi would have been a better candidate for a messiah anyways. gandhi was influential in keeping india together, and freeing it from english rule. after jesus's death, rome razed the temple in jerusalem, dissolved judah, and still continued to occupy the area. if jesus had done anything like gandhi, there wouldn't be debate about whether or not he's the messiah. he'd fit the jewish requirements just fine.
That is closer to what the ancient Jews expected but quite different from the way that Jesus saw Himself fulfilling the Scriptures. On top of that of course Gandhi didn't return in a resurrected body.
Edited by GDR, : typo

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by arachnophilia, posted 01-07-2014 11:45 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by arachnophilia, posted 02-07-2014 6:59 PM GDR has replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 58 of 176 (715767)
01-09-2014 12:32 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by arachnophilia
01-08-2014 5:50 PM


Re: christians: don't read the OT!
arach writes:
i'm interested in the text as literature. i don't care for belief, or describing it.
You don't care for belief ? You seem to care rather consistently for describing why, say, my belief is invalid here, there, and here again.
You seem to care when studying the Bible renders a typical Christian belief. Ie. you care enough to demonstrate regarding Isaiah 53 as a prophecy concerning a Redeemer offering Himself for man's atonement before God, is unwarranted belief.
quote:
"Because He poured out His life [soul] unto death and was numbered with the transgressors, Yet He alone bore the sins of many and interceded for the transgressors." (v.12b)
A great deal of care seems to suddenly kick in when it is suggested that Jesus Christ is the one who taught that He "alone" bore the sins of "many" and interceded for the many transgressors - from hanging upon His cross He interceded -
quote:
"And Jesus said, Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." (Luke 23:34)
Do you care much that we not regard such a man as Jesus as the referent of Isaiah 53's prophecy ?
If you think the text more obviously carries the meaning that Israel is dying an atoning death for Israel, I think you run into problems with that interpretation. It would not make sense here:
quote:
"That He was cut off out of the land of the living for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due ? And they assigned His grave with the wicked." (v.8b)
If the stroke was due his people then how could his people bear the stroke in some kind of substitutionary way ? If the people are deserving of punishment then how can they themselves be innocently punished on behalf of themselves ? In that case they would be simply receiving what was due to them.
Isaiah further says God has caused the iniquity of "us all" to fall upon Him.
quote:
"We all like sheep have gone astray, each one of us has turned to his own way, And Jehovah has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him." (v.6)
If "we all" have sinned then for the iniquity to fall upon "we all" is not substitutionary. So Israel cannot be an atoning offering on behalf of Israel. It is not logical.
no, my statement above is that many people, upon discovering the disparity between judaism and christianity tend to drop faith altogether. though just rejecting the christian addition is a reasonable, if uncommon, solution as well. i wasn't particularly advocating either position.
I don't know too many people as you describe, that is, that were either believers in Judaism or believers in the New Testament, that gave up faith in God altogether.
A "new covenant" is predicted by the prophet Jeremiah in Jeremiah 31:31-34 with the theocratic nation. That indicates a covenant of like impact and significance as the covenant of Law given at Sinai:
quote:
"Indeed, days are coming, declares Jehovah, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah,
Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by their hand to bring them out from the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was thier Husband, declares Jehovah." (Jer. 31:31)

God speaks of a new covenant not like the former given through Moses at Mt. Sinai.
We have 27 books dedicated to one extraordinary Jesus of Nazareth, teaching that in His broken body and shed blood on His cross a "new covenant" is established. We ought to take Jesus seriously, I think, seeing He was so totally extraordinary and absolute for the will of His "Father".
quote:
" And similarly the cup after they had dined, saying, This cup is THE NEW COVENANT established in My blood, which is being poured out for you." (Luke 22:20 my emphasis)
"And He took the cup and gave thanks, and He gave it to His disciples and said, Drink of it, all of you,
For this is My blood of THE COVENANT, which is being poured out for many for forgiveness of sins." (Matt. 26:27,28 my emphasis)

I advocate the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus as germane to the fulfillment of the prophet Jeremiah's prophecy of a "new covenant" established by God.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.
Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by arachnophilia, posted 01-08-2014 5:50 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by arachnophilia, posted 02-07-2014 7:15 PM jaywill has not replied

  
jaywill
Member (Idle past 1941 days)
Posts: 4519
From: VA USA
Joined: 12-05-2005


Message 59 of 176 (715771)
01-09-2014 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by arachnophilia
01-08-2014 5:46 PM


Re: theocracy
jaywill:
Israel was the one and only unique theocratic nation.
arach:
well, no. israel was neither theocratic, nor unique. a theocracy does not have independent kings and priests; israel and judah did.
I still regard ancient Israel, before and after the divide, as the unique collective national theocracy.
quote:
"Jehovah will establish you as a holy people to Himself, as He swore to you, if you keep the commandments of Jehovah your God and walk in His ways. And all the peoples of the earth will see that you are called by Jehovah's name, and they will be afraid of you." (Deut. 28:9,10)
"And it is Jehovah who has today declared you to be a people for His personal treasure, even as He promised you; and that you will keep all His commandments; And that He will set you high above all the nations which He has made, for praise and for a name and for honor; and that you will be a holy people to Jehovah your God, as He has spoken." (Deut. 26:18,19)

Many other passages show this unique aspect of Israel both before and after the split following Rehaboam.
it's not really even until josiah -- the second last generation of jewish kings -- that a king even takes a dramatic religious stance. do not mistake the bible's religious adoration of certain kings (david, solomon) and the traditions regarding their authorship of certain books (spoiler alert: they didn't write those books) to mean that the kings were actually religious figures themselves.
Deuteronomy is way before Josiah the king. And even prior to that is God's promises in Genesis to obtaining a theocratic nations through Abraham's seed through which all the families of the earth would be blessed. It is more than adoration of individual kings. It is God's speaking of the people of Israel and Judah as a whole.
Before any kings were established God was their King in the Five Books of Moses, Joshua, Judges and as it was taught in First and Second Samuel.
in fact, most of the book of kings is condemnation of the kings of judah and especially post-schism israel. this alone should tell you that there is a division between church and state in ancient judah.
Through good kings and bad kings, through unity and through schism Israel was God peculiar treasure for His personal possession. They had a mission to be a light to the Gentiles.
an nearest we can tell from archaeology, judah and especially israel had religious systems that were functionally identical to their neighbors.
That they desired often to be like the surrounding nations, as the Scripture indicates, did not make them not God's unique theocratic nation. In many cases this desire to be like the surrounding nations was their moral and spiritual downfall.
They were often disciplined. But they remained God's unique nation.
At times God reminded them that He loved other peoples and nations.
At times God reminded them that He even delivered other nations from oppression. They were not the only ones so delivered from oppression. However, these humbling lessons did not change His special covenant relationship with them.
Concerning Isaiah 53:
sure. israel (here meaning the people, not the norther kingdom) is being condemned to destruction because of the sins of the people.
The essence of Isaiah 53 is that One innocent, righteous, and not guilty is bearing the chastisement on behalf of those who are not. Any kind of interpretation that they sinful are suffering FOR the sinful is incongruous to the chapter.
jaywill:
Isaiah depicts a number of servants of God - Isaiah the prophet himself, Cyrus the king, Israel the nation, and the Suffering Servant. All of them point to Christ.
arach:
in that none of them are actually christ, and none of them exactly fit the description of jesus? um. okay i guess?
None of them are Jesus. But in one aspect or another they are a preview of Jesus as a foreshadow. Christ is really the center of the divine revelation of the whole Bible.
Even Cyrus the king of Persia is used to be a figure of Christ as the One bringing back the people and rebuilding the broken down house of God.
Of course in ALL aspects we cannot say Cyrus is exactly like Christ.
And the same would go for Moses, Aaron, Joshua, David, Solomon, Hezekiah to name a few.
In their positive aspects they were pre-figures of Jesus Christ.
This is how Jesus spoke concerning some of these Old Testament characters:
quote:
" ... she [the queen of the south] came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something more than Solomon is here." (Matt. 12:42)
" .. they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something more than Jonah is here." (v.41)

Sometimes there is no explicit mention of a Old Testament figure as a type of Christ. But it seems pretty obvious. For example Joseph sold by his brothers and three days in a pit, raised from suffering and oppression to be ruler of Egypt. His own persecuting brothers failing to recognize him until Joseph revealed himself to them.
Isaiah 53's Suffering Servant certainly points to Jesus Christ. And it is interesting that Isaiah begins the prophecy with a alarming cry that though the prophets have spoken, no one, for a time, believes their truthful message from God:
quote:
"Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of Jehovah been revealed?
For He grew up like a tender plant before Him, and like a rot out of dry ground. etc. etc." (Isaiah 53:1,2)

The period of unbelief can be over for those who look back now and realize the prophet was speaking about the Son of God.
You have Him dying in verse 9 and 10. Yet you have Him brought back to life in verse 11.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by arachnophilia, posted 01-08-2014 5:46 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by arachnophilia, posted 02-07-2014 7:31 PM jaywill has not replied

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 60 of 176 (716458)
01-17-2014 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by GDR
10-20-2013 7:59 AM


GDR writes
I also think that it is a mistake for Christians to look for messianic proof texts in the OT. You are right that the writers of the OT probably didn’t look at it that way and that Israel was to be the servant of God.
But Luke 24:, Says
13 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles[a] from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him.
17 He asked them, What are you discussing together as you walk along?
They stood still, their faces downcast. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?
19 What things? he asked.
About Jesus of Nazareth, they replied. He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.
25 He said to them, How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory? 27 And beginning with Moses and
ALL the Prophets,
he explained to them what was said in ALL the Scriptures concerning himself.
28 As they approached the village
So why would you think this was a bad idea, if this exacally what the Lord did?
Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by GDR, posted 10-20-2013 7:59 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by GDR, posted 01-20-2014 7:44 PM Dawn Bertot has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024