James Still

The subject then is that in Isaiah 6 God acts to harden the hearts of his people and to blind them as punishment for their disobedience. However, what makes you think that this act -- effected temporarily for that particular situation -- has anything to do with the miracles that Jesus was said to have performed? That's what I don't understand.

Apikorus

John V, apparently you want to argue not about the text itself (aval ata yodea likro ivrit?) but rather over the side issue of whether it is significant that the only bible scholars who read Jesus into the Hebrew Bible are Christians.

Very well, let me elaborate a bit. You seem to presuppose that anyone who believes that Jesus is prophesied in the Hebrew Bible must do so in conformity with orthodox Christian doctrine - i.e. that he is messiah, suffering servant, Davidic ruler, "Melchizedek priest" (whatever that is), paschal sacrifice, Immanuel, Prince of Peace, God himself (did I leave anything out?). But such a view simply betrays your own confessional stance. It might be, for example, that a non-Christian who nonetheless does not wholly reject the notion that the Hebrew Bible is prophetic would read Jesus into only *some* of these passages. I.e. perhaps they might see Jesus as a prophesied Davidic messiah but not in fact divine.

Alas, there are no scholars who say this. Either they utterly reject the notion that Jesus is referred to in the Hebrew Bible (of which there are many examples, including both secular and religious scholars of all faiths), or they believe that Jesus permeates the Hebrew Bible, in which case they are always (and understandibly) Christian.

[ August 01, 2001: Message edited by: Apikorus ]

JohnV

Re: Apikorus

Very well, let me elaborate a bit. You seem to presuppose that anyone who denies that Jesus is prophesied in the Hebrew Bible must do so in all sincerity. But such a view simply betrays your own confessional stance. It might be, for example, that a Jewish or other non-Christian scholar might see Jesus as a prophesied Davidic messiah but not admit it publically, since this could affect his career and social standing.

The point is that if we get into 'mights' we'll go nowhere fast.

Apikorus

I realize that "might" is not in the evangelical's hermeneutical vocabulary, but try to think more broadly.

Kosh

Only if you ignored the rest of my post...

If the answers here seem to be "canned", it's
only becuase they're in reply to your "canned" apologetic rhetoric, which has all
been heard before....

But answer me this. If the OT prophesies about the Jews not believing Jesus, then
why bother? Accoring to the Gospels he:

- turned water into wine
- walked on water
- raised the dead
- multiplied food out of nothing
- foretold the *near* future (Peter's denial)
- rose from the dead and appeared before 500
witnesses.

Now, just what else would they need to believe short of being hit over the head
with the manna? "Hey you, are you getting this? This is THE LORD".

So, why don't you think they believed with
such obvious signs? If it it's "God said they
wouldn't believe", then why did he send him?
Why not to the Gentiles?

JohnV

Should I try some broad-minded concepts like:
or
(modern=good very broad-minded indeed!)

James Still

You've hit on the same problem that confronted the pseudepigraphical author of the Gospel of Mark. How could it be that on the one hand we have the miracle-working Son of God who revealed himself to the world and yet nearly everyone ignored him? Mark's solution was to craft a story in which Jesus was a clandestine figure who kept a very low profile.

And Mark reveals right in the first paragraph of his gospel that he is familiar with Isaiah. So by the fourth chapter Jesus is made to say to his disciples:

"To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven" (4:11-12).

Yup, straight from of the text that JohnV quotes (although I don't think he knew the connection or he would have mentioned it by now). Clearly, Mark borrowed from the story in Isaiah in order to explain why Jesus' mission to the children of Israel failed. What Christian apologists won't admit is that this maneuver is a post-Easter interpretation of Jesus' ministry and not actual history or truth. As with any interpretation it can be neither right nor wrong, it's just one of many ways of looking at things.

Apikorus

John, you should try addressing my points.

James, you are misusing the term "pseudepigraphal". The gospels are anonymous works, not pseudepigraphal works. The canonical authors Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all second century guesses. Nowhere in any of the gospels is authorship clearly conveyed.

An example of a pseudepigraphal work would be the Wisdom of Solomon or the Testament of Levi or Enoch.

[ August 01, 2001: Message edited by: Apikorus ]

JohnV

1) How is this a problem? Read the OT: Israel rebels, a remnant is saved, Israel rebels again. There's no need to invent an explanation. The believers would see themselves as the faithful remnant.
2) Preachers who are ignored by nearly everyone generally don't get executed.

Rich

Let me jump in here...

What verses are you basing this on?

If it is post-Easter and written way after the fact (I have some claim up to 120 CE), why didn't they get this sorted out? Of what benefit would it have been to pull quotes from the Septuigant if the Jews were total non-believers in who Jesus was?