spin

But you should attempt to deal with what was posted to you.

Yes, this is the standard view. . . which is not derivable from the text itself.

You might have been able to assert that if there wasn't a verse 6 in which the servant is quite clearly not what you would like it to be.

Not yet.


spin

redzrx

Ok.. Lets go back a step.

53:1 is the gentile nation(representative/View) speaking by looking at the question at the begining(who hath believed our report?) .. the view at the time of from other nations were that the jews were lower than animals there fore smitten from God. As ISa continues it shows the gentile nations amazement at what they believed the jewish people/Israel were and what they actually are in the eyes of God and what they suffered.

Now the connection from 52 15 is God speaking thru the Prophet as if God was talking (again this a jewish prespective which cannot be dismissed).

Now I don't quite under stand your view.. Please point form if possible.

waiting for your reply

Mario

spin

Why not?

Can you think of any examples in the prophetic literature of where you have an unintroduced goy speaking and accepting YHWH, as in 53:1? And why is it "our" news/message?

After some information about the servant we/us come back into the text at 53:4. He took our infirmities. Are the nations already proselytes according to this theory? Why did "we" consider him stricken by Elohim, again accepting the rightness of Elohim. We are left with implausible statements made supposedly by goyim whose introduction is noever made in the text, so it is merely the wishful thinking of the apologist. What you are supporting is apparently only apologetics, ie eisogesis. It certainly doesn't come from the text, ie exogesis.

It is simpler to read the text as you would normally: where God is not speaking it is probably the prophet. This also makes perfect sense and the conclusions, regarding the exemplary Jew who suffers for his people, are supported by ch 49. As already mentioned.

And yet again, you have not responded to what was posted to you. You have merely restated what you have basically said adding a little more literary back-up.


spin

redzrx

I am not trying to avoid your questions.. Please give me your view on the passage in question.. point form is fine.

Let me look at it, then let me respond.

I will agree I am looking at it from the jewish prespective even though I'm not jewish..



Mario

spin

I've already stated views in my responses to you. I have pointed you to the text, so that you can read why I say what I have said.

You are not giving the Jewish perspective, but the modern apologetic post-Pharisaic view, which is easily available on the web and which I already know and disagree with as not based on the text.


spin

(Non stai dando il prospettivo ebraico, ma il quadro doppo-farisaico apologettico contemporaneo, che sia facilmente disponibile sulla rete e che gia' conosco e di cui ho scontato per non essere fondato sul testo.)

redzrx

Ok I'll bite .. point me to your sourse if on the web and let me read and analyze then maybe we will be on the same plane.. rather than playing post pong..

Thanx..
Mario

spin

The position I have stated is my own.

If you want to find other comments on the material try going to Google and using "isaiah 53 suffering servant" and you may eventually find what you want. But you've already supplied a sufficient link for the Jewish perspective, so you don't need to look. You've found what you want.

What you need to do is 1) demonstrate your position with close reference to the text and 2) refute the contrary comments posed tp you if they are based on close reference to the text.


spin

redzrx

[QUOTE=spin]The position I have stated is my own.

If you want to find other comments on the material try going to Google and using "isaiah 53 suffering servant" and you may eventually find what you want. But you've already supplied a sufficient link for the Jewish perspective, so you don't need to look. You've found what you want.

What you need to do is 1) demonstrate your position with close reference to the text and 2) refute the contrary comments posed tp you if they are based on close reference to the text.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

First off spin I'm not religious in anyway. Ok now the chapters before and after 53 are of the suffering servant(Israel). If we agree on that. So logic would mean 53 is.

The NRSV,The New Jerusalem Bible and the Oxford study bible all point to ISRAEL(people) as the servant in ISa 53.(these are christian sourses)

If there is another alternative which is your view you must use a sourse other than KJV as past and present text and context is sometimes changed or skewed in the KJ. I tend to believe the jews wrote it and understand it as such and have always had this view as the servant being Israel.

Now I realize we don't see eye to eye or will on this issue, I tend to lean towards the jewish prespective because it makes the most sense!!

Sometimes reading to much into a text can lead away from what the text actually means or was meant to mean.

Christian sourses are the ones that changed the text .. Not the jews.. Think about it.

Thanx for the debate but we are not going to agree on this issue..so if no one else has any input to add we should let it go.

Mario

spin

53 is the last example of a reference to a servant.

People are free to have opinions. What evidence do the provide you that "point to ISRAEL(people) as the servant in ISa 53"?

Modern Jews are also free to have their opinions on a text. If we want to know what the text says we first must have to deal with it, not opinions on it. I'll happily refer to any translation of the text, or the text itself, in order to deal with its significance, but most translations get the basics correct here.

Well, why don't you deal with the text and what it says, rather that repeating your support of the "Jewish perspective" opinion? Perhaps we could make a little progress.

If you don't actually read the text,then you can conclude whatever you like.

You think about it and tell me exactly what you think has been changed here in the text.

There has been no debate. As I said in my previous post What you need to do is 1) demonstrate your position with close reference to the text and 2) refute the contrary comments posed to you if they are based on close reference to the text. That's what debate is about.


spin

redzrx

Ok spin.. lets let someone else give there views on the passages and see where it goes..

Mario