Steven Carr

You are correct. I misunderstood the verse.

See what happens when you have somebody on hand to correct misunderstandings! You learn very quickly where you are wrong.

If only the disciples had also had somebody on hand who could correct their misunderstanding of Isaiah 53, a misunderstanding that led them to totally misunderstand '...he must be killed...'

Steven Avery

This would also seem to go especially well with the Samson Levey Maccabean dating, or perhaps even the Ezra dating of the Talmud. Do you have any author's writings on this to consider, or your own study ? As I've explained a number of times, I find the theories of a late text creation to be especially dubious, the stylistic sense seems earlier, and it would go against any attemps to place Israel as the subject, ala the friends of Celsus. For similar reasons, I find the redactions theories (it was more sufferring servant Messianic, but was changed) also very dubious, even when floated by such as Michael Brown.

Samson Levey was Maccabean. Neusner and Chilton were covered in the earlier section.

Here are two other scholarly quotes, Adna is post-70 but still early. Betz is early.

Jesus and Isaiah 53 by Otto Betz.
"Targum Jonathan..in its extant written form is quite late.. As I shall show, however, much of its content and its way of interpreting the Hebrew original can be presupposed for both Jesus and Paul... we conclude that it (Isaiah 53) was translated into Aramaic quite early."

================================
The following is a reference to ...
The Servant of Isaiah 53 as Triumphant and Interceding Messiah: The Reception of Isaiah 52:13-53:12 in the Targum Jonathan with Special Attention to the Concept of the Messiah - by Jostein Adna

"Joseph Adna does not believe that the translator's changes in favor of a triumphant rather than a suffering Messiah can be traced to any conscious anti-Christian motive.
Neither can the translator's procedure fairly be labeled as arbitrary reinterpretation or atomistic exegesis. Rather,
"...the Targumist provides a unified and consistent interpretation of Isaiah 53 that does not differ substantially from his treatment of other parts of the book.
Working probably between the destruction of the temple in 70 CE and the Bar Kochba revolt in 135, the translator confirms and develops a typical Jewish view of the Messiah' as one who would rebuild the temple, instruct the people in the law, and intercede for Israel."

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Good

So the whole section in Acts, reading the section and specifically saying it is about Jesus, is not 'meaningful' because you of your concern whether the speaking passages harmonize ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Avery

Stick with the King James Bible, then the only misunderstandings will be your own, not the text :-)

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Carr

Avery , of course, ignores the substance of my post, about how people sent by Jesus to teach and preach could not understand a simple sentence like '... he must be killed....'

And while Avery argues that Jews had a correct Messianic interpretation of Isaiah 53, he is unable to explain why Jews had an incorrect interpretation of what a Messiah would be like.

Steven Avery

Hi Steven, yes I generally bypass your arguments, other than little factual corrections. We have covered that in the past, if I recall right.

However I do not say that "Jews had a correct Messianic interp of Isaiah 53". Check the Targum Yonathan discussion closer. However, I will pass on trying to parse your points more.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven Carr

No problem for me. It is only onlookers who will be impressed by your ignoring gaping holes in the Bible.

It is good to know that you are happy with the idea that Jewish claims about what passages mean are not always correct. I shall remember that.

How do you know that Isaiah 53 is a Messianic prophecy? After all, Jewish ideas about the passage are just wrong, as you yourself claim.

Steven Avery

I discuss tons of supposed holes and scriptural problems and textual issues in many environments, perhaps too much at times, and many onlookers are well aware of this. Sometimes I have to make a decision as to which dialogs are sincere, edifying, productive. Experience is a reasonable guide.

I'm surprised you would find that unusual lol. I don't even agree with every idea of Christian and Messianic claims of various passages.

By reading the text. I recommended that in the thread. The pshat is simply Messiah, which fits well, trying an Israel sandwich leads to great difficulties.

The discussion of the Targum is more of a reaction to a false claim that the historic understanding would be Israel if it weren't for that pesky New Testament, that the NT was an anomaly and ahistoric in that regard, claims based largely on claims of todays Jewish anti-mish movement. Also the Targum analysis shows better how the NT fits into the first century Judaism. Flusser remains a good read on that.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Steven Carr

I really don't know how to simplify my question 'How do you know Isaiah 53 is a Messianic prophecy?', so that you can understand it and answer it?

So I'll just repeat it 'How do you know Isaiah 53 is a Messianic prophecy'?

It doesn't mention the Messiah, and I will not be impressed by claims that it refers to Jesus and so must be a prophecy about the Messiah, because Jesus was the Messiah, and so any prophecy about him must be a Messianic propehcy.

You would have to prove that Jesus was the Messiah for that to work, and presumably you would do so by claiming he fulfilled Messianic prophesies such as Isaiah 53.

Such circular reasoning might be OK for Muslims claiming that Deuteronomy has a prophecy about Muhammad, because it predicts a great prophet, and Muhammad was a great prophet, therefore it was predicting Muhammad, but such circular reasoning won't work on non-brainwashed people.

So how do you know that a passage which never uses the word Messiah is a prophecy about the Messiah?

Steven Avery

And this is precisely the type of long discussion that, from experience with you, I pass on.

And actually, had I lived in 33 AD, I may very well may have asked, just like the Ethiopian,
"whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? "

(since as you point out, the section does not specify that this very special man is the Messiah by direct title)

And a brother filled with the love of Messiah explained to me Jesus, the one of whom the prophet spoke.

Steven, do you ever wonder -
"whom speaketh the prophet this?"

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic