Amaleq13

How is this relevant to the thread discussion?

Diogenes the Cynic

I take the entire context of every contradiction into account (as do most of us). That context rarely encompasses more than a few verses. I've never seen a contradiction which could be resolved by reading the full chapter. Can you offer an example?

bfniii

perhaps you could provide some support for this statement because what i have read is the exact opposite.



as i stated earlier, there are some passages that might superficially refer to the nation of israel. some clearly do not fit that mold.



not from a materialistic standpoint. that passage is just one of many that refer to the messiah so it is not a complete picture



no, the idea originally came from the jews.



for some jews.



no such reinterpretation was necessary. some jews recognized Him while He was living. some even heralded His arrival, such as John the baptist.



if Jesus did not match up at all to the messianic expectation, there would have been no reason for anyone to have followed Him as messiah. they might have acknowledged Him as a prophet, as some did.

Diogenes the Cynic

There is no proof that anyone did believe Jesus was the Messiah during his lifetime.

bfniii

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler The burden is not on me to "show such a connection"; it is upon you to show that Isaiah, who consistently referred to Israel as Yahweh's servant, suddenly changed the servant's identity to Jesus of Nazareth.

the problem with this statement is that isaiah did not "consistently" refer to israel as the suffering servant. there are references to israel, but not as the ultimate redeemer. isaiah did not "suddenly" change the identity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler So your argument is that the use of the pronoun "he" instead of "you" means that the servant is Jesus, not Israel? Maybe you should flip a page in your Bible to Isaiah 42: Do you still want to argue that the servant, even when referred to with male pronouns, was Jesus of Nazareth?

even if 42 does refer to israel, it doesn't preclude the fact that such references can't possibly refer to the messiah.

WCH

I have. Plenty of supposed contradictions can be resolved by reading the whole context.

Of course, plenty more can't be, so it isn't especially relevant.

@Half-Life
Everyone interested in accurate hermaneutics looks at context, both Christian and atheist. Doesn't matter if it's a contradiction, a prophesy or a doctrine... whatever it is, always look at the surrounding verses to see what's being talked about. I always try to -- do you? From the example prophesy you cited in GRD I somehow doubt it.

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
Yes, it does (in the Hebrew). This is a good example of Christian distortion in translation. Check out the meaning of the verb xlh (chet lamed he). See how it's used in Genesis 48:1, or Deuteronomy 29:22, or 2 Kings 20:1.

Disease is also mentioned in Isaiah 53:3 & 4, where the KJV translates it as "grief". Compare with Deuteronomy 7:15 or 28:61.

Christian apologists simply cannot be trusted: and this generally includes the Christian apologists who translate the Bible. Though I note that Young's has "made him sick" in verse 10, and both Young's and the HNV use "sickness" in verses 3 and 4, and the NLT has a footnote for verse 4.

All of this reinforces the notion that if Isaiah DID have a specific person in mind as the "personification of Israel", it was probably King Uzziah (king in Isaiah's time), who died of leprosy.

John Kesler

You are begging the question.

I'm still waiting for your proof that Jesus of Nazareth was in view.

RED DAVE

From bfniii:
And the vast majority of us couldn't give a shit about one more crazy, failed prophet -- until his followers started killing us.

RED DAVE

bfniii

that word has a broad meaning and would not be translated "diseased" in the context of 53:10.



further support for my above point



those christians you are referring to got their ideas from first century jews who recognized christ as the messiah based on texts such as isaiah.

this has nothing to do with apology. this has to do with non-christians trying to retroactively change the meaning of the context.