dzim77

Sorry, you'll have to read back through the thread. Too much to repeat. thanks.

Jack, can you provide some specific OT refrences to back up your claim? Thanks.

Diogenes the Cynic

Because he doesn't need to. As you've already conceded, he has already established who the servant is in previous verses. Why would he have to keep reiterating an identification which has already been made?
You keep using the word "unique" as though it's meaningful. Just because an author uses an unusual rhetorical or poetic technique does not mean that he must be talking about the Messiah, especially when he's already said he's talking about something else.

You're also reading too much into the "innocent" language. It refers only to Israel's travails at the hands of other nations. The author thought that Israel had not suffered because of it's own sins but only at the capriciousness of others. God isn't the one using that language but the Gentiles.
The word 'unique" doesn't really mean anything here and Israel makes perfect sense, especially since the author has already SAID he's talking about Israel.
So the answer is no, you haven't studied Judaism. It also appears that you've never been exposed to any objective, critical scholarship of the Hebrew Bible.
Blood sacrifices are not substitutionary atonement. As I said before, Jewish theology does not permit the vicarious atonement of sin by one person for another. Here are some verses which are used to support the idea that each person is responsible for his own sins.

Exod 32:31-33; Num 35:33; Deut 24:16; 2 Kgs 14:6; Jer 31:30 ; Ezek 18:4,20; Ps 49:7-8.

The author of Isaiah would not have expressed a theological idea contrary to Mosaic Law, would he?
It doesn't say he would bear the sins of Israelites, it says Israel will carry (suffer) the iniquities of the Gentiles. The "righteous" Jewish people will be justified in spite of (or even because of) the suffering they will endure from the Gentiles.
It actually says "wounds," not "stripes," but regardless of that, "he" is the Jewish people and "we" are the oppressors who are "healed" by the pity and repentance which (in the author's mind) will ultimately bloom in their hearts.
No. Those passages are not about the Messiah.

dzim77

Actually, I haven't conceded any such thing. I would respectfully appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. Thanks.

So according to your logic, the suffering servant may be David or Eliakim, since any time Isaiah identifies someone as 'my servant', that person must be consistently identified as 'my servant' in every case in throughout the book? Is Eliakim the suffering servant?

The significance of the uniqueness of the passage is that we cannot assume that the servant is Israel. The context, meaning, and language used in Isa.53 is unique. We can't assume that Israel is the suffering servant because:

1. It does not make sense in the context.
2. Other 'servants' have been mentioned in Isa. besides Israel.
3. Isaiah does not unambiguously identify the suffering servant (as "my servant, Israel)
4. The other passages in which Isaiah is referring to 'my servant' as 'Israel' are completely different in context, language, and meaning from Isa. 53

ALSO...

notice the word for "guilt offering" or "offering for sin" used in v. 10.
This is another explicit mention of atonement. (Refer to my previous quote of Lev. 4 concerning guilt offerings).

Please understand that I don't take your comments personally nor do I mean any personal offense by this...

But, I'm not the one poisoning the well here. I'm also not the one relying on views of 'traditional Judaism' as the main support for my arguments. I'm providing evidence from the text.

Thanks for the specific verses. Very helpful. quick comments...

Ex 32...God will not blot Moses out of the book of life in this instance. doesn't discount the idea of substitutionary atonement in the OT by any means.

Deut 24:16, 2 Kgs. 14:6, Jer 31:30, Ezek 18:4,20 ... these verses are clearly not discounting atonement, they are meant to protect fathers from being held responsible for the sins of their children and vice-versa.

Ps. 49:7 - Great verse! Raises a great question... how do we reconcile this verse with the Levitical idea of sacrificial atonement?
My thoughts... Surely a sinful man cannot replace another sinful man, just as God will not accept a blemished sacrifice according to Levitical law. But what about an innocent and righteous man?

Exactly. Which is why your proposal of a new and unique atonement concept in Isa. 53 doesn't make sense.

I have pointed out how the atonement language of Isa. 53 matches the language of Levitical sacrificial atonement very closely.

It DOES explicitly say he will "bear their iniquities" period. I even used your translation from 'Jews for Judaism'.

You are twisting the meaning, ignoring context, ignoring OT concepts of atonement, ignoring parallel uses of the phrase that conotate substitution, and suggesting a new and unique atonement idea -only to be found in Isa. 53- all at the same time. "carry" means "suffer" ??

I provided a very specific substitutionary parallel in the idea of the 'scapegoat' who was to "bear the iniquities" of the Israelites on the day of atonement which you did not respond to. (Lev 16)

Again, twisting the text and ignoring the plain meaning (substitution).

Jack the Bodiless

dzim77:
Nowhere in this thread have you provided any justification for this statement: or even attempted to do so. Even if you could establish that your interpretation of Isaiah 53 is correct, this would not establish that "everything the OT prophets have spoken can be fulfilled", nor would it address the failed prophecies.
Isn't it rather ironinc that you've just asked me to "read back through the thread", when you have failed to address this point? Diogenes the Cynic presented you with all the relevant verses in post #19.

aa5874

dzim 77, there is no book in the OT that deals exclusively with a character named Jesus Christ. None whatsoever. All the so-called prophecies about Jesus are verses, some edited, but all taken out of context to fabricate a story about some Saviour.

It is inconceivable that one line or verse taken at random from numerous books, or a few words of a book can refer to Jesus, when the 39 books of the OT and indeed the chapters of these very same books do not have anything whatsoever to do with Jesus.

Without even going into the so-called prophecies, I ask you, 'Can anyone's father be the Holy Ghost, can anyone be deaf because of an evil spirit, can someone raise himself from the dead and then fly to heaven?

And if the the OT is the word of God to the Jews, then I find it strange that the Gentiles appear to know more about it than them. Christianity has done the unthinkable, they have plagarized the word of God to the Jews.

greyline

The Trinity, original sin, Jesus-Messiah - three central tenets of Christianity that Christians have back-read into the OT, while curiously the Jews, God's chosen people, have no concept of these things.

dzim77

Hi Jack,

took awhile to respond... didn't have internet access for a few days.

I asked you to reread the thread because you were taking what I said out of context.

I was not making a blanket statement that "every OT prophecy has been fulfilled". I was stating that it is possible for a prophecy to be fulfilled even if the prophet making said prophecy doesn't have a complete understanding of the chronology in which it will be fulfilled - referring specifically to the idea that the Messiah could be both a suffering servant AND a conquering king.

You're right. My bad. Thanks for pointing me to the post.

First of all, notice that this argument rests on two rather shaky points:

1. That a virgin birth (-the likes of which was never recorded in the OT and shouldn't be expected to be explicitly covered under Mosaic law-) would disqualify Jesus as a legal heir. (This does not even address the idea that Jesus was in the 'genepool' of GOD himself! )

2. That the curse of Jeconiah was to last 'for all time'.

Proceeding...

*In response to the virgin birth 'problem'...

1. Matthew traces Joseph's lineage back to David (through Solomon) so Joseph is a legal heir of David.

2. Luke's geneaology is likely that of Mary's family line. This line goes back to David (through Nathan).

3. If Joseph and Mary were united by the Jewish provision of levirate marriage (i.e. Mary's father had no sons).... In modern terms, this would mean that Joseph essentially married into Mary's gene pool. This would allow Joseph's legal heritage to pass to Jesus. In this case, technically, Jesus is a legitamate legal heir of David through Joseph's line and Jesus is also genetically in the bloodline of David through Mary - thus fully satisfying Messianic prophecies.

**In response to the 'curse of Jeconiah'...

1. It is most likely that the curse of Jeconiah was intended only for one generation... notice that "in his days" is the context and timeframe of the curse. (that his immediate descendants would not sit on the throne.)

2. Even if that is not the case, the curse was overturned (or proven not to be in effect) by Haggai's blessing of Zerubbabel. Zerubbabel was a descendent of Jehoiachin and was explicitly chosen by God as ruler over Judah after the return of the exiles. (see below)

notice how God calls Zerubbabel his 'signet ring', a direct allusion to the curse of Jeconiah...

dzim77

You say "back-read", I say "not fully revealed until the NT times."

greyline

I think you mean "not fully revealed until centuries after the NT times."

Diogenes the Cynic

God has genes?

The Messiah, by definition, has to be a direct patrilinear descendant of David. Adoption doesn't count. the mother doesn't count.
Which would be quite irrelevant if he was not Jesus' father.
This is flatly false. Luke's genealogy goes explicitly through Joseph and does not even mention Mary's name. I know this is a common apologetic but it's a complete crock, utterly unsupported by either the text itself or any known Jewish convention. Not that it would help Jesus anyway, since Luke's genealogy doesn't go through Solomon and since Jewish kingships cannot be transmitted through the mother in any case.
This is false. For one thing, Levirate marriage only applied if a man married the widow of his BROTHER. Unless you think that Joseph was God's brother, this would not have been a Levirate situation. Beyond that, Jewish Kingships cannot be transmitted through adoption. I should reiterate that your assumption of a bloodline through Mary is completely made up. Luke says no such thing.