Dominus Paradoxum

Christian interpretations aside, the text does seem to speak of vicarious atonement. Consider:

Also:

These excerpts, especially the first one, seem to indicate vicarious atonement if anything does. Even without the "bruised for our transgressions" and "bore our diseases", the first one alone seems proof enough. How can his chastisement make us whole, or we be healed by his stripes, unless there is some serious atonement going on? I wouldn't be suprised if christians first got the very idea of the Atonement by reading this passage. If anyone thinks they can explain them away, I would really like to hear what their alternative explanation is.

rlogan

Yes - doesn't the cultural significance of sacrifice make this an easy call?

I agree completely that the Christians hijacked this idea, as well as this specific passage.

rlogan

Peter -

I got those three papers by J. Barton Payne from the Westminister Theological Journal. (On Isaiah 40-66)

It's absolutely baffling. He says Isaiah's 4th and greatest servant song is 52:13-53:12. But not one word of analysis. !?

He spent quite a bit on Isaiah 52, asserting the description of the Assyrian devastation, famine, and subsequent defeat/redemption.

He just mentions the 4th and greatest servant song "followed by pictures of the expanding Gentile church which Jesus would redeem 54:1-3 Luke 22:37, Gal 4:27.

He calls 49-57 the Book of the Gospel Call: "direct appeals to trust in Christ and Yahweh (49:1, 50:10 etc.) assume prominence for the first time. The second servant song (49:1-9a) with which the Book of the Gospel Call opens, correlates closely, moreover, with the Messiah prophesies of the authentic 8th century Isaiah".

Now he does provide a "statistical summary" at the end of the third paper. In that, he has a categoy entitled "Future" [prophesy] with one item indicated for the passages in the OP:

Jesus: 52:13-53:12.

This is no surprise in retrospect. He sees John the Baptist, the Christian Church, and Jesus all over the place.

redzrx

ISa was apparantly written.. 700 years before JC..

Now thats a prophet.!! (sarcasim)


Mario

Dominus Paradoxum

*Bump*

Dominus Paradoxum

So, is no one going to try to explain the "atonement phrases" away?

Dominus Paradoxum

Anyone?

spin

Not me. Why?

rlogan

nor me. But I do have another question.

Would speaking in the past tense be a feature of a future prophesy?

redzrx

The problem with apolgists(whether jewish or christian) is that if making a prophesy whether present or future and it did not come true in the lifetime of the prophet speaking they(the apologists) will say it is future prophesy. Now would the prophet ... or anyone predict 700 years in the future? The bible states that if a prophet speaks and it does not come true .. then not to be afraid of that person as he is false (my quote from memory). So with that in mind .. How long untill you prove someone false? Eternity?.

From what I have read(jewish sites) present text was used in the so called virgin birth in ISa but the christians made it future tense to fit there agenda.

So to answer your question (and this is only my opinion) I believe that past tense can be used as a poetic way of predicting the future , sorta like from another prespective. But again I think that if the prophesy is made to a group of people.. directed at the people to look for.(a sign) then it is for that generation of people not a distant millenia away.

Hope that helps..

Need more coffee..

Mario

Oh and in regards to Isa 52 to 54 Its Israel..

don't tell spin..