Gullwind

Actually, no. I used to look at Isaiah 53 as a messianic prophecy. Then I looked at the chapters around it and said "wait a minute! It doesn't mean what I thought it meant." Then I looked at Isaiah 7, and found the same thing. There is more to the story than what I was told. The parts left out make the difference. Plus, I look at it for what it is. You're the one trying to ascribe the hidden meaning of prophecy to the passage.

So let me ask you again. How do the children of the suffering servant factor in to the messianic prophecy aspect of Isaiah 53?

Donn10

Goldenroad
I understand that you believe in god so you believe the prophecys so you believe in god. I on the otherhand don't believe in god so I need good solid evidence from independent sources that:
A) the prophecy was written before the event took place.
B) the event took place like the prophecy said it would.
I am unaware of any independent verifacation of any biblical prophecy. It should have been very easy for an all knowing, all powerful god to arange for some independent verifacation. Don't you require independent verifacation for nonbiblical prophetic claims?

goldenroad

Lets go back to Isaiah. Because our descriptions of Jesus fit ch. 53 so perfectly then I'll just say that it is more logical than not to assume that ch. 53 is prophecy (or like many passages had a duel-meaning, meaning it was intended as a prophecy and as instruction).

I'll address the part of ch. 53 that says he would be 'pierced for our transgressions'. The Roman historian Tacitus recorded that one named Christus who was the founder of the Christian faith 'suffered the extreme penalty' (crucifixtion). I have no doubt though that there is something wrong with my argument, there always is (at least at this website, ah, what can I expect).

Weltall

Yes, by completely ignoring the chapters that bookend it and clearly refer to Israel, it does sound like it could be a prophecy. Still, I wonder why the Jews (you know, the people whose scripture it appears in) have disagreed with you on that point for 2000 years. There's also the children aspect that remains unanswered by you.
Hearsay, one of the least reliable sources of evidence.
You can expect that we'll actually examine your argument, not swallow it hook, line and sinker like Good Christian Sheep.

DBT

A possible explanation for Isaiah: 53.....

Quote;
"I am not at all confused about the tales of the death of Jesus: they plainly appear to have been contrived to "fulfill" Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 and several other passages. Do you think soldiers really gambled for Jesus's robe? or was this tale devised later, in order to make it appear to a Roman reader that Scripture had been "fulfilled"?

Remember: before there was a New Testament, the followers of Jesus were convinced that his entire story -- every detail -- had been anticipated in Hebrew Scripture and other writings no longer considered Scripture by anybody (Matthew 2:23, anyone?). As these tales grew and became refined, some of them got written down. After the first ones got published, people noticed discrepancies and places that could use improvement. Thus we have an explanation for why one Gospel account tells it this way while another tells it that way: the competing sects tried to replace rather than augment what their neighboring sects had written and published.


Did Jesus ride one donkey or two? The Hebrew Scripture is clearly a parallelism, "riding an ass ... the foal of an ass" -- one animal. Matthew, however, being unfamiliar with this technique of Hebrew poetry, has Jesus "fulfilling" this Scripture by riding two animals! The others who mention it, mention only one animal. Hmmmm. And besides, where did they get all these palm branches in early springtime? Ought not this tale have been told in autumn, to "fulfill" the Feast of Booths? or did that story get supplanted for the much more effective "Passover" angle, though they forgot to clean out all the details from the previously popular "Feast of Booths" angle, the manuscript detailing which is no longer extant?"

Jack the Bodiless

Where does Isaiah 53 say "pierced"? What translation are you using?

The closest I can find is Isaiah 53:5, "But he was wounded for our transgressions". However, the Hebrew word translated here as "wounded" (chalal) primarily means "profaned, polluted, defiled". "Wounded" is a bit of a stretch (though plausible), "pierced" is even more of a stretch (though still possible), "crucified" requires more of a stretch... yet you seem to have picked the translation that serves your agenda.

Also, Tacitus is merely repeating what the Christians said about Jesus. There is no evidence that he had access to independent confirmation. But he fails to mention the resurrection...

Donn10

Exactly, Perfectly?
If Isaiah 53 fit jesus "exactly" it would read something like this. He will be flogged by a foreign ruler. He will be nailed to a cross of wood for our transgression. He will be crowned with thorns for our inequities. His side will be pierced by a foreign solder. He will be paraded through the streets of Jerusalem & spat upon.

But instead it's a vague reference to someone getting hurt. Like most prophecies it is purposely written without the detail necessary to pin it to one and only one event. How many Hebrew rebels did the Romans bruise and wound?

If Isaiah 53 said something like what I suggested then we would need our independent verification. I would think that a good description written by Herod, Pilot, the high priest or one of the Roman solders who was present at the crucification would make a good source to use. From what little I know about Tacitus, he was not an eye witness nor did he get his info from an eye witness. Your all-powerful god seems unable to arrange for an exact prophecy or for proper verification.

goldenroad

I was quoting from the NIV version.

goldenroad

So we finally come to the hopeless conclusion that I don't have the evidence to win you over and you don't have the argument to win me over. Looks like we're screwed.

Gullwind

What kind of an argument would it take to win you over? Is it even possible?

I'm honestly curious.