|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4959 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Fulfillments of Bible Prophecy | |||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Verse 3
53:3 He was despised and rejected by people, one who experienced pain and was acquainted with illness; people hid their faces from him; he was despised, and we considered him insignificant. quote:You didn't explain anything. Thanks! If all you're going to say is, "It looks like a match to me." ; then you're wasting my time. So really explain how John's comment in John 1:10-11 is deemed a prophecy let alone a match for Isaiah. Notice it is again past tense, not aimed at the future. Verse 4-9 These are all past tense. At the time Isaiah was speaking all this had supposedly already taken place. How can Isaiah 53 be about Jesus??? Verse 10
Though the Lord desired to crush him and make him ill, once restitution is made, he will see descendants and enjoy long life, and the Lord’s purpose will be accomplished through him This one still presents a problem. Descendants and long life. God is saying he will bless him with descendants and long life to show people the servant is back in God's favor once restitution is made. If those things don't really happen, he won't be consider by the people to be blessed by God or in God's favor which will make it difficult for him to accomplish God's purpose. So now in verses 11 and 12 God is proclaiming the servant’s vindication and exaltation as the NET notes put it. If you read the entire poem, you will see that whatever happened to the servant; already happened at the time Isaiah was speaking. This throws Jesus out of the picture. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:In the parable itself the seeds are plant seeds. The people of the time understood agriculture and understood the problems of planting seeds in good and bad soil. So Jesus explains to his disciples that in the story the seeds represent the word of God etc., etc. I don't reject a figurative use. The use of the word seed in Isaiah is a figurative use. The way it is used by Isaiah means children/descendants, seed being figurative for sperm! You haven't shown me that the word seed in Isaiah's time was used to describe followers. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Been there, done that. Message 48 and Message 106 Suffering Servant-Jewish Interpretation It can be easily demonstrated that, when (zera) is used in the Hebrew Bible in reference to children, it exclusively refers to biological descendants. In Isaiah 53:10, however, the term (zera) is not a "stand alone" noun; it is an idiomatic expression that involves a verb in conjunction with the noun, i.e., the Hebrew expression is (yir'eh zera), literally, [he] shall see seed. [The KJV added the term his before the word seed — this is simply not congruent with the Hebrew text. The Hebrew term for his seed is the word (zar'o), which is not the word that appears in this verse.] When idiomatic expressions in the Hebrew Bible are formed by combining a verb with the compound noun (zera), whatever its application may be, the reference is always to physical seed. Relevant examples from the Hebrew Bible are: (mazri'a zera), yielding seed, (Gen 1:11,12); (vehaqeim zera), and [you] establish offspring, (Gen 38:8); (zar'acha asher tizra) your seed that you will sow (Is 30:23); (u'nehayeh mei'avinu zara) and let us bring to life seed from our father (Gen 19:32,34); (bemoshech ha'zara) the one who carries the seed [for sowing] (Amos 9:13). The idiomatic expression (yir'eh zera) is similar to these examples, it refers to one who will be able to procreate and see his descendants. Although this idiomatic expression appears only once in the Hebrew Bible, at Isaiah 53:10, there is a similar expression, (ra'ah vanim), [he] saw sons, that is used several times, and it clearly demonstrates that seeing seed/children refers to having and seeing biological descendants. In the following passage, the reader is told here that Joseph saw his own descendants of several generations. It is also important to note the fact that (zera) is the Hebrew term for semen/sperm, which supports the notion that the term (zera) exclusively refers to progeny, to real, physical descendants, and not to figurative (spiritual) children. I've shown plenty of support for my position and reasoning. You haven't shown me that Isaiah doesn't mean real children or that he means spiritual children/followers. Stop stalling and show some real support for what you claim. You yourself said in Message 107:
Peg writes: But Isaiah wasnt into creative journalism...he was a prophet who wrote under inspiration. 'Seed' was not a 'creative' writing method back then. It was simply a common term that everyone understood to mean decedents. So why are you trying to tell me it doesn't mean descendant? "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:The point is to be discussing from the same translation. I've already pointed out that translations vary and I don't want to spend time quibbling over translations. We don't have the original Hebrew and I don't read ancient Hebrew, do you? quote: So what you're telling me is that Isaiah just wasted his audiences times by telling them things that have nothing to do with them. How do we know that the prophets spoke of the future as though it had happened already? When did scholars figure that out? For the sake of argument I will go with the idea that this happens in some future.
quote:well good for Mel. No it does not describe the crucifixion. There's nothing in the text that says Jesus didn't look human. There is nothing in the text to suggest beating as the cause of disfigurement. I don't care what Mel's take on it is. The text is the issue here, not Hollywood. Have you read what the Gospels actually say? Mark 15: 16. The soldiers led Jesus away into the palace (that is, the Praetorium) and called together the whole company of soldiers. 17. They put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him. 18. And they began to call out to him, "Hail, king of the Jews!" 19. Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. 20. And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him. Nothing in the Gospels suggest excessive beating to the point of disfigurement. If you disagree, show me the words, not Mel.
quote:You said look at the Hebrew and according to your NET Bible notes, the Hebrew says "arm of the Lord" which is a metaphor for military power. Jesus had no military power, so he did not show them the arm of the Lord. At the end of the poem (verse 12), per NET notes, the servant is compared here to a warrior who will be richly rewarded for his effort and success in battle. This keeps with the military theme of the question. Celebrating him as King really counters verse 3.
53:3 He was despised and rejected by people, one who experienced pain and was acquainted with illness; people hid their faces from him; he was despised, and we considered him insignificant. The text gives the idea of a long period of time as in over a lifetime, not just a week or a few days.
quote:You're adding to the text. Where does Isaiah 53 imply that events will be spaced out? (Really spaced out!) It didn't fit Jesus at the time he was supposedly fulfilling the prophecy.
quote:Three wise men brought him valuable gifts. How insignificant is that? Luke 2:40 And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom, and the favor of God was upon him.
Luke 2:46 After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions.
2:52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and with people. From the NET notes:
Heb lacking of men. If the genitive is taken as specifying (lacking with respect to men), then the idea is that he lacked company because he was rejected by people. Another option is to take the genitive as indicating genus or larger class (i.e., one lacking among men). In this case one could translate, he was a transient The Gospels do not present Jesus as someone who lacked company in his early life or his ministry. You haven't convinced me that the words of Isaiah describe Jesus as he is depicted in the Gospels. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:You and I are discussing the use of the word seed. It isn't an anti-messiah site. Be precise, it's a Jewish site. Just because they don't accept Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, doesn't mean they are anti-messiah. quote:According to this article the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel was written in the 2nd Century (101-200). I'm not necessarily arguing that Isaiah 53 is or isn't a messianic prophecy. I'm arguing that if it is a messianic prophecy, Jesus didn't fit the prophecy. IOW, this prophecy wasn't fulfilled through what we supposedly know of Jesus. Realistically, we don't have the original Hebrew manuscript. The original language is a dead language. The writing has had changes made by both sides and translated by many on both sides to suit religious beliefs. We don't have a totally unadulterated version, so we can only speculate about what Isaiah was saying to his audience.
quote:Actually this story is a bit fishy. Notice after the eunuch was baptized Philip literally disappeared! When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing. Philip, however, appeared at Azotus and traveled about, preaching the gospel in all the towns until he reached Caesarea.
As I stated in another post, the author didn't have Philip answer the question directly. The author of Acts wasn't a disciple, wasn't an eyewitness by his own admission and was supposedly written after the destruction of the Temple (80-130). Philip was supposedly crucified about 54CE. The author isn't really in a position to know what the original disciples believed personally.
quote:I understand that you are saying it is spiritual offspring or followers. But there doesn't seem to be any support for that idea at the time of Isaiah. quote:Isaiah understand resurrection as a physical resurrection or rebirth. also read Ezekiel 37. Isaiah 26:19 Your dead will come back to life; your corpses will rise up. Wake up and shout joyfully, you who live in the ground! For you will grow like plants drenched with the morning dew, and the earth will bring forth its dead spirits. If you take the suffering servant as a prophecy, the servant dies and is physically resurrected. This means he is alive again and fully human and able to marry, have children, reflect on his work, and divide the spoils of his victory. The poem does not lead one to believe that the "messiah" is to die, come back to life and then ascend.
quote:I already addressed that in Message 106. PurpleDawn writes: Paul uses the phrase "Abraham's seed" to creatively refer to Israel or Jews. (Romans 9:6 and Galatians 3:29) Paul is trying to reason that even gentiles are heirs to the promises to Abraham through "adoption". It doesn't help us understand what Isaiah meant. The author of John uses it the same way. The transliterated Greek word for descendants is sperma or seed.
John 8 31 To the Jews who had believed him... 33 They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants ... 34 Jesus replied ... 37 I know you are Abraham's descendants. I'm not typing the whole thing because I'm sure you have a Bible and can read all of it. Paul's use of the phrase Abraham's seed cannot be used to support Isaiah's use of the word seed 700 years earlier. Paul is not using the word seed by itself. Today the English word grass is used to refer to marijuana. The first use was in 1938. We can't use that meaning to help interpret writings done before 1938. Otherwise we could have some interesting script. Genesis 1:11And God said, Let the earth bring forth marijuana (grass), ... Job 6:25Doth the wild ass bray when he hath marijuana (grass)? To show me that the Hebrew word used for seed is not used by Isaiah to mean physical offspring, you would need to show that other authors of the OT or authors contemporary to Isaiah have used it otherwise. Uses of the word seed in the NT cannot tell us that Isaiah meant something other than physical children/descendants. You said it yourself. Seed is used to mean descendants. Descendants are physical not spiritual. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Isaiah can be figurative but not creative, is that it? Show me that Isaiah meant the words as figurative in the way that you are interpreting the words. The plain reading of the NT texts do not support what you're saying. You're creating a picture, not looking at the real picture. ABE: I think 52:14-15 is just a way to say he was ugly. I am curious though, if all this is in the future who is Isaiah talking to when he states:
(just as many were horrified by the sight of you) he was so disfigured he no longer looked like a man Whose the You? kbertsche and I are using the NETBible quote:Sorry, Isaiah again doesn't seem to be speaking of a spiritual battle, but a physical one. Show me that his words depict a spiritual battle and not physical. What makes it spiritual aside from you. Edited by purpledawn, : Added sentence. Clarified statements. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Show that the words used by Isaiah clearly describe a spiritual battle.
Your own creative interpretation doesn't make it so for Isaiah's words. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:That's what kbertsche and I have been discussing. Message 93, Message 116, Message 119, Message 131 Show that what the Gospel authors claimed as fulfillment actually matches the plain text reading of what Isaiah said. Without your added backstory the prophecy, as it is translated, doesn't fit Jesus. The entire prophecy is not included in the claim of fulfillment.The words used as they are understood in the time of Isaiah are not reflected in the Gospel recounts of Jesus' life. IOW, all the prophecy is not accounted for and without embellishment, the parts claimed as fulfillment don't match either. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:I addressed that in Message 138. PurpleDawn writes: Isaiah understand resurrection as a physical resurrection or rebirth. also read Ezekiel 37.
Isaiah 26:19 Your dead will come back to life; your corpses will rise up. Wake up and shout joyfully, you who live in the ground! For you will grow like plants drenched with the morning dew, and the earth will bring forth its dead spirits. If you take the suffering servant as a prophecy, the servant dies and is physically resurrected. This means he is alive again and fully human and able to marry, have children, reflect on his work, and divide the spoils of his victory. The poem does not lead one to believe that the "messiah" is to die, come back to life and then ascend. quote:Discerning the suffering servant would take some time to read all the suffering servants songs without predetermined ideas and taking into account poetic license. I doubt if you're up for that. quote:Matt. 26:27,28 is not a preparation for a sin offering and humans were not accepted by God as literal sin offerings. The verse speaks of a covenant not an offering. quote:The NT writers apply the prophecy as creatively as Isaiah did. Anything can be speculated and nothing can be proven 100%. Ultimately the prophets provided hope for a group of people that God would rescue them from their plight of the time. The NT writers used the same imagery to provide hope for the people of their time. Bottom line: Times got worse after Jesus died. The Jews remained under the rule of other nations. No victory dance. Gentiles picked up the mantle of the Jewish Messiah and made him Christ and became Christians. The Jews continued to practice their religion even after the destruction of the temple and are still practicing their religion and still waiting for a messiah. Whether our sins are forgiven after we die is another speculation. Nothing can be proven in reality. Verbally, as I've been told before, a sign of forgiveness from God is being in God's favor which means the good times are rolled out in the physical life and the bad times go away. If we use that to discern if sins were forgiven upon the death of Jesus, I would say no. The good times didn't roll. What you and Peg haven't shown is that the results of the servants efforts according to Isaiah are spiritual or after death as opposed to being experienced in physical life. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
Read Message 138,not just the quote which you misunderstood.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Righteous doesn't mean one has never sinned. The servant is called righteous after repentance. (Ezekiel 18) Jesus still needed the baptism of repentance, so he probably did sin whether intentional or not. (Mark 1) Removed from the "land of the living" could also mean removed from the land of Israel. Exile!
4th Servant Song When Israel's exile finally ends, the leaders of the (Gentile) nations will marvel at a people who survived the expulsion(s) from the land of the living (an expression often used in the Hebrew Bible for the Land of Israel [e.g., Ezek 26:20, 32:23,24,25,26,27,32]), along with all the unfair and unjust treatment that accompanied their time in exile. Hard to tell in a poem over 2,000 years old in a dead language. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Read Mark 1 and your previous thread on sin. John preached a baptism of repentance and Jesus insisted on being baptized. Make your case as it relates to the topic. Show it, don't just say it. quote:As are you. The difference is that the excerpt I provided isn't my twist. It's another alternative to discuss. The implication isn't that the phrase only refers to the land of Israel, but the phrase has been used to refer to the land of Israel. The suffering servant's "deaths" as well as the description of his subsequent revival are metaphors for the fortunes of Israel. The phrases "for he was cut off out of the land of the living" (verse 8), "his grave was set" (verse 9), and "in his deaths" (verse 9) are not to be taken literally. The metaphor "his grave was set" describing an event in the life of God's suffering servant, is similar to the statement, "for he was cut off out of the land of the living" (verse 8). Metaphors of this type, used to describe deep anguish and subjection to enemies, are part of the biblical idiom. Similar metaphorical language is used, for example, in Ezekiel 37 to express the condition preceding relief and rejuvenation following the end of exile. God threatened to destroy those who terrorized the land of Israel. Being cut off from the land doesn't automatically mean physical death. As far as being a poem, that has been established and not by me.
Songs of the Suffering Servant (also called the Servant songs or Servant poems) were first identified by Bernhard Duhm in his 1892 commentary on Isaiah. The songs are four poems taken from the Book of Isaiah written about a certain "servant of Yahweh." That's why we look at the three previous songs to get clues. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Nope, I said the word seed was a creative way to refer to children. Message 106 and Message 110. I asked Peg to show me that the word seed had been used in Isaiah's time to refer to followers as she claims. quote:I guess you can eat those words. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:You're adding to the text. Jesus was baptized by John, who preached repentance and baptism. If there was no sin, then there was no need to be baptized. The fallen nature idea is a later teaching, not what Jesus preached. quote:You have no support that "all his life" he denied himself. We don't have that information. You're adding to the text again. Jesus preached repentance. He came for the "lost" not the righteous. The idea you present concerning baptism is a later teaching.
quote:The verses you provided from John 8:26 and 5:30, don't support the concept that Jesus never sinned in his life. We don't know what he did between 13 and 30. Paul's personification of sin isn't really applicable here. Righteous doesn't mean never sinned. Good doesn't mean never sinned.
quote:You're adding. The text does not support the idea that the baptism had anything to do with denying himself. Denying one's self does not mean one is without sin. John's ministry was specific. Repentance. Jesus went to John. Jesus preached repentance. He lead by example. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
quote:Could be, but then that casts out the offspring verse. As I said before, if we go with the idea that he physically died and came back from the dead; then the point of the song is that he lived physically on Earth and had children and enjoyed the spoils of victory. The ascension doesn't go with the song. NET Bible 53:12 So I will assign him a portion with the multitudes, he will divide the spoils of victory with the powerful, because he willingly submitted to death and was numbered with the rebels, when he lifted up the sin of many and intervened on behalf of the rebels. All the parts have to come together. If the righteous servant is removed from the land of Israel and then returned in victory, the servant is able to have children and enjoy the spoils of the victory.
53:10 Though the Lord desired to crush him and make him ill, once restitution is made, he will see descendants and enjoy long life, and the Lord’s purpose will be accomplished through him. You've got to explain the kids, unless you want to say restitution has not been made and the Lord's purpose has not been accomplished. "Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024