I just wanted to share that my new article on the oldest meaning of the cross and resurrection of Christ just made it through peer review and has been published on The Secular Web. Check it out: ** you do not have permission to see this link ** . Please let me know what you think of my interpretation.
Isaiah makes the repeated claim that Israel was being justly punished for its sins. The suffering servant is innocent and is “stricken for the transgression of my people”. ‘My people’ always means Israel for Isaiah.
“yet he bore the sin of many and made intercession for the transgressors” is the language of atonement.
(also Mark is editing Matthew).
The suffering servant is innocent and is “stricken for the transgression of my people”.
who is saying “stricken for….” isaiah ? a leader ? when a prophet speaks on behalf of his people, does the bible say that the prophet is including himself as a transgressor ? was daniel, when making prayer ,a transgressor like the ppl he was praying for? was king yotham? the suffering servant is not innocent, he is stricken because of …for what reason he was stricken? there is no ” i am willing to die for you guys because i am sinless” here. when righteous remnant from israel make a prayer for the transgression of their people, are the righteous remnant transgressors?
john76 said
I just wanted to share that my new article on the oldest meaning of the cross and resurrection of Christ just made it through peer review and has been published on The Secular Web. Check it out: ** you do not have permission to see this link ** . Please let me know what you think of my interpretation.
Peer review? For some reason I doubt that SecularWeb, a website notorious for posting just about anything against Christianity (including random debate reviews from Carrier) somehow has any meaningful or relevant peer review.
Please tell me the process your article went through and what relevant expertise this website has, because I have only had the experience of SecularWeb being a shill site in the past.
Abstract / Elevator Pitch
John MacDonald
This essay is an attempt to recover the oldest meaning of the cross of Jesus and that of Jesus’ resurrection in their historical context.
The paper argues that penal substitution, the popular conservative evangelical interpretation of the cross, is incorrect, and furthermore that it results in interpretive absurdities when applied to the text/evidence.
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy
I think I heard this from Christopher Hitchens when he spoke at Fort God [Prestonwood Baptist Church] in Plano, TX.
John MacDonald
Penal substitution claims that a just God lacks the ability to forgive, and so requires punishment for sin, where the innocent Jesus was substituted for us sinners and brutally bore the punishment for our sins, wiping our sin debt clean.
By contrast, this essay presents a nonpenal substitution participation crucifixion model, where Jesus is understood to be our willing victim as a catalyst for opening our eyes to our hidden “satanic influenced vileness” and for encouraging repentance. The oldest meaning of the resurrection of Jesus will also be shown to be what Jesus’ disciples took to be evidence for overcoming death in a blessed way, and empowering us to live righteously. The cross/resurrection argument will further be contextualized in a Second Temple framework of apocalypticism and demonology/superstition to show that the original meaning of the cross and resurrection is so divorced from most modern Christian frameworks and beliefs that many modern Christians would reject the heart of what their ancient counterpart would hold as fundamental to living a good and holy Christian life. The upshot is that the usual modern conservative interpretations of the cross and resurrection bear no, or at least merely superficial, relation to the original ancient ones.
Steve Campbell
I put forth an oldest meaning of the cross that is better in my book, Historical Accuracy (Moses, Saul, David, Solomon, Jesus).
IR_2017 said
who is saying “stricken for….” isaiah ? a leader ?
Its supposed to be God speaking
the suffering servant is not innocent
“he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.”
“he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities”
“the righteous one, my servant”
Steefen said
Abstract / Elevator PitchJohn MacDonald
This essay is an attempt to recover the oldest meaning of the cross of Jesus and that of Jesus’ resurrection in their historical context.
The paper argues that penal substitution, the popular conservative evangelical interpretation of the cross, is incorrect, and furthermore that it results in interpretive absurdities when applied to the text/evidence.
Steve Campbell, Author of Historical Accuracy
I think I heard this from Christopher Hitchens when he spoke at Fort God [Prestonwood Baptist Church] in Plano, TX.
I also heard Christopher Hitchens say women shouldn’t get abortions, and other nonsense. Maybe we shouldn’t care what random edgelords have to say like Hitchens had to say. He was about as much an expert on religion as your average dung beetle.
Steefen said
Abstract / Elevator PitchJohn MacDonald
Penal substitution claims that a just God lacks the ability to forgive, and so requires punishment for sin, where the innocent Jesus was substituted for us sinners and brutally bore the punishment for our sins, wiping our sin debt clean.
By contrast, this essay presents a nonpenal substitution participation crucifixion model, where Jesus is understood to be our willing victim as a catalyst for opening our eyes to our hidden “satanic influenced vileness” and for encouraging repentance. The oldest meaning of the resurrection of Jesus will also be shown to be what Jesus’ disciples took to be evidence for overcoming death in a blessed way, and empowering us to live righteously. The cross/resurrection argument will further be contextualized in a Second Temple framework of apocalypticism and demonology/superstition to show that the original meaning of the cross and resurrection is so divorced from most modern Christian frameworks and beliefs that many modern Christians would reject the heart of what their ancient counterpart would hold as fundamental to living a good and holy Christian life. The upshot is that the usual modern conservative interpretations of the cross and resurrection bear no, or at least merely superficial, relation to the original ancient ones.
Steve Campbell
I put forth an oldest meaning of the cross that is better in my book, Historical Accuracy (Moses, Saul, David, Solomon, Jesus).
“that is better in my book”
You mean your self-published, not peer reviewed, non-academic, book that cites insanely outdated theories, texts, and has no academic credibility at all? Are you ever going to stop pretending that your self published book is anything special? Literally anyone on earth can do the exact same thing you did. A self published amazon book is not something you should be citing as a source of expertise. Go get it published in a peer reviewed academic press.
brenmcg said
IR_2017 said
who is saying “stricken for….” isaiah ? a leader ?
Its supposed to be God speaking
Why not isaiah?
the suffering servant is not innocent
“he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.”
how does this show that the servant is innocent as in free of sin?
“he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities”
This could apply to sinners who are righteous in the eyes of god, whats your point?
“the righteous one, my servant”
Since when did “righteous one” become “innocent one” ?
So here’s an anachronism of sorts. If Isaiah is talking about piercing the hands and the feet, then what type of punishment are they talking about?
There are arguments about what exactly crucifixion entailed. Some experts say nailing the hands to the cross would not hold the person up, they would have been tied to the crossbeam with rope around the wrists.
Still, in John 20:27 doubting Thomas examines Jesus’ hands and the wound in his side, where he was pierced. Thomas had demanded to see the nail marks. similarly in Luke 24:39-40 Jesus tells them to observe his hands and his feet, but it does not mention any nail marks.
However, John 11:44 makes mention of the hands and feet of Lazarus being still bound as he has been raised from death.
Colossians is the only other mention of nailing to the cross. God has nailed the record of the legal demands to the cross. If we assume Jesus was nailed to the cross, we understand Colossians through that lens.
Even if Roman crucifixion definitely means a t-shaped cross that people are nailed to, what then is Isaiah talking about?
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)