john76 said
spiker said
john76 said
ICarrier demonstrates the passion narrative may be constructed by a haggadic midrash rewrite of Isaiah 52-3, the Wisdom of Solomon, Psalm 22, Daniel 9 and 12, and Zechariah 3 and 6.How does one demonstrate “may have” pointing to SIMILARITIES is not a demonstration. At best it’s an insinuation. It’s instructive that the Disciples are considered too illiterate to write the gospels, but are literate enough to compose midrash.
Oh look, Obama has hair, Osama bin laden had hair, Obama has an Islamic name OBL had an Islamic name. This demonstrates they are both terrorists?
Read This: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Not sure how Price’s argument demonstrates that similarities are anything more than similarities. Nor does this resolve the literacy question. Did you read my response?
Lawyerskeptic said
Matilda said
Unless there is a time machine built or something more unearthed about the matter, we will NEVER know.I think that is correct. Supernatural stories are notoriously difficult to pin down. One of my favorite examples is the “well to hell.” Rich Buhler, Christian broadcaster and nobody’s fool, investigated this urban legend within months of its origin and he was unable to trace it to its source. Read the story at ** you do not have permission to see this link **. How can we expect to find a definitive answer on the resurrection 2000 years later?
Since when is the question about what is definitive. The idea that we can’t know with out definitive proof is a distraction. If we can know with a high degree of probability, I don’t see a problem. Christian apologetics depends heavily on nothing more than the Biblical assertion that it happened in such and such a way.There’s really no way to evaluate a Resurrection EXCEPT by the odds. Christians
grant the odds by claiming their was ONLY 1 case of Resurrection in History. Does it make sense to govern ones life with something that is as likely to have happened as picking winning lottery numbers? The only evidence we have is claims by grief stricken followers
about having seen their leader resurrected. Outside that we have 1 person, and three separate conflicting accounts, of his seeing this person resurrected. Even if you swallow this without a rather large glass of water, there is the problem of expectation. This leader (and every generation after him) claimed everything would come to fruition in his own generation both claims are exceedingly thin and the latter is demonstrably false. In sum, what is the track record of the movement in question? Have they been right about any of their key predictions? Why do the predictions continuously change?
Moose:
Seriously, Moose!? What is the evidence that this is what Mark was doing? Midrash is simply a method of interpretation. Neither midrash or the speculation
it’s based on constitute evidence of any kind.
“Nobody knows what Isaiah had in mind when this was written. Perhaps the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah is correct. But anyway, how the Jews interpreted Isaiah is insignificant in this context.”
So we don’t know what he was thinking, but you’ll go ahead and tell us anyway!? There’s pretty good evidence
that he was talking about something that happened in the past. Unless you want to offer that Isaiah was written after the year 33, you don’t have a leg to stand on. Is Jewish understanding relevant?
Here again you ignore a rudimentary fact: Writers write for an audience, Isaiah’s audience was his fellow Jews; consequently, how they understood his work is completely relevant. The idea that he was prophecying is directly contradicted by his use of past tense. Prophecies by definition are about the future
“In NT, we find many references to Isaiah 53 that identify Jesus as the suffering servant.”
Yet that proves nothing except the point I already made, the NT authors, whoever they were, read
Isaiah in terms of THEIR OWN past rather than the authors.
People often read past authors in light of modern events. As enticing as this might be, it is usually a dead end unless you actually have evidence, which you do not.
spiker:
I really must say that I don’t understand your point.
I don’t know what Isaiah had in mind when he wrote his prophecies. One can always speculate, but the thing is that nobody really knows! I guess that even Isaiah didn’t fully understand what he wrote.
What we do know is that the Jews used several theological tools and techniques when they tried to understand their own holy scriptures. Midrash is just one such tool, Pesher is another.
If you wish to understand the early Christians you have to read sources that deal with Jesus life and his apostles. One can see very clearly that the prophecies of Isaiah was essential for the early Christians – over and over again.
Where do you think the idea of Jesus as the Lamb of God comes from?
Isaiah 53 of course!
Well Moose my point is extremely simple If you “don’t know what Isaiah had in mind when he wrote his prophecies”
Then you can’t turn around and claim to know that he had Jesus in mind ” What we know is neither Midrash or Peshar change the fact that he was not talking about something that was going to happen WHY? Because he wrote in the past tense. I suppose one could ignore the evidence and pretend to be confronted with some BIG mystery. I don’t need to “understand the early Christians to know claims that Isaiah was referring to Jesus are nonsense. It’s instructive that you want me to read the sources that deal with Jesus life but when it comes to understanding a non Christian Jewish author you consider his sources and audience irrelevant. Presumably because his audience SOMEHOW would not understand the very tools you claim they used.
Understanding early Christians has nothing to do with whether Isaiah was talking about Jesus or even if he was “prophesying”
It hardly maters where the idea of Jesus as the lamb of God came from. That has absolutely no bearing on What Isaiah wrote or what it meant. The evidence. You know, actual evidence. So now Jewish understanding of their own scripture is relevant? Talk about a major reversal. So which is it. is Jewish understanding of Isaiah relevant or not. If not why not?
Where do I claim that Isaiah was referring to Jesus?!
Take a deep breath and read once more what I actually write.
Christianity is in many ways a theological interpretation of the Pentateuch, the Prophets (including Isaiah) and Psalms. This is Exactly what Luke writes.
Luke 24:25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.(…) 44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
You have to distinguish between the first Christians theological interpretations, and Isaiahs theological intentions. You can always say that the first Christians were wrong, but that’s another issue.
It is easy to see that the first Christians met just such objections you mentions. We see signs of it in several of Pauls letters.
Moose:
“Where do I claim that Isaiah was referring to Jesus?!
Take a deep breath and read once more what I actually write.”
Ok so let’s go back to the video tape, shall we:
“Was there an empty tomb? of course. The prophet Isaiah had foreseen an empty tomb!”
If you weren’t claiming this was a reference to a tomb jesus was purportedly entombed in,
what were you claiming? If you can’t keep up with your own side of the discussion, I don’t know what to tell you. I’m not about to do it for you.
“Christianity is in many ways a theological interpretation of the Pentateuch, the Prophets (including Isaiah) and Psalms”
Actually you have that exactly backwards. The Torah was used as a way to understand what happened to Jesus. That’s substantially different.
“You have to distinguish between the first Christians theological interpretations, and Isaiahs theological intentions. You can always say that the first Christians were wrong, but that’s another issue.”
If I was talking about early Christian interpretation, you MIGHT have a point, but I am talking
about YOUR interpretation which is directly related to the question at hand. Frankly, Moose, I don’t give a damn what Isaish’s intentions were. The evidence is what matters. If Isaiah intended to write about a man dying centuries after he lived, he did a rather poor job of it.
He did such a poor job that even his direct audience, who as you indicate, used tools he would have known to understand him and still could not. That’s quite a feat of incompetance!
After all, at a minimum Isaiah would have been writing for a Jewish audience. It’s not likely
he would have written in such a way that they could not understand him. What would be the point.
Your problem, Moose, apart from offering even a spec of evidence, is to explain why Early Christian interpretation is more than a confused reading of Isaiah. So far you’ve offered bolded words. Claims that Jews use tools to understand their own scripture (Isaiah et al), but that there understanding of their own scripture is irrelevant to understanding their own scripture.
I’ve tried several times to explain the importance the prophecies of Isaiah had for the early Christians, but it seems like I just can’t get through to you. It seems to me that you just don’t understand what I’m writing. Whether you misinterpret me intentional or not is irrelevant. You are attributing me views I never had.
But that’s actually quite interesting. If you manage to interpret me wrong, why should not a group of scribes from antiquity manage to interpret the prophecies of Isaiah wrong?
Again. It appears that you do not see any difference in the intentional meaning of a text (the purpose of Isaiah), and any given interpretation of the same text (the motive of the user).
No offence by the way…
Well Moose I guess my claiming not to care what Isaiah’s intentions were and instead was interested in what the evidence tellls me wasn’t enough to convince you that I DO see a difference between between Isaiah’s intent and how he is interpreted, but AGAIN I dont care about his alledged “intent”
Now notice you avoided adressing the key issue here which was whether you asserted that Isaiha reffered to Jesus.I quoted you to that effect. I even asked if you meant something different by it. No response what so ever on that point, Moose. Thats a bit rude if you ask me. So can you please respond. Explain what you meant by citing Isaiah to answer whether the tomb was empty. And if you didnt think it was Jesus tomb, whos was it? Did it belong to Atis? Dionysus?
Youre argument seemed to say the tomb was “absolutely” empty and you were using Isaiah to prove that claim.If not then, what were you trying to say?
Lastly, I do understand early christian interpretation. I Just think it’s wrong and they dont get to have their own special version. Either Isaiah was talking about Jesus or he wasnt. If he wasn’t you dont get to claim he was in some special interpretation.This is called lying.something Christians seem to have increasing ease with.
Isaiah had made a prophecy about a particularly interesting figure – the suffering servant. Isaiah had made it clear in the opening of his prophecy (Isaiah 53) that this was a figure only “consecrated” believed in.
Isaiah 53:1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
The early Christians believed that they were the only “consecrated”. We can see this over and over again in the New Testament.
John 12:37 Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. 38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:
“Lord, who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”(Isaiah 53)
39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
40 “He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn—and I would heal them.”
41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.
As you can see – the early Christians believed Isaiah was talking about a figure the Christians called Jesus.
Romans 10:16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?”
Acts 8:30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. 31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33 In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth.”
34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35 Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
What’s of our interest is to understand how the early Christians interpreted Isaiah, not how I, or you, or Jews interpret him.
Once we understand that the early Christians believed Isaiah was talking about a figure they named Jesus, we can move on to look deeper in to this particular prophecy.
Isaiah 53 he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,
and he will divide the spoils with the strong,
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.
As you can see, the suffering servant should die for our sins. He should be assigned a grave after his death. BUT after he had suffered, he should see the light of life! The suffering servant should be given a portion among the great after his death!
Do you now understand what I meant by: “Was there an empty tomb? of course. The prophet Isaiah had foreseen an empty tomb!”
Naturally, it is implicit that the tomb had to be empty. But the suffering servant could not very well both lie in the grave and be among the great.
Moose:
“Once we understand that the early Christians believed Isaiah was talking about a figure they named Jesus, we can move on to look deeper in to this particular prophecy.”
Are you now conceding that you think Isaiah referred to Jesus? And are you arguing Christians gave the name Jesus to someone , a “figure”? If you’re insisting on that, I’ll have to take you at your word. You might want to bring this observation to the attention of a Mr. Richard Carrier of Free thought blogs fame freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/
“As you can see, the suffering servant should die for our sins. He should be assigned a grave after his death..”
Actually Moose, once again you are ignoring the evidence and making claims that clearly contradict what Isaiah wrote. Highlighting words doesn’t constitute evidence: “he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,” The operative word is, WAS. This is past tense meaning Isaiah is most likely writing about something in HIS past.
“What’s of our interest is to understand how the early Christians interpreted Isaiah, not how I, or you, or Jews interpret him.”
Actually that is Entirely wrong. “our interest” as you describe it is in resolving the question posed about whether there was, in fact, an empty tomb. A subset of that is whether Isaiah 53 is a prophecy about Jesus or about something else. Early Christian interpretation is simply not relevant here. If you want to argue Isaiah predicted Jesus death etc then you must deal specifically with the evidence and either explain why its author appears to be talking about something, but isn’t and why it was originally understood to describe the suffering servant as Israel. Then ,if you want to advocate that early Christian interpretation is relevant, you need to offer ACTUAL evidence not sermons and highlighted words. If this was supposed to be about someone living centuries After him, I’m sure he would have written something like he shall be led…”
of course, you’ve already conceded the argument by pretending there is some valid distinction between Isaiah’s INTENT and Early Christian interpretation. And pretending Isaiah probably didn’t understand what he was writing about! The only time early Christian interpretation is even remotely relevant here is when deciding whether their interpretation is right or wrong.
You have to alter the wording to get what you want. Thus “He was assigned a grave” becomes “He should be assigned a grave”
You don’t have a leg to stand on no matter how long you ignore the evidence or how much of the wording you have to alter to make your point. At best Christian interpretation is based on confusion. At worst it is sheer counterfeiting. If you feel dishonesty (You know, the whole bearing false witness nonsense) is the best way to represent your faith, then you’ve pretty much conceded the point.
Unless “the early Christians” responded to the post using your name, their interpretation is not relevant. The interpretation in question is YOUR’S The question is Whether Isaiah is actually prophesying and then whether the prophecy is about Jesus.
Can you offer even a spec of evidence or just continue to demonstrate that you don’t know what that is?
Moose:
As Ehrman explained:
“
In response to that common Christian interpretation, several points are important to make:
- It is to be remembered that the prophets of the Hebrew Bible are not predicting things that are to happen hundreds of years in advance; they are speaking to their own contexts and delivering a message for their own people to hear, about their own immediate futures;
- In this case, the author is not predicting that someone will suffer in the future for other people’s sins at all. Many readers fail to consider the verb tenses in these passages. They do not indicate that someone will come along at a later time and suffer in the future. They are talking about pastsuffering. The Servant has already suffered – although he “will be” vindicated. And so this not about a future suffering messiah.
- In fact, it is not about the messiah at all. This is a point frequently overlooked in discussions of the passage. If you will look, you will notice that the term messiah never occurs in the passage. This is not predicting what the messiah will be.
- If the passage is not referring to the messiah, and is not referring to someone in the future who is going to suffer – who is it talking about? Here there really should be very little ambiguity. As I mentioned, this particular passage – Isaiah 53 – is one of four servant songs of Second Isaiah. And so the question is, who does Second Isaiah himself indicate that the servant is? A careful reading of the passages makes the identification quite clear: “But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen” (44:1); “Remember these things, O Jacob, and Israel, for you are my servant” (44:21); “And he said to me, ‘You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified” (49:3).
The book of Second Isaiah itself indicates who the Servant of the Lord is. It is Israel, God’s people. In Isaiah 53, when the author describes the servant’s past sufferings, he is talking about the sufferings they have experienced by being destroyed by the Babylonians. This is a suffering that has come about because of sins. But the suffering will be vindicated, because God will now restore Israel and bring them back to the land and enter into a new relationship with them.”
spiker said
Moose:
As Ehrman explained:
“
In response to that common Christian interpretation, several points are important to make:
- It is to be remembered that the prophets of the Hebrew Bible are not predicting things that are to happen hundreds of years in advance; they are speaking to their own contexts and delivering a message for their own people to hear, about their own immediate futures;
- In this case, the author is not predicting that someone will suffer in the future for other people’s sins at all. Many readers fail to consider the verb tenses in these passages. They do not indicate that someone will come along at a later time and suffer in the future. They are talking about pastsuffering. The Servant has already suffered – although he “will be” vindicated. And so this not about a future suffering messiah.
- In fact, it is not about the messiah at all. This is a point frequently overlooked in discussions of the passage. If you will look, you will notice that the term messiah never occurs in the passage. This is not predicting what the messiah will be.
- If the passage is not referring to the messiah, and is not referring to someone in the future who is going to suffer – who is it talking about? Here there really should be very little ambiguity. As I mentioned, this particular passage – Isaiah 53 – is one of four servant songs of Second Isaiah. And so the question is, who does Second Isaiah himself indicate that the servant is? A careful reading of the passages makes the identification quite clear: “But now hear, O Jacob my servant, Israel whom I have chosen” (44:1); “Remember these things, O Jacob, and Israel, for you are my servant” (44:21); “And he said to me, ‘You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified” (49:3).
The book of Second Isaiah itself indicates who the Servant of the Lord is. It is Israel, God’s people. In Isaiah 53, when the author describes the servant’s past sufferings, he is talking about the sufferings they have experienced by being destroyed by the Babylonians. This is a suffering that has come about because of sins. But the suffering will be vindicated, because God will now restore Israel and bring them back to the land and enter into a new relationship with them.”
Do you know what? I do agree with Mr. Ehrman in his views on Isaiah 53!
But the early Christians were of a different opinion, and it’s a shame you don’t have the opportunity to discuss your of knowledge, with them.
Because I’m out. I can not be bothered anymore.
Moreover, there is no weighty argument that Isaiah wrote in past, as long as the Gospels also were written in past. You know – It never happened.
Moose:
“But the early Christians were of a different opinion, and it’s a shame you don’t have the opportunity to discuss your (sic) of knowledge, with them.”
And you did!? By seance perhaps?
Here let’s take this a bit slower. The reason Christian interpretation is irrelevant is because Christians 1.) did not write Isaiah and 2.) it was not written for Christians. Conversely, it was written for and by Jew(s) “my people” as Isaiah calls them 3.) YOU, not early christians, are advocating this interpretation on this forum.
Of course, Christians are free to read Isaiah and draw whatever conclusions they want. What they are not free to do is rewrite Isaiah and pretend it meant something other than what it clearly meant.
You claim you agree with Ehrman’s view, but then want to offer a rather strange caveat:
“there is no weighty argument that Isaiah wrote in past, as long as the Gospels also were written in past. You know – It never happened.”
So you agree with Ehrman, but want to argue there
isn’t sufficent evidence (despite the fact that we have abundant evidence) for that agreement. Then why agree?
Now we know who needs to take a deep breath
If you mean to say, Isaiah wasn’t writing about the
past, you need to explain why the evidence says otherwise. Take for example:
“For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished.”
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Two things are plain here: Isaiah was writing about the past(That is, HIS past as signified by the word WAS) and “my people” that is Jews. This is why Jewish interpretation is relevant and Early Christian Interpretation is, well, irrelevant
You want to argue that there is some Jewish interpretation of Isaiah and an early Christian one
and that they are both valid SOMEHOW. Yet, not only does Isaiah write in the past tense,
he specifically identifies the servant as Israel.
How much more weight do you need?
You agree with Ehrman but disagree with me, who has been making the EXACT same argument! Neat trick!
So when did the commandment against bearing false witness change? . I am pretty sure it was Thou shalt not bear false witness or if you like Exodus 23
“Do not spread false reports….” yet “false reports” seems to be what your entire argument is constructed
out of.
spiker: “You agree with Ehrman but disagree with me, who has been making the EXACT same argument!”
No you do not make the same argument as Mr. Ehrman.
Just to clarify. When I talk about the first Christians, I mean the movement from antiquity who wrote the gospels and the letters that form the New Testament.
No you do not make the same argument as Mr. Ehrman
Not only do we now know who needs to take a deep breath, but also who needs to actually read. Yes I made the exact same points. And yes I know what early (now first) Christians meant. No need for clarification and the difference is exactly 0. Nice to see you can now be “bothered”
Would be nice if you could be “bothered” to offer a shred of evidence
spiker said
No you do not make the same argument as Mr. Ehrman
Not only do we now know who needs to take a deep breath, but also who needs to actually read. Yes I made the exact same points. And yes I know what early (now first) Christians meant. No need for clarification and the difference is exactly 0. Nice to see you can now be “bothered”
Would be nice if you could be “bothered” to offer a shred of evidence
The proof is in the New Testament. Here are some examples showing how Isaiah 53 is quoted explicitly:
Isaiah had made a prophecy about a particularly interesting figure – the suffering servant. Isaiah had made it clear in the opening of his prophecy (Isaiah 53) that this was a figure only “consecrated” believed in.
Isaiah 53:1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
The early Christians believed that they were the only “consecrated”. We can see this over and over again in the New Testament.
John 12:37 Even after Jesus had performed so many signs in their presence, they still would not believe in him. 38 This was to fulfill the word of Isaiah the prophet:
“Lord, who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?”(Isaiah 53)
39 For this reason they could not believe, because, as Isaiah says elsewhere:
40 “He has blinded their eyes
and hardened their hearts,
so they can neither see with their eyes,
nor understand with their hearts,
nor turn—and I would heal them.”
41 Isaiah said this because he saw Jesus’ glory and spoke about him.
As you can see – the early Christians believed Isaiah was talking about a figure the Christians called Jesus.
Romans 10:16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed our message?”
Acts 8:30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. “Do you understand what you are reading?” Philip asked. 31 “How can I,” he said, “unless someone explains it to me?” So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33 In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth.”
34 The eunuch asked Philip, “Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?” 35 Then Philip began with that VERY passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.
That VERY PASSAGE telling the good news about Jesus is quoted from Isaiah 53!!!!
Your task should be to tell the writers of the New Testament that they were wrong, not me!
Good night and thanks for the chat.
The real question is not whether the Jesus figure was seen as a fulfillment of the scriptures – but why.
Although I do agree with Dr. Ehrman in his view on Isaiah 53, I can easily understand how the first Christians came to a different conclusion. The key lies in the tension between “He” and “Us”. You mentioned such a point.
Spiker: “For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was punished.” Two things are plain here: Isaiah was writing about the past(That is, HIS past as signified by the word WAS) and “my people” that is Jews.
If “my people” refers to the Jews, who then is He who suffers for the Jewish guilt? Conversely: If the suffering servant is Jacob (Israel), who is then is “my people”?
Isaiah 53:5 But he was pierced for our rebellion, crushed for our sins. He was beaten so we could be whole. He was whipped so we could be healed.
The Tension located in the distinction between “He” and “We” could easily get some eager scribes on the idea that the suffering servant was not Jacob, but perhaps his brother? James the Lord’s brother…
Anyway. Here are some more quotation from the New Testament that explicitly says that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of Isaiah 53:
Mark 15:28 And the Scripture was fulfilled(Isaiah 53) which says, “And He was numbered with transgressors.”
Matt 8:17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah(53): “He took up our infirmities and bore our diseases.”
Luke 22:37 For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled(Isaiah 53) in me: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors.’ For what is written about me has its fulfillment.”
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert