Many Jews, in seeing Jesus, saw in Him what they read in Isaiah.
A “sign” would be given through a special child born. To “us” a son is “given” – he will belong to the Jewish people but his glory would be to the Gentiles. He will be the “mighty God” and “Counselor.” His “judgment” and “justice” was “forever.”
He would be a “tender shoot… in a dry ground.” A “great light” to Galilee of Gentiles. God gave Him no attractiveness and no children of His own. He would be the healer to “the eyes of the blind” and “the ears of the deaf” and even to restore the dead to life.
Yet He would be “despised and rejected” and a “man of sorrows.” He would be taken from prison and judgment and like a lamb He would be “pierced” and “crushed.” Yet He will see life again and be “satisfied” for “suffering of His soul.”
Jesus quoted to the Jews Psalm 118, “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. The Lord has done this and it is marvelous in our eyes.” He said the “kingdom of God will be taken away from you…until the Gentile’s time is fulfilled.” This is that time now.
Many Jews, in seeing Jesus, saw in Him what they read in Isaiah.
Precisely. And they saw in Isaiah what they saw in him. The early Christians trying to make sense of what happened to Jesus went to their own scriptures for answers. And they read it in the light of Jesus. Just as Christians today read the New Testament through the lens of their own experience. The purpose of scholarship is to illuminate not only how the early Christians interpreted Isaiah but also what Isaiah meant in his own day to the people he was writing for.
Stephen said
Many Jews, in seeing Jesus, saw in Him what they read in Isaiah.Precisely. And they saw in Isaiah what they saw in him. The early Christians trying to make sense of what happened to Jesus went to their own scriptures for answers. And they read it in the light of Jesus. Just as Christians today read the New Testament through the lens of their own experience. The purpose of scholarship is to illuminate not only how the early Christians interpreted Isaiah but also what Isaiah meant in his own day to the people he was writing for.
There are intellectually lazy people who say that the story of Jesus was crafted to fit various prophecies. So when the suffering man is given gall to drink and lots are cast for his garments etc this was tacked onto the story of Jesus. There are things which bother me about such a theory:
1 – why did those first people give up their livelihoods, home, families and even their lives for Jesus?
2 – Who is Isaiah, Jacob, David, Malachi, Moses, Zechariah etc referring to when they speak of the Redeemer?
3 – These authors connect the Messiah to the end of Israel, Jerusalem, the temple and the Jews. How did they achieve that?
4 – Could the Messiah still come to Israel as Redeemer?
Poohbear said
There are intellectually lazy people who say that the story of Jesus was crafted to fit various prophecies. So when the suffering man is given gall to drink and lots are cast for his garments etc this was tacked onto the story of Jesus. There are things which bother me about such a theory:
1 – why did those first people give up their livelihoods, home, families and even their lives for Jesus?
2 – Who is Isaiah, Jacob, David, Malachi, Moses, Zechariah etc referring to when they speak of the Redeemer?
3 – These authors connect the Messiah to the end of Israel, Jerusalem, the temple and the Jews. How did they achieve that?
4 – Could the Messiah still come to Israel as Redeemer?
Hi Poohbear. If only people would do like your handle’s namesake and “think, think, think.”
Confirmation bias grips us all – including you and me. There are intellectual lazy people who think all kinds of things. And there are intellectually rigorous people who also think all kinds of things. The reading of the Jewish scriptures through a Jesus-shaped lens is something that people from both sets of folks do, as is propounding the theory that the story of Jesus was arranged or cherry picked to back-fit prior prophecies. Lazy and rigorous thinkers on all sides. The specific theory isn’t the hallmark of rigor, at least to a first approximation, it’s rather how the analyst in question approaches such theories.
There are folks here more qualified than I to discuss 3-4 from a literary and historical perspective, and 1 from a psychological/sociological angle, but 1 requires less specialized knowledge if you just look around at what humans do. That people were willing to give up their lives (both figuratively and literally) for Jesus/Jesus-belief is only a sign of their conviction, not a sign of the underlying truth. People all the time give up their lives for things that they believe in fervently, but yet that are not true (or at the very least mutually exclusive from group to group).
That is not to say that because this happens all the time, that the pattern is therefore dispositive for this specific case. But it is to say, putting aside one’s own beliefs for the moment (trying to hold confirmation bias at bay temporarily), why does this particular group’s actions (qua actions of self-sacrifice) track truth better than those of others when placed amongst the set of all groups that have also done so, for their own respective and mutually exclusive truths?
There are intellectually lazy people who say that the story of Jesus was crafted to fit various prophecies.
Like the vast majority of critical scholars. On the contrary, intellectual laziness is reading the gospels like straightforward newspaper reports.
why did those first people give up their livelihoods, home, families and even their lives for Jesus?
Try to imagine how unremittingly grim life was in rural Palestine for these folks. Jesus gave them a vision of another world, a vision of hope and meaning and purpose. I will also note that we have very little evidence as to the fate of Jesus’ disciples. As far as we know they might have all died peacefully in bed surrounded by their families after long lives. The tales of martyrdom are mostly legends composed decades if not centuries after the fact.
Hngerhman said
Poohbear said
There are intellectually lazy people who say that the story of Jesus was crafted to fit various prophecies. So when the suffering man is given gall to drink and lots are cast for his garments etc this was tacked onto the story of Jesus. There are things which bother me about such a theory:
1 – why did those first people give up their livelihoods, home, families and even their lives for Jesus?
2 – Who is Isaiah, Jacob, David, Malachi, Moses, Zechariah etc referring to when they speak of the Redeemer?
3 – These authors connect the Messiah to the end of Israel, Jerusalem, the temple and the Jews. How did they achieve that?
4 – Could the Messiah still come to Israel as Redeemer?
Hi Poohbear. If only people would do like your handle’s namesake and “think, think, think.”
Confirmation bias grips us all – including you and me. There are intellectual lazy people who think all kinds of things. And there are intellectually rigorous people who also think all kinds of things. The reading of the Jewish scriptures through a Jesus-shaped lens is something that people from both sets of folks do, as is propounding the theory that the story of Jesus was arranged or cherry picked to back-fit prior prophecies. Lazy and rigorous thinkers on all sides. The specific theory isn’t the hallmark of rigor, at least to a first approximation, it’s rather how the analyst in question approaches such theories.
There are folks here more qualified than I to discuss 3-4 from a literary and historical perspective, and 1 from a psychological/sociological angle, but 1 requires less specialized knowledge if you just look around at what humans do. That people were willing to give up their lives (both figuratively and literally) for Jesus/Jesus-belief is only a sign of their conviction, not a sign of the underlying truth. People all the time give up their lives for things that they believe in fervently, but yet that are not true (or at the very least mutually exclusive from group to group).
That is not to say that because this happens all the time, that the pattern is therefore dispositive for this specific case. But it is to say, putting aside one’s own beliefs for the moment (trying to hold confirmation bias at bay temporarily), why does this particular group’s actions (qua actions of self-sacrifice) track truth better than those of others when placed amongst the set of all groups that have also done so, for their own respective and mutually exclusive truths?
Ever stop to think the “confirmation bias” is the other way around? That Postmodern “scholars” today had adopted the Jewish Rabbi’s “explanations” for Jesus? But they lost their homeland and temple – as their own Tanakh said they would when the Messiah came. You can’t “explain away” most of these things.
Love what it says in Zechariah – the Jewish Messiah as King would come. But the Jews would see it’s the same lowly man they once pierced.
Poohbear, everyone is prone to confirmation bias – it’s how our brains work. The trick is to try making a concerted effort to hold it aside when we are weighing evidence.
I think few on this forum want to dissuade others’ religious beliefs – whether faith or its opposite. But, you will likely find on a blog focused on the history of the NT that people will engage on ahistorical readings of the Bible, whether they are believers or not. You will also find that most folks active around here are driven by evidence, and less so a worldview to fit the evidence into (but which worldview often falls out of the evaluation of the evidence). So when statements are made that don’t accord with what someone perceives to be the evidence at hand, those statements will be pushed back upon. It’s (generally) not a debate at the macro worldview level, it’s at the micro evidence level. Said differently, it’s almost always a discussion about evidence.
Hngerhman said
Poohbear, everyone is prone to confirmation bias – it’s how our brains work. The trick is to try making a concerted effort to hold it aside when we are weighing evidence.I think few on this forum want to dissuade others’ religious beliefs – whether faith or its opposite. But, you will likely find on a blog focused on the history of the NT that people will engage on ahistorical readings of the Bible, whether they are believers or not. You will also find that most folks active around here are driven by evidence, and less so a worldview to fit the evidence into (but which worldview often falls out of the evaluation of the evidence). So when statements are made that don’t accord with what someone perceives to be the evidence at hand, those statements will be pushed back upon. It’s (generally) not a debate at the macro worldview level, it’s at the micro evidence level. Said differently, it’s almost always a discussion about evidence.
AND, I might add, “WHAT EVIDENCE” because I notice people chose their evidences. Like the word “virgin” in Isaiah and the “pierce” in the Psalms – both are dissected for “evidence.” Rest of Isaiah and David’s contextual message is ignored because it isn’t helping. We happily proffer the “evidence” for studies on a word.
IMO “evidence” can lead you in both directions. Christians and skeptics chose their “evidence” carefully.
As a student I lived through the raging controversy over “Continental Drift.” People lost tenure and careers over it. Lots of evidence, but the whole idea was simply absurd. I see something like that with the bible. The bias here is this “If we have to revert to invoking God then we haven’t progressed at all.” So, miracles never happened, prophecy never happened (or is ignored,) claims of biblical historicity dismissed.
I appreciate your response. I think what you are saying by using evidence in scare quotes is that the same evidence can be read multivocally.
If you and I come to an agreement on what the data set is, and we both give it an honest and concerted effort at understanding it as best as we each can, and in the end you come out with faith and I do not, is one of us necessarily mistaken? I hope not, because I am coming at the data as honestly as I can, as are many many people here. Believers, nonbelievers and plain in-betweeners.
IMO “evidence” can lead you in both directions. Christians and skeptics chose their “evidence” carefully.
But don’t you see how this view undercuts your own position?
…but the whole idea [continental drift] was simply absurd.
But do you understand why? No motive force could be demonstrated. And the estimates for the speed of the movement necessary were way too high. When a motive force could be demonstrated – plate tectonics – it was accepted. By the way I’m delighted you accept plate tectonics. I was worried you might be a young earth creationist!
The bias here is this “If we have to revert to invoking God then we haven’t progressed at all.” So, miracles never happened, prophecy never happened (or is ignored,) claims of biblical historicity dismissed.
No, you don’t understand how science works. Science is based on methodological naturalism. The assumption that nature acts according to certain uniform processes that can be comprehended and measured. And that our perceptions of reality are more or less accurate. If you assume supernaturalism, that at each discreet moment the so-called “laws” of nature can be amended or superseded, then science becomes impossible. The result is that science simply has no way to test supernatural claims. Hence the methodological naturalism. There is a bias but it is not malicious. Simply inevitable.
Hngerhman said
I appreciate your response. I think what you are saying by using evidence in scare quotes is that the same evidence can be read multivocally.If you and I come to an agreement on what the data set is, and we both give it an honest and concerted effort at understanding it as best as we each can, and in the end you come out with faith and I do not, is one of us necessarily mistaken? I hope not, because I am coming at the data as honestly as I can, as are many many people here. Believers, nonbelievers and plain in-betweeners.
Data in the bible can take you either way.
The data coming out of Edom this year demonstrates that large numbers of people can go unremarked in the archaeological record. And this suggests that Israel wasn’t just a few tribes folk who could never have achieved what they did.
I am not sure if this would be ‘data’ to you, or you are thinking of something else.
Stephen said
IMO “evidence” can lead you in both directions. Christians and skeptics chose their “evidence” carefully.But don’t you see how this view undercuts your own position?
…but the whole idea [continental drift] was simply absurd.
But do you understand why? No motive force could be demonstrated. And the estimates for the speed of the movement necessary were way too high. When a motive force could be demonstrated – plate tectonics – it was accepted. By the way I’m delighted you accept plate tectonics. I was worried you might be a young earth creationist!
The bias here is this “If we have to revert to invoking God then we haven’t progressed at all.” So, miracles never happened, prophecy never happened (or is ignored,) claims of biblical historicity dismissed.
No, you don’t understand how science works. Science is based on methodological naturalism. The assumption that nature acts according to certain uniform processes that can be comprehended and measured. And that our perceptions of reality are more or less accurate. If you assume supernaturalism, that at each discreet moment the so-called “laws” of nature can be amended or superseded, then science becomes impossible. The result is that science simply has no way to test supernatural claims. Hence the methodological naturalism. There is a bias but it is not malicious. Simply inevitable.
You read current events? You see the Jews are returning to Israel? Isaiah said the Jews would return to their homeland a “second time.” Sounded daft to Jews who were either in captivity in Babylon, or were yet to be taken prisoner. There’s a nice little scientific experiment – science is about making predictions. I think either Isaiah or Ezekiel, in his famous two chapter account of a new Israel under attack, spoke of “all” the Jews back in Israel. That doesn’t seem feasible – most Jews would not want to live there. So in my lifetime I have a little science of my own – I predict that persecution against Jews will increase in Western nations as it did in Muslim ones last century. And most of these people will return to Israel. And Israel will be, as prophesied, a land of just two Jewish tribes – Ephraim and Manasseh, the religious and the secular (two brothers born apart from the 12 tribes.)
But even if all this happens then where is ‘motive force’ for this? It just happened. And we don’t think about people who wrote that it will happen nearly 3,000 years ago. I kinda’ feel people who dismiss that are not really being scientific.
You read current events?
Yes and I read Isaiah as well. Look, you have to treat Isaiah with respect and let him say what he has to say and not impose your beliefs on him. He was talking to his own folks in his own time.
In the days of Ahaz son of Jotham son of Uzziah, king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and King Pekah son of Remaliah of Israel went up to attack Jerusalem, but could not mount an attack against it. When the house of David heard that Aram had allied itself with Ephraim, the heart of Ahaz and the heart of his people shook as the trees of the forest shake before the wind.
Then the Lord said to Isaiah, Go out to meet Ahaz, you and your son Shear-jashub, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool on the highway to the Fuller’s Field, and say to him, Take heed, be quiet, do not fear, and do not let your heart be faint because of these two smoldering stumps of firebrands, because of the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram and the son of Remaliah. Because Aram—with Ephraim and the son of Remaliah—has plotted evil against you, saying, Let us go up against Judah and cut off Jerusalem and conquer it for ourselves and make the son of Tabeel king in it; therefore thus says the Lord God:
It shall not stand,
and it shall not come to pass.
For the head of Aram is Damascus,
and the head of Damascus is Rezin.
(Within sixty-five years Ephraim will be shattered, no longer a people.)
The head of Ephraim is Samaria,
and the head of Samaria is the son of Remaliah.
If you do not stand firm in faith,
you shall not stand at all
Again the Lord spoke to Ahaz, saying, Ask a sign of the Lord your God; let it be deep as Sheol or high as heaven. But Ahaz said, I will not ask, and I will not put the Lord to the test. 13 Then Isaiah said: “Hear then, O house of David! Is it too little for you to weary mortals, that you weary my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. He shall eat curds and honey till he knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted. The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on your ancestral house such days as have not come since the day that Ephraim departed from Judah—the king of Assyria.”
Poohbear said
Data in the bible can take you either way.
The data coming out of Edom this year demonstrates that large numbers of people can go unremarked in the archaeological record. And this suggests that Israel wasn’t just a few tribes folk who could never have achieved what they did.
I am not sure if this would be ‘data’ to you, or you are thinking of something else.
That would count in the totality of the data set in my book, yes.
Btw, as an armchair metallurgist (amongst that many things I can only do in an armchair…), this analysis of the copper slag deposits is a clever way to show that whoever lived there had the ancient version of high tech manufacturing. Whether this is the biblical Edom or not, I’ll let the experts hash out – I have no dog in that hunt, only an interested bystander. If you’d like, I’ll grant for argument’s sake that this proves the biblical Edom. I always find it cool (sorry for the colloquialism) when the biblical stories attach to historically demonstrable things. Like the Tel Dan stele.
I agree that the data in the Bible can take one in many directions. Which is why it’s so fascinating. And why people who, with the best of intentions and huge helpings of intellectual honesty, come to both conclusions that cohere with your readings and conclusions that cut against them. As they say in my business, it’s what makes a market.
I and many here respect your faith – and I, many moons ago, actually once had a faith that sounds a bit like yours. I and some here like me may disagree with your assessment of certain biblical passages. That’s all for the good, we can still have a spirited and convivial discussion of the data. Open-minded discussion – the worst it can do is help hone one’s thinking.
You hold that the Bible contains true prophecy, and I hold that it doesn’t. You can point out to me why you think I’m mistaken. I can do the same. That’s ok, we’re still friends, and we’re still trying to get at truth. Which precisely no one has cornered the market in.
Hngerhman said
That would count in the totality of the data set in my book, yes.
Btw, as an armchair metallurgist (amongst that many things I can only do in an armchair…), this analysis of the copper slag deposits is a clever way to show that whoever lived there had the ancient version of high tech manufacturing. Whether this is the biblical Edom or not, I’ll let the experts hash out – I have no dog in that hunt, only an interested bystander. If you’d like, I’ll grant for argument’s sake that this proves the biblical Edom. I always find it cool (sorry for the colloquialism) when the biblical stories attach to historically demonstrable things. Like the Tel Dan stele.
I agree that the data in the Bible can take one in many directions. Which is why it’s so fascinating. And why people who, with the best of intentions and huge helpings of intellectual honesty, come to both conclusions that cohere with your readings and conclusions that cut against them. As they say in my business, it’s what makes a market.
I and many here respect your faith – and I, many moons ago, actually once had a faith that sounds a bit like yours. I and some here like me may disagree with your assessment of certain biblical passages. That’s all for the good, we can still have a spirited and convivial discussion of the data. Open-minded discussion – the worst it can do is help hone one’s thinking.
You hold that the Bible contains true prophecy, and I hold that it doesn’t. You can point out to me why you think I’m mistaken. I can do the same. That’s ok, we’re still friends, and we’re still trying to get at truth. Which precisely no one has cornered the market in.
In Australia we say “I have no dog in the fight.”
Where you from?
The thing about the bible is it’s claim to historicity. You won’t get this with Greek mythology for instance. No one is excavating Mount Olympus. There’s evidence of King David, but you won’t find evidence for his relationship with God. But by challenging history some seek to diminish the idea of relationship with God.
And I take Psalm 22 and 69, in particular, to be direct prophecies of Christ. Same as Isaiah’s many passages. I take the prophecies concerning Israel as being most or less fulfilled (with the exception of Ezekiel 38 and 39 which clearly haven’t happened yet.) Also, the prophecy of the Jews seeing their Messiah is the same lowly man they crucified is a long ways away.
The thing about the bible is it’s claim to historicity.
This is funny because you make this claim and then turn around and completely ignore Isaiah’s actual historical context. You want to have it both ways, and you simply can’t see the irony.
And I take Psalm 22 and 69, in particular, to be direct prophecies of Christ.
You are free to read the New Testament in light of the Psalmist theologically; the gospel writers certainly encourage us to do so. Fine. I have no objection whatsoever. But you want to make historical claims or it may simply be that you can’t see a distinction. This is the fundamentalist impulse. But it shows a lack of respect for the author not to let him have his own say.
Also, the prophecy of the Jews seeing their Messiah is the same lowly man they crucified is a long ways away.
Pedantic perhaps but I feel compelled to remind you that it was the Romans who crucified Jesus. The Jews who rejected Jesus did so because Jesus didn’t fit any of their expectations as to who the Messiah would be.
Poohbear saidIn Australia we say “I have no dog in the fight.”
Where you from?
I’m originally from the American South, deep Bible Belt country. I was raised evangelical but got dragged kicking and screaming away from faith in college when I came to the realization it didn’t hold up to rigorous philosophical scrutiny. Many things we often think are true don’t hold up to it. I’m now what most folks would label a hard-boiled agnostic.
I grew up with both dog-phrases, and many other colorful animal metaphors inappropriate for polite company. Ha!
Poohbear said
The thing about the bible is it’s claim to historicity. You won’t get this with Greek mythology for instance. No one is excavating Mount Olympus. There’s evidence of King David, but you won’t find evidence for his relationship with God. But by challenging history some seek to diminish the idea of relationship with God.
The Bible is quite a complex amalgam of documents, some claiming historicity, some offering historical adjacency, and others non/ahistorical. Yep – some people like to challenge a lot of things, historical claims, philosophical claims, scientific claims, ethical claims. I’m one of those people from time to time. But, I try (sometimes fail) to do it with good intent, and I hope to receive it back as well. If I’m wrong about a claim, I’d much much rather know why.
Poohbear said
And I take Psalm 22 and 69, in particular, to be direct prophecies of Christ. Same as Isaiah’s many passages. I take the prophecies concerning Israel as being most or less fulfilled (with the exception of Ezekiel 38 and 39 which clearly haven’t happened yet.) Also, the prophecy of the Jews seeing their Messiah is the same lowly man they crucified is a long ways away.
I don’t see them that way, but understand why you do. I used to.
Stephen said
The thing about the bible is it’s claim to historicity.This is funny because you make this claim and then turn around and completely ignore Isaiah’s actual historical context. You want to have it both ways, and you simply can’t see the irony.
And I take Psalm 22 and 69, in particular, to be direct prophecies of Christ.
You are free to read the New Testament in light of the Psalmist theologically; the gospel writers certainly encourage us to do so. Fine. I have no objection whatsoever. But you want to make historical claims or it may simply be that you can’t see a distinction. This is the fundamentalist impulse. But it shows a lack of respect for the author not to let him have his own say.
Also, the prophecy of the Jews seeing their Messiah is the same lowly man they crucified is a long ways away.
Pedantic perhaps but I feel compelled to remind you that it was the Romans who crucified Jesus. The Jews who rejected Jesus did so because Jesus didn’t fit any of their expectations as to who the Messiah would be.
With Isaiah there’s TWO contexts – one is his dealings with the political situation in the Middle East, the second is his song of the Messiah, God and His people.
Yes, it was the Romans who destroyed Jesus – sort of (at least, allowed the Jews to do it.) But that’s how God works – there’s always an AGENCY to what God will do, anything from the earth and seas bringing forth life to the Babylonians and Romans punishing the Jews. But to the pedantic myself 🙂 Daniel detailed WHO would “cut off” the Messiah – the “people of the Prince” which we take to be Rome and its auxiliaries, under Titus, son of the Emperor.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)