CZ Tries to Salvage Scripture
Rook- You're basically taking most of that chapter and applying it only to the last week or so of Jesus's life. Earlier in his days, he WAS exalted- take his entrance into Jerusalem for example, people laid down their coats and palm branches on the road before him so that the donkey he rode in on wouldn't have to walk on the ground.
First of all, just because he was exalted doesn't mean he was the Messiah in relation to Isaiah (or any other OT prophecy.) We're waiting on a chapter and verse from you for this. Kings were worshiped and exalted too.
You still have not shown how the contradition of Isa. 53:3 ("He is despised and rejected of men" and Isa. 57:15 which says God (Jesus) is high and exalted continually, doesn't exist.
Perhaps the "marring" bit is referring to the beatings that Jesus took at the hands of those who cruficied him? I'm not sure though. I can't imagine he looked too pretty after all that.
Perhaps. Referring. The bible says what it says already. Just because you don't like what it says, you feel the need to correct it by speculating what the authors meant to say, when what was meant to say was clearly written.
Try not to use the Passions movie as a reference, it wasn't very biblical, and Mel took more liberties with that then when they filmed Braveheart. Jesus' features were never marred. He might have been stabbed cut and whipped (This is mostly dogmatic...really he was just crucified.) But never was he marred beyond all repair. You'll be hard pressed to find such a verse.
If you don't know, it's intellectually dishonest to just disagree because you don't want it to be there. It's more intellectually dishonest to put quotes around something as if to somehow invalidate it when you haven't.
There is a lot of speculation and no answers. This verse STILL contradicts the supposed description of Jesus given in Psalm 45:2 ("Thou are fairer than the children of men". You have not answered the question, just side-stepped around it.
The part about kings shutting their mouth makes a little more sense if you include the rest of that verse- "so shall he startle many nations... [closing mouths part goes here]... for that which has not been told they shall see, and that which they have no heard they shall understand." I think it's not referring to Jesus doing this himself, in his human form, while on earth, but I think it's more referring to that the story of Jesus can be powerful enough to even influence "kings", which would be the equivalent to any given ruler or leader today. I'm going to look into this a bit more though.
"...the kings shall shut their mouths because of him" (52:15 RSV). How does putting it in that sentence change the fact that no king ever ceased talking? Further you've dug yourself into a greater hole here, what nations did he startle? He certainly didn't cause any big uprising in Rome, no city-state was disturbed on his account. He just died supposedly. (We won't get into the fact that he was supposed to be God, and a God can't die to begin with) You're stretching. And you're about to reach too far.
I'm not sure I understand what you said about 53:2, with the past tense bit ("grew up"... I'll try to take a closer look at that and post later.
How much clearer could it have been made? In the KJV, it was mistranslated (purposely) to say "He shall grow up" from the original which was "He grew up" The difference in tense puts the person Isaiah is talking about BEFORE Isaiah's time.
Lots of stuff here I need to go take a better look at, and I'll try to get to this weekend. I'm gonna skip down to (7) and get to the stuff before that point in the future, sorry, I just don't know about all that and I need to look into it.
Once more, you'll be hard pressed, indeed, you have been hard pressed to solve anything, from the looks of all the speculation, assumption and rationalization.
For (7)... (a) Like I said previously, I think that the exalted bit refers to earlier in Jesus's life, while the despising part is referring to just before his crucifixion and even in present day.
You're mixing things up a bit. See above answer for refutation of your thoughts.
(b) This is a website devoted to refuting the claims of Jesus and the other people mentioned in the Bible, that should tell you something about what people think of him.
Correction. This is a site devoted to exposing the flows, contradictions and errors in the Bible. What anybody thinks is irrelevent. Good luck showing a single time Dennis said BE was devoted to refuting claims of Jesus and the other people mentioned in the Bible.
Way to dodge the question. I'll repeat it. How many people really hated Jesus as opposed to the number of tribes who hated the Jews?
( (a) Essentially, your entire point here is based on your saying that Jewish scholars claim that "grief" is used incorrectly... but I don't see a source.
Please go to [url=http://www.aish.com/spirituality/philosophy/Why_Dont_Jews_Believe_In_Jesus$.asp] Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus[/url] and Ask the Rabbi. I'm sure you'll find your answers there.
I'd be inclined that Jewish scholars would be wanting to refute the claims that Jesus is the Messiah too, so I'm not sure I'd go with what they say without looking at the original text anyway.
I think the Jewish scholars know hebrew far better then you do. Further, since the original manuscripts don't exist, it's hard to compare the texts to anything. Moreover, being that there are so many errors, as you admit, how can you trust the Bible at all? Ah...I see...you must be one of those people who picks and chooses what they like about the bible, and disgard the rest. How honest of you.
Using "grief" in the present day definition, it would be reasonable to assume that Jesus went through sadness here on earth. His earthly father died somewhere along the way, and there are several references to traumatic experiences in his life. Some examples include the bit with Lazarus and obviously his last few hours before he was crucified. I don't know exact references off the top of my head, but I can get you some if you'd like.
Non-sequitor. Since the argument is not translation error, it's that you Christians are taking a word and applying the wrong definition to it. If the Hebrew word for grief, used in isaiah, means bodily ailment, then THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS. Comprende? There is no refuting that.
(8b) Perhaps the general population of the Jews, but this is a prophetic statement... lots of times, predictions don't line up with present-day views. Also, even if every other Jew except whoever wrote this (Isaiah, apparently) wouldn't agree with the prophesy, that doesn't really mean that the statement is invalid. If anything, it helps support the claims that this is indeed a prophetic statement- if the view at that time was that the Messiah would be a great warrior, then it wouldn't make sense for this guy to claim that he wouldn't be, unless Isaiah was instructed to write this by God.
How non-sequitor can you get. NOWHERE in the OT was the messiah supposed to suffer as a requisite for being the messiah. What about that do you not understand?
Further, you are claiming the very point in dispute, that this is a prophetic statement, something you have yet to prove. You want to skip the cross examination and go right to being acquitted. Something that is not going to happen while I'm here.
(9) Once again, the verse is taken out of context. It's not saying that the Jews refused to look at him. In fact, the full text says "He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces, he was despised, and we esteemed him not." In other words, they treated him like somebody who one would hide his face from, not that they actually did avert their eyes from him.
Now you're really stretching here. "And as one from whom hide their face from..." WHERE in the HELL do you see "And as one whom we hold up to the level in which we should hide our face from..." This is another case in point example of YOU trying to claim something that just isn't there. The text says what it wanted to say, you don't like it, so you add all this other bullshit to the text. I hate dishonest people.
(10) I think I understand your reference to past-tense now. The only thing I can think to say is that it's not Isaiah who's claiming to know all this. The beginning of all this was in Isaiah 52:3, which begins "For thus says the Lord:..." In other words, it's God basically telling Isaiah to say all this, and God is supposedly not bound by time in the same way that we are, so maybe that partially explains it. Other possibly explanations are perhaps a translation error, although it seems odd that there would be so many in a single passage. I don't think that the tense used detracts from the text; is there anyone else in history who you can think of that would fulfill all these statements?
Non-sequitor. And completely speculation I might add. Way to assert much and prove nothing.
I've gotta run, I'll try to continue later.
You can try, but facts are stubborn things and your thickheadedness is already showing through.