On your remarks of Is. 53:10: My take is that "he would see offspring and live long days" was a conditional statement, namely "IF" his soul would "acknowledge guilt" means that IF the former, THEN the latter. So the inference was that we didn't get the latter BECAUSE the former didn't happen. Some other thoughts: Re: Is. 53:9, how do we interpret the word "wealthy"? It is often used in the NT as a pejorative when describing "flawed" or "wrong" people from the author's perspective. Could it here mean the "powerful" or "authorities"? With that in mind, what jumped out at me was that in the Gospels, the Roman overseers "submitted" to the will of the "wicked" Jewish populace and executed Jesus without crimes. So I can see how a Gospel writer would interpret that sentence from Isaiah in order to write the parts about Pilot and Herod. - I also find Is. 53:11 to be very interesting: In the line "My servant will vindicate the righteous one to the multitudes", there are four subjects: 1. "My": the holder of the perspective. Is that the author, or is he quoting his God? It follows with ownership or possession of the servant, so I doubt it's the author. I take it to mean the author's God. 2. "Servant": for sake of argument, let's let Jesus be the prognosticated holder of this title. 3. "The righteous one": Who is this? It's not the servant, because the servant is the one who vindicates the righteous one. Is it God again? Unlikely, because the author wouldn't offer a new demarcation since he just referred to God with "My" at the beginning of the sentence. This brings to mind the various things I've read that some Jews were expecting TWO messianic figures to arrive, one shortly after the other (one Davidic, one Josephan, I think), representing the two kingdoms of Judea and Israel. Hence G.Mark seems to suggest that someone else is coming after Jesus, and G.Matt makes Jesus into both figures. 4. "The multitudes": namely, the audience, the general populace. So I'm puzzled and fascinated that there were two different figures anticipated: a servant and a righteous one.
@I_know_what_im_talking_about
5 жыл бұрын
Can I have a link to the translation you used when reading Isaiah 53? I’ve spotted an interesting point that I’d like to investigate further. Will share my findings with you afterward.
@fishersofevidence8771
5 жыл бұрын
It is from the Artscroll Tanach. I don't know of it being available on line but it is easy to get a copy. This is a similar online translation: www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15983
@Achill101
Жыл бұрын
Any findings yet? Or was You only meant as Fisher of Evidence?
@howardrosen3736
5 жыл бұрын
Incredible that none of the gospels made any mention of Isaiah 53, considering how important this verse is to Christianity. Didn't the anonymous, unknown authors think Isaiah 53 important enough to mention? Think about it ... the gospel writers love to quote from the Jewish scriptures to supposedly prove their point: the alleged resurrection of "Jesus" is a fulfillment of the jewish scriptures. Well? where is Isaiah 53 mentioned anywhere in the New Testament?
@fishersofevidence8771
5 жыл бұрын
It is cited in the gospels: Matthew 8:17; John 12:37-41; Luke 22:36. It's also cited in 1 Peter 2:22, Acts 8:32-33 and Romans 10:16. Quite prominent mention for one OT Chapter.
@fishersofevidence8771
5 жыл бұрын
It is cited in the gospels: Matthew 8:17, John 12:37-41 and Luke 22:36. It's also cited in 1 Peter 2:22, Acts 8:32-33 and Romans 10:16. Quite prominent mention for one OT Chapter.
@howardrosen3736
5 жыл бұрын
@@fishersofevidence8771 I do not see this in Luke 22:36: He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." What does this has to do with Isaiah 53? Thank you for showing Matthew and Peter citations, indeed they do make references to verses found in Isaiah 53, however trying to force fit their version of a jewish messiah does not qualify. Acts appears to be confused with lamb and sheep, so an attempt to reference Isaiah 53? yet misquoted? hmmm somethings off Romans 10:6 completely changed and added words to deut. 30, nothing to do with Isaiah 53.
@howardrosen3736
5 жыл бұрын
@@fishersofevidence8771 If "Jesus" face was so marred, how could he be the sacrificial lamb? Isn't the lamb to be without blemish? what a bunch of twisted writings! The writers didn't really mention Isaiah 53, they sorta kinda mentioned twisted versions.
@fishersofevidence8771
5 жыл бұрын
@@howardrosen3736 I'm sorry, Luke 22:37 It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”
@Achill101
Жыл бұрын
When Paul received his revelation from God, he must have read this bible passage, too, I think, and understood his gospel accordingly. I agree it can't tell us much about mythicism vs historicism, but it can tell us about Paul. . . . As a Christian, I don't read Isaiah as a prediction about the future but as revelation about God and God's workings in the world: God can work wonders through high and low people.
@weknowthetruth6863
6 жыл бұрын
Yes but the scriptures say "no man can die for the sins of another, each shall die for their own sins" and that in all of Isaiah God says, "ISRAEL is my servant" as you mentioned early on
@fishersofevidence8771
6 жыл бұрын
Are you referring to Ezekiel 18? The are a couple of such references and they are one reason for believing that Isaiah was referring to the people of Israel rather than any individual. Though Ezekiel was written hundreds of years after Isaiah as was Jeremiah who also mentions it.
@weknowthetruth6863
6 жыл бұрын
Fishers of Evidence yes but also keep in Mind Moses tried to kill himself to save Israel from it's sins and God told Moses the same thing, and Moses was before Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel
@fishersofevidence8771
6 жыл бұрын
I presume you are referring to Exodus 32 after the golden calf incident and after the Levites had killed 3000 Israelites at god's command. "30 The next day Moses said to the people, “You have committed a great sin. But now I will go up to the Lord; perhaps I can make atonement for your sin.” 31 So Moses went back to the Lord and said, “Oh, what a great sin these people have committed! They have made themselves gods of gold. 32 But now, please forgive their sin-but if not, then blot me out of the book you have written.” 33 The Lord replied to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me I will blot out of my book. 34 Now go, lead the people to the place I spoke of, and my angel will go before you. However, when the time comes for me to punish, I will punish them for their sin.” 35 And the Lord struck the people with a plague because of what they did with the calf Aaron had made. True. This is a clear rejection of Moses' idea of vicarious atonement.
@weknowthetruth6863
6 жыл бұрын
Yes, sorry I am not able to actually provide most verses, I only recall what I have read, not chapters (most of the time)
@Achill101
Жыл бұрын
@@fishersofevidence8771 - why do you think Ezekiel was written hundred years after Isaiah? The relevant passages are from Deutero-Isaiah who probably wrote during the beginning of Persian rule ~500BC. The prophets Ezekiel and Jeremiah lived around the destruction of the first temple in 586BC, but I dont know how bible historians date the passage you used?
@iconoclaste8506
5 жыл бұрын
What is the evidence that vicarious atonement was added to a Jesus figure before Paul? There are no writings about Jesus before Paul.
@fishersofevidence8771
5 жыл бұрын
True there are no writings about Jesus before Paul with or without the vicarious atonement idea. Paul pits himself against opponents who require observance of the law saying that by divine inspiration he holds that belief in Jesus is sufficient for salvation. This implies that it was Paul who added the vicarious atonement idea himself. Jews did have sacrifices but that was for certain categories of sin and was not the same as vicarious atonement
@willempasterkamp862
5 жыл бұрын
@@fishersofevidence8771 Paul never met James, Peter or Jesus. He only knew a christ, a servant savior. A paul writing about Jesus is all interpolated by the physical believers who captured his magical believe-system. Isaiah knew both the vigilant highpriest and the mighty zealot who will burn together in their dilligent fervor; the Melchi - Zadok of Genesis. It seems he sees a new person, formerly unknown and puts it as equal in the existing divine council. The abandonment of the Elohim creates room for both satan and an opponent savior as a third (fourth) person. Odd you leave a trinity and end up with a new one.; God, the opponent and a savior. A judge, an accuser and a pleaser. Like trias politica, as two parties agree, no matter what the third is over-ruled. a very basic logic. It is a zoroastrian dualistic model of good and evil, inherit by the stoics and the rational thinking romans. In christianity it is given a new form. Hmm, if we add Mary the mother and Archangel Michael (again) to the heavenly-council, we have a quintity ? Only a game of thoughts the same as Isaiah did, he was not knowing but certainly had his own thoughts, showing how easily we come to various concepts thinking about what is above us. That is all what Isaiah did, sharing his thoughts with us. messianic? sure. prophecy? nope.
@fishersofevidence8771
5 жыл бұрын
@@willempasterkamp862 Well Paul says he met James and even mythicists do not argue that he did. They argue that James was a spiritual rather than physical brother of Jesus.
@rursus8354
6 жыл бұрын
Why? We take Paul's statements about this law stuff ad notam, but not the Gospels and other documents? Some time I'm going to analyze whether this law stuff was the a probable cause for a conflict. If the original "Christians," or rather "Messianics," were belligerents in the First Jewish Rebellion of 66-71 AD (such as under the name Zealots), something else would perhaps have been the real cause of the schism, such as partaking in the unrest. This Isaiah 53 stuff seems like too late to have any impact at all.
@fishersofevidence8771
6 жыл бұрын
Well it's certainly true that the both the Jewish rebellions of the 60s and 130s A.D. were characterized by internal conflicts within the Jewish side and this conflict within factions of Judaism and between Judaism and Rome seems to have been simmering since at least as early as the time of Christ before boiling over in the 60s so I suppose such political divisions could have affected the church but I'm not aware of any evidence that points in that direction and however flawed Paul may be, we do have what he wrote and he does say what the schism was about. His version is a pretty stark theological difference so would appear to explain it.
@rursus8354
6 жыл бұрын
@@fishersofevidence8771 I've read a lot of Josephus lately. The reason was that Dan Unterbrink came up with the idea that Judas of Galilée was the historical precedent of Jesus. I thought _"bubkes!,"_ but after a second thought, I thought perhaps Zealotism, a violent kind, was the origin of Christianity. Where do we have indications that this might be the case? In Revelations Chapter 10 to 19. Just a speculation, nothing else. But such a theory perturbs the relation between Paul and the alleged "judaizers". As for Paul's letters -- we *know* that they are heavily interpolated, but we don't know how. We just know that they were written by two (or more) authors, but we cannot be quite sure who is who.
@fishersofevidence8771
6 жыл бұрын
@@rursus8354 Revelation 10 to 19 is a highly figurative text open to multiple different interpretations. I'm not sure how it's interpreted as a violent zealot origin to Christianity though.
@julietrae8665
5 жыл бұрын
@@fishersofevidence8771 HAVEYOU SEEN (I'M SURE YOU HAVE) tHE MULTITUDES THAN SAY PAULS TEACHINGS AREN'T IN LINE WITH JESUS, AND THATS WHO JESUS WAS REFERRING TO AS "EVEN NOW THERE ARE MANY ANTICHRISTS AMONG US" YA GOTTA RELY MORE ON THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS. 165?BC - 60 AD THE ESSENES TONS OF PAGES HIDDEN DUE TO THE PHARISEES, SAGUSEES, AND THE ROMANS. MY TAKE IF YOU READ THE 1ST 3 BOOKS OF PEACE, WHAT JESUS TOLD THIS SMALL GROUP WAS THE SAME AS WHAT PAUL WROTE..aLMOST THE EXACT WORDS. WHAT IF PAUL WAS SENT INTO THE AREA WITH OTHER ROMANS, SLAUGHTERED OR CHASED OUT THESE ESSENES, TOOK THE PARCHMENT, AND MADE THEM HIS 7 GOSPELS AND 13 EPISTLES, THEN BURIED THEM BACK WAAAAAY THE FOOK OUT IN THE BLOODY DESSERT AND BROKEN THEM. BUT THEY WEREN'T ALL, TAKEN..THERE ARE SOME MUCH OLDER WHEN JESUS WOULD HAVE BEEN ALIVE,, AND THAT'S PROOF..tHEY'VE FOUND MORE JUST RECENTLY, THAT MAKES SENSE. PAULY, STARTED THE BIGGEST RELIGION THAT EVER WAS AND WILL BE....these guys were holy men, and more words were spoken by Jesus than in the bible (which btw, is from what one of the modern cult members told me) is 80% b.s and 20% painstakingly discerned and it is written before the apostles, that they were the ones who witnessed the resurrection and wrote it down. Sadly, it was sold in the W Post? Wait.I forget the paper, but for 100 bucks!!
@fishersofevidence8771
5 жыл бұрын
@@julietrae8665 It certainly looks as though there was a big theological difference between what Paul taught and what Jesus, if he existed, taught. The problem is we don't have Jesus' own words. We only have other people talking about him whereas we have, we believe, Paul's own words. But Paul's view certainly differs markedly from what's reported in the Gospels and Acts and this matter is even debated by some Christians. Are you referring to the Essene Gospel of Peace? If so that was just an early 20th century hoax supposedly "unearthed" in the "Vatican secret archive" but in reality it's purely a modern invention.
@JC-be5cc
3 жыл бұрын
Im not a scholar but your video sounded to me bias towards the towards the side that the gospels writers used the Isaiah to create the Jesus story. You hardly talked about the 1st and 3rd interpretation of Isaiah 53 but you focused on the gospel writers assumed motivations. "To be rationally requires to produce evidence for your assertion claims" what ur evidence that real Jesus didn't speak in his trial? His words has amazed leaders.
@TheJonnyzeus
5 жыл бұрын
Why do we have to rely on these convoluted interpretations? If Isaiah 53 is a “real” prophecy why didn’t “god” make it clear? He is supposed to be all seeing, all knowing and omnipresent. He is even supposed to know the future! If he can’t just state the circumstances in which his “son” will be making an appearance and throw in his identity, he’s not really a “god” at all!
@fishersofevidence8771
5 жыл бұрын
Well that's prophecy down to a t and has been from ancient religious texts to Nostradamus to modern day horoscope jockeys. The trick is to have a sufficiently ambiguous meaning that he can in the future be interpreted to have predicted what occurred. It's not very difficult to do this. The specific prediction of the future is completely beyond any profit and anyone who came up with the ability to do that would no doubt attract a lot of cynical rationalists to believing in God. But as yet they haven't.
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9
6 жыл бұрын
There is no problem. The "Jesus Christ" of the Didache's original portions didn't have anything to do with the gospel "Jesus", nor with vicarious atonement, and the book even states that he showed his follower the way of salvation, rather than dying so that they might obtain it, and so need not have any connection to Isaiah 53. In fact, the whole issue of "Jesus" being a dying savior is the major factor that separates Paul's Christianity from preexisting beliefs in a "Jesus Christ", whoever he may have been (and it's not really that important, because he was the focus of a messianic movement that quickly came to nought like so many others), this being evident from the fact that the "Jesus Christ" of the Didache was viewed as the Jewish Moshiach by Jews, who observed the Eucharistos (Greek for Thanksgiving) because of the Jewish belief that only the Thanksgiving Offering would remain when Moshiach came, because his mere presence would signal the end of sin and sin offerings. They didn't refer to the Eucharist(os) as being either transsubstantially or symbolically the body and blood of anyone, and gave many thanks in the liturgy to God. I believe a likely scenario as to why Paul's body and blood came to be referred to as Eucharistos is there was no getting around the fact that this document written by early followers of "Jesus Christ" was known to exist, and that the Thanksgiving/Eucharistos was the only sacrifice offered by the sect which wrote it. Therefore, Paul or some Roman agent church official had to coopt the name and apply it to their Dam-mashkeh Covenant sacrifice.
@fishersofevidence8771
6 жыл бұрын
I agree with you about the Didache. Both that and Mark have Jesus as a non-saviour but both are comparatively late, dating from after Paul's death. Paul's letters date from the 50s AD . They recount a history that dates back to the 30s and therefore, by a margin, are the earliest Christian writings we have. Paul's letters imply an earlier not salvatory christology. Later writings confirm the same thing. So it seems that Jesus came first without vicarious atonement. That means he did not originate in Isaiah 53.
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9
6 жыл бұрын
I came to believe years ago that there had probably been a situation created in which there were many Christianities being propagated so that confusion would result, with the coming forth of the orthodox church fathers serving to quell that difficulty, with it mirroring the chaos that was created by the collapse of the Roman Republic which was ended by the creation of the empire. After I first began to think such was likely the case, I had that view substantiated by an interview to which I listened without any intention of learning anything relevant to that supposition, which mentioned that many inerrantist Christians had found it so difficult if not impossible to defend their position in light of study of the text of the Bible that they had given up and joined the more traditional sects of Christianity in which the clergy claim authority in spiritual matters, taking it out of the hands of the "laity". It was further substantiated by things I went on to learn, such as that Theophilus, a second century bishop of Antioch, does not even mention "Jesus" in his entire Apologia ad Autolycum in which he explains the Christian faith as he administered it, nor can it be claimed that his was a New Testament-based religion at all, as it draws almost entirely from the Hebrew Bible.
@fishersofevidence8771
6 жыл бұрын
You make an interesting point. The fracture line between the Jewish scriptures and the Christian religion is so wide as to make the situation quite bizarre. On the one hand you've go the the Judaism of the old Testament with a single all-powerful God who you worship and you obey his commands. Then on the other hand you've got a polytheistic situation dressed up as monotheism with vicarious atonement which means you don't have to do what God commands. You worship a man as well as a God and you eat his flesh and drink his blood to gain salvation. It's very hard to see how that came out of Judaism. It looks much more as though for some reason it was decided that a pagan religion needed a Jewish back story and was given one with little regard to whether it fitted or not. The Jewish back story was no doubt of no concern to Gentile converts and surprise surprise the Jewish version of Christianity petered out. After all the Jews knew their scripture! And too much study of the OT by gentiles would also be a problem, as it is for the church today!
@weknowthetruth6863
6 жыл бұрын
MELEKH HA OLAM Thomas calling "Jesus" Lord and God is another corruption of Christianity. No Jew in their right mind would ever call a human "God"
@Tsadi9Mem9Khet9
6 жыл бұрын
Yes, no Jew, and especially no Galilean.
@samlomaad8696
5 жыл бұрын
I. A. M.. I. N.. YOU IN VERSE M. A. I.. IN YOUR UNI VERSE AM. EYE.. IN YOU INVERSE I. AM.. THAT. I AM.. I AM. MATTER M A I... ANTI MATTER I AM. GOOD.. MA I.. EVIL.. AM EYE... THE BALANCE OF NATURE....
@samlomaad8696
5 жыл бұрын
The salvation.. IS NOT THE WORD JESUS.. THE WORD WAS.. MAN... JESUS A MAN.. A MEN .. NAME JESUS IS CHANGEBLE.. YESHUA, YASHUA. YAHUA.. BUT ITS PERSONALITY IS ALSO OUR PERSONAL CONNECTION TO JESUS.. I AM... MAN. A MEN TOO... WE THE. MEN... ARE THE WORD, I A. M THE WORD THAT WAS WITH GOD.. AND I AM. THE WORD MADE FLESH... SEEDS OF ADAM... I AM.. GOD... JOHN. 1:1SAID THE WORD WAS GOD... THEREFORE MEN.. THE HUMANITY IS. GOD.. NOW.. I AM THE WAY, FHE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE... I AM.. A. MEN I AM... SAVE... I A MEN.. THE MEN.. THE MANKIND...
Пікірлер: 52