Who buried with whom? Isaiah 53:9

[ThomasDGW]

Again, I am not defining the message of the book by one sentence. I am discussing one sentence at a time. A number of sentences, or phrases, of Isaiah 53, combined with comparative interpretations of Christianity, were called as witnesses by counter-missionaries as collective proof that Jesus of Nazareth could not have been the servant of this passage. This would convict me of bearing false witness, as I claim that the servant of Isaiah 52-53 is Jesus of Nazareth, as described in the NT. I am trying to cross-examine the witnesses, one by one. This is, or should be, a trial of sorts. By continuing to demand that I dump out my whole schema in one fell swoop is like asking a defense attorney to just give his closing arguments without any cross examination.

I assure you that I have considered the 11 challenges that you pointed out, and I am completely willing to respond to them. I already addressed one or two recently. However, it is a waste of time to give a response, if it is neither refuted nor accepted. It seems that the counter-missionaries are not willing to respond to a serious cross-examination. That is what I meant by hit-and-run apologetics.

[searchinmyroots]

How about this Thomas.

Tell us why you think Isaiah 53 is referring to Jesus.

Not what the NT says, what you think.

[ThomasDGW]

How about this Thomas.

Tell us why you think Isaiah 53 is referring to Jesus.

Not what the NT says, what you think.

Not what the NT says? What do you mean by that?

There are passages in the NT that quote directly from Isaiah 53 and state that this is referring to Jesus. Do you mean not to support my argument with those? I have NOT been using those to support my view in my posts here, because I know that you do not accept the NT as authoritative.

On the other hand, the details that I have learned about Jesus come from the NT. Do you mean that I am to forget everything the NT says, and think from a position of amnesia? Then I would have no idea of what Jesus specifically did.

The reason why I think Isaiah 53 is referring to Jesus is that everything in that passage, starting with 52:13, matches exactly with what I learned about Jesus in the NT. The reason that I don't think it refers to the nation Israel is that the specifics don't really fit, in fact, I see that explanations of how certain aspects are supposed to fit Israel contradict what other Jewish scholars say the text of Isaiah says.  So, I imagine that, if I knew nothing of the NT, I would still understand Isaiah 53 to be referring to a notable individual, perhaps the Messiah King to come, instead of the nation Israel. But that is my speculation.

But that is not why I am here posting. I am here posting because counter-missionaries are disturbed that some Jews have read Isaiah 53 and concluded that it is talking about Jesus. I have heard of several cases where an unlearned Jew has read or heard someone read Isaiah 53 without comment and got offended because they believed they were hearing the NT. "I told you not to read me the Christian Bible!" So, the counter-missionaries have gone through the several statements of the passage, ONE AT A TIME, and presented arguments why these statements cannot refer to Jesus. Apparently, this has caused some of these people to doubt their impressions and recant their belief in Jesus.

I, some 40 years ago, started a process of reevaluating what I had been taught about Jesus and the NT. I saw that I had been trained to explain away "problem verses", and I discovered that if I just took the NT at literal meaning (agreed upon by a wide consensus of scholars), my doctrines changed to the point that the "problem verses" disappeared. When I finally vas exposed to the counter-missionaries' objections, my eyes popped open and I said to myself, "But many of those claimed contradictions between the NT and the Hebrew Bible are exactly what I learned that the NT doesn't say." Furthermore, the counter-missionaries' objections that I had not seen before sent me back to search, and I found that those were areas where I still had not gotten straightened out, yet. This one about Jesus getting buried with the wicked is one of those.

DON'T MISS THIS! The counter-missionaries, in teaching the Hebrew Bible to get misguided converts away from Christianity, many times are teaching what I discovered years ago the NT really says!

So, I am trying to make my little pip-squeak voice heard, because I see something that you are all missing, including Christians. You are all arguing from false premises, and they are easy to see, if you just open your eyes.

I already pointed out the fact that God says that this servant of Isaiah 53 is a sin-bearer, and the orthodox rabbi admitted that Israel is not a sin-bearer in the sense of Isaiah 53:12, but made the claim that this is just the impression of the kings. What? God is speaking the impression of heathen kings? [NO ANSWER]

Before that, I pointed out that Jesus is stated in the NT to have been made sin, so there is no contradiction between the NT Jesus and Isaiah 53:10 saying that the servant offers a sacrifice for his own guilt. [NO ANSWER] Notice that the Christians on this forum didn't answer, either.

In this thread, I showed that according to the NT, Jesus was not taken off the cross by Joseph and so must have been actually buried with the wicked, so there is no contradiction between the NT Jesus and Isaiah 53:9. In fact, an individual who is stated in an old text to have been buried twice is an astounding match with Isaiah 53:9, not proof in itself as one witness, but very compelling support for identifying the servant with this man, Jesus. The only answer was that I must be wrong because so many other people didn't see this.

Those are 3 specific reasons why I believe that the servant of Isaiah 53 is the real NT Jesus, not the Jesus of Christianity.  If you want me to respond to a 4th issue, maybe you would like to open a thread on you favorite issue. But when I show you my answer, please give a solid response.

[searchinmyroots]

Thanks Thomas.

"I see that explanations of how certain aspects are supposed to fit Israel contradict what other Jewish scholars say the text of Isaiah says"

I don't see them as contradictions. If you know Judaism, you know if you ask 2 Jews the same question you'll get 3 different answers.

"So, I imagine that, if I knew nothing of the NT, I would still understand Isaiah 53 to be referring to a notable individual, perhaps the Messiah King to come, instead of the nation Israel. But that is my speculation."

The servant is referred to in the plural several times, so it cannot be an individual. Again, it's poetic Hebrew that Isaiah uses.

"But that is not why I am here posting. I am here posting because counter-missionaries are disturbed that some Jews have read Isaiah 53 and concluded that it is talking about Jesus. I have heard of several cases where an unlearned Jew has read or heard someone read Isaiah 53 without comment and got offended because they believed they were hearing the NT. "I told you not to read me the Christian Bible!" So, the counter-missionaries have gone through the several statements of the passage, ONE AT A TIME, and presented arguments why these statements cannot refer to Jesus. Apparently, this has caused some of these people to doubt their impressions and recant their belief in Jesus."

I would think most of those "unlearned Jews" were listening to the passage as written in the Christian bible, not in the original Hebrew. I would also think those unlearned Jews were pretty unlearned in Christianity as well.

"I already pointed out the fact that God says that this servant of Isaiah 53 is a sin-bearer, and the orthodox rabbi admitted that Israel is not a sin-bearer in the sense of Isaiah 53:12, but made the claim that this is just the impression of the kings. What? God is speaking the impression of heathen kings? [NO ANSWER]"

Who is "the orthodox rabbi"? Are you taking the opinion of one? It seems to me the servant is the bearer of the sins that others commit against him/them. Just as it says in verse 5.


"Before that, I pointed out that Jesus is stated in the NT to have been made sin, so there is no contradiction between the NT Jesus and Isaiah 53:10 saying that the servant offers a sacrifice for his own guilt. [NO ANSWER] Notice that the Christians on this forum didn't answer, either."

I have no idea what being made sin is, not something that is in line with what G-d teaches in the Hebrew bible. Either one is guilty of committing a sin, or they are not. And if Jesus was sin as you say, then he would have had physical offspring and lived a long life, neither of which are true.


"In this thread, I showed that according to the NT, Jesus was not taken off the cross by Joseph and so must have been actually buried with the wicked, so there is no contradiction between the NT Jesus and Isaiah 53:9."

Must have been? Sounds like speculation to me. If I'm not mistaken, Jesus was buried in a rich man's tomb. How is that with the wicked? Should I speculate that a rich man wouldn't have a tomb with the wicked?

Here are my reasons that why I don't see the servant to be Jesus -

The servant is identified in the plural.

The servant justifies with knowledge, not the shedding of blood.

The servant is wounded from the sins of others, not died for the sins of others.

The servant has an opportunity to see physical offspring and have a long life if he admits his guilt, it is conditional.

No mention of the servant being an anointed one.

No mention that one must believe in the servant and the only way to the father is through him or you are damned to hell.

No mention of a second coming.

[rosends]

The orthodox rabbi is a reference to me. The writer of the post posits something about the text but doesn't understand who the speaker in the text is so he rejects the entire idea and falls back on his personal, in a vacuum, reading. He claims "no response" by me because he doesn't like my response. Meh.

[Dana]

 ...except I solved a problem this way that wouldn't work in life until I dropped the common interpretation, and pretended I was like a little child, and took a fresh look at it. Now, it works. 

Thomas, I have only one question. Why didn't your fresh approach at looking at the text (approaching it as a little child) include first and foremost learning the Hebrew language basics?  Your story reads as if you have brought a lot of confirmation bias.

[ThomasDGW]

 ...except I solved a problem this way that wouldn't work in life until I dropped the common interpretation, and pretended I was like a little child, and took a fresh look at it. Now, it works. 

Thomas, I have only one question. Why didn't your fresh approach at looking at the text (approaching it as a little child) include first and foremost learning the Hebrew language basics?  Your story reads as if you have brought a lot of confirmation bias.

I was referring to the New Testament, which was written in Greek, and I did do everything I could to ascertain the meaning of the text, but the basic meaning of the text was not the difficulty. The difficulty was that the scholars said that the text didn't mean what it said, for the purpose of fitting a text to a doctrine derived from an imposed logical supposition on other texts, etc. My big task was to sort those things out, not learn the language.

AFTER I found a coherent message in the NT text, then I found that it fit life AND many things in the Hebrew Bible, as explained by the counter-missionaries, like Tovia Singer.

[ThomasDGW]

"The servant is referred to in the plural several times"
Not in Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12 

"Must have been? Sounds like speculation to me..."

This statement tells me that you haven't read my posts, because I went through the steps of the "must have been". I use that phrase because it isn't explicitly stated in the NT, but the chances of Jesus not being buried with the wicked in the account is between nil and zip. Only assuming that Joseph took the body from the cross caused everyone to accept that Jesus was not buried with the wicked.

"Here are my reasons that why I don't see the servant to be Jesus -

The servant is identified in the plural.

The servant justifies with knowledge, not the shedding of blood.

The servant is wounded from the sins of others, not died for the sins of others.

The servant has an opportunity to see physical offspring and have a long life if he admits his guilt, it is conditional.

No mention of the servant being an anointed one.

No mention that one must believe in the servant and the only way to the father is through him or you are damned to hell.

No mention of a second coming."

The "no mention of" statements should not be part of your reasons. I could give you several for Israel not being the servant. "No mention of the servant waiting for their anointed one." No mention of the servant being scattered throughout the world." "No mention of the servant being a nation." etc.

The 3 above those are also basically "no mention" statements based on your understanding of NT doctrines. To respond to those I would have to get into NT doctrine with you. Then I would probably get the "not interested in the NT" reaction.   This is a main reason why I chose this one about the burial of Jesus, because it is basic and simple, not really involving any doctrines of sin and justification, etc. Thus, it is a good test case for the value of my communication.

So, take the time to read the posts in this thread, especially my summary statement. Then give me your response, and by response, I mean tell me where I am right and wrong, and, if wrong, specifically what my error is. Telling me my view doesn't match a traditional view is not a response.

[Dana]

AFTER I found a coherent message in the NT text, then I found that it fit life AND many things in the Hebrew Bible, as explained by the counter-missionaries, like Tovia Singer.

You mentioned Tovia Singer so I’d like to suggest a book of his I had purchased that had been very helpful.   


It would not be necessary to learn the Hebrew language if you could accept what Tovia Singer demonstrates in his book Outreach Judaism - In-depth study guide to the “Let's Get Biblical” Tape Series.  The Hebrew language is used sparingly and in a way that  does not overwhelm, but explains what is actually written in the Tanakh.  He debunks the notion of Jesus being the servant in Isaiah 53 and covers the Isaiah 53:9 verse you are struggling with.   

[ThomasDGW]

AFTER I found a coherent message in the NT text, then I found that it fit life AND many things in the Hebrew Bible, as explained by the counter-missionaries, like Tovia Singer.

You mentioned Tovia Singer so I’d like to suggest a book of his I had purchased that had been very helpful.   


It would not be necessary to learn the Hebrew language if you could accept what Tovia Singer demonstrates in his book Outreach Judaism - In-depth study guide to the “Let's Get Biblical” Tape Series.  The Hebrew language is used sparingly and in a way that  does not overwhelm, but explains what is actually written in the Tanakh.  He debunks the notion of Jesus being the servant in Isaiah 53 and covers the Isaiah 53:9 verse you are struggling with.   

Thanks for the suggestion, however, I think I have heard most of his debunking arguments already. I have rejected the arguments I heard, not because I think he doesn't know Hebrew, but because he thinks he knows the NT well enough to conclude that the NT is wrong.  Several years ago, I had an email exchange with Tovia, and I tried to show him what I had discovered in the NT that showed that there was really not a clash between the NT and the Hebrew Bible in a specific area where he claimed there was. His response was something to the effect that my explanations were not mainstream Christian explanations, so he wasn't interested.  That told me that he was only interested in attacking Christianity, not in being accurate or discovering the truth. He still talks like there are no answers to his objections to the NT.

Apparently, you still have not read all my posts on this thread, because if you've read them, you should have seen that I am not struggling with Isaiah 53:9. On the contrary, it fits beautifully with what the NT account says of Jesus' burial.

Also, I am learning Hebrew when I have the opportunity. I'm not completely ignorant of it, and I am not overwhelmed by it. I'm just not dropping everything to make it a priority, because I believe that I have enough resources available, including Jewish websites, to get a good idea of what the text says.  There are just a few points of disagreement over what the text says. Most of the disagreement is over how to interpret the text.