Posted on 06/15/2010 6:38:10 AM PDT by bkaycee
Catholic teaching is concrete and dogmatic,so there is not anything you need them to be.
You described protestantism when you say "anything you want it to be"-It's believe whatever you want and call it freedom,even though you can't measure it against anything historical that Christians ever believed.
Protestantism misunderstands that Freedom means free from ERROR in the eyes of God. You know,"the Truth shall set you free"!
“As a follow up, give me your critique of this article on Isaiah 53.”
It is held by most commentators that the passage refers to the Servant as one who has been put to death by his enemies, but who will, astonishingly, be restored to life by Yahweh, who accepts his suffering and death as vicariously atoning for the sins of others. This view might be tenable if the Servant were an allegorical figure representing the nation of Israel, though it would then ascribe to Isaiah a view of the mission of Israel to the world which would be quite unparalleled. But Isa. 42:1-4; 49:1-6 show that the Servant in this group of passages cannot be Israel. If on the other hand this passage is interpreted as referring to a historical individual whose death is regarded as bringing atonement for the sins of others so that the guilty might go free this, to an Israelite, would be contrary to their interpretation of the principles of justice in the Old Testament. Further, who is it that goes free? The speakers can hardly be representatives of the heathen nations; and if they are Israelites, they have not escaped punishment for their sins, but have on the contrary, as Isaiah states elsewhere, paid in full. A further difficulty concerns the supposed resurrection of the Servant. As a metaphor of the restoration of Israel after exile this might be conceivable (Ezek. 37:1-14), but with reference to an individual it is totally foreign to the Judaism of the sixth century BC and today as witness your cited commentary.
The specific historical setting of Isa. 52:13-53:12 is described at some length in Ezra 3-6, Haggai and Zechariah 1-8. Darius had successfully established his rule and now appears in Jerusalem in 518 B.C. Zerubbabel had set to work diligently (Ezra 3:1-13). But the governor of the territory and Judah’s neighbors did not understand (Ezra 4:1-5). They intervened and stopped the work on the Temple (Ezra 4:24). In the second year of his reign, 520 B.C. (Ezra 4:24 and Hag/Zech), Darius seemed to be firmly in control of the Empire, so Zerubbabel and his helpers set to work immediately (Ezra 5:1-2). Tattenai, governor of the satrapy Over the River, and Shether-Bozenair interfered again (Ezra 5:3-4). But work was allowed to proceed while a report was requested from Persian officials at court. Before work was resumed with official support, Zerubbabel’s name disappears from the account. This scene in the vision suggests that he was beaten and killed in an encounter with authorities who had no idea that the emperor would support his work. Undoubtedly this brought increased bitterness in Judah toward the empire. Darius, who showed the kind of religious toleration that characterized his predecessor, Cyrus, was also concerned to stabilize his position in Palestine for the coming Egyptian campaign and for the sake of increased naval activity from Phoenician ports. The scene portrays the emperor’s intervention to set matters right in Jerusalem, not simply with a letter (as in Ezra 6:1-13) but by a personal appearance there during a military campaign in that region.
Yahweh notes Darius’s status and work with satisfaction (v 13). Then Darius hears an inquiry into complaints of Zerubbabel’s death. The sufferer does not speak because he is already dead. A remarkable feature of the accounts is the leadership of Zerubbabel in the early work on the Temple and in the conflict with the territorial governor and leaders of neighboring districts. But his name totally missing in the accounts of the completion of that work.
But from that specific historical setting emerges a universal truth about God and his ways that is vital for the faith of Jew and Christian: the principle of substitutionary atonement, not only through animal sacrifice as in the Day of Atonement, but supremely through a willing person. This is effective atonement when the recipients of the benefits gained through the sacrifice confess their guilt and recognize that one has died for them (53:4-6) and when the sovereign agrees to recognize the atoning effect (53:10-12). Christians have viewed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in these terms and used this passage to interpret and appropriate that meaning (Luke 22:37; Mark 10:45; Matt 20:28; Mark 14:24; Matt 26:28; Luke 22:20. The deacon Phillip interpreted this Isaiah 53 passage as referring to Jesus (Acts 8:32-35) as did Jesus and Paul.
That is a narrow Christian interpretation, allegorical at that, and by not means the only informed opinion there is.
Judaism does not know the "devil," and never did. Nowhere is there any association made between the serpent in Gen 3 and Satan, the obedient angel of God mentioned in Job 2.
Mosaic Judaism neither speaks of the "fall" of man, the need for his "salvation," nor does it prophesy of, or find any need for a "messiah." Judaism believes in a human (not divine) messiah who will defeat Jewish enemies and re-establish the kingdom of Israel, not a God in human form who will save the souls of his beloved elect, Jew and Gentile alike.
So, no matter how you turn it around, neither Moses nor Judaism could have ever have prophesied of a man-God coming to save the souls of the world from the "fall" in Eden, while fighting with a stubborn angel who decided to desert God. To the Jewish mind that is a preposterous and deliberate distortion of Judaism!
Jewish expert interpretation of Isaiah 57 likewise leads to a different conclusion than the one created by the Christians.
There are numerous sources that offer their interpretations. I realize that you may believe some and reject some, but that does not make your interpretation true or even valid.
I highly recommend you consult authoritative Jewish sources for a more informative view on this subject. You may be amazed.
All I asked of you was to show me where Moses writes about Jesus, as claimed, not where you allegorically interpret that he may be speaking of Jesus. As expected, you didn't show me where he writes about Jesus because Moses never wrote about Jesus (why would he!?), but also as expected you gave me extrapolated allegorical inferences, allegation, and suppositions as to what might be "Jesus" in the OT.
Obama is that you? Why should I apologize for something I didn't do and didn't have a part in doing? Catholics!
Condemned certainly , killed, sorry no. Of the Anabaptists executed, 15% were killed by secular Protestant authoruty. Guess who executed the rest?
And yet you posted it like it was. Weak.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
So, again, you are wrong. Who killed the other 85%? Must have been tradition.
Same old garbage, different day.
Who was the prophet Moses was going to raise? What was his name? And if it were Jesus, as you allege, then by this argument, Moses put the words in Jesus' mouth and he did as Moses commanded him!
Surely you must be kidding!
The books of Moses who wrote the Pentateuch record other prophecies such as Balaam..”I have seen a star arise out of Jacob”
Balaam? You are comparing Balaam to Jesus? Oh boy!
How about Moses recording the greatest prophecy of all, made to Eve and the Serpent... that the “seed of Eve would have emnity with the seed of the serpent and that her seed would crush the serpent’s head while his heel would be bruised by it”
This is a Christian interpretation, and a hyperbolic one I must add. It just states that the humans and serpents will be at odds with each other, as is the case. We step on them and they go for our heel.
The serpent is described in Genesis as just another beast God created, except more cunning than others. There is no connection between that serpent and the satan, a loyal angel of the OT God described in a couple of passages as the heavenly overzealous prosecutor general and in Job 2 as one of the angelic hosts.
So Moses directly prophesied of Jesus
Why would he? Judaism does not see what transpired in the Garden of Eden as the "fall" of mankind nor does it see mankind in need of spiritual healing and salvation. That is something Paul fabricated and then St. Augustine took it a notch higher. But in both cases it is a gross distortion as seen by the very people who wrote the OT.
Now, some second and first century BC Jews believed the messiah was coming. That messiah was to be a human, mortal, warrior-king who would defeat Israel's enemies and re-establish the kingdom of Israel, as well as gather all the Jews in dispersion and bring them to God's promised land.
There was no need for a Jesus-like "savior" for any Jewish biblical author to write about, especially if he were to be divine but in human form and on a mission to "save" the very people he was supposed to liberate Israel from—the Greeks and Romans, for instance!
It was, after all, the Maccabean Revolt (provoked by a Hellenic despot who ruled Israel), as well as the Roman occupation of Palestine, that contributed to Jewish expectations of an imminent messianic appearance that would lead to military defeat of the Gentile oppressors.
Abraham had met Melchizidek, the priestly order of whom Jesus belonged to according to Paul.
Yes, according to Paul. I suggest you read some more on the character of Melchizedek. You may be amazed how shaky Paul's' version is.
OK, then I can’t help you. May the Creator reveal Himself to you.
And the Jews for Judaism say with equal conviction and apparent authority (all emphases are mine):
You then state "This is effective atonement when the recipients of the benefits gained through the sacrifice confess their guilt and recognize that one has died for them (53:4-6) and when the sovereign agrees to recognize the atoning effect (53:10-12)."
And the article replies:
Hebrew Isaiah is an impeccable copy of the earlier copies found at Qumran, so I would say it must be a translational issue, or intentional, deliberate alteration of the Hebrew text by Christian scribes for doctrinal purposes.
[author's note] 53:10 "He will prolong his days." Not only did Jesus die young, but how could the days be prolonged of someone who is alleged to be God?
53:11 "With his knowledge the righteous one, my Servant, will cause many to be just." Note again the correct translation: the Servant will cause many to be just, he will not "justify the many."
The Jewish mission is to serve as a "light to the nations" which will ultimately lead the world to a knowledge of the one true God, this both by example (Deut. 4:5-8; Zech. 8:23) and by instructing the nations in God's Law (Isa. 2:3-4; Micah 4:2-3).
53:12 "Therefore, I will divide a portion to him with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty." If Jesus is God, does the idea of reward have any meaning? Is it not rather the Jewish people - who righteously bore the sins of the world and yet remained faithful to God (Ps. 44) - who will be rewarded, and this in the manner described more fully in Isaiah chapters 52 and 54?
Any additional comment seems unnecessary. It is clear to me which version makes more sense.
See my post #332. Maybe I should wish you the same thing.
“They see you postin’,
they hatin’,
post trollin’
trying to catch you arguing dirty...”
Don’t stress it. FR is just like anywhere else in life. Catholics will be ragged on by non-Catholics. Catholics will rag on non-Catholics. The Baptists will throw their weight in along with the Presbyterians, the Mormons, the...whoever.
Keep reading. Keep posting. Keep challenging your ideas, theories and beliefs. I’m Anglican, or “Anglo-Catholic” or..whatever people want to call it. But I still want to have access to literature of other persuasions because that is how I am able to strengthen my beliefs.
After this post you can expect me to argue with you when I disagree, to question when I want more information, or to challenge when I see something worth challenging.
As for this post, consider it a FRiendly welcome to Free Republic.
Welcome aboard, and good luck.
The Lord was speaking thru Moses as God gave him utterance...you can decide the truth or falsity of that statement between youself and that which you consider a deity if you wish.
Moses was not saying “I” meaning “himself” would raise up...God, thru Moses was speaking of himself...Look at verse 17...”17.And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken”....then look at the rest of it...”I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren and will put My words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command Him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him” (Deut. 18:18-19)”
Moses was quoting God who was speaking of his son...
Need further proof that this verse relates to Jesus...Look at what Jesus says...”I have not spoken on My own, but the Father who sent Me has Himself given Me a commandment
about what to say and what to speak. And I know that His commandment is eternal life. What
I speak, therefore, I speak just as the Father has told Me” (John 12:49-50).
Look at the parallels between the Mosaic prophecy in which God the father says..”I will put my words in His Mouth and he will speak what I command him... and what Jesus says” I will speak just as the father has told me!”
Jesus was demonstrating that He and only He was the fullfillment of Moses’ prophecy from Deut 18!!!
The OT in deed is shot thru and thru with the savory presence of Christ !!!!
Praise God from whom all blessings flow!!! Praise Him for the gift of Himself thru the spilt blood of Jesus and His poured out Spirit ....and his words will never pass away!!!
“”He will prolong his days.” Not only did Jesus die young, but how could the days be prolonged of someone who is alleged to be God?”
By being raised from the dead, you silly goose!
If you look to the Church Tradition the Trinity is clear because the Church ALWAYS knew it by Tradition
The Trinity is hardly an Oral Tradition not recorded in scripture. While the word itself is not in scripture, the doctrine is fairly obvious from scripture itself.
ST. IRENAEUS OF LYONS (c. 180 AD): “So forceful are these arguments that no one should henceforth seek the truth from ANY OTHER SOURCE since it would be simple to get it from THE CHURCH ....On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the things pertaining to the Church with utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the TRADITION OF TRUTH ..For how should it be if the Apostles themselves had not left us writing? Would it be necessary [in that case] to follow the course of Tradition which they handed down to those whom they committed the Churches?” (Against the Heresies 3:4:1)
For Irenaeus Tradition and Scripture were synonymous.
When Irenaeus defines the doctrinal content of the canon of truth or the apostolic tradition, he defines it as simply the summation of the major teaching of the Old and New Testaments. Thus, any oral tradition separate from Scripture in content, which does not conform to the teaching of Scripture, is, in the view of Irenaeus, a Gnostic heresy. Succession proves that the bishops preach and teach the true apostolic tradition, while Scripture verifies what the content of that apostolic tradition is.
what Irenaeus meant by tradition in against heresies, book I chapt 10. That passage reads:
"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,’ and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess’ to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send ‘spiritual wickednesses,’ and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory."
Note that according to Irenaeus, the Church has received what he calls this faith from the apostles and their disciples. He then goes on to give the doctrinal content of this faith which are primarily the cardinal truths of the Creed. And this faith, and the content as he has defined it, is equated with what he calls the tradition. He puts it this way: "The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith...For, although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same. For the Churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world...For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it, make any addition to it, nor does one, who can say but little diminish it."
So, tradition, as defined by Irenaeus, is equivalent to the faith handed down from the apostles, which he often refers to as ‘the rule of faith.’ This rule has a very specific content, all of which is contained in Scripture. He makes no mention of other and purely oral doctrines that are essential for the faith.33 Every doctrine of the rule is derived from Scripture. Tradition, therefore, is the rule of faith expressly taught in Scripture. We have already seen that Irenaeus believed that what was initially taught orally by the apostles was later committed to Scripture, and that it was through Scripture that the apostolic tradition was transmitted to the Church. In other words, the apostolic teaching did not remain oral in nature. It was inscripturated. Thus, the content of the apostolic tradition preserved and preached (orally) in the Churches by the presbyters is identical in content with the teaching of Scripture. Tradition is verified by Scripture; they are one and the same. Contrary to Sungenis’ assertion, there is no other body of doctrine, oral in nature and independent of Scripture. The tradition of the Church is simply that teaching which is grounded upon and derived from Scripture. According to Irenaeus, apostolic tradition reaches us by two means: Scripture and the preaching and teaching of the Church, preserved in purity by the succession of her bishops. Did Irenaeus believe this rendered Scripture insufficient? By no means, because oral proclamation of the truth is simply the public proclamation of the teaching of Scripture. It is Scriptural truth presented orally, just as the present day preacher preaches a message derived from Scripture.
Isa. 42:1-4, “Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he have set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law.”
This can’t be Israel since Israel is about to go into captivity and its cities and land devastated because of idolatry. Israel was a war-like nation, not a peaceable nation as this servant is described. From the time of the return from exile, Israel has never “brought forth judgment unto truth”. The isles of the earth to this day hunger after its demise.
Isa. 49:1-6, “ Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me; And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified. Then I said, I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain: yet surely my judgment is with the LORD, and my work with my God. And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.”
The last verse would disqualify Israel from being the servant since it speaks of gathering Jacob again to Him. Israel is Jacob.
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
First is the issue of circular reasoning.The author himself engages in “circular reasoning” by assuming that the writer is referring to Israel as the “suffering servant”.
the most that could be said is this: Isaiah 53 is about someone who dies for the sins of others. People may have seen Jesus die, but did anyone see him die as an atonement for the sins of others?
Why would it make any difference whether someone recognized at the time Jesus died, he was dying for the sins of others? He told his disciples what he was going to do and at the time they did not believe him. After the resurrection, they understood and believed. The atoning transaction was between Jesus and God the Father. Israel went into captivity for its own sin; the sin of idolatry. There is no evidence anywhere where Israel atoned for the sins of others; in fact, because of its sin, Israel could not atone for another’s sin, only its own.
Second (and consistent with all Jewish teaching at the time), Jesus' own disciples didn't view Isaiah 53 as a messianic prophecy.
That’s true, however Luke 24:44-47, “And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, and said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.”
After their understanding was enlightened they understood the significance of the prophecy and taught it to their disciples: The deacon Philip interpreted this Isaiah 53 passage as referring to Jesus (Acts 8:32-35, "The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth. And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus").
The apostle Paul understood the prophecy referred to Jesus : Rom 10:13-16, “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? As it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report?”
Even Jesus didn't see Isaiah 53 as crucial to his messianic claims - why else did he call the Jews children of the devil for not believing in him before the alleged resurrection (Jn. 8:39-47)?
Jesus understood the significance of the prophecy: Jhn 12:37-41, “But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him: That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again, He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with [their] eyes, nor understand with [their] heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him.”
And why did he later request that God "remove this cup from me" (Mk. 14:36) - didn't he know that a "removal of the cup" would violate the gentile understanding of Isaiah 53?
Jesus was human. Heb. 5:7-8, “Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.”
The author does not finish the thought, “never the less, not my will but Thine be done.”
And third, even if we accept the gentile Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53, where is it indicated (either in Isaiah 53 or anywhere else in our Jewish Scriptures) that you must believe in this "Messiah" to get the benefits? I don’t understand his point.
This should answer the writer’s verse by verse interpretation.
“Given the Christian view that Jesus is God, is God His own servant?” Sounds just like a Nicodemus type question..”Can a man be born twice?”
No and Yes!...By Jesus serving the Father as a fully actuated sinless man (as well as being God in flesh), he was the perfect example of how men should serve God. Jesus even served his disciples by washing their feet while exhorting them to Love one another. Jesus serves those who love him by washing away their sins and “dropping them into the sea of forgetfullness and remembering those sins no more.” then telling us...”Go and sin no more”. Then Jesus serves us again by promising us the power of the Holy Spirit...so that men could boldly proclaim the gospel to every creature, then baptizing them in the Shekinah glory of God’s spirit. By serving as a man, by giving up his pre-incarnate Glory willingly, he was the ultimate expression of God’s heart extended to fallen humans.
The premise of your question needs to be adjusted...God became a servant and advocate for man, by becoming a perfect man himself,,,since there was no other man that could lift the curse of sin and degredation because all men have sinned”and come short of the glory of God”. There was no animal sacrifice that could fully cleanse men of sin except God’s own sacrifice of his expressed heart to man..that is Jesus Christ. In Genesis we find indications of what God was intending to do, when he at first commanded Abraham to offer up his son Isaac as a sacrifice...later staying his hand when God saw that Abraham was willing to lose all he cherished in trust to God. Abraham I believe began to get the hint when after sacrificing the” provided ram”, Abraham named the place “God the Provider” (Jehovah gyra).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.