But is this how the New Testament interprets these messianic prophecies regarding the servant of the Lord?
In order to answer this questions, we must see that the gospel writers interpret these prophecies from Isaiah as fulfilled in the messianic mission of Jesus.
In Hosea 11:1, Hosea predicted a time when “Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.” But in Matthew 2:15, the evangelist tells us that Hosea’s prophecy was fulfilled when his parents took Jesus to Egypt to protect him from Herod’s “slaughter of the innocents”
The ramifications for this upon one’s millennial view should now be obvious. If Jesus is the true Israel of God, and if the New Testament writers apply to Jesus those Old Testament prophecies referring to Israel as God’s son or servant, then what remains of the dispensationalist’s case that these prophecies remain yet to be fulfilled in a future millennium? They vanish in Jesus Christ, who has fulfilled them!
The author in these quotes has exposed the logical fallacy at the heart of chr*stianity (any and all kinds of chr*stianity). Supposedly chr*stians believe in J*sus and the "new testament" because they "fulfill" the prophecies of the "old testament." Yet the only grounds for that belief (that J*sus fulfills the prophecies) is the assumed authority of the "new testament" and J*sus to authoritatively interpret those prophecies. But if the authority of J*sus and the NT is assumed, then one is not basing one's chr*stian belief in the prophecies to begin with. One is instead beginning with an assumed belief and then falsely claiming that belief is based on "old testament prophecies."
That is why all forms of chr*stianity--from the most ancient liturgical to the most snake-handling "fire baptized," from the most liberal to the most conservative, from the most anti-Semitic to the most Judaized "messianism," from the most mainstream to the most "out there"--is utter bunk.
Paul tells us that Abraham believed the very same gospel that he preached to the Gentile Galatians.
This is no different from the islamic claim that Abraham was a moslem. It is a later, invented religion retrojecting itself into the past in order to claim a legitimacy it does not possess.
No, the logical fallacy is yours because the ground of our belief is not something that is merely in the realm of logic or thought. There is no circular assumption of authority because our belief is grounded, not just by claims of authority, but by things that happened in space/time history. Events of the past are not just a logical or mental construct of some kind. Your assumption that our beliefs are grounded merely in circular claims of authority is false.
Cordially,