Only when it comes to any kind of supernatural claim. I can’t see a single reason why I should accept any assertion of magic as even possible, much less as a given.
This whole sub-discussion stems from a tangent about purported OT prophecy, though, not from the premises of the main discussion.
The cross is much older than Eashoa…ahem, I mean Jesus. Every thirteen thousand years we are given a chance to return home through a celestial time cross or X. Sounds crazy, but X marks the spot, baby!
Admittedly your discussion surpassed my ability to participate.
My sense though is (analogy ahead) it’d be akin to arguing the finer points of the Lord of the Rings.
As such you accept the parameters of the Lord of the Rings where magic works and so too with the Bible. If what was written in Isaiah (or just as a general notion in the Bible) allows for magical prophecy then you kinda have to go with it when discussing what this or that person meant.
You are right,time in the grave doesn’t matter. And since God knew ahead of time that man would sin, and still made man with the flaw of the capability of sinning so then God is at fault for man’s sins. Just as a person who builds an imperfect product is responsible for what he creates or makes.
Since all that we are taught about God, read about God or think about God is just the human that which we human’s believe. It is not an argument that goes anywhere only if you already believe the persons or person who taught you, or wrote; There is no way of knowing what God wants, or does. You believe some writers or teachers others have different beliefs that are just as valid as yours.
I will say that the God you seem to believe in isn’t a very nice being.
The 4 kingdoms are at least 1 other place (which I can’t find right now but parallel the dream) , along with the 4 quarters of the world as a 3rd, and again 4 gospels with John being the highest one most spiritual and John being a fisherman getting His income directly from God, Matthew being the lowest one, most doom and gloom, getting his income by feeding off of others (tax collector).
We also have the expression of at least 2 kingdoms in Judges/Kings which is a upper kingdom and Chronically which is a lower one. In the first God tests King David, in the lower one Satan temps King David, for the same thing, showing how these 2 are different but interact.
We can see evidence of people in different kingdoms today as what we consider upper/middle and lower class and why many people seem to be stuck, the reason is that they are in one such kingdom.
God states lean not on your own understanding (of the world), but He will teach us.
The main one would be that the bible is riddled with claims that a God exists, which is a supernatural claim at least on a par with claiming that true prophecy is possible. If you throw out all supernatural claims, the bible is swiss cheese and any discussion can be toppled by pointing out that the author actively entertains and writes from a position based on delusion and is thus an unreliable narrator, possibly on other subjects as well.
That is exactly how I feel about the Bible as a record of history, but that’s not the only criterion for which it can be judged. I see it as still being interesting and valuable the way Homer and Gilgamesh are interesting and valuable.
If I remember correctly, the closest Jesus comes to saying “I am God” is when he says “I and the Father are one.” But that statement is a little ambiguous. “One” in what sense? My wife and I are one, but there is no single entity that each of us is identical with.
The impression I have when I am doing New Testament fanwankery (um did I say that? I meant theology) is that Christ had a deep sense of identification with God, but was not sure exactly what this amounted to. I don’t think he is portrayed as having a clear idea as to what was to happen post-crucifixion. He had some vague if powerful conviction that it would be something great and redemptive, but the exact nature of it, I’m not sure he’s being portrayed as knowing.
If we’re taking the narrative seriously (as I think the OP wants to do in this thread) then we can’t ignore the fear and apprehension he apparently feels as the day approaches. If he think’s he’s god and everything’s going to be okay afterward, then whence the terror? If we’re trying to take the narrative as seriously as possible, then we should hope the text doesn’t elsewhere explicitly say that Jesus believed he was God and that he’d survive the crucifixion. And I don’t think it does say that anywhere. (But it’s been a while so I may just be remembering badly here.)
Chapter 52 begins with an address to the people of Israel. It very clearly and at length address the nation of Israel directly in the second person. At verse 13 it then begins talking about the Servant of Israel. There’s no reason why the text would make such an abrupt transition from addressing Israel directly and in the second person to referring to Israel indirectly and in the third person like that. Further, immediately after that passage comes chapter 54 in which the speaker is again speaking directly to Israel. So to make sense of the national interpretation we have two abrupt switches in context and approach. For the messianic interpretation we have none.
I’m aware of the claim of a poetic metaphor. What I’m questioning is whether it makes sense as a poetic metaphor referring to the nation of Israel.
I used the NRSV, but I’ve checked several other translation as well and found none that contains your version of that verse.
The passage gives absolutely no indication that it’s the Gentile nations talking, and that, too, would be an abrupt departure from what comes immediately prior in chapter 52. I may be wrong, but I can’t recall any earlier passage in the Consolation of Israel that features the gentile nations speaking in that manner. But more to the point, if you’re asserting that this passage was intended to be about the Israeli nation in the past, when was there any time when the surrounding gentile nations took such an attitude? That doesn’t fit in with the rest of the book.
:smack:
And therein lies a hinging point for philosophers stretching millenia backwards in time. Those who would suppose to believe there is an omnipotent, perfect, and beneficent god count on their every thought of god as absolutely divine and incapable of wrong. So, if we as imperfect beings can mentally debunk some of “god’s” actions, then isn’t our perception of god always changing. To hold on to the belief to me is simply an act of nature, not only that of humans but of all things. Just as a plant grows upwards and outwards in an attempt to reach it’s ultimate potential, we too grow; yet with our abilities of comprehension and thought we try to rationalize the uncomprehensibles which surround us, guide us, and affect our lives. To attribute all existence to an imaginary deity which supposedly sent his own flesh to our humble little corner of the universe to save us from ourselves is to me a feeble attempt at explaining this universe. It must have taken quite some time to come up with such a story, but not really considering how much of it was bastardized from previous religions, cults, etc. which I believe if memory serves me correctly extends from paganism, with the sun being at the center of all worship and ritual. It’s just amazing to me how thousands upon thousands of years of cultural evolution has led us farther and farther away from what was originally held to be simple truth. An extreme example of a simple excercise elementary school children practice where a message is transmitted throughout the class word-of-mouth, one child at a time, and then it reaches it’s origin almost a complete 180 out from what it began as.
As far as the actual question at hand, ahem… :smack: Jesus dying on the cross (if that is how he died) was a meaningful act in that he died, he suffered extreme pain and humility, and his peers and students at the time held certain beliefs of him that transgressed his death. I was not there, noone I know personally was alive at the time, and I can only assume so much about a man living in a time which I would not have understood, but I can only guess it would be much like a close friend and teacher of mine dying. To me it would have been beyond meaningful and I would do everything I could to keep his spirit alive, especially in the light of such a meaningless death, or murder in that case.
It’s called poetic license, dawg.
It’s just another poetic technique.
It makes perfect sense. Not only does it make perfect sense, the author clearly TELLS us that the servant is Israel – “…You are my servant, Israel.”
Did you check the Hebrew?
Here are some other translations that are similar to my own:
KJV – …because he had done no violence, neither [was any] deceit in his mouth.
NKJV - Because He had done no violence, Nor was any deceit in His mouth.
NIV - …though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.
ESV - …although he had done no violence,
and there was no deceit in his mouth.
NASB - Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.
RSV - …although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth.
ASV - …although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
YNG - Because he hath done no violence, Nor [is] deceit in his mouth.
Actually, you have me a little bit on the timing. While the sufferings of the servant are in the past, there is an intended prophetic consoloation that the Gentile nations will someday realize their mistake.
That page only asserts that the passage from Isaiah is used in the Zohar multiple times and is seen as referencing a variety of different individuals. That’s true. So? Is doesn’t rule out the messianic interpretation. The following discussion about how an individual sacrifice for the sins of Israel does not correspond to the understanding of animal sacrifices in the old testament tradition is quite thorough, but of course if a reader was reading the passage with a messianic interpretation, the entire point would be that it’s changing the understanding of sacrifices.
As for the other sources which you insinuate must be fabricated, twisted, or taken out of context, I don’t have access to a library where I can look them up at the moment. Perhaps I can come back to them at some other time, but in any case the fruitfulness of having a debate with you on the topic seems to be in question given your changing standards for what constitutes a reliable source. See something you don’t like and you’ll bash it for trivial things such as the author’s Ph.D. not being in exactly the right specialty. See something you like and you’ll post it even if it doesn’t meet those same standards. And when something you don’t like is written by an academic with excellent qualifications, you just declare that person an “idiot” or “insane” as if that was a refutation. It seems that a given individual can even change sides. In our recent thread on the Gospels, you first stated that Dr. Bruce Metzger was number one in his field. Then, when I started to quote from Dr. Metzger’s books you changed your mind and decided that he was biased.
So now, in this thread, apparently Christian apologetics can’t be trusted because they have an agenda, yet that “Messiah Truth” website apparently can be. On their front page they first accuse Messianic Jews of “spiritual terrorism” and then repeat a bunch of garbage, including the long-refuted myth that Christian beliefs were copied from various Pagan religions. Is this really a source that I can rely on? I don’t think so.
That doesn’t seem to jive with experience, unfortunately. I love my daughter and I take express action to instruct her as best I can when she does something that will hurt her. She might not understand, but I am there to console her. In short, she knows I exist.
The same is not true for god.
Further, to continue the analogy, my daughter doesn’t have a whole bunch of false daddies (ie, religions) around to confuse her.
Being an unbeliever, I don’t see how it can be rationally said that I am ‘choosing’ hell or ‘darkness’ or anything like that.
I’m not sure why torment is necessary at all. If my daughter harms me, the best thing that I can do is to get her to empathize with me. The worse thing I could do is to harm her back in an equal or worse manner.
Yes, branches can bear fruit once they are cut from trees. I believe that’s how you can clone plant life. I’m not a botanist, but I do recall reading that.
In any event, that’s beside the point.
I thought death was caused by knowledge. Specifically disobeying god by eating from the tree of knowledge, even though I think it’s clear that A&E could not be responsible for such disobedience.
How is it possible to step outside of an omniscient/omnipotent entities ‘plan’ for us?
The Targum clearly states the the servant is Israel, that rules out a Messianic interpretation.
If you don’t want to accept a Jewish source as a cite for what Jews believe, what source would you accept?
Incidentally, Metzger was both tops in his field and a believing Christian. The two things are not mutually excusive. I don’t remember the exchange you’re talking about, but not everything Bruce Metzger said he believed was proffered in the context of scholarly opinion.
I assume you meant transcended.
Actually I don’t think that’s the case. I think it stems from the falsification principle and Popper; ie, science can only disprove a competing theories/hypothesis.
In common speech, we can say that science can prove things, but at the technical level, we can’t and this isn’t because of religions influence. It’s because of the philosophy of science.
you betcha
Are you holding both science and religion as equal institutions, for lack of a better word, when you say this? From most traditional standpoints when it comes to this topic, the debate is more science vs. religion vice the union of science and religion. In the former situation one would always tend to negatively influence the other, unless of course the downfall of one lent credence to the other.
science=1/religion or 
=religion/science or 
=(-inf,science)U(religion,inf)