Isaiah 52:13-53: whatever..

[Ricky Spanish]

.. is not a prophecy as it is written in the past tense, so relates to events pre 700 BCE.

Makes no mention whatsoever about a Messiah.

Time to move on and stop the misrepresentations that the servant is someone in the future and is in actual FACT a representation of Isreal/Judah at said time.

[Ricky Spanish]

Example 1:

"3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
    a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
    he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
    and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
    stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
    he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
    and by his wounds, we are healed."

Considering the book was written circa 700 BCE and all the events described are in the past tense it takes a HUGE leap [of faith] to try and shoehorn it as a "prophecy", (it isn't), about "Jesus". (It isn't).

What else does it leave?

[Owlswing]

Example 1:

"3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
    a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
    he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
    and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
    stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
    he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
    and by his wounds, we are healed."

Considering the book was written circa 700 BCE and all the events described are in the past tense it takes a HUGE leap [of faith] to try and shoehorn it as a "prophecy", (it isn't), about "Jesus". (It isn't).

What else does it leave?

That Jesus as Messiah is rubbish? As is most of the New Testament.

[ad_orientem]

Eho says a prphecy cannot be in the past tense? The prophet is describing a vision of some sort. That explains the past tense.

[Owlswing]

Eho says a prphecy cannot be in the past tense? The prophet is describing a vision of some sort. That explains the past tense.

Because the word "prophecy", by Oxford Dictionary definition, is ptrediction of a "future" event. Thus it cannot be in the past tense.

Except in your disordered mind and inability to accept error in your rather stupid book of Chinese whispers.

[ad_orientem]

Because the word "prophecy", by Oxford Dictionary definition, is ptrediction of a "future" event. Thus it cannot be in the past tense.

Except in your disordered mind and inability to accept error in your rather stupid book of Chinese whispers.

It is descibing a future event. You're so one dimensional! As I said, he is describing a vision of some sort, hence the past tense. That says nothing about when the evrnts in the vision occurred.

[Owlswing]

It is descibing a future event. You're so one dimensional! As I said, he is describing a vision of some sort, hence the past tense. That says nothing about when the evrnts in the vision occurred.

Keep ojn talking bollocks Ad O - for the reason for my not caring see the "Murderous bastards" thread!

[Leonard James]

Keep ojn talking bollocks Ad O - for the reason for my not caring see the "Murderous bastards" thread!

AO is not a bad guy at heart, but he is a good example of what religious indoctrination can achieve.

[ad_orientem]

Keep ojn talking bollocks Ad O - for the reason for my not caring see the "Murderous bastards" thread!

You're the one talking bollocks, I'm afraid. If you accuse me of being an anti-Semite then you're clearly a rabid anti-Christian.

[Hope]

.. is not a prophecy as it is written in the past tense, so relates to events pre 700 BCE.

Makes no mention whatsoever about a Messiah.

Time to move on and stop the misrepresentations that the servant is someone in the future and is in actual FACT a representation of Isreal/Judah at said time.

The problem is that not only are most of us working from the English language version, a language which has two distinct 'Future in the past' tenses - the Future Perfect and the Future in the Past, both of which allow a speaker to refer to something that is to occur in the future, using the past tense.

Interestingly, the tense used in the very first verse of your reference, TtB, is the simple future, which sets the scene for the rest of the passage.

Unfortunately, I don't know ebnough Hebrew grammar toi know whether the original tenses used in the passage match those used in the English version or not.  Does anyone else?

[Hope]

Example 1:

"3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
    a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
    he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
    and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
    stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
    he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
    and by his wounds, we are healed."

Considering the book was written circa 700 BCE and all the events described are in the past tense it takes a HUGE leap [of faith] to try and shoehorn it as a "prophecy", (it isn't), about "Jesus". (It isn't).

What else does it leave?

Example 2, TtB - Isaiah 52:13

"13
See, my servant will act wisely;^{[a](will prosper)}
    he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted."

[Sassy]

.. is not a prophecy as it is written in the past tense, so relates to events pre 700 BCE.

Makes no mention whatsoever about a Messiah.

Time to move on and stop the misrepresentations that the servant is someone in the future and is in actual FACT a representation of Isreal/Judah at said time.

I guess you have not related the truth that the end from the beginning is told within the books of the OT?
If all past tense then Christ could not have been a reality all those years after they were wrote.

Want to explain why this passage and why you believe the child or King was born in the time of Isaiah?

[~TW~]

Thrud you really are desperate starting a thread like that.Dead on its feet before it started.

   ~TW~

[Ricky Spanish]

Christians don't understand Issy 53 - and all of us non-christians really love winding you up about your lack of knowledge about what it actually means.

Which is why we post on these such forums and then piss ourselves laughing about your "suffering servant" mistranslation/understanding.. even when we point it out - you still don't understand. It's a HUGE joke to us who actually understand who the servant is in Isaiah 53...

[Owlswing]

You're the one talking bollocks, I'm afraid. If you accuse me of being an anti-Semite then you're clearly a rabid anti-Christian.

And when and where have the Christians been persecuted except by the Muslims? Certainly they have never been systematically murdered by either Pagans or Jews (not in thge last 2000 years anyway)

[Shaker]

You're the one talking bollocks, I'm afraid. If you accuse me of being an anti-Semite then you're clearly a rabid anti-Christian.

No, just able to read the swivel-eyed conspiracy nut garbage that you vomit up on a regular basis.

[ad_orientem]

And when and where have the Christians been persecuted except by the Muslims? Certainly they have never been systematically murdered by either Pagans or Jews (not in thge last 2000 years anyway)

In the Church's infancy Christians were systematically persecuted and murdered by both pagans and Jews. We all know of the Roman persecutions and in the scriptures we see the first martyr, St. Stephen, murdered by the Jews.

[Maeght]

Christians don't understand Issy 53 - and all of us non-christians really love winding you up about your lack of knowledge about what it actually means.

Which is why we post on these such forums and then piss ourselves laughing about your "suffering servant" mistranslation/understanding.. even when we point it out - you still don't understand. It's a HUGE joke to us who actually understand who the servant is in Isaiah 53...

Making claims doe all non-christians? Think best you change that to

Christians don't understand Issy 53 - I really love winding you up about your lack of knowledge about what it actually means.

Which is why I post on these such forums and then piss myself laughing about your "suffering servant" mistranslation/understanding.. even when I point it out - you still don't understand. It's a HUGE joke to me who actually understands who the servant is in Isaiah 53...

[floo]

I reckon that the so called prophecies referring to some sort of messiah were used by the gospel writers to when scripting the life of Jesus!

[Hope]

Christians don't understand Issy 53 - and all of us non-christians really love winding you up about your lack of knowledge about what it actually means.

Which is why we post on these such forums and then piss ourselves laughing about your "suffering servant" mistranslation/understanding.. even when we point it out - you still don't understand. It's a HUGE joke to us who actually understand who the servant is in Isaiah 53...

But the joke is then on us Christians when a bit of simple Bible Study shows that your interpretation is so far from anything the Hebrew means.

[Dicky Underpants]

But the joke is then on us Christians when a bit of simple Bible Study shows that your interpretation is so far from anything the Hebrew means.

Unlike Thrud, I agree with you and Ad-O that the text in question might well have a future application. Firstly because, as you say, Hebrew does not have the same tense-system as English, and in any case, I see no problem using a past tense 'metaphorically' to refer to a future situation. I further see no problem in considering the text in question to refer to the ongoing tribulations of the Jewish people throughout the ages.

The question is why, when 'Israel' has been used to represent the Jewish people as God's Servant throughout the book of Isaiah, when we get to chapters 52-53, we should suddenly start considering the 'Servant' to refer to Jesus uniquely.
Cue something about Jesus taking over the task that the Jewish people were supposed to have performed, but failed in.....

[OH MY WORLD!]

What's your problem Matty? What are you doing here spouting your hate? You have never read Isaiah 52 for one thing. You cry your head off about how you are treated and this is what we always get from you.

Isaiah 52, well there are several Bible commentaries and I would be more comfortable reading them then what Luci has gathered off some atheist site.

[Hope]

The question is why, when 'Israel' has been used to represent the Jewish people as God's Servant throughout the book of Isaiah, when we get to chapters 52-53, we should suddenly start considering the 'Servant' to refer to Jesus uniquely.
Cue something about Jesus taking over the task that the Jewish people were supposed to have performed, but failed in.....

I think the clue is that Israel is never referred to as 'he' in such contexts. 

[Hope]

I reckon that the so called prophecies referring to some sort of messiah were used by the gospel writers to when scripting the life of Jesus!

But the interesting thing is that those prophecies existed before Christ, and have something other than simple reference to the people of Israel.

[floo]

But the interesting thing is that those prophecies existed before Christ, and have something other than simple reference to the people of Israel.

So what? It is quite possible the gospel writers created the life of Jesus to fit in with those 'prophecies'. He was killed three years after he started threading the boards, and there is no evidence he resurrected. Most of the Jews, including his family, didn't recognise him as a messiah!