Isaiah 53, 700 B.C: Historical Evidence of the Divine Omniscience.

[Nishant Xavier]

Just passing through. On my phone. Grandizer, did you see this from Isaiah 1:4: "See Isaiah 1:4 for e.g.: "Woe, sinful nation, people laden with iniquity, offspring who do evil, children who act corruptly, who have forsaken the Lord, who have despised the Holy One of Israel, who are utterly estranged!"

He clearly calls the people/nation sinful and laden with iniquity. Then he says the Servant was righteous, had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in His Mouth. He also repeatedly says the Servant bears the sins of many and suffers and dies for the transgression of his, I.e. Isaiahs people, I.e. the Nation of Israel. So if the Nation of Israel is causing the Servant to suffer, and He is bearing their sins righteously, and they/we are all sinners, as it says in Isaiah 1:4, isn't it clear the Servant and Israel are two entities? Any thoughts on what Louis Lapides said in Vase for Christ by Lee Strobel on Isaiah 53 that I cited earlier? God Bless.

[Anomalocaris]

I believe we are experiencing is a byproduct of home schooling.


Am I right X?

I think his back ground is more complex than that.       He doth both protest too much and try too hard.      I think he is a product of a traditional culture with a long history from which he feels alienated.    The culture of his birth is likely widespread, domineering and uses its long history and numerous sages as means of asserting its domination.    But the culture is also socially fragmented.

The social fragmentation gave him a deep seated inferior complex but also allowed him to immerse himself in some alternative introduced from outside,  Roman Catholicism appeals to him because he imagine it to be vehicle to rid himself of the inferiority of the culture and become one of the people who is not inferior. The use of its own long history and sages as a tool of self assertion by that culture finds echos in his quoting of saints, popes, and what happened in RCC history on some date centuries ago.

[Bucky Ball]

Just passing through. On my phone. Grandizer, did you see this from Isaiah 1:4: "See Isaiah 1:4 for e.g.: "Woe, sinful nation, people laden with iniquity, offspring who do evil, children who act corruptly, who have forsaken the Lord, who have despised the Holy One of Israel, who are utterly estranged!"

He clearly calls the people/nation sinful and laden with iniquity. Then he says the Servant was righteous, had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in His Mouth. He also repeatedly says the Servant bears the sins of many and suffers and dies for the transgression of his, I.e. Isaiahs people, I.e. the Nation of Israel. So if the Nation of Israel is causing the Servant to suffer, and He is bearing their sins righteously, and they/we are all sinners, as it says in Isaiah 1:4, isn't it clear the Servant and Israel are two entities? Any thoughts on what Louis Lapides said in Vase for Christ by Lee Strobel on Isaiah 53 that I cited earlier? God Bless.

“Comfort, comfort my people, says your God.
Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her
that her hard service has been completed,
that her sin has been paid for,
that she has received from the Lord’s hand
double for all her sins.” —Isaiah 40:1–2

Lee Strobel is a journalist who cherry-picked only those who would agree with him.
Louis Lapides, a Jewish believer in Jesus, taught biblical studies at BIOLA University focusing on Old Testament history and New Testament theology.
That's all I need to know.

[The Grand Nudger]

The idea that the people were fucking up, and god would Do Something if they didn't stop, is the pretext for every single one of the social commentaries you mistakenly believe to be prophesies. This is how the ot authors, considered to be fortune tellers by you, contextualized and narrativized their then-present suffering. OFC your god must be angry, or have abandoned you, if you find yourself invaded, nullified, and taken into bondage in a foreign land.

[Bucky Ball]

"3 He was despised and rejected by others; a man of suffering and acquainted with infirmity, and as one from whom others hide their faces; he was despised, and we held him of no account. 4 Surely he has borne our infirmities and carried our diseases, yet we accounted him stricken, struck down by God, and afflicted. 5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole, and by his bruises we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have all turned to our own way, and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. 
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter; and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. 8 By a perversion of justice he was taken away. Who could have imagined his future? For he was cut off from the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people."

In Isaiah 53, the first person plural is referring to the nations, and the man suffering because of their transgressions represents Israel. The passage is a poetic expression of hope for Israel, not a prediction about a particular individual.

Bucky is already addressing your points anyway, so looks like this was an unnecessary post.

Still, maybe another link might help you here:
https://aish.com/isaiah_53_the_suffering_servant/

Notice, btw, how easy it is to be misled by subtly inaccurate English translations (written by people who are primed to read Jesus into these passages).

Thanks for the link. 
Read the link. Every line in 53 is critically re-translated. 

"Isaiah 53:5 is a classic example of mistranslation: The verse does not say, “He was wounded for our transgressions and crushed for our iniquities,” which could convey the vicarious suffering ascribed to Jesus. Rather, the proper translation is: “He was wounded because of our transgressions, and crushed because of our iniquities.”

(Note : This is an admission that the suffering OF THE NATION ("he" and the "servant Israel") was caused by their own misdeeds, and were now forgiven because of the THEN nation's (servant's suffering) ie THE Exile. It's what the entire Book is about).

"This conveys that the Servant suffered as a result of the sinfulness of others – not the opposite as Christians contend – that the Servant suffered to atone for the sins of others."

Indeed, the Christian idea directly contradicts the basic Jewish teaching that God promises forgiveness to all who sincerely return to Him; thus there is no need for the Messiah to atone for others. Isaiah.55.6-7, Jeremiah 36:3, Ezekiel chapters 18 and 33, Hoseah 14:1-3, Jonah.3.6-10, Jonah 3:6-10, Proverbs.16.6,Proverbs 16:6, Daniel.4.27, Daniel 4:27, 2-Chronicles 7:14)"

I was also looking at the volume in "Interpreter's Bible" which does the same thing. Looks at the translations of every verse. 
They say the same thing, and they are the cream of the crop in scholarship. They agree. 

---

In 1952, a team was set in place by the world-famous, preeminent scholar, archaeologist and pioneer discoverer of Holy Land historical sites and documents, Dr. William Foxwell Albright, the professor of Semitic languages at the Johns Hopkins University. Their job was to write criticisms and scholarly work concerning all biblical texts. The team was composed of the most respected biblical scholars in the US and Europe, including Dr. John W. Bailey, Professor Emeritus, New Testament, Berkley Baptist Divinity School, Dr Albert E. Barnett, Professor Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Dr. Walter Russell Bowel, Professor, The Protestant Episcopal Seminary, Virginia, Dr. John Bright, Professor, Union Seminary and many others.

The team of 124 clergymen and scholars came mostly from conservative, mainline universities and churches for the most part, the likes of whom will never be seen again in one place, whose names evoke the utmost and deepest respect, even if one completely disagrees with their religious views. They wrote the huge 13 volume set, now considered a valuable rare book, called "The Interpreters Bible". Today it is usually kept under lock and key in seminaries and libraries. This set includes an introduction to scholarship and looks at every single verse and word in the Bible, discusses their origins and possible meanings from various points of view. It has been updated in the 1990's, but the original scholarship is still the central fundamental summary of knowledge, which summarized scholarship from the Medieval period (1850's -1950's) and is therefore considered to be an interesting historical snapshot. It is also an assurance that these absolutely respected leading intellectuals from the 20th Century scholarship, of whom most were religious, have agreed to have each other's names associated with their own and that they felt comfortable with what each other were saying in an academic setting and commanded world-wide respect as conservative, careful, and sincere, life-long teachers, academics and scholars. 

Note : (Isaiah's entire text is to say that the Jews suffered in exile at the hands of others, and why that happened), and it was their own fault.

On page 15 of "The Interpreters Bible", Dr. Herbert F. Farmer, Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University wrote about the indispensability of the texts, their importance and how the "truth" of them should be approached, after an exposition of the traditional conservative Christian view of person-hood, sin and the salvific actions of Jesus (aka Yeshua ben Josef), known as "the Christ" in human history.

"The reason has to do with the evidence afforded by the texts themselves, and calls for fuller treatment. Scholarly research into the texts themselves, has convincingly shown that they not be accepted in detail as they stand.

---

[GrandizerII]

Just passing through. On my phone. Grandizer, did you see this from Isaiah 1:4: "See Isaiah 1:4 for e.g.: "Woe, sinful nation, people laden with iniquity, offspring who do evil, children who act corruptly, who have forsaken the Lord, who have despised the Holy One of Israel, who are utterly estranged!"

He clearly calls the people/nation sinful and laden with iniquity.

Yes, and? Nowhere in Isaiah 53 does it say the suffering servant was not sinful or laden with iniquity. There's a huge gap of context between Isaiah 1 and Isaiah 53 anyway.

Then he says the Servant was righteous, had done no violence, nor was there any deceit in His Mouth.

Context matters. In one context, Israel is considered righteous. In another context, it's the opposite. You see this so-called paradoxical duality regarding the overall character of the Israelites all the time in the Old Testament.

He also repeatedly says the Servant bears the sins of many and suffers and dies for the transgression of his, I.e. Isaiahs people, I.e. the Nation of Israel.

This is what a faulty translation would say, yes. But it's not the correct translation. Again, check the link I posted earlier.

Also, as Bucky pointed out more than once now, there are verses in Isaiah clearly referring to Israel as the Servant.

[Bucky Ball]

General background :

The main places in which the invasion and Exile are "recorded", (there actually were a number of invasions of Israel" by foreign powers, as History records externally to the Bible),
are 2 Kings, Isaiah, and 2 Chronicles. Hezekiah was the king. This is a sort of compilation of various texts regarding him, and how this period was seen when they got around to writing about
it. It is generally recognized that Proto-Isaiah, Duetero-Isaiah, and Trito-Isaiah contributed to "Isaiah". 3 different authors.
This sort of places in context what various texts said about the period. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=CEV

The invasion happened during the reign of Hezekiah. Israel at the time was polytheistic. Yahweh had a wife, (Ahsera), and Isaiah's main message was that the presence of representations of all the gods of the time was permitted in Israel, and despite Hezekiah's attempt at asking for forgiveness, he didn't get it, and the invasion happened anyway.
Deutero-Isaiah's message was that the suffering during and after the Exile, (during which only certain select high-ranking Hebrews were removed to Babylon, but some priests also were exiled) was due to the unfaithfulness of allowing other gods in the city, and that also was where the Bible began to be written, not coincidentally. There is no record of it anywhere in human history prior to Ezra's introduction of the the Torah of Moses in the Fall Festival, as mentioned in Nehemiah.

There are various theories about why the Judean priests collected the various myths and put them in Genesis, and the other first three books in the Bible, but the sources for much of them has been worked out. It's called the Source Hypothesis, or Documentary Hypothesis. It it confirmed by 6, independent sets of supporting evidence.
1. The linguistic dialect in each source is known, and can be documented as separate by decades, or longer.
2. The terminology for the same idea, person, object, or place is different in each source.
3. The content of each of the sources is different.
4. The "flow" of the story works if the source materials are combined.
5. The same known sources are similar or connect to the same known sources in other books.
6. The inferred political motivations for each source matches the material and it's apparent goals.

(It also makes sense, as there is so much Babylonian material in Genesis).

So one of the theories is that the Persian Emperor had the texts compiled to provide a cultural and legal foundation for his project of returning the educated Jews back to Israel to serve as a buffer between him and the invading Greeks. It makes sense to me, but not everyone agrees. It's also interesting that Isaiah insisted that they stop worshipping other gods, (ie monotheism), and that it arose just as the Greeks were invading and brought the concept of "individualism" to the Levant. Not a coincidence. There's also the humorous story about how Deuteronomy "just happened" to be found by one of the priests, but only peripherally important here. It just happened to be found when they needed it. LOL.

King: "We need some more laws".
High Prost: I might be able to help you, let me rummage around in the temple"
* rummages in the temple*
Priest : Oh look I just happened to find some in this *old* book which Moses wrote. I found it laying about in a back room. Really I did.
King : Well that will work just fine. Mum's the word. Wink wink.
Priest : I wanna raise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_De...E2%80%9310).

Anyway, The prophets (3 of them) writing Isaiah told Israel that the reason they were punished and suffered was that they allowed the "idols" of other gods in Hezekiah's capitol.
That's the background. They allowed idols, they were punished, and they were forgiven ALREADY by THEIR suffering, which was confirmed by the Duetero-Isaiah "poem" -
"Comfort ye, comfort ye",
Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her
that her hard service has been completed,
that her sin has been paid for,
that she has received from the Lord’s hand
double for all her sins.” —Isaiah 40:1–2

That's the background as seen by Jewish people. and the Bible.
They needed no "savior" They suffered THEMSELVES and were already forgiven and they chose to see their history as returned and forgiven to Israel.
Isaiah reminded them of this in his text. The concept of a suffering messiah had no place here. Christians made that up, and took all this totally out of context with their claim of prophecy.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

One of them gets it so astonishingly write he is almost Christian, he said: whoever will not admit the Messiah suffers for our sins must suffer for his own sins.

Hey! That's NOT stupid.

It's grossly idiotic.

And stupid.

[Bucky Ball]

One of them gets it so astonishingly write he is almost Christian, he said: whoever will not admit the Messiah suffers for our sins must suffer for his own sins.

Hey! That's NOT stupid.

It's grossly idiotic.

And stupid.

Wrong. You're not even astonishingly wrong. Just plain wrong. 
It's "right", not write. 

ta ta

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Tatas? Oh so right.