Suffering Servant defense
#1
In an argument with a convert to Judaism from Evangelicalism. She claims Jesus doesn't fulfill the parameters of Isaiah 53. 
Her claims:
Isaiah 53:7 "he opened not his mouth"
Matthew 26:39 "let this chalice pass from me"
Matthew 27:46 "Eli, Eli, lamma sabachthani"

Isaiah 53:9, the translation she's using says "he had done no violence"
Cites John 2:15 and Matthew 10:34-35
also cites cursing the fig tree and blames Him for killing the swine

Isaiah 53:10, translation she's using says "he will see his offspring, he will prolong his days."
Her claim: "Jesus had no offspring, the Hebrew word for offspring here means physical offspring, not spiritual. Jesus' days were not prolonged."
I have no Hebrew, so I don't know how to respond to this.
Reply
#2
I often find that when there are efforts to discredit Christ, it is usually because someone is sinning and doesn’t want to stop. Rather than holding fast to authentic doctrine, people who do not want to turn away from sin often look elsewhere to scratch their itching ears. Pray for her, and if you’re in a position to do so, call her out on this. Denying Our Lord is a good way to end up in hell.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Credidi Propter's post:
  • SeekerofChrist
Reply
#3
Sounds like cherry picking at it’s finest.  If I were her, I would have mentioned the money changers.  Surely flipping over tables and chasing people with a whip is violent?

First, whether she like it or not, righteous anger does exist.  What about “zeal for your house will consume me” being important, or are only the two she cited being important?  Second, the fig tree bore no fruit though it was cared for (you can remind her what the fig tree stands in for if you think it’s prudent) and withered after the curse. Third, the demon sent the herd of swine over the cliff.

Ask her if someone took heroin away from a drug addict who the dies in withdrawal, would it be the same as if that person ran the addict over with a car?  At the end of the day, technically both actions would cause the death.

If she makes such pedantic assertions, she’s probably unaware they’re easily refuted and is just repeating a line she’s been told.

I also can’t speak to the Hebrew, but there must be someone here who can.

Credidi propter is right.  You have to feel sorry for her that she was so poorly catechized (if that’s what the even call it) by the evangelicals that she can deny Christ.  Those who knew and still rejected our Lord bear a greater sin than those who never knew at all.  She still has time to turn back to Him.  Maybe the Lord wants you to plant the seed that will bring her back to the Church.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Pandora's post:
  • SeekerofChrist
Reply
#4
Not opening the mouth refers to how he goes willling to death. Jesus did not try to defend himself during his trial. He said nothing when hit. He said nothing when in front of Herod. He endures the oppression and affliction.

Not doing violence refers to the same. He is not a general or leads a revolt.

Jesus makes it clear who are Abraham's children: those that are spiritual children. The hebrew word jsut means "seed". It is used for literal plant seed, for descendants, and anything that may also make sense. For example, Isaiah 57:4 uses the same word to talk about "offspring of falsehood". https://biblehub.com/hebrew/zera_2233.htm

Jesus' day have no end since He is eternal life.

Overall those claims are so pathetic and desperate that one has to be literally demonized to try to use them against Jesus. If someone thinks that Isaiah 53 does not apply to Jesus, that person is insane.
[-] The following 5 users Like Daniel-AH's post:
  • Ambrosiano, jovan66102, MercifulDecay, Pandora, Some Guy
Reply
#5
(12-15-2020, 03:53 AM)MercifulDecay Wrote: In an argument with a convert to Judaism from Evangelicalism. She claims Jesus doesn't fulfill the parameters of Isaiah 53. 
Her claims:
Isaiah 53:7 "he opened not his mouth"
Matthew 26:39 "let this chalice pass from me"
Matthew 27:46 "Eli, Eli, lamma sabachthani"

Isaiah 53:9, the translation she's using says "he had done no violence"
Cites John 2:15 and Matthew 10:34-35
also cites cursing the fig tree and blames Him for killing the swine

Isaiah 53:10, translation she's using says "he will see his offspring, he will prolong his days."
Her claim: "Jesus had no offspring, the Hebrew word for offspring here means physical offspring, not spiritual. Jesus' days were not prolonged."
I have no Hebrew, so I don't know how to respond to this.

Oh come on, she can do better than that. This is so lame.

She is totally missing the context in the first 2:

Is 53:7 in total says, "He was offered because it was his own will, and he opened not his mouth: he shall be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and shall be dumb as a lamb before his shearer, and he shall not open his mouth." Duh - it is specifically speaking about His condemnation by Pilate and not his relationship with His Father.

Is 53:9 in total says, "And he shall give the ungodly for his burial, and the rich for his death: because he hath done no iniquity, neither was there deceit in his mouth." -- BECAUSE being the key word, referring to why He had to depend on the charity of someone to provide a burial, or also, that someone had to beg for His Body to bury because burial was uncommon for people who were crucified.


The pertinent part of Is 53:10 says, "if he shall lay down his life for sin, he shall see a long-lived seed, and the will of the Lord shall be prosperous in his hand." -- meaning that IF He offers Himself as our Sacrifice, THEN he will see much posterity -- remember He said "If a grain of wheat falls..."

These are so weak, I honestly believe if this woman does not subconsciously WANT to be proven wrong. Like I said, she can do better than this and the Jews have practiced their arguments for 2000 years and have much better than this.
Reply
#6
Let me preface this with saying that I accept the Old Testament and the historicity of the events and people it describes.  I do this on the basis of the Church’s authority to definitively teach on such matters, and it has clearly affirmed that the OT is substantially historical (even if using ancient genres to provide that history).

Now, with that out of the way, I will say this: there is zero reason to believe in the Old Testament, and therefore Judaism, if Jesus is not the Messiah.  If she’s splitting hairs over the exegesis of some passages in Isaiah, why isn’t she also being critical of the OT itself?  Good luck showing that Adam and Eve were historical persons, or that there was a Garden of Eden, or that Noah’s Flood happened, or even establishing the substantial core of the Exodus events.  The events leading up to the Exodus amount to the utter ruination of a major political-military power, yet not even their enemies make a gloating reference to this in their historical records.  The only thing that can be said about Abraham is that the details of his story match the social conditions of the time he probably lived (as did a roughly one thousand year period around that time).  It isn’t until the time of the monarchy that there is indisputable independent corroboration of some of the events in the OT.  And none of them require divine intervention, so one can easily dismiss these accounts as nothing more than fallible ancient historical records.

The situation is totally different with Jesus Christ.  Contra a number of silly Internet atheists, his historical existence is easily established.  Also easy to establish, using historical methodology, is that he died by crucifixion, his tomb was found empty, his followers saw him postmortem shortly thereafter, and an avowed enemy of his early followers (Paul) also saw him postmortem.  The atheist must use lots of ad hoc reasoning to explain this all away, and I’ve heard Jews make God out to be a deceiver (like Muslims) to dismiss this.  IOW, special pleading.  Unlike them, the simple fact that Jesus Christ made astonishing personal claims about his special divine status and was raised from the dead effectively ends any doubts about who he was and why we must obey him.  And on that basis, since he repeatedly affirms the OT as Scripture, and speaks of distant figures like Abraham and Moses, we can know the OT is reliable and trustworthy.  It then makes sense to accept the historicity of Adam and Eve, Abraham, Moses, etc., and the events surrounding their lives, and offer rebuttals to skeptics.  But apart from Jesus, apart from the New Testament, the OT is just a dusty old tome with no more inherent credibility than the Quran, the Hindu holy texts, etc.

So by jettisoning Jesus Christ, she has abandoned any reason, beyond mere sentiment or fideism, to believe in the Old Testament or the Old Covenant.
"For the true friends of the people are neither revolutionaries nor innovators, but traditionalists."
- Pope St. Pius X

"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables."
- 2 Timothy 4:3-4

"Therefore God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying: That all may be judged who have not believed the truth, but have consented to iniquity."
- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12
[-] The following 5 users Like SeekerofChrist's post:
  • Daniel-AH, jovan66102, Ptochos, Sasha Zhivago, Some Guy
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)