From: rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Isaiah does not prophesy Christ
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:57:48 GMT
Organization: CERL-EE, Georgia Institue of Technology

In article <765347d3241955t234@witsend.uucp> dcs@witsend.tnet.com (D. C. Sessions) writes:
|In <78670@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)  wrote:
|# In article <765330d3663354t188@witsend.uucp> dcs@witsend.tnet.com (D. C. Sessions) writes:
|# |In <78497@hydra.gatech.EDU>, rpitts@emperor.gatech.edu (Richard Pitts)  wrote:
[... A lot deleted and just a few comments where they were directly
     requested.]
|# |#                                    {5} But he was pierced for our
|# |#     transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the
|# |#     punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds
|# |#     we are healed.
|# |
|# |  Whew!  Try "He was WOUNDED because of our transgressions, he was
|# |  crushed because of our iniquities,"; there is a difference between
|# |  causality and exchange.
|#
|# There is a difference between causality and exchange.  In context,
|# the BECAUSE/FOR relates the sameing meaning.
|
|  Hardly the same.  If I hit you and you lose a kidney, you are
|  certainly wounded BECAUSE of my crime; this isn't the same as
|  if you donated it for a transplant I needed.  In the latter
|  case we could agree that you were wounded FOR me.

I understand your point and in your example I agree with you, but
the word "for" has "because of" as one of its definitions.

Words have different meanings within their context.  The key or
connect is that we have transgressions and that is the reason
Jesus suffered.  Jesus willingly laid down his life, but if was
for our forgiveness - a sacrifice once and for all for our sins.

[...]
|# |#                            he will see his offspring and prolong his
|# |#     days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
|# |
|# |  If it's a king speaking here there's no problem, but otherwise
|# |  you have to reconcile the "my people" in 53:8 with the third-
|# |  person divinity here.
|
|  Since you've got this thing about pronouns/persons, why did you
|  ignore this?  Please address it.


I don't see what you are meaning.  This verse (v10) has HE and HIS
referring to Jesus, I believe.  Verse 8 said that the removing
from the land of the people was for the transgression of MY PEOPLE.

    Isaiah 53:8-12 (NIV)   By oppression and judgment he was taken 
    away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off 
    from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people 
    he was stricken. {9} He was assigned a grave with the wicked, 
    and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, 
    nor was any deceit in his mouth. {10} Yet it was the Lord's will 
    to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes 
    his life a guilt offering, he will see his offspring and prolong 
    his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. 
    {11} After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of 
    life and be satisfied ; by his knowledge my righteous servant 
    will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. 
    {12} Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he 
    will divide the spoils with the strong, because he poured out 
    his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. 
    For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the 
    transgressors. 

[...]
|# |  Sure sounds like the joyous return to Jerusalem, with posessions
|# |  restored.  Fits in nicely with 54, too:
|#
|# Yep, sounds like Jesus, for he poured out his soul unto death.
|# And he was numbered with the transgressions (the two criminals on
|# the two crosses).  And Jesus is our Advocate forever making
|# intercession to the Father for us.
|
|  Did you ignore my comment about tenses?  Even the KJV puts this ("he
|  poured out ... with the transgressors") in the PAST, and yet you claim
|  it's five centuries in the future.  Otherwise, see previous comments
|  about nonliteral interpretations and preferences.

I need to look into this.

|# |  .... and continuing with the verses of consolation, telling of the
|# |  return of the exiles.  Seamless.  A single thematic whole, and some
|# |  of the most beautiful poetry ever.  Why hack it up to twist a verse
|# |  here and there out of context into another meaning altogether?
|#
|# I agree - Jesus will come and restore Israel and route the enemies.
|# This is the theme thoughout the OT and is echoed again in the NT.
|
|  Huh?  Are you claiming that NOTHING in the passages of consolation
|  refers to the historical return from Babylon?  If I understand you
|  correctly, we have this contrast:
|
|  Prophecy refers to J        vs       Prophecy refers to return
|                                       from Babylon
|  Prophecy hasn't been                 Prophecy was fulfilled within
|  fulfilled (yet?)                     the lifetimes of Isaiah's
|                                       audience

No I am not saying there is nothing to refer to the return from 
Babylon, but I believe the ultimate fulfillment is in Christ, whose
life is the testimony of the spirit of prophecy.

[...]
|--- D. C. Sessions                            Speaking for myself ---

For Christ and His Kingdom,
Richard Pitts

-- 
rpitts@cerl.gatech.edu      |  Love and Worship God, the Creator of the Earth. 
                          --|--   
Pro-Life!              -|-  |  -|-    Come bow down in worship, let us kneel
Pro-Responsibility!     |   |   |     before the Lord Our Maker.  Psalm 95:6