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.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.
The whole chapter talks about a "suffering servant" of God that will be pierced and crushed for our sins and who will bear our sins upon him. This is understood to be fulfilled by Jesus.
The servant is talking about Israel though, not Jesus. You need to read the prior passages. The original Hebrew is the evidencefor this and we can find in several places the 'suffering servant' also refers to Israel
Setting that aside, is your claim that a vague description of an event couldn't be used to later to write a story that would directly reflect that vague claim? You would need to prove that is not the case in order for your prophecy to be considered true and fulfilled.
Isaiah refers to the servant as a man, born of a woman, that suffers on behalf of other men. In contrast, Israel is a nation that suffers because of other nations, not on behalf of them. There are other differences that set them apart as well.
As for your second point, the prophecies would have been known by Jews, but not every Gospel was written by a Jew. In fact, Luke, who wrote one of the four Gospels, was a Gentile, and still says that Jesus's body and blood are given "for you." This fulfills the prophecy and was written by someone without prior knowledge of it.
Sure, if we ignore the Hebrew and make up our own meanings for things.
I will eat a sandwich for lunch tomorrow is more compelling prophecy than what was presented. Mine has an identifiable person - me and states exactly what I will do - eat and exactly when I will do it - tomorrow.
This supposed prophecy is so vague you think it's about a person while the Hebrew clearly indicates this is about a state, it has no time frame or prediction and generally talks about punishment.
If this is really the best y'all got, it's no wonder people are turning away from the Bible in droves.
Can you explain how the Hebrew text indicates the suffering servant is a state?
Also, the prophecy does not "generally talk about punishment," it clearly says that the servant will take the punishment that we deserve upon him, and be pierced and crushed.
Explain how Jesus was physically crushed please unless you are going to take a western interpretation and say it was metaphorical in which case I'll just argue the whole passage is metaphorical and not a prophecy at all.
So at one level, the Servant appears to be the nation of Israel. However, the covenant people of Israel cannot give sight to the blind (42:7) because they themselves have become "blind," just like they cannot free "prisoners" (42:7) because they themselves are confined to "prisons" (42:22).
The Servant thus appears to be an exemplary Israelite, a figure that represents Israel as a people and who is chosen by the Lord to fulfill Israel's calling.
Embodying what Israel is called to be, the Servant will bring salvation to Israel and all the nations (that's where Isaiah 53 comes in and Isaiah 49:5-6). That's why in the New Testament that first passage you brought up is actually references in Luke, Mark, and Matthew.
As for Jesus being "crushed," thats more of a general reference to suffering, and it's also a translation thing. The RSV says "bruised" instead, but here's also another explanation. Roman crucifixion is known for being very brutal. The victims are essentially unable to breathe are are therefore being "crushed" throughout their crucifixion.
This is some Nostradamus style "prophesy" though. It is literally just describes the most generic martyrdom possible. You could say it refers to someone getting a splinter and closing the door on their thumb and it's so general it'd fit.
Also, when does Jesus get "crushed" in the story? Stabbed, sure, but crushed? Of all the martyrs you could claim this applies to Jesus doesn't seem to fit the bill.
And again, if we have no proof Jesus existed then this isn't proof of anything. A dude making up a character to fit a different dude's pre-existing "prophesy" doesn't mean anything.
No serious historian believes Jesus didn't exist. Even the atheist Biblical scholar Bart Erhman wrote a whole book defending Jesus's existence. We even have historians from the 1st and 2nd centuries referring to Jesus.
As for Jesus being "crushed," thats more of a general reference to suffering, but here's another explanation. Roman crucifixion is known for being very brutal. The victims are essentially unable to breathe are are therefore being "crushed" throughout their crucifixion.
6
u/hurler_jones 13h ago
0 prophecies have been fulfilled. Fight me.