07-21-2020, 08:40 AM
I recently listened to a crapshow of a debate between James White and Lee Baker on the reliability of the New Testament, and Mr. Baker brought up how the New Testament quotes the Tanakh... and he talked quite a bit about Isaiah's servant songs. Here's the video, if you're interested in watching, though it's long. He begins to talk about Isaiah 53 in the 54th minute of the video.
I'm bothered that Mr. Baker didn't hold Mr. White accountable for the things that he was adding into the text. White says suddenly, after quoting several parts of the text, "he will justify the many by what he does." By what he does? It says "by his knowledge," not "by what he does"! In what way was Jesus ever claimed to justify anyone by his KNOWLEDGE? Further, he just blasted through "he will see his offspring." In what way did Jesus have offspring that he was enabled to see by "making his soul a sin offering" (which is also not what the text says)?
When you say "corrupted missionaries," maybe you mean "deceitful missionaries." Normally, "corrupted" speaks to "corruption" and the taking of bribes and illegal moneys. I don't think that missionaries are out there taking ill-gotten gain, but they certainly deceive people when dealing with the texts of the Tanakh. With them, it seems to be "the ends justify the means." As long as they can convince someone to believe in Jesus, who cares if they are dealing honestly with the text?
I'm bothered that Mr. Baker didn't hold Mr. White accountable for the things that he was adding into the text. White says suddenly, after quoting several parts of the text, "he will justify the many by what he does." By what he does? It says "by his knowledge," not "by what he does"! In what way was Jesus ever claimed to justify anyone by his KNOWLEDGE? Further, he just blasted through "he will see his offspring." In what way did Jesus have offspring that he was enabled to see by "making his soul a sin offering" (which is also not what the text says)?
When you say "corrupted missionaries," maybe you mean "deceitful missionaries." Normally, "corrupted" speaks to "corruption" and the taking of bribes and illegal moneys. I don't think that missionaries are out there taking ill-gotten gain, but they certainly deceive people when dealing with the texts of the Tanakh. With them, it seems to be "the ends justify the means." As long as they can convince someone to believe in Jesus, who cares if they are dealing honestly with the text?