Who buried with whom? Isaiah 53:9

[ThomasDGW]

I note that you are trying to prove meaning in Isaiah by citing texts from the gospels which have no validity in Judaism. If someone tries to prove meaning in the gospels by citing Harry Potter, I hope you give it as much credence.

I think most people understand that the meaning in Isaiah has only a certain possible range, going from natural and explicit to strained. I think most people understand that if a second text claims to describe the same event as the first, the second text cannot show or alter the meaning of the first text, so the idea of a second text "trying to prove" the meaning of the first text is out of the question. The only question is: Does the description of the event given in the second text fit into the range of possible meanings of the first text?

What I demonstrated is that the description in the second text lands right on top of the natural and explicit meaning of the first text in a most coincidental way, countering the counter-missionary claim that the second text cannot be describing the same thing as the first text. I thus proved the accuracy and validity of the second text based on the accepted accuracy and validity of the first text.

If you don't agree and want to counter my claim, your task is to show that this is not true.

If the second text is engineered to provide events that can be shoehorned into the earlier text, then the use of it is invalid. You are using events that are not necessarily historical or authentic. If they are written specifically to create that "coincidence" then they are suspect. You think that the gospels are, in some way, valid and authentic accounts of independent history. I don't so your entire method of proving anything is tainted and unsubstantial.

I agree that a person might make up a text telling a story to fit something like Isaiah 53. But, for centuries, the text was not considered to say what I have shown that it does say. It wasn't engineered. It was produced as a composite of 4 records of eyewitness accounts, then preserved by the Christian religion for centuries, without them understanding what it said. In other words, if this account had been engineered to show that a certain Jesus of Nazareth was buried both with wicked men, then with the rich, (in order to match with Isaiah 53:9) why in the world didn't one of the 4 writers say that explicitly, so the followers of Jesus wouldn't miss it for almost 2000 years?  That is strong evidence that it was simply a historical record, not invented.

And it is not shoehorned. It simply fits.  The Christian tradition tried to shoehorn their incorrect explanation into Isaiah 53, and the counter-missionaries correctly called them out for it (without divulging that the rabbinical explanation is a bigger shoehorn job).

I guess I said it wrong. It is not just that the second text matches the event in the first text. It is that the second text is a corroborated historical record of an event that happened about 2000 years ago that matches (in two unusual details) a prophetic description of an event that was written about 2700 years ago. This is evidence, like one witness at a trial. that the event described in the second text is the same as the one described in the prophecy of Isaiah.