03-31-2024, 02:21 AM
"The servant is referred to in the plural several times"
Not in Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12
"Must have been? Sounds like speculation to me..."
This statement tells me that you haven't read my posts, because I went through the steps of the "must have been". I use that phrase because it isn't explicitly stated in the NT, but the chances of Jesus not being buried with the wicked in the account is between nil and zip. Only assuming that Joseph took the body from the cross caused everyone to accept that Jesus was not buried with the wicked.
"Here are my reasons that why I don't see the servant to be Jesus -
The servant is identified in the plural.
The servant justifies with knowledge, not the shedding of blood.
The servant is wounded from the sins of others, not died for the sins of others.
The servant has an opportunity to see physical offspring and have a long life if he admits his guilt, it is conditional.
No mention of the servant being an anointed one.
No mention that one must believe in the servant and the only way to the father is through him or you are damned to hell.
No mention of a second coming."
The "no mention of" statements should not be part of your reasons. I could give you several for Israel not being the servant. "No mention of the servant waiting for their anointed one." No mention of the servant being scattered throughout the world." "No mention of the servant being a nation." etc.
The 3 above those are also basically "no mention" statements based on your understanding of NT doctrines. To respond to those I would have to get into NT doctrine with you. Then I would probably get the "not interested in the NT" reaction. This is a main reason why I chose this one about the burial of Jesus, because it is basic and simple, not really involving any doctrines of sin and justification, etc. Thus, it is a good test case for the value of my communication.
So, take the time to read the posts in this thread, especially my summary statement. Then give me your response, and by response, I mean tell me where I am right and wrong, and, if wrong, specifically what my error is. Telling me my view doesn't match a traditional view is not a response.
Not in Isaiah 52:13 - 53:12
"Must have been? Sounds like speculation to me..."
This statement tells me that you haven't read my posts, because I went through the steps of the "must have been". I use that phrase because it isn't explicitly stated in the NT, but the chances of Jesus not being buried with the wicked in the account is between nil and zip. Only assuming that Joseph took the body from the cross caused everyone to accept that Jesus was not buried with the wicked.
"Here are my reasons that why I don't see the servant to be Jesus -
The servant is identified in the plural.
The servant justifies with knowledge, not the shedding of blood.
The servant is wounded from the sins of others, not died for the sins of others.
The servant has an opportunity to see physical offspring and have a long life if he admits his guilt, it is conditional.
No mention of the servant being an anointed one.
No mention that one must believe in the servant and the only way to the father is through him or you are damned to hell.
No mention of a second coming."
The "no mention of" statements should not be part of your reasons. I could give you several for Israel not being the servant. "No mention of the servant waiting for their anointed one." No mention of the servant being scattered throughout the world." "No mention of the servant being a nation." etc.
The 3 above those are also basically "no mention" statements based on your understanding of NT doctrines. To respond to those I would have to get into NT doctrine with you. Then I would probably get the "not interested in the NT" reaction. This is a main reason why I chose this one about the burial of Jesus, because it is basic and simple, not really involving any doctrines of sin and justification, etc. Thus, it is a good test case for the value of my communication.
So, take the time to read the posts in this thread, especially my summary statement. Then give me your response, and by response, I mean tell me where I am right and wrong, and, if wrong, specifically what my error is. Telling me my view doesn't match a traditional view is not a response.