Proposal: Isaiah 53 demonstrates Jesus is Messiah

[yonah_mishael]

I would like to engage in the topic of Isaiah 53 and whether or not it supports the position that Jesus is the Messiah.

Proposed Topic: Isaiah 53 demonstrates that Jesus is the Messiah.​

I would take the negative position and am seeking someone to take the positive position.

I would agree to the standard format as offered in the guidelines: five posts per arguer, consisting of an introduction and conclusion and three rounds of debate.

I would prefer that my opponent be someone who can handle the Hebrew text of the passage and discuss it in English, but if he/she has no knowledge of Hebrew, then we can keep the discussion completely on the English text.

Thanks.

 

[yonah_mishael]

No takers? Well, if someone would like to put up the negative position, then I'll take the positive. I don't really care, so long as the topic is discussed.

 

[pshun2404]

Yonah, The Lord bless you, and keep you: The Lord make his face shine upon you, and be gracious unto you: The Lord lift up his countenance upon you, and give you peace.

Shalom...my name is Paul. I would love to engage you on this interesting topic according to the rules you outlined. There are two issues however, the first of which is that because Isa. 53 does not specifically mention the name Y'shua you could use that as a default (I assume and may be incorrect that you are going to suggest this speaks of the Jewish people and/or the Israelites as a whole). Therefore I would defend that it indeed speaks of Messiah and to Y'shua secondarily (Y'shua IMO being the only "person" in history fulfilling this primary but most important purpose). Also I do not speak Hebrew but have an English copy of the Tanakh.

So can we work with these issues? What do you suggest? If we can come to an agreement we can do it...I'd love it personally...I know I would learn and hope to offer you some food for thought...Do I understand you are saying it does not speak of Messiah, and that that is the position you will take? And have you ever read any of what we call the New Covenant writings (just curious)?

Suggested format:
Intro
three debate threads each (I assume response and next assertion)
then has a final closing argument

I agree to these terms. if the Lord be willing...

Paul (AKA pshun2404)

 

[pshun2404]

Yonah...shalom

Isaiah 53 “But who has believed our report? To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For he grew up like a young plant, as a root out of dry ground. He had no form or comeliness that we should desire him, nor beauty that we should delight in him. He was despised and rejected of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with grief, people shall hide their faces from him. He was despised and we esteemed him not. He bore our sickness and carried our pain, yet we esteemed him smitten and stricken of God, and greatly afflicted, but he was wounded for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities, the disturbance of our peace and wholeness was placed upon him, and by his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when you shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he has poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.[/I]“.

Would this be the acceptable translation as the matter being discussed?

Paul

 

[yonah_mishael]

Hello, Paul. Yes, you have understood me correctly. I would take the position that Isaiah 53 is not written concerning Messiah broadly or Yeshua (I will use this name in the debate for your sake) more specifically. I would indeed read the chapter as a reference to the righteous "remnant" of Israel (as per the rest of the book of Isaiah's prophecies) and understand that verses have been pulled at times by rabbinic authorities as if they referred to Messiah. Most notably is the discussion of the "leper scholar" in Talmud tractate Sanhedrin. I look forward to how you would engage these issues.

I would only put down one more stipulation - that texts referred to must be accessible to both parties engaged. I often find myself frustrated when people quote sources from other sources, never having looked at the original source with their own eyes and not having access to it in any sense. So, that would be something that I would add to the debate - that we should both be able to access the texts quoted with minimal expense.

I have indeed read the entirety of the New Testament. I can read and understand the Koine Greek (ἡ κοινὴ διάλεκτο&#962, and if you feel the need to refer to either Hebrew or Greek, I should have no problem understanding you. Just make sure to keep the focus on the text of Isaiah. I do not take the New Testament as authoritative text, though I will take the Tanach as authoritative for the sake of this discussion.

I'll put together a proposal, and if we agree, the moderators will take the next step for opening the appropriate threads in the peanut gallery and debate forums.

As per a starting time, I would suggest that the affirmative position open (that would be you), and then the negative will follow. And I should hope that a week from the opening of the threads should be enough for the first post - if you are up to it. From that point, every response will have a time limit of a week, within which you should feel free to post earlier rather than later.

Are we agreed?

 

[yonah_mishael]

Yonah...shalom

Isaiah 53 “But who has believed our report? To whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For he grew up like a young plant, as a root out of dry ground. He had no form or comeliness that we should desire him, nor beauty that we should delight in him. He was despised and rejected of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with grief, people shall hide their faces from him. He was despised and we esteemed him not. He bore our sickness and carried our pain, yet we esteemed him smitten and stricken of God, and greatly afflicted, but he was wounded for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities, the disturbance of our peace and wholeness was placed upon him, and by his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all. He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he has put him to grief: when you shall make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he has poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.[/I]“.

Would this be the acceptable translation as the matter being discussed?

Paul

I will probably use the NIV as the basic text of my side of the discussion, though I will make reference to Hebrew as need arises - and I'll do my best to make the Hebrew accessible so that you can check up on what I am referring to. Additionally, the phrase "Isaiah 53" includes the final three verses of Isaiah 52.

 

[pshun2404]

I have to protest the NIV translation since I know that they used a "Dynamic Equivalent" method, and in some places they slant the view to a "Standard Evangelical" perspective (even deleting some words and verses) and most of their OT is colored by the LXX...(but maybe not here...I will review it now)! Why can't we use the English Masoretic text (as it is closer to the actual Hebrew)?

Paul

 

[yonah_mishael]

I would offer the following:

Proposed Topic: Isaiah 53 is Messianic and Yeshua (Jesus) alone fulfills the details of its prophecy.
Participants: Paul (pshun2404) in the affirmative; YM (yonah_mishael) in the negative.
Rounds: Five rounds, including: an introductory post from each participant; three rounds of back-and-forth debate; and, a concluding post from each participant.
Time Limit: One week following the appearance of the most recent post.
Maximum Post Length: 3,000 words per post.
Special Limitations: For the sake of this debate, “Isaiah 53” includes all of the verses between Isaiah 52.13 and the end of the 53rd chapter. Sources quoted must be reasonably accessible to both participants (and, by extension, the audience), who should only quote sources which they have accessed themselves. Sources may be marked in footnotes, which will not count toward the limit on post length, and all quotes are subject to the 20% copyright rule.
Beginning Date: June 1, 2014.​

Of course, the beginning date would shift depending on the opening of the threads.

What do you think?

 

[yonah_mishael]

I have to protest the NIV translation since I know that they used a "Dynamic Equivalent" method, and in some places they slant the view to a "Standard Evangelical" perspective (even deleting some words and verses) and most of their OT is colored by the LXX...(but maybe not here...I will review it now)! Why can't we use the English Masoretic text (as it is closer to the actual Hebrew)?

Paul

I really don't have a preference for your translation. I don't know what "the English Masoretic Text" is. The Massoretes surely wouldn't have known it either. It seems that the name is derived as a way of claiming literalness, but all translation involves interpretation - so I cannot help but think they are overstating their case.

Choose whichever translation you like. I only state that I will personally use the NIV for English, but I will (of course) state where I disagree with their translation (if anywhere). I haven't even looked at the translation, but it's accessible and easy to post here. Any other modern translation will suffice as well. (By the way, I don't think that "dynamic equivalence" is a bad thing.)

Regards,
YM

 

[pshun2404]

I would offer the following:

Proposed Topic: Isaiah 53 is Messianic and Yeshua (Jesus) alone fulfills the details of its prophecy.
Participants: Paul (pshun2404) in the affirmative; YM (yonah_mishael) in the negative.
Rounds: Five rounds, including: an introductory post from each participant; three rounds of back-and-forth debate; and, a concluding post from each participant.
Time Limit: One week following the appearance of the most recent post.
Maximum Post Length: 3,000 words per post.
Special Limitations: For the sake of this debate, “Isaiah 53” includes all of the verses between Isaiah 52.13-53.12. Sources quoted must be reasonably accessible to both participants (and, by extension, the audience), who should only quote sources which they have accessed themselves. Sources may be marked in footnotes, which will not count toward the limit on post length, and all quotes are subject to the 20% copyright rule.
Beginning Date: June 1, 2014.​

Of course, the beginning date would shift depending on the opening of the threads.

What do you think?

I like it but lets include 52:12-ALL of 53...and what is "the 20% copyright rule"? I am aware of the 10% rule that allows you to quote UP TO 10% for criticism, opinion, rebuttal, etc., is this what you mean?

 

[yonah_mishael]

I like it but lets include 52:12-ALL of 53...and what is "the 20% copyright rule"?

Is not 53.12 the end of the chapter? Of course, the entire chapter is intended. The 20% copyright rule is something that they post here in the guidelines. I'm assuming that it means that a single quote cannot comprise 20% or more of your post.

I've adjusted the proposal above to state specifically "the end of the 53rd chapter."

 

[pshun2404]

Is not 53.12 the end of the chapter? Of course, the entire chapter is intended. The 20% copyright rule is something that they post here in the guidelines. I'm assuming that it means that a single quote cannot comprise 20% or more of your post.

I've adjusted the proposal above to state specifically "the end of the 53rd chapter."

No you were correct and I think your assumption is correct I thought you were referring to the legal issue...

We can begin if Mark approves...Yes I will go first and allow you final close...

Paul

 

[yonah_mishael]

Wonderful, and thank you for taking up the call.

Best of luck with your arguments and your opening post. I will be, so that you know, working on my introduction without reading yours - this way it remains an introduction and does not become my first debate post. I will reply to your introduction in my first debate post rather than in the introduction. I think it is most proper this way.

Regards,
YM

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Is not 53.12 the end of the chapter? Of course, the entire chapter is intended. The 20% copyright rule is something that they post here in the guidelines. I'm assuming that it means that a single quote cannot comprise 20% or more of your post.

I've adjusted the proposal above to state specifically "the end of the 53rd chapter."

Not quite right; you may quote no more than 20 % of the document being quoted (providing the source allows that much), so let's say you are quoting from the Book of Isaiah; you could post up to 20 % of that book.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I would offer the following:

Proposed Topic: Isaiah 53 is Messianic and Yeshua (Jesus) alone fulfills the details of its prophecy.
Participants: Paul (pshun2404) in the affirmative; YM (yonah_mishael) in the negative.
Rounds: Five rounds, including: an introductory post from each participant; three rounds of back-and-forth debate; and, a concluding post from each participant.
Time Limit: One week following the appearance of the most recent post.
Maximum Post Length: 3,000 words per post.
Special Limitations: For the sake of this debate, “Isaiah 53” includes all of the verses between Isaiah 52.13 and the end of the 53rd chapter. Sources quoted must be reasonably accessible to both participants (and, by extension, the audience), who should only quote sources which they have accessed themselves. Sources may be marked in footnotes, which will not count toward the limit on post length, and all quotes are subject to the 20% copyright rule.
Beginning Date: June 1, 2014.​

Of course, the beginning date would shift depending on the opening of the threads.

What do you think?

Pshun, Yonah:

These stipulations sound good to me, however I would like to make a suggestion...

From a scholarly view, 3000 words is quite reasonable. We are, however a very public forum and have people here from all stations of life. Also, longer posts make many points, so the responder must respond to the many points in the next post; which lead to many more. One of our Advisers suggested that shorter posts would serve a number of purposes; they keep the post length readable for those who are following the debate (I know a lot of members just will not read a long post, and certainly not a series of them, some lose focus and interest rather quickly); It keeps the discussion rolling; and it makes it easier to respond to and understand (keeps us from getting to verbose) If more people read the debate, more will participate in the PG thread. That Adviser suggested 500 words; using the old 5 characters per word rule, that is too short IMO.

I propose the maximum permitted by the software for a single post. (I think that's somewhere between1500 and 2000); so if you post and it tells you that you can't because it's too long; you need to edit.

Since I will be limiting the size of the post, I am willing to extend the length of the debate. How about 10 rounds of one post each (20 posts total). Should you both agree that the discussion has run it's course before 20 posts, I have no problem closing the debate on your mutual consent.

Since this is Christian Forums, the peanut gallery will be subject to all of the rules here at CF; so it will be a thread where the debate and it's progress may be discussed; but debate of the topic itself will not be allowed.

Because the very nature of this topic is at odds with the rules of Christian Forums; should we be permitted to proceed, the Peanut Gallery will be moderated. I will also explore the possibility of putting an unmoderated one in General Theology, which is Christian Only.

This of course, is subject to approval by the Advisers and the Owner.

Please consider the modifications that I'm proposing and let me know if this is acceptable to both of you.

I need to have all of our ducks in a row before I take this to the higher ups.

Blessings and peace to you both.

Mark

 

[yonah_mishael]

Your suggestions are acceptable to me.

 

[pshun2404]

I'm up for it...only Yonah I want to remind you I will be defending that Isaiah 53 speaks of Messiah (I think ten posts are not necessary)...but that Jesus is that Messiah is a secondary issue we can also discuss...

but because Isaiah 53 does not mention Y'shua or Yeshua by name this is not discernable by this chapter alone (so this widens the discussion)

So first lets discuss Isa 53 Messiah or not

and then whether or not Jesus qualifies for this Messianic scenario (the suffering Messiah called ben-Yosef by the Rabbis) according to the Tanakh...which I admit relies on interpretation

 

[yonah_mishael]

Sitting in the lobby of my New York City hotel, I have just finished writing up my introductory post. As soon as you make your introduction, then I'll go ahead and post mine - and then our rebuttal rounds can start. I have focused essentially on two things in my introduction: (1) the traditional understanding of Christianity that it speaks of Yeshua and why (without a rebuttal of these concepts); and, (2) a presentation of my own view of the text with a little justification. I figure that the rebuttal rounds can include a discussion of the traditional Christian understanding (which you would like to put off, and that is acceptable), the general idea that the chapter speaks of the Messiah in generic terms (which would have to, of course, touch on rabbinic commentaries and citations of the passage) and a more profound justification of my reading of the text.

I'm really looking forward to this. I have to say, in preparation for this debate today (reading and re-reading the text in Hebrew and thinking about it most of the day even when I was working), my thinking on the passage underwent some serious evolution. I was ready to defend the position that "my servant" = "remnant Israel," but I think you'll be surprised where I came out after thinking through things today.

Regards,
YM

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Below are the stipulations which I will be putting before the Advisers and the owner (Pauler) of Christian Forums. Since, as I stated before, this topic is in conflict with our rules here at CF; I am not comfortable setting this up without this consent.

I made one additional change; I set the post number limit to 5 altruntating rouns (ten total); but should you be getting close to that number and feel you need more; we can add another 5 each.

Please be patient, it may take a day or two to gain approval.

1. Title: Formal Debate - Isaiah 53 - Messianic Prophecy and Yeshua (Jesus)
2. Proposed Topic: Isaiah 53 is Messianic and Yeshua (Jesus) alone fulfills the details of its prophecy.
3. Participants: Paul (pshun2404) in the affirmative; YM (yonah_mishael) in the negative.
4. Rounds: Five alternating rounds rounds for a total of 10 posts Maximum; the debate may be extended on mutual consent of the participants.
5. Paul (pshun2404), supporting the affirmative position will open the debate with yonah_mishael responding in the negative.
6. Maximum Post Length: The maximum permitted by the software for a single post.
7. Special Limitations: For the sake of this debate, “Isaiah 53” includes all of the verses between Isaiah 52.13 and the end of the 53rd chapter. Sources quoted must be reasonably accessible to both participants (and, by extension, the audience), who should only quote sources which they have accessed themselves. Sources may be marked in footnotes, which will not count toward the limit on post length, and all quotes are subject to the 20% copyright rule.
8. Beginning Date: As soon as possible.
9. Since this is Christian Forums, the peanut gallery will be subject to all of the rules here at CF; so it will be a thread where the debate and it's progress may be discussed; but debate of the topic itself will not be allowed.
   
   Because the very nature of this topic is at odds with the rules of Christian Forums; the Peanut Gallery will be moderated. I will also explore the possibility of putting an un-moderated one in General Theology, which would be, as per the rules, Christians Only.
   
   The opening of this debate is subject to approval by the Advisers and the Owner of Christian Forums.

 

[pshun2404]

Thanks Mark and just in case it is approved I will begin constructing my introductory post...

May the Lord bless you and yours

Paul