Does the book of Isaiah say anything about Jesus of Nazareth?

[intaglio]

30. Being Jeffersonian does not mean that you abandon apologetics

It means that you use a different apologia from those of other schools. In the same way the apologetics of the Catholic Church differs from the apologetics of the Pentecostalists but both remain apologetic - explanations and tortured reasoning for the obvious conflicts within the Bible and church teaching.

Let us look at your first quotation:

"Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus"

This is a dubious claim and probably speaks more of Jefferson's ignorance of the content of other faiths than reality. Are Christian morals and ethics truly better than those of, say, Jainism?

The next element you - select - is as follows:

"Among the sayings and discourses imputed to by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others, again, of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate, therefore, the gold from the (sic) ; restore him to the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, the roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and imposters, Paul was the first corruptor of the doctrines of Jesus."

The problem with this is that Jefferson has actually no reason to select what he saw as gold and no reason to discard the dross except personal preference. The idea that Jesus only spoke produced the ideas favoured by Jefferson renders Jefferson himself open to the charge of quote mining and ignores the cultural background from which Jesus sprang. This is not entirely the fault of Jefferson, for great resources of paleography and archaeology had yet to be uncovered. you and other modern apologists have no such excuse.

Similarly the idea that Jesus' teachings were perverted by Paul and other theocrats is pure supposition; indeed assuming that the crucifixion took place then Jesus would have been guilty of preaching and possibly taking part in insurrection, remember he was crucified alongside Siccarii. With this in mind, and remembering that other prophets gave out humane teachings along with violence ones, how can you or Jeffersons say that Jesus did not issue the words you find objectionable?

Now back to "Isaiah". Already you have admitted that there are 3 different authors of this work so this prophetic volume is not the work of a prophet but a committee. Next you are happy to admit that the most learned Jewish scholars view Chapter 53 as not a prophecy about a single man but a prayer for the future of the nation and then stand by your contentious idea that Jesus alone made a correct interpretation. How do you know it was Jesus and not one of his hagiographers shoehorning a particular interpretation into the story of a man?

You cite John's gospel - are you actually aware of the history of that very late work? You are aware that it shows signs of several authors (check Ehrmans book "Forged&quot , includes elements from the teachings of other Jewish teachers and has parts that were possibly produced 150 years after the putative life of your saviour? Given this you have the gall to quote mine elements from 3 separate chapters and insist it shows the prophetic wisdom and and deity of the man who was not from a city called Nazareth.