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

[SarahM32]

32. Intaglio, I disagree. And here's why:

Last edited Wed Aug 29, 2012, 11:57 AM - Edit history (1)

Are you saying Thomas Jefferson was an Apologist for Christianity?

If so, I disagree, and his writings make it obvious he was not. But whether or not that’s what you’re saying about Jefferson, your claim that I am an Apologist for Christianity is not correct.

I do not, as you claim, “use a different apologia from those of other schools.” Granted, different apologia in the apologetics of the Catholic Church differs from the apologetics of the Pentecostalists, as you mention for instance. However, they are just different versions of Paul’s theology of Christian Apologetics.

As is explained in About Christianity, Paul’s writings contain many errors regarding the Torah and Tanakh. But Paul was the first “Christian” to “publish” his epistles in about 50 CE (AD). And, as is explained in The Resurrection Myth, Mark was the second book distributed in about 73 CE . And Mark and all the others whose works made it into the official church canon were influenced by Paul, who claimed to be the “chosen vessel” to establish the Christian Church.

The author of the message I promote advocates an actual Reformation of Christianity – not like the “Protestant Reformation,” which merely repudiated the policies and doctrines of the medieval Roman Catholic Church but kept the false doctrines of the Nicene Creed. He sees that Christianity, as we know it, is not what Jesus intended. And Jesus even said it wouldn’t be. He said that by the end of the age he ushered in, hypocrites would be claiming to do “many wonderful works in the name of the Lord,” which they actually “work iniquity.”

The author of the message sees and realizes the universality of the actual, core teachings of Jesus of Nazareth and realizes how similar they are to what is written in Hindu writings, since many parables were borrowed by Jesus from the Vedas. Jesus’ teachings are also similar to those in Buddhist writings, and he’s not the only one who has written about that. (Read Jesus and Buddha: The Parallel Sayings, by Marcus Borg et al, or Going Home: Jesus and Buddha as Brothers, by Thich Nhat Hanh, or one of the many other books on the subject.)

Now back to Jefferson. He did have good reason to reject the “corruptions” and keep the “gold” of Jesus’ teachings when he created his Jefferson Bible. Proof of corruptions, exaggerations, inaccurate attributions and errors in the NT are numerous and can be seen by any enlightened individual who recognizes the inconsistencies and contradictions in the NT. (And proof is provided in About Christianity, The Virgin Birth Myth, The Resurrection Myth, The Martyrdom of Jesus, The Second Coming Myth, etc.)

Oh, and by the way, Jefferson’s insight was remarkable for his time, but he was not alone in his opinions about Christianity. If you just consider Quotes from the Founding Fathers Regarding Religion, that becomes quite clear. And there were many other Enlightenment thinkers in Europe and American who felt the same way, which is why Deism and Freemasonry were so popular at the time.

In addition, we now have modern archeological findings, research and scholarship that takes into consideration the Gnostic Gospels, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other discoveries that made the message quite appropriate, especially since it is exactly what is needed to stop the “holy wars.”

But I think the thing that I resent about what you wrote is that I am: “ ... 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.”

What I wrote was this: “Orthodox Jews and right-wing Jews insist Chapter 53 is not even about a Mashiach (Messiah) but about the Jewish people collectively as a nation.”

I did not say they were “the most learned Jewish scholars,” as you wrote. In fact, they simply ignore the findings and conclusions of the Jewish Sanhedrin 98 which concluded that Isaiah 53 is definitely about the Mashiach. But many modern Jews, in reaction to the theocratic “American Christian Right,” have been buying into the idea that it isn’t.

I do believe Jesus made a correct interpretation of Isaiah, but some of his followers like Paul, Matthew and others did not. And, as you suggest, they did “shoehorn” a lot of what’s written in the Torah and Tanakh to come up with “proof” of how Jesus fulfilled prophecies.

Finally, while you claim I regard Jesus is my “savior,” that is another erroneous assumption on your part.

In fact, the prophets, including Jesus, believed that only God is the Savior, and that God is not a man, nor a son of man, and even Moses wrote. That's why Jesus said to his followers: "You have not heard God's voice or seen God's shape at any time," and "God is greater than I."

Regarding the difference between the Savior and the Messiah, read The Messiah Is Not the Savior.
.