Isn't WORSHIP ME sort of assholish?

[left_of_hive]

Why is it that Mormons (or other Christians - and other religious types) never seem to think that a God who demands obedience and explicit worship is kind of a dick? I mean if any human being set up a system with the primary rules including constant ego stroking of that person (I'm sure we can think of plenty of examples), wouldn't that person be considered an asshole?

And why would an all-powerful god need to be praised and worshipped at all? Wouldn't you think his/her ego would be strong enough to allow her/him to maybe get out of the spotlight and praise the little people a bit?

[lunaverse]

And why would an all-powerful god need to be praised and worshipped at all? Wouldn't you think his/her ego would be strong enough to allow her/him to maybe get out of the spotlight and praise the little people a bit?

Yeah, one of my niggling doubts as a TBM was... Heavenly Father was mad at Lucifer for wanting to take all the Glory, whereas Jesus wanted to give the Glory to Heavenly Father...

So... If HF wanted the glory... isn't he... a little... like Lucifer?

That always bugged me. Either wanting glory for yourself is bad, or it's good. It's not bad when you're Lucifer and good when you're God.

Luna

[noodle]

Why is it that Mormons (or other Christians - and other religious types) never seem to think that a God who demands obedience and explicit worship is kind of a dick? I mean if any human being set up a system with the primary rules including constant ego stroking of that person (I'm sure we can think of plenty of examples), wouldn't that person be considered an asshole?

And why would an all-powerful god need to be praised and worshipped at all? Wouldn't you think his/her ego would be strong enough to allow her/him to maybe get out of the spotlight and praise the little people a bit?

LOL! I've used these EXACT words when having religious discussions with TBMs and the like. :duh

mamajama

[peter_mary]

Not only did the "universe-filling-ego" of god bug me, but so did the whole notion of the Jews being "God's chosen people." I mean, how absurd is it to think that God, who loves unconditionally, would have "favorite children?" If I, a mere mortal, would be frowned upon by God for having a favorite child, (showing less love to one than to another), than how is it okay for God to play favorites?

Frankly, this was one of the realizations that helped launch me out of "bible-think," and caused me to believe that the bible was nothing more than a body of culturally based literature written to further the objectives of one group of people, and later adopted by another group of people to lend credibility to their evolving religious cult.

Yeah, LOH, the whole, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," and "God is a jealous God" thing makes God out to look like an ill-tempered play-ground bully, especially when you couple that thinking with some of his actions. It's pretty hard to develop a case of the warm-fuzzies when you contemplate a narcisist of that magnitude...

But that's why I'm headed for hell... :rolleyes:

As an aside, I saw the other day where Time or Newsweek or somebody like that was compiling the 100 most feel-good movies of the past century...flicks like Miracle on 39th Street (or whatever street it was) and the Sound of Music. Included on that list was Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ". I just have to say, that a film filled with torture, blood and human suffering hardly fits my criteria for a "feel-good flick." :Puking

[fh451]

And why would an all-powerful god need to be praised and worshipped at all? Wouldn't you think his/her ego would be strong enough to allow her/him to maybe get out of the spotlight and praise the little people a bit?
This reminds me of a talk I heard by Gene Roddenberry many years ago where he does a spoof of attempting to submit a new pilot TV show to network executives based on the Old Testament. One of the executive rebuttals about the "God character" was that he was unacceptable because he had a bad temper and constantly needed praise and worship.

Bob

[free thinker]

I have disabused myself of the Judeo-Christian god. Thanks to many things I have read here, in Spong's book, and my own thinking and feeling.

I do not know if there is a god. I still pray from time to time but to nothing, or noone specifically.

I am sorting it out and will be comfortable with whatever I conclude. But this time I will internalize my conclusion, and it will be mine, not someone else's.

ft

[elder_nomo]

Why is it that Mormons (or other Christians - and other religious types) never seem to think that a God who demands obedience and explicit worship is kind of a dick? I mean if any human being set up a system with the primary rules including constant ego stroking of that person (I'm sure we can think of plenty of examples), wouldn't that person be considered an asshole?

And why would an all-powerful god need to be praised and worshipped at all? Wouldn't you think his/her ego would be strong enough to allow her/him to maybe get out of the spotlight and praise the little people a bit?
Left_of_Hive, this is TOO funny! Thanks.
Luna, once again you've restated a Mo doctrine in a way that completely exposes its ridiculosity (i know, DZ, but it just seems to fit).

[wescape]

Why is it that Mormons (or other Christians - and other religious types) never seem to think that a God who demands obedience and explicit worship is kind of a dick? I mean if any human being set up a system with the primary rules including constant ego stroking of that person (I'm sure we can think of plenty of examples), wouldn't that person be considered an asshole?

And why would an all-powerful god need to be praised and worshipped at all? Wouldn't you think his/her ego would be strong enough to allow her/him to maybe get out of the spotlight and praise the little people a bit?

I agree that if this were coming from a flawed human being, asshole is definitely one word that applies. Narcissist is another. But I think a God who is willing to suffer and die on my behalf deserves to be worshiped. The cool thing is that he doesn't force anyone to worship him. It's totally up to each person who and/or what they worship. It's also key to understand that worship involves loving others, which makes it much different than constant ego stroking.

Wes

[left_of_hive]

OK, there's another one. I mean, suffering and dying for something or someone does seem like something that might deserve respect or thanks or even indebtedness, but really, there is lots of suffering in the world, by bazillions of people - why is the one guy such a big deal?

I mean, even in the vicinity of Jesus on the cross those many years ago, there were plenty of other people right next to him suffering and dying - whether it was "for" someone or something, I don't know, but still, is it really all that extraordinary?

Mothers suffer for their children, right? Maybe we ought to worship that?

And the bit about worship including doing good for others---I don't think those are related necessarily. I mean, if you were all-powerful god person, you could certainly strongly suggest that people be good to each other without including a constant praise of your own name and being, right?

I just don't get how it is laudable for people to buy into the idea of praising someone who by all accounts is a huge egotist, and possibly suffering from a personality disorder. If anything, I think it would indicate that such a follower is a seriously bad judge of character - I mean OT God? Again, I say, sort of dickish.

[wescape]

OK, there's another one. I mean, suffering and dying for something or someone does seem like something that might deserve respect or thanks or even indebtedness, but really, there is lots of suffering in the world, by bazillions of people - why is the one guy such a big deal?

I mean, even in the vicinity of Jesus on the cross those many years ago, there were plenty of other people right next to him suffering and dying - whether it was "for" someone or something, I don't know, but still, is it really all that extraordinary?

Mothers suffer for their children, right? Maybe we ought to worship that?

And the bit about worship including doing good for others---I don't think those are related necessarily. I mean, if you were all-powerful god person, you could certainly strongly suggest that people be good to each other without including a constant praise of your own name and being, right?

I just don't get how it is laudable for people to buy into the idea of praising someone who by all accounts is a huge egotist, and possibly suffering from a personality disorder. If anything, I think it would indicate that such a follower is a seriously bad judge of character - I mean OT God? Again, I say, sort of dickish.

The difference is that Jesus, who was innocent, willingly chose to suffer and die on our behalf when he did not have to. The people being crucified next to him were criminals.

Wes

[left_of_hive]

But how do you know that none of those people were wrongly convicted?

And that is one small example. Plenty of people have been innocent and suffered and died for something.

John McCain even stayed a POW rather than letting strings be pulled on his behalf to get him out but not his buddies. should we worship him too?

And what about all the zillions of women throughout history who have suffered on behalf of others?

[wescape]

But how do you know that none of those people were wrongly convicted?

And that is one small example. Plenty of people have been innocent and suffered and died for something.

John McCain even stayed a POW rather than letting strings be pulled on his behalf to get him out but not his buddies. should we worship him too?

And what about all the zillions of women throughout history who have suffered on behalf of others?

Jesus is the only perfect person to ever have lived. That alone is enough to be deserving of worship, but his sacrificial love is even more compelling. It is important to recognize that he had a choice in being born as a human being and that his whole reason for doing so was to be crucified. This is not the case with the rest of humanity.

Wes

[left_of_hive]

OK, but this gets into a whole confusing godhead thing. I mean god the father is the supreme being who makes up all the rules, right? So he sets up a system where his son becomes human and then is tortured? I mean, why would that be required? It's really bizarre.

I think the bottom line is that if you step back from immersion in the culture that believes that all of this bizarro stuff is true, it starts to really defy all logic. It's absurd, really. If you are still clinging to religious belief in christianity of some sort, you have to find some sort of justification for all of the bs. I don't buy it.

[lunaverse]

And what about all the zillions of women throughout history who have suffered on behalf of others?

Or what about other god figures who suffered and died in sacrifice for one thing or another? I'm not too sharp on mythology, but Horus/Osirus come to mind, and I remember some others but can't remember their names. Also Sithartha (Buddha) suffered to find enlightenment, thereby showing others the path to enlightenment. And there's a goddess in China, Kuan Yin, who is reborn, and suffers her whole life, then dies in sacrifice to a person, people, or an ideal. They call these incarnates, "Living Baristhushas" (sp?) I think Krisna went through some trauma in sacrifice, too.

Oh, and then there are the other Messianic figures who were accepted as the Messiah by large number of Jews, who healed the sick, taught and preached... Most of those met martyr/sacrificial deaths as well, and some are still followed today by small groups of Jews. One was as recent as the 1600's.

Luna

[left_of_hive]

What Luna said.

Thanks for jumping in! I was starting to bang my head.

[fh451]

OK, there's another one. I mean, suffering and dying for something or someone does seem like something that might deserve respect or thanks or even indebtedness, but really, there is lots of suffering in the world, by bazillions of people - why is the one guy such a big deal?
I think even worse is the idea that a third party can be punished for your behavior. The purpose of punishment should be behavior modification, not just retribution. Allowing someone else to step in to take your medicine obviates the whole purpose. What society anywhere allows a stand-in for criminal justice? And I think the usual Mormon analogy of the "unwise debtor" is just stupid. When loaning money, all I expect back is money. If someone else pays, who cares? But in cases of physical harm, criminal misconduct, etc, the idea that someone else can take the punishment is bankrupt.

Why can't God just forgive directly? The idea that "mercy cannot rob justice" doesn't explain it. As the creator of the law, God should have discretion on the punishment in each individual case - what best achieves the desired goal. The idea that SOMEBODY must pay the price for each and every infraction is ludicrous. For example, if one of my kids breaks a house rule, and the usual punishment is a spanking, to have one of my other kids come up and say "Johnny is reeeaally sorry, and won't ever do it again, but if somebody's got to be spanked, spank me!" I'd say "Get your butt out of here! If Johnny's really sorry then we'll overlook this time and see how he does."

I'm sorry, the whole "Savior" idea just doesn't make sense to me.

Bob

[wescape]

OK, but this gets into a whole confusing godhead thing. I mean god the father is the supreme being who makes up all the rules, right? So he sets up a system where his son becomes human and then is tortured? I mean, why would that be required? It's really bizarre.

I think the bottom line is that if you step back from immersion in the culture that believes that all of this bizarro stuff is true, it starts to really defy all logic. It's absurd, really. If you are still clinging to religious belief in christianity of some sort, you have to find some sort of justification for all of the bs. I don't buy it.

Oh, I agree that it is absurd. In fact, the entire Christian story is completely insane. The God of the universe becomes a human and then dies a toturous death for the very people who wanted nothing to do with him? That would certainly not be the way I would do things if I were in that position. Of course, I am not in that position and for that we can be grateful. While I agree that it is absurd, I think it is beautifully absurd. After all, most would agree that life itself is absurd so why not Christianity?

Wes

[free thinker]

Oh, I agree that it is absurd. In fact, the entire Christian story is completely insane. The God of the universe becomes a human and then dies a toturous death for the very people who wanted nothing to do with him? That would certainly not be the way I would do things if I were in that position. Of course, I am not in that position and for that we can be grateful. While I agree that it is absurd, I think it is beautifully absurd. After all, most would agree that life itself is absurd so why not Christianity?

Wes

Over the months I have watched Wes defend his christian beliefs. I cannot remember any time that he was disrespectful or indicated that anyone SHOULD believe as he does. I just think it is time we give hime some credit for that and his courage to stand for his convictions.

Thanks Wes for being a true gentleman.

I am no longer a christian but I respect you. Now how about a quick question?

Does martyrdom require an audience. If Jesus died in prison alone, and without any fanfare or friends etc., would it still have been considered mediative?

ft

[wescape]

Oh, I agree that it is absurd. In fact, the entire Christian story is completely insane. The God of the universe becomes a human and then dies a toturous death for the very people who wanted nothing to do with him? That would certainly not be the way I would do things if I were in that position. Of course, I am not in that position and for that we can be grateful. While I agree that it is absurd, I think it is beautifully absurd. After all, most would agree that life itself is absurd so why not Christianity?

Wes

Over the months I have watched Wes defend his christian beliefs. I cannot remember any time that he was disrespectful or indicated that anyone SHOULD believe as he does. I just think it is time we give hime some credit for that and his courage to stand for his convictions.

Thanks Wes for being a true gentleman.

I am no longer a christian but I respect you. Now how about a quick question?

Does martyrdom require an audience. If Jesus died in prison alone, and without any fanfare or friends etc., would it still have been considered mediative?

ft

Hey Freethinker,

Thanks for your kind words. To answer your question, yes, I think that the death of Jesus would have been mediative regardless of where it happened. The reason for this is because Jesus was the perfect sacrifice who fulfilled the law of the Old Testament. Everything in the Jewish scriptures pointed to him and anticipated his coming. This passage in Isaiah sums it up in a nutshell:

"Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

"But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

"We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

Isaiah 53:4-6

Wes

[Jeff_Ricks]

Hey Freethinker,

Thanks for your kind words. To answer your question, yes, I think that the death of Jesus would have been mediative regardless of where it happened. The reason for this is because Jesus was the perfect sacrifice who fulfilled the law of the Old Testament. Everything in the Jewish scriptures pointed to him and anticipated his coming. This passage in Isaiah sums it up in a nutshell:

"Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

"But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

"We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

Isaiah 53:4-6

WesWes, many Bible scholars think that passage isn't referring to Jesus at all. In fact, I think you'll find that when left in context the passage is referring to Israel collectively. As you probably know, chapter 53 is part of what has been called Servant Songs. Look at the chapters leading up to chapter 53. The servant in the servant songs is Isreal, not Jesus.

Isa 41:8
But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.

Isa 44:1
Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:

Isa 44:21
Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me.

Isa 45:4
For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.

Isa 49:3
And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

But then we come to chapter 53 and mainstream Christianity says that the servant in that chapter is Jesus. Only if the context of Isaiah's overall message ignored can chapter 53 be construed to be about someone like Jesus. This is a pet peeve I have with Christianity. At one time I considered myself a former Mormon become Christian until I found that just like Mormonism takes Bible scripture out of context to apply it to Joseph Smith so also does Christianity take Bible scripture out of context to apply it to Jesus. Tithing was my trigger that caused me to begin questioning Mormonism and eventually caused me to leave. The context issue was the trigger that caused me to begin questioning Christianity and eventually caused me to leave Christianity. Leaving Christianity was almost as difficult for me as was leaving Mormonism.

When I was considering the context issue I asked my former pastor to find me a passage in the Old Testament that refers to Jesus without taking it out of context and after a year and a half of trying he was unable to find a single one. I asked another pastor the same question and he refused to discuss the issue.
Another one promised me to find one but after weeks of trying was unable to. He kept promising me that he would but eventually moved out of the area. That was about the time that I decided that if I was going to let Christianity take scripture out of context then I might as well let Mormonism do it too and return to Mormonism. Life would certainly been a lot easier for me at the time if I did. But my personal commitment to following truth wouldn't let me do

Later, when a Christian friend tried to proselyte me back into Christianity I told him that if he could find one passage in the Old Testament that speaks of Jesus without taking the passage out of context then I’d rejoin Christianity. He was unable to but put me in touch with a Doctor of Divinity at a Christian College in California and assured me that he could. The doc promised me that he could answer my challenge and said he would spend all the time necessary to do so. He too was unable to and when he realized that he was unable to he said he was too busy to discuss the subject with me any more.

So Wes, when I see someone using a passage from the Old Testament out of context in order to apply it to Jesus I have to say, Hold on there fella, take another look at what it really says.

Jeff

[lunaverse]

Jeff, I agree with you. There may be prophecies that come true (all religions claim them), but more often, people find events to match the prophecy. And given the great number of events in the world, it isn't hard to do. Then we ignore the parts of the Word which are meaningless. It's like a cold reading by a psychic, only there's more material to draw from.

Especially when the prophecy involves human events in a culture that was expecting something to happen. The Messiah didn't turn out at all as they expected (he was a spiritual Messiah not a physical one), so those who believed made his life fit their existing beliefs as best as they could.

I have read "When Prophecy Fails", which was the study of the UFO cult that predicted the end of the world. This was the study that supports the concept of renewed fervor in belief and prosyltizing after proof against a committed belief. It was extremely interesting to see their mental gymnastics as they confronted disconfirmation after disconfirmation. Sometimes they would find new meaning in what had happened, or redefine what happened in metaphorical terms. In the end, they concluded that the world was spared because of the faith of their group.

With all due respect, reading that book reminded me of way too many bible stories, and way too many life-stories, both from Mormons and Christians alike.

Here are some of those biblical examples that come to mind:

1) Why Jonah was pissed that Ninevah didn't get destroyed,
2) How Abraham could put his son on an altar (and also why this doesn't bother TBCs),
3) Why the teachings of Jesus conflicted so strongly with the Pharasees, who were well-studied in Jewish scripture,
4) Why early Christians kept on believing, even after Jesus didn't return "before a generation shall pass away",
5) How those Christians kept on believing even in the face of horrible persecution
6) How Paul could so easily go from persecutor to leader without any suspcions from Christians (that we know of),
7) Why John's coded message about Emperor Nero is now understood to be prophecies about the end of the world,
8) How we managed to get the concept of "Lucifer" being a fallen angel from a few verses in Isaiah which are actually referring to a living king at the time, who was known as "The Star of Morning"... the Latin word for which is.. Lucifer.
9) How homosexuals are persecuted based on biblical teachings, even though all but a handful of biblical references to it are actually mistranslations or references to other acts or sins -- and while also ignoring many other neighboring biblical practices which are considered unimportant today.
10) Likewise with concepts of Heaven and Hell, which are vastly different from Hebrew beliefs in the OT, and which are closer to Roman pagan beliefs.

Luna

[wescape]

Wes, many Bible scholars think that passage isn't referring to Jesus at all. In fact, I think you'll find that when left in context the passage is referring to Israel collectively. As you probably know, chapter 53 is part of what has been called Servant Songs. Look at the chapters leading up to chapter 53. The servant in the servant songs is Isreal, not Jesus.

Isa 41:8
But thou, Israel, art my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend.

Isa 44:1
Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen:

Isa 44:21
Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou art my servant: I have formed thee; thou art my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me.

Isa 45:4
For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.

Isa 49:3
And said unto me, Thou art my servant, O Israel, in whom I will be glorified.

But then we come to chapter 53 and mainstream Christianity says that the servant in that chapter is Jesus. Only if the context of Isaiah's overall message ignored can chapter 53 be construed to be about someone like Jesus. This is a pet peeve I have with Christianity. At one time I considered myself a former Mormon become Christian until I found that just like Mormonism takes Bible scripture out of context to apply it to Joseph Smith so also does Christianity take Bible scripture out of context to apply it to Jesus. Tithing was my trigger that caused me to begin questioning Mormonism and eventually caused me to leave. The context issue was the trigger that caused me to begin questioning Christianity and eventually caused me to leave Christianity. Leaving Christianity was almost as difficult for me as was leaving Mormonism.

When I was considering the context issue I asked my former pastor to find me a passage in the Old Testament that refers to Jesus without taking it out of context and after a year and a half of trying he was unable to find a single one. I asked another pastor the same question and he refused to discuss the issue.
Another one promised me to find one but after weeks of trying was unable to. He kept promising me that he would but eventually moved out of the area. That was about the time that I decided that if I was going to let Christianity take scripture out of context then I might as well let Mormonism do it too and return to Mormonism. Life would certainly been a lot easier for me at the time if I did. But my personal commitment to following truth wouldn't let me do

Later, when a Christian friend tried to proselyte me back into Christianity I told him that if he could find one passage in the Old Testament that speaks of Jesus without taking the passage out of context then I’d rejoin Christianity. He was unable to but put me in touch with a Doctor of Divinity at a Christian College in California and assured me that he could. The doc promised me that he could answer my challenge and said he would spend all the time necessary to do so. He too was unable to and when he realized that he was unable to he said he was too busy to discuss the subject with me any more.

So Wes, when I see someone using a passage from the Old Testament out of context in order to apply it to Jesus I have to say, Hold on there fella, take another look at what it really says.

Jeff

It seems strange to me that the personal pronoun "He" would be used in reference to a nation. Furthermore, the language of being "pierced for our transgressions" is exactly what happened to Jesus on the cross. I am familiar with the interpretation that the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is the nation of Israel but it just doesn't fit the language of the passage. In fact, the entire chapter of Isaiah 53 is clearly referring to a person and that person does not even come close to fitting the description of the nation of Israel.

Wes

[Jeff_Ricks]

It seems strange to me that the personal pronoun "He" would be used in reference to a nation.It might seem odd that pronouns like “he” are applied to the nation Israel but in no uncertain terms that’s the case in the following verse:

Hosea 11:1 When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.
The above, incidentally, is a passage that Matthew blatantly uses out of context when he misapplies the passage to Jesus in Matthew 2:15. Clearly the passage is about Israel, not Jesus. Matthew not only removes the passage from the context of the chapter, he even removes a section of the passage from the sentence it's found in. Matthew only quotes the part of the sentence that says, "out of Egypt have I called my son." He ignores the part that says the son is Israel. Seems rather dishonest to me.

Furthermore, the language of being "pierced for our transgressions" is exactly what happened to Jesus on the cross. I am familiar with the interpretation that the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is the nation of Israel but it just doesn't fit the language of the passage. In fact, the entire chapter of Isaiah 53 is clearly referring to a person and that person does not even come close to fitting the description of the nation of Israel.

WesThe Hebrew word that some versions render as “pierced” is chalal, and according to a Christian online Hebrew lexicon it says that the most common definitions of chalal are: to profane, defile, pollute, desecrate, wound, which shows that the passage could be applied to Israel. King James renders that passage as:

“But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”

Israel was wounded. Israel was bruised. Wes, how about quote the entire verse you used that renders that word as pierced. The versions that I've read that do that say:

"He was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities."

Jesus wasn't crushed, was he. Israel was figuratively crushed by its captors.

Jeff

[lunaverse]

It seems strange to me that the personal pronoun "He" would be used in reference to a nation.

Why? Babylon is frequently used in many books of the bible as "She"....

Luna

[wescape]

Actually, Jesus was crushed in spirit. At any rate, just because some version of the Bible say that the suffering servant was pierced does not mean that the chapter can only be talking about Jesus (as you first indicated) because whether pierced, wounded, defiled etc. is used they could all be used in a figurative sense that you use to apply the above to Jesus. If you insist that pierced must read read as literal then you have to do the same with crushed.

The book of Hosea uses both "he" and "they" when referring to Israel whereas Isaiah only uses "he" in chapter 53.

Chapter 53 does use both he and they

Also, as I mentioned before, chapter 53 mentions several things that do not fit Israel's description. Verses 8 and 9 are prime examples:

8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. Scholars recognize that there is no Hebrew word or words that are sometimes rendered as “for the.” Those words are assumed by the translators, and most translations of the Bible are biased by Christianity. The verse can also be rendered as:

8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people he was stricken.

The same applies to verse 5 below that could also be rendered as:

5. But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was bruised because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth. This same language is applied to Israel in the following verse, meaning that the above verse is likely about Israel too:

Zep 3:13 The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth: for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them afraid.

Verse 8 talks about the transgression of God's people which are the nation of Israel. Therefore, it makes no sense that the "he" in that verse would also be the nation of Israel. If that were the case, it would read, "for the transgression of himself, he was stricken." The chapter makes it clear that those who deserve punishment are spared because "he" bears it on their behalf.Wes, I've already shown that the Bible uses both he and they interchangeably when speaking of Israel (again see Hosea 11:1) so there is no reason why verse 8 can't do the same and be rendered as:

8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people he was stricken.

Verse 9 talks about the "he" as someone who had done no violence and had no deceit in his mouth. Again, the nation of Israel was full of both violence and deceit.

Ezekiel 12:19 describes some of Israel's violence:

'This is what the Sovereign LORD says about those living in Jerusalem and in the land of Israel: They will eat their food in anxiety and drink their water in despair, for their land will be stripped of everything in it because of the violence of all who live there.

Jeremiah 5:26-27 describes some of Israel's deceit:

26 "Among my people are wicked men
who lie in wait like men who snare birds
and like those who set traps to catch men.

27 Like cages full of birds,
their houses are full of deceit;
they have become rich and powerful As I show above, Isreal is also clearly spoken of as committing no violence or deceit.

In light of this, the "he" in Isaiah 53 cannot possibly be referring to the nation of Israel.

WesI think you'd better reconsider Wes. In light of the overall context of the Servant Songs in Isaiah and in light of the passage in Hosea and the one in Zechariah, the so-called suffering servant in Isaiah is most likely Israel not Jesus.

Jeff

[Jeff_Ricks]

Why? Babylon is frequently used in many books of the bible as "She"....

LunaVery good point Luna! I've never thought of that before.

Jeff

[wescape]

At any rate, just because some version of the Bible say that the suffering servant was pierced does not mean that the chapter can only be talking about Jesus (as you first indicated) because whether pierced, wounded, defiled etc. is used they could all be used in a figurative sense that you use to apply the above to Jesus. If you insist that pierced must read read as literal then you have to do the same with crushed.

Scholars recognize that there is no Hebrew word or words that are sometimes rendered as “for the.” Those words are assumed by the translators, and most translations of the Bible are biased by Christianity. The verse can also be rendered as:

8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people he was stricken.

The same applies to verse 5 below that could also be rendered as:

5. But he was wounded because of our transgressions, he was bruised because of our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.”

This same language is applied to Israel in the following verse, meaning that the above verse is likely about Israel too:

Zep 3:13 The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth: for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them afraid.

Wes, I've already shown that the Bible uses both he and they interchangeably when speaking of Israel (again see Hosea 11:1) so there is no reason why verse 8 can't do the same and be rendered as:

8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people he was stricken.

As I show above, Isreal is also clearly spoken of as committing no violence or deceit.

I think you'd better reconsider Wes. In light of the overall context of the Servant Songs in Isaiah and in light of the passage in Hosea and the one in Zechariah, the so-called suffering servant in Isaiah is most likely Israel not Jesus.

Jeff

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree once again, Jeff.

Wes

[Jeff_Ricks]

Wes,

How did your name get attached to my post as the author of the post above??? Maybe I was in edit mode and clicked the Edit button on your post by mistake instead of clicking the Reply button. As site Administrator I have edit rights. At times like this I wish I didn't. Sorry about that Wes. It was about 5:00am when I intially posted it. I must have been half asleep. :rolleyes:

Jeff

[Jeff_Ricks]

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree once again, Jeff.

WesOkay Wes, but before you end this will you at least acknowledge that the verses at issue in our discussion could apply to Israel as well?

Jeff

[wescape]

Okay Wes, but before you end this will you at least acknowledge that the verses at issue in our discussion could apply to Israel as well?

Jeff

Sorry Jeff, but for the reasons I stated earlier, I just don't see how the "he" in chapter 53 can apply to Israel.

Wes

[lunaverse]

I will state for the record that ending a discussion with "I just can't agree with you" is perfectly acceptible, even if one or the other party has made very good, seemingly undeniable points. It is still Wes's perogative to continue to believe as he does, even if some of us deeply belief that our points are very rational. After all, maybe we're wrong, even though we're sure we aren't. :)

I am curious, however... I went through this entire thread, and Wes, you didn't reply to a single one of my points. I don't really require a response, but it is kind of odd...

Luna

[wescape]

Just to clarify, the statements I have made in this thread about Jesus reflect my understanding of the Christian position on the Bible. My intent has never been to say that these things are facts or that anyone SHOULD accept them as such.

Wes

[helemon]

And why would an all-powerful god need to be praised and worshipped at all? Wouldn't you think his/her ego would be strong enough to allow her/him to maybe get out of the spotlight and praise the little people a bit?

The better to subjugate the masses into thinking that they are clueless shit and should follow you because you have the direct line to this untouchable all powerful diety who they must worship by vicariously worshiping you and your organization or die a painful death. Those priests weren't stupid.

[left_of_hive]

The better to subjugate the masses into thinking that they are clueless shit and should follow you because you have the direct line to this untouchable all powerful diety who they must worship by vicariously worshiping you and your organization or die a painful death. Those priests weren't stupid.


Amen, brother!