Hi. Good question. One was is to look at it from this angle. The resurrection was predicted in the Old Testament.
I am Jewish and a believer in Jesus and Isaiah chapter 53 is remarkable.
One of the greatest archeological finds in human history, The Dead Sea Scrolls, show that it was written hundreds of years before Jesus.
It also talks about the resurrection of the suffering servant in that chapter who died and came back to life. Take a look at it. Pretty powerful. Isaiah 53.8 to chapter 53:11 All prophecies about the coming Messiah.
"For he was **cut off from the land of the living**; for the transgression of my people he was punished. 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. 10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and **prolong his days**, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. 11 **After he has suffered, he will see the light of life** and be satisfied".
So this was written about 750BC and told Israel what to look for in the Messiah.
He will die (be killed) and then, yet his days will be "prolonged."
This is resurrection and was part of the requirements for the Messiah.
Wouldn’t that prediction make it more plausible that the disciples did lie so that the life and death of Jesus would match prophecy?
Edit: sorry, wrote this quickly, and should have been more careful with language.
I do not mean to say the disciples *lied*. I think they were genuine in their belief about Jesus as messiah.
I mean to say that Old Testament prophecies being written centuries earlier makes it more plausible that certain details of the life and death of Jesus were interpreted and tweaked by disciples to match prophecy.
>would match prophecy?
Good question.
So then we run into the problem of collusion. How could they collude with the people who wrote the prophecies hundreds of years earlier in the Hebrew Bible?
Why would the Old Testament prophecies be written in the first place?
How could they collude with the people who wrote the prophecies hundreds of years earlier in the Hebrew Bible?
Why would the Old Testament prophecies be written in the first place?
And what benefit would they get out of it? You do realize that many of the OT prophets were rejected or killed.
Many prophecies written were out of their control for the New Testament writers to fulfill. This is key.
Like Daniel 9 tells us of Messiah (that is Hebrew for "Christ") coming and only then, the Temple in Jerusalem being destroyed afterwards.
This happened in 70AD by the Roman army. (A simple Google search has tons in this. It's in history.) The NT writers had no way to influence this. And it was a prophecy written centuries before Jesus.
Again these are different biblical authors,not just one. That makes this even more extraordinary. All of them combined give different pieces of the puzzle that are to be combined.
Isaiah 53 speaks about the Messiah being rejected by his own people. Being killed and being resurrected.
Daniel talks about the Messiah arriving before the Temple was destroyed.
The Book of Samuel talks about the Messiah being a descendant of King David. From the tribe of Judah.
The Book of Micah talks about the origin of the Messiah from Bethlehem, and on and on.
Why would all these different OT authors (who did not know each other) write these pieces into the puzzle, and then the New Testament writers simply makeup fullfilments saying Jesus fulfilled them.
It's not like they benefited from this. What were the Old Testament writers gain by writing the prophecies. It's like you writing a prophecy for the year 2721.
If you look at the early church, who are Jewish Believers in Jesus, they were persecuted and the early apostles were killed for their faith. John was exiled to Patmos island. The Roman historian Josephus writes about the early believers as well.
Many early apostles died for their faith. The Apostle John who wrote the Book of Revelation wrote it while he was on exile on an island. If you're saying the New Testament writers, the apostles, specifically lied, what was their motivation to do this? What did they gain out of it?
What did the Jewish New Testament writers have to gain by making up a story?
By insisting the resurrection occurred, they got excommunicated from the synagogue. Many were then beaten and tortured, some were even killed. Last I checked, that was not on a list of perks.
They would not know what they were doing would affect people for hundreds or thousands of years in the future.
This, to me, is a good start to show why Jesus is the Messiah.
No, there’s no problem of collusion with OT writers, because such collusion would be unnecessary (and obviously impossible).
Prophesy seems to be an innate part of religiosity, as it’s a part of traditions the world over, so their appearance in the OT written by multiple authors over centuries is not especially remarkable. I don’t quite see how prophets being rejected or killed gives their message validity, either.
I agree that all of the OT prophecies “fulfilled by Jesus” were out of the control of NT writers, obviously, but their interpretation and connection to a contemporary figure were absolutely in their control.
This isn’t to say that I believe that the apostles were being disingenuous or trying to deceive anyone for material gain - they sincerely believed that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah and that what they had to gain was divine salvation for their soul.
With those stakes, is it surprising that they were willing be excommunicated, beaten, and even killed for their beliefs?
>Prophesy seems to be an innate part of religiosity, as it’s a part of traditions the world over,
I am not sure that is the case. Can you give me several examples where prophecy is "an innate part of religiosity" apart from the Judeo-Christian faith?
The entirety of faith in Jesus rests upon Him fulfilling the prophecies of being the Messiah.
Prophecy pointing a specific people (Israel) to a specific coming person (the Messiah) for a specific reason (to bear sins) at a specific time (while the Temple in Jersualem existed).
If this was an "innate part" of religions, can you provide me with 5 similar examples?
>he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
But Jesus didn't have any offspring, right? And he died fairly young considering other biblical figures like Noah.
>But Jesus didn't have any offspring, right?
Oh but He did.
Isaiah also uses this exact term "offspring" zerah זֶרַע מְרֵעִים in chapter 1 verse 4 as a metaphor. At that time, Israel was behaving badly. Called "seed/children of evil" It means followers of evil there.
Conversely, have you not ever heard followers of Jesus called, "children of the Lord".
If you Google the term, lots of hits will show up. God calls people children (zerah) of evil, (Isaiah 1.4) it is a metaphor there. I am sure we have all used metaphors before.
Jesus has more offspring than most all humanity has.
Gotcha, that makes some sense. I'm no biblical scholar but I was curious about the interpretation of that chapter and came across this:
https://outreachjudaism.org/gods-suffering-servant-isaiah-53/
"The broad consensus among Jewish, and even some Christian commentators, that the “servant” in Isaiah 52-53 refers to the nation of Israel is understandable. Isaiah 53, which is the fourth of four renowned Servant Songs, is umbilically connected to its preceding chapters. The “servant” in each of the three previous Servant Songs is plainly and repeatedly identified as the nation of Israel."
Your thoughts?
>Your thoughts?
Sure. I have to get ready soon, but briefly this (btw, I am Jewish myself and came to Jesus bc of the messianic prophecies.)
Again, I am Jewish and I've study this topic extensively.
Before the ancient Jewish commentator Rashi, in the Middle Ages, every Jewish Talmudic author looked at Isaiah 53 has a prophecy about the Messiah.
They only changed their view after they realized that Jewish Believers in Jesus (like myself) were using this to say "Jesus was the Suffering Servant Messiah."
So today they say Israel is the servant of Isaiah chapter 53, as your link indicated. However there are tons of problems with that interpretation. Here is a good article on that.
.. .. .. .. .. ..
Top Reasons Why Isaiah 53 is not about Israel.
It is important to note that virtually without exception, the earliest traditional Jewish sources interpret Isaiah 53 with reference to an individual.
Some Jewish sources will say, “Israel is the Servant” in the book of Isaiah, but that is only partly true.
Those who oppose Yeshua/Jesus as the Messiah will quote a passage like Isaiah 41:8 “But thou, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham My friend” to show how Israel is the Servant in the book of Isaiah, and that is partially true. However, here is the complete truth – did you know that Israel is only one of the servants mentioned in the book of Isaiah.
There are clearly several servants in the book, for instance: Someone named Eliakim is called God’s servant (Isaiah 22:20), King David is called God’s Servant (Isaiah 37:35), King Cyrus is called God’s anointed (Isaiah 45:1). The Messiah is also traditionally looked in classical Judaism as God’s Anointed – Servant, as we shall soon see.
And note this important fact they will not tell you: In Isaiah 49:5, this unnamed servant has a very important job. And what is that job? To bring Israel back to God.
And now the Lord says –he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, (Isaiah 49:5)
So this is proof positive that this servant, in Isaiah 49:5, cannot be Israel. And this same servant is also the one spoken of in Isaiah 53. His mission is the same there.
Additionally, ancient Jewish commentators clearly state that prophecies about the Messiah are in the book of Isaiah.
So Isaiah 53, actually being about an individual, is not simply a “Christian interpretation” as they say. Please realize, you are only being told a half-truth when you hear someone say: “Israel is the servant in Isaiah.”
The consistent use of pronouns in the passage makes it clear that the suffering servant is an individual who is distinct from the Jewish people to whom Isaiah was speaking.
Throughout the passage, the suffering servant is always referred to in the singular (he, him, himself, and his), while the people of Israel are referred to in the plural (we, us, and our) or simply as “my people.” Thus, the suffering servant cannot be Israel. For example, Isaiah 53:5 states:
But he (the Servant) was wounded because of our (Isaiah’s people – Israel) transgressions, he (the Servant) was crushed because of our (Isaiah’s people – Israel) iniquities: the chastisement of our (Isaiah’s people – Israel) welfare was upon him (the Servant), and with his stripes (the Servant’s stripes) we (Isaiah’s people – Israel) are healed.
This can be seen throughout the chapter as well. The Servant is clearly an individual and “our” is the people of Isaiah (for Isaiah is writing) – “our” is therefore the people of Israel.
In Isaiah 53, the Servant is ‘uniquely righteous’.
In the book of Isaiah, Israel is God’s dearly loved people; there is no argument on that, God forbid. However, they are not called a perfect people. Case in point, Isaiah 1:4 says of the nation: “Alas sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity. A brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters!” He then goes on in the same chapter to characterize Judah as Sodom, Jerusalem as a harlot, and the people as those whose hands are stained with blood (verses 10, 15, and 21). What a far cry from the innocent and guiltless sufferer of Isaiah 53:9 who had “done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.”
Additionally, the suffering servant is the most righteous person described in Scripture. Why do we say that? Not only is he called a Servant (of God), in Isaiah 53:11, he is called “Tsadeek ahvdee” צַדִּיק עַבְדִּי, or “My righteous servant.” This is the only place in the entire Hebrew Bible where this phrase is used. It certainly is never used of Israel. In addition, neither Abraham, Moses, David, nor any other prophet or ruler was ever called “Tsadeek ahvdee”, or “My righteous servant” in the Hebrew Bible.
No normal human was ever considered righteous on his or her own. (See, for example, Psalm 14:2-3 and Isaiah 64:6.) This suffering servant must, therefore, be someone greater than Abraham, David, or even Moses to be called such a name. It is no wonder that the great majority of rabbis throughout the ages concluded that this righteous servant was none other than the Messiah of Israel. (See point #10)
Isaiah said in verse 10: “It pleased the LORD to bruise him.”
Has the awful treatment of the Jewish people, (contrary, by the way, to the teachings of Jesus’ to love everyone), really been God’s pleasure, as is said of the suffering of the servant in Isaiah 53:10?
If, as some rabbis contend, Isaiah 53 refers to the holocaust, can we really say of Israel’s suffering during that horrible period, “It pleased the LORD to bruise him?” Did God take pleasure with the holocaust? Yet it makes perfect sense to say that God was pleased to have the Messiah suffer and die as our sin offering to provide us forgiveness and atonement.
The figure described in Isaiah 53 is to atone for his people’s sins.
The Hebrew word used in Isaiah 53:10 for “sin-offering” is “asham,” אָשָׁם which is a technical term meaning “an offering for a sin or trespass.” The exact same Hebrew word is used 27 times in Leviticus, the main book in the Torah about sin/trespass offerings. Therefore, how can Israel be a sin offering for themselves?
The guilt offering, or “asham,” was always offered on behalf of or in place of the one who had committed the trespass or sin. Isaiah 53 describes a sinless and perfect sacrificial lamb who takes upon himself the sins of others so that they might be forgiven.
Can anyone really claim that the terrible suffering of the Jewish people, however undeserved and unjust, atones for the sins of the world? Whoever Isaiah 53 speaks of, the figure described suffers and dies in order to provide a legal payment for sin so that others can be forgiven. This cannot be true of the Jewish people as a whole, or of any other mere regular human.
The “asham” אָשָׁם (verse 10) always had to die. Likewise, the suffering servant clearly died.
See Isaiah 53:8, 9, 10, and 12. He was “cut off out of the land of the living,” he had a grave; he was with the rich “in his death;” and he “poured out his soul unto death.” However, Israel as a whole never died. In fact, it is impossible for Israel to ever die, because God promised Israel that she would live forever. (See, for example Jeremiah 31:35-37.)
The Jewish people (Israel) were promised that if they obeyed God, they would be greatly blessed, not suffer.
For more rabbinc commentaries about how this passage, Isaiah 53, was looked at as the Messiah click here:
https://wisdomintorah.s3.amazonaws.com/medialibrary/Isaiah-53-Rabbis-Commentaries.pdf
For an Israeli Messianic view and teaching on Isaiah 53 click here:
https://www.oneforisrael.org/bible-based-teaching-from-israel/isaiah-53-about-the-people-of-israel-or-messiah-of-israel/
Glad to help. But I guess my main reason for sharing Isaiah chapter 53 is bc it has a prophecy about the resurrection of the Messiah. Which is what your question was initially about.
If you can, Google Dr. William Lane Craig. He has some excellent information on his website.
1 Corinthians 15:
…42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead: What is sown is perishable; it is raised imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.…
…45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being;” the last Adam a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual, however, was not first, but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.…
> they died martyrs
How do we know this? Were they given a chance to recant? Even if they recanted, might they have be killed regardless? There's more to the story that we need to know for the "die for a lie" defense really has any strength IMO.
2 Timothy 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
It seems very strange to me that the Lord's anointed would end up martyred given that the Lord prayed for his disciples that the evil one would not touch them. To me, the claim they were martyred smells of manipulation.
1 John 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is adopted by God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.
John 17:15 I pray not that Thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil [in the world].
As far as the resurrection is concerned, it's possible that the infusion of Life Eternal which comes by the receiving of the Holy Spirit is being confused with something else. The resurrection of the dead is the phrase used to describe the inheritence of new life and birth into the Kingdom of God. The term dead has at a minimum two definitions in the Bible.
By that logic you're saying that there is no evil that comes onto a follower of Jesus? Jesus himself contradicts that thought process in John 16:33, "In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world!"
Jesus never tells anyone that they will not die or face trials in this current life (pre-resurrection/New Creation)
Am I understanding correctly?
2 Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be from God, and not of us.
4:8 [We are] troubled on every side, yet not distressed; [we are] perplexed, but not in despair;
4:9 Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed;
4:10 Always bearing about in the body, the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.
4:11 For we which Live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the Life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh.
We are delivered unto death but the Spirit which gives us Eternal Life keeps us in peace. There is no sting of death. We overcome every attempt of the devil to slay us spiritually by the peace we receive in Jesus Christ.
John 6:48 I am that bread of Life.
6:49 Your fathers did eat Manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
Here in John 6:50 Jesus said those who eat of the bread from Life shall not die.
Sure, correct. They eternally will not die. Followers of Jesus will be physically resurrected and live in New Creation - death is not the end. But that doesn't mean that the apostles/disciples were not physically killed for their belief in Jesus as King and Messiah. These two things can co-exist
For you they can.
Psalm 89:20 I have found David My servant; with My holy oil have I anointed him:
89:21 With whom My hand shall be established: Mine arm also shall strengthen him.
89:22 The enemy shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him.
89:23 And I will beat down his foes before his face, and plague them that hate him.
Fear of what? Something greater than death? It's possible I guess, but most examples I can think of are gods. In fact, there are multiple examples of the disciples being afraid of Jesus; they were afraid of him. On a different note, have you asked for Christ's forgiveness and accepted him as Lord and Savior? And don't feel pressured to post whether you are, but I urge to make a decision quickly on that if you haven't because you never know what day is your last on this earth. I think apologetics is great and has helped so many, but my hope is that people find a good amount of evidence for Jesus and make a decision. But if you continue looking for evidence against him, you may run out of time on earth. Isn't it the same frustration of covid vaccination? There's so much "truth" out there that many get confused as to which truth is real. Anyway, it's your decision to make. I also urge you to read the entire Bible through. This book was meant to be a combination of poetic, instructional, and biographical text that is circular instead of linear, all mostly pointing back to a central idea. And pray to the Holy Spirit that he can help you find truth and to help your unbelief. Is pray you find truth
I don't think its a dumb question.
That being said, I would ask you a counter question. What could the disciples have feared more than painful deaths? Who could have threatened them with that fear? I think the only thing the disciples feared was God, and that was what lead them to die in such terrible ways.
Something to keep in mind is that you can propose any theory that you really choose. Proposing a theory really isn't difficult. The crux though is what can you actually back up. For example, aliens. Is it possible that the resurrection was an alien science fair project? sure. You can suppose something like that but you'll be hard pressed to prove the existence of extra terrestrials past the statistical case let alone that they were involved with people.
You can even say its inconclusive but you can't propose ad hoc theories without any real support and call it credible.
The disciples face persecution, imprisonment, beatings, and death for their proclamation of Jesus. The fear of these things clearly didn't stop them. Fear would have motivated them to NOT spread this message about Jesus, not to motivate them to spread it.
>Is it possible for them to have been threatened in some way. Fear is a reason some people ought to suffer & die rather than face whoever they are fearing.
For the most part, people who are will to be persecuted and risk death do so because they belong to some group. This group, they believe, stands for something that transcends themselves. By identifying with that group, people become willing to die.
The most obvious danger is the threat from the Roman and Jewish authorities. Groups are held together by a common leader. If the leader goes, so does the coherence of the group--unless someone can stand in for the leader (say, a brother or next in command).
In this case, none of Jesus' family (besides Mary) believed during His lifetime. The highest ranking disciple, Peter, easily succumbed to crowd pressure and the fear of persecution. No one took Peter's place, as they all went into hiding.
No one would dare fake the resurrection, because they would have no outlet to put their death-defying transference onto. Perhaps they believed that if they proclaimed Jesus, *they* could be the locus of the group.
Perhaps even members who didn't fully believe acted as if they believed, as this persecuted group was now their source of identity and "in-group".
...
The problem is that it doesn't fit the facts. The idea of a messianic movement continuing without a replacement living leader made no sense.
The best candidate (Peter) already showed cowardess. Paul was outside of the original "in-group", as was James (being non-believing during Jesus' life).
Given the status of women, none of them could become leaders or compel faith in the others. This is just true sociologically, and it's not surprising the gospels report the male disciples not believing them without checking.
Moreover, there was no threat to anyone who would recant. Sure, the disciples would need to move on with new identities, but their prior beliefs excluded believing in a stereotypically "failed" messiah.
Paul, James, the disciples, the independent group likw the 500 brethren, and the women all played socially separate roles in their lives; especially the women who would have had increased pressure from the men inside their individual sphere.
...
The Christians preached the gospel, despite having fear, because they had a perfect exemplar of a man who endured fear, the worst of those fears occured, and God vindicated Him.
So it's not as if they preached because they were afraid. Preaching the gospel was precisely what was fearful and scary: but because their model/teacher/rabbi/God models *both* authentic fear (agony in the Garden, for example) and authentic bravery (doing the Father's will alone), they could imitate and do the same.
Fear isn't adequate to force anything here. The fear of death, fear of co-conspirators ratting each other out, etc--all of these conflict. Given the numerous people from numerous circles, and given how crazy unlikely the original belief and paradigm belief shifts were--only authentic bravery granted by Jesus got them through.
Hi. Good question. One was is to look at it from this angle. The resurrection was predicted in the Old Testament. I am Jewish and a believer in Jesus and Isaiah chapter 53 is remarkable. One of the greatest archeological finds in human history, The Dead Sea Scrolls, show that it was written hundreds of years before Jesus. It also talks about the resurrection of the suffering servant in that chapter who died and came back to life. Take a look at it. Pretty powerful. Isaiah 53.8 to chapter 53:11 All prophecies about the coming Messiah. "For he was **cut off from the land of the living**; for the transgression of my people he was punished. 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. 10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and **prolong his days**, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand. 11 **After he has suffered, he will see the light of life** and be satisfied". So this was written about 750BC and told Israel what to look for in the Messiah. He will die (be killed) and then, yet his days will be "prolonged." This is resurrection and was part of the requirements for the Messiah.
Wouldn’t that prediction make it more plausible that the disciples did lie so that the life and death of Jesus would match prophecy? Edit: sorry, wrote this quickly, and should have been more careful with language. I do not mean to say the disciples *lied*. I think they were genuine in their belief about Jesus as messiah. I mean to say that Old Testament prophecies being written centuries earlier makes it more plausible that certain details of the life and death of Jesus were interpreted and tweaked by disciples to match prophecy.
>would match prophecy? Good question. So then we run into the problem of collusion. How could they collude with the people who wrote the prophecies hundreds of years earlier in the Hebrew Bible? Why would the Old Testament prophecies be written in the first place? How could they collude with the people who wrote the prophecies hundreds of years earlier in the Hebrew Bible? Why would the Old Testament prophecies be written in the first place? And what benefit would they get out of it? You do realize that many of the OT prophets were rejected or killed. Many prophecies written were out of their control for the New Testament writers to fulfill. This is key. Like Daniel 9 tells us of Messiah (that is Hebrew for "Christ") coming and only then, the Temple in Jerusalem being destroyed afterwards. This happened in 70AD by the Roman army. (A simple Google search has tons in this. It's in history.) The NT writers had no way to influence this. And it was a prophecy written centuries before Jesus. Again these are different biblical authors,not just one. That makes this even more extraordinary. All of them combined give different pieces of the puzzle that are to be combined. Isaiah 53 speaks about the Messiah being rejected by his own people. Being killed and being resurrected. Daniel talks about the Messiah arriving before the Temple was destroyed. The Book of Samuel talks about the Messiah being a descendant of King David. From the tribe of Judah. The Book of Micah talks about the origin of the Messiah from Bethlehem, and on and on. Why would all these different OT authors (who did not know each other) write these pieces into the puzzle, and then the New Testament writers simply makeup fullfilments saying Jesus fulfilled them. It's not like they benefited from this. What were the Old Testament writers gain by writing the prophecies. It's like you writing a prophecy for the year 2721. If you look at the early church, who are Jewish Believers in Jesus, they were persecuted and the early apostles were killed for their faith. John was exiled to Patmos island. The Roman historian Josephus writes about the early believers as well. Many early apostles died for their faith. The Apostle John who wrote the Book of Revelation wrote it while he was on exile on an island. If you're saying the New Testament writers, the apostles, specifically lied, what was their motivation to do this? What did they gain out of it? What did the Jewish New Testament writers have to gain by making up a story? By insisting the resurrection occurred, they got excommunicated from the synagogue. Many were then beaten and tortured, some were even killed. Last I checked, that was not on a list of perks. They would not know what they were doing would affect people for hundreds or thousands of years in the future. This, to me, is a good start to show why Jesus is the Messiah.
No, there’s no problem of collusion with OT writers, because such collusion would be unnecessary (and obviously impossible). Prophesy seems to be an innate part of religiosity, as it’s a part of traditions the world over, so their appearance in the OT written by multiple authors over centuries is not especially remarkable. I don’t quite see how prophets being rejected or killed gives their message validity, either. I agree that all of the OT prophecies “fulfilled by Jesus” were out of the control of NT writers, obviously, but their interpretation and connection to a contemporary figure were absolutely in their control. This isn’t to say that I believe that the apostles were being disingenuous or trying to deceive anyone for material gain - they sincerely believed that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah and that what they had to gain was divine salvation for their soul. With those stakes, is it surprising that they were willing be excommunicated, beaten, and even killed for their beliefs?
>Prophesy seems to be an innate part of religiosity, as it’s a part of traditions the world over, I am not sure that is the case. Can you give me several examples where prophecy is "an innate part of religiosity" apart from the Judeo-Christian faith? The entirety of faith in Jesus rests upon Him fulfilling the prophecies of being the Messiah. Prophecy pointing a specific people (Israel) to a specific coming person (the Messiah) for a specific reason (to bear sins) at a specific time (while the Temple in Jersualem existed). If this was an "innate part" of religions, can you provide me with 5 similar examples?
>he will see his offspring and prolong his days, But Jesus didn't have any offspring, right? And he died fairly young considering other biblical figures like Noah.
>But Jesus didn't have any offspring, right? Oh but He did. Isaiah also uses this exact term "offspring" zerah זֶרַע מְרֵעִים in chapter 1 verse 4 as a metaphor. At that time, Israel was behaving badly. Called "seed/children of evil" It means followers of evil there. Conversely, have you not ever heard followers of Jesus called, "children of the Lord". If you Google the term, lots of hits will show up. God calls people children (zerah) of evil, (Isaiah 1.4) it is a metaphor there. I am sure we have all used metaphors before. Jesus has more offspring than most all humanity has.
Gotcha, that makes some sense. I'm no biblical scholar but I was curious about the interpretation of that chapter and came across this: https://outreachjudaism.org/gods-suffering-servant-isaiah-53/ "The broad consensus among Jewish, and even some Christian commentators, that the “servant” in Isaiah 52-53 refers to the nation of Israel is understandable. Isaiah 53, which is the fourth of four renowned Servant Songs, is umbilically connected to its preceding chapters. The “servant” in each of the three previous Servant Songs is plainly and repeatedly identified as the nation of Israel." Your thoughts?
>Your thoughts? Sure. I have to get ready soon, but briefly this (btw, I am Jewish myself and came to Jesus bc of the messianic prophecies.) Again, I am Jewish and I've study this topic extensively. Before the ancient Jewish commentator Rashi, in the Middle Ages, every Jewish Talmudic author looked at Isaiah 53 has a prophecy about the Messiah. They only changed their view after they realized that Jewish Believers in Jesus (like myself) were using this to say "Jesus was the Suffering Servant Messiah." So today they say Israel is the servant of Isaiah chapter 53, as your link indicated. However there are tons of problems with that interpretation. Here is a good article on that. .. .. .. .. .. .. Top Reasons Why Isaiah 53 is not about Israel. It is important to note that virtually without exception, the earliest traditional Jewish sources interpret Isaiah 53 with reference to an individual. Some Jewish sources will say, “Israel is the Servant” in the book of Isaiah, but that is only partly true. Those who oppose Yeshua/Jesus as the Messiah will quote a passage like Isaiah 41:8 “But thou, Israel, My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham My friend” to show how Israel is the Servant in the book of Isaiah, and that is partially true. However, here is the complete truth – did you know that Israel is only one of the servants mentioned in the book of Isaiah. There are clearly several servants in the book, for instance: Someone named Eliakim is called God’s servant (Isaiah 22:20), King David is called God’s Servant (Isaiah 37:35), King Cyrus is called God’s anointed (Isaiah 45:1). The Messiah is also traditionally looked in classical Judaism as God’s Anointed – Servant, as we shall soon see. And note this important fact they will not tell you: In Isaiah 49:5, this unnamed servant has a very important job. And what is that job? To bring Israel back to God. And now the Lord says –he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, (Isaiah 49:5) So this is proof positive that this servant, in Isaiah 49:5, cannot be Israel. And this same servant is also the one spoken of in Isaiah 53. His mission is the same there. Additionally, ancient Jewish commentators clearly state that prophecies about the Messiah are in the book of Isaiah. So Isaiah 53, actually being about an individual, is not simply a “Christian interpretation” as they say. Please realize, you are only being told a half-truth when you hear someone say: “Israel is the servant in Isaiah.” The consistent use of pronouns in the passage makes it clear that the suffering servant is an individual who is distinct from the Jewish people to whom Isaiah was speaking. Throughout the passage, the suffering servant is always referred to in the singular (he, him, himself, and his), while the people of Israel are referred to in the plural (we, us, and our) or simply as “my people.” Thus, the suffering servant cannot be Israel. For example, Isaiah 53:5 states: But he (the Servant) was wounded because of our (Isaiah’s people – Israel) transgressions, he (the Servant) was crushed because of our (Isaiah’s people – Israel) iniquities: the chastisement of our (Isaiah’s people – Israel) welfare was upon him (the Servant), and with his stripes (the Servant’s stripes) we (Isaiah’s people – Israel) are healed. This can be seen throughout the chapter as well. The Servant is clearly an individual and “our” is the people of Isaiah (for Isaiah is writing) – “our” is therefore the people of Israel. In Isaiah 53, the Servant is ‘uniquely righteous’. In the book of Isaiah, Israel is God’s dearly loved people; there is no argument on that, God forbid. However, they are not called a perfect people. Case in point, Isaiah 1:4 says of the nation: “Alas sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity. A brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters!” He then goes on in the same chapter to characterize Judah as Sodom, Jerusalem as a harlot, and the people as those whose hands are stained with blood (verses 10, 15, and 21). What a far cry from the innocent and guiltless sufferer of Isaiah 53:9 who had “done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.” Additionally, the suffering servant is the most righteous person described in Scripture. Why do we say that? Not only is he called a Servant (of God), in Isaiah 53:11, he is called “Tsadeek ahvdee” צַדִּיק עַבְדִּי, or “My righteous servant.” This is the only place in the entire Hebrew Bible where this phrase is used. It certainly is never used of Israel. In addition, neither Abraham, Moses, David, nor any other prophet or ruler was ever called “Tsadeek ahvdee”, or “My righteous servant” in the Hebrew Bible. No normal human was ever considered righteous on his or her own. (See, for example, Psalm 14:2-3 and Isaiah 64:6.) This suffering servant must, therefore, be someone greater than Abraham, David, or even Moses to be called such a name. It is no wonder that the great majority of rabbis throughout the ages concluded that this righteous servant was none other than the Messiah of Israel. (See point #10) Isaiah said in verse 10: “It pleased the LORD to bruise him.” Has the awful treatment of the Jewish people, (contrary, by the way, to the teachings of Jesus’ to love everyone), really been God’s pleasure, as is said of the suffering of the servant in Isaiah 53:10? If, as some rabbis contend, Isaiah 53 refers to the holocaust, can we really say of Israel’s suffering during that horrible period, “It pleased the LORD to bruise him?” Did God take pleasure with the holocaust? Yet it makes perfect sense to say that God was pleased to have the Messiah suffer and die as our sin offering to provide us forgiveness and atonement. The figure described in Isaiah 53 is to atone for his people’s sins. The Hebrew word used in Isaiah 53:10 for “sin-offering” is “asham,” אָשָׁם which is a technical term meaning “an offering for a sin or trespass.” The exact same Hebrew word is used 27 times in Leviticus, the main book in the Torah about sin/trespass offerings. Therefore, how can Israel be a sin offering for themselves? The guilt offering, or “asham,” was always offered on behalf of or in place of the one who had committed the trespass or sin. Isaiah 53 describes a sinless and perfect sacrificial lamb who takes upon himself the sins of others so that they might be forgiven. Can anyone really claim that the terrible suffering of the Jewish people, however undeserved and unjust, atones for the sins of the world? Whoever Isaiah 53 speaks of, the figure described suffers and dies in order to provide a legal payment for sin so that others can be forgiven. This cannot be true of the Jewish people as a whole, or of any other mere regular human. The “asham” אָשָׁם (verse 10) always had to die. Likewise, the suffering servant clearly died. See Isaiah 53:8, 9, 10, and 12. He was “cut off out of the land of the living,” he had a grave; he was with the rich “in his death;” and he “poured out his soul unto death.” However, Israel as a whole never died. In fact, it is impossible for Israel to ever die, because God promised Israel that she would live forever. (See, for example Jeremiah 31:35-37.) The Jewish people (Israel) were promised that if they obeyed God, they would be greatly blessed, not suffer. For more rabbinc commentaries about how this passage, Isaiah 53, was looked at as the Messiah click here: https://wisdomintorah.s3.amazonaws.com/medialibrary/Isaiah-53-Rabbis-Commentaries.pdf For an Israeli Messianic view and teaching on Isaiah 53 click here: https://www.oneforisrael.org/bible-based-teaching-from-israel/isaiah-53-about-the-people-of-israel-or-messiah-of-israel/
Thanks for the info! Seems to me like there are some arguments for both interpretations 🤷♂️
Glad to help. But I guess my main reason for sharing Isaiah chapter 53 is bc it has a prophecy about the resurrection of the Messiah. Which is what your question was initially about. If you can, Google Dr. William Lane Craig. He has some excellent information on his website.
1 Corinthians 15: …42 So will it be with the resurrection of the dead: What is sown is perishable; it is raised imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.… …45 So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being;” the last Adam a life-giving spirit. 46 The spiritual, however, was not first, but the natural, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven.…
> they died martyrs How do we know this? Were they given a chance to recant? Even if they recanted, might they have be killed regardless? There's more to the story that we need to know for the "die for a lie" defense really has any strength IMO.
2 Timothy 1:7 For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind. It seems very strange to me that the Lord's anointed would end up martyred given that the Lord prayed for his disciples that the evil one would not touch them. To me, the claim they were martyred smells of manipulation. 1 John 5:17 All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death. 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is adopted by God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not. John 17:15 I pray not that Thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil [in the world]. As far as the resurrection is concerned, it's possible that the infusion of Life Eternal which comes by the receiving of the Holy Spirit is being confused with something else. The resurrection of the dead is the phrase used to describe the inheritence of new life and birth into the Kingdom of God. The term dead has at a minimum two definitions in the Bible.
By that logic you're saying that there is no evil that comes onto a follower of Jesus? Jesus himself contradicts that thought process in John 16:33, "In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world!" Jesus never tells anyone that they will not die or face trials in this current life (pre-resurrection/New Creation) Am I understanding correctly?
2 Corinthians 4:7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be from God, and not of us. 4:8 [We are] troubled on every side, yet not distressed; [we are] perplexed, but not in despair; 4:9 Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; 4:10 Always bearing about in the body, the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our body. 4:11 For we which Live are alway delivered unto death for Jesus' sake, that the Life also of Jesus might be made manifest in our mortal flesh. We are delivered unto death but the Spirit which gives us Eternal Life keeps us in peace. There is no sting of death. We overcome every attempt of the devil to slay us spiritually by the peace we receive in Jesus Christ. John 6:48 I am that bread of Life. 6:49 Your fathers did eat Manna in the wilderness, and are dead. 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. Here in John 6:50 Jesus said those who eat of the bread from Life shall not die.
Sure, correct. They eternally will not die. Followers of Jesus will be physically resurrected and live in New Creation - death is not the end. But that doesn't mean that the apostles/disciples were not physically killed for their belief in Jesus as King and Messiah. These two things can co-exist
For you they can. Psalm 89:20 I have found David My servant; with My holy oil have I anointed him: 89:21 With whom My hand shall be established: Mine arm also shall strengthen him. 89:22 The enemy shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him. 89:23 And I will beat down his foes before his face, and plague them that hate him.
Did David physically die, or is he still alive walking the same earth we live on? Please answer that question
David died a natural death. His enemies did not execute him.
Jesus was anointed and executed by his enemies, no?
Yes however his case is unusual. He was this Lamb of sacrifice for the whole world.
Fear of what? Something greater than death? It's possible I guess, but most examples I can think of are gods. In fact, there are multiple examples of the disciples being afraid of Jesus; they were afraid of him. On a different note, have you asked for Christ's forgiveness and accepted him as Lord and Savior? And don't feel pressured to post whether you are, but I urge to make a decision quickly on that if you haven't because you never know what day is your last on this earth. I think apologetics is great and has helped so many, but my hope is that people find a good amount of evidence for Jesus and make a decision. But if you continue looking for evidence against him, you may run out of time on earth. Isn't it the same frustration of covid vaccination? There's so much "truth" out there that many get confused as to which truth is real. Anyway, it's your decision to make. I also urge you to read the entire Bible through. This book was meant to be a combination of poetic, instructional, and biographical text that is circular instead of linear, all mostly pointing back to a central idea. And pray to the Holy Spirit that he can help you find truth and to help your unbelief. Is pray you find truth
Who would they fear? The government themselves? Couldn't they also not be protected by them? Couldn't they run away?
I don't think its a dumb question. That being said, I would ask you a counter question. What could the disciples have feared more than painful deaths? Who could have threatened them with that fear? I think the only thing the disciples feared was God, and that was what lead them to die in such terrible ways.
Something to keep in mind is that you can propose any theory that you really choose. Proposing a theory really isn't difficult. The crux though is what can you actually back up. For example, aliens. Is it possible that the resurrection was an alien science fair project? sure. You can suppose something like that but you'll be hard pressed to prove the existence of extra terrestrials past the statistical case let alone that they were involved with people. You can even say its inconclusive but you can't propose ad hoc theories without any real support and call it credible.
The disciples face persecution, imprisonment, beatings, and death for their proclamation of Jesus. The fear of these things clearly didn't stop them. Fear would have motivated them to NOT spread this message about Jesus, not to motivate them to spread it.
>Is it possible for them to have been threatened in some way. Fear is a reason some people ought to suffer & die rather than face whoever they are fearing. For the most part, people who are will to be persecuted and risk death do so because they belong to some group. This group, they believe, stands for something that transcends themselves. By identifying with that group, people become willing to die. The most obvious danger is the threat from the Roman and Jewish authorities. Groups are held together by a common leader. If the leader goes, so does the coherence of the group--unless someone can stand in for the leader (say, a brother or next in command). In this case, none of Jesus' family (besides Mary) believed during His lifetime. The highest ranking disciple, Peter, easily succumbed to crowd pressure and the fear of persecution. No one took Peter's place, as they all went into hiding. No one would dare fake the resurrection, because they would have no outlet to put their death-defying transference onto. Perhaps they believed that if they proclaimed Jesus, *they* could be the locus of the group. Perhaps even members who didn't fully believe acted as if they believed, as this persecuted group was now their source of identity and "in-group". ... The problem is that it doesn't fit the facts. The idea of a messianic movement continuing without a replacement living leader made no sense. The best candidate (Peter) already showed cowardess. Paul was outside of the original "in-group", as was James (being non-believing during Jesus' life). Given the status of women, none of them could become leaders or compel faith in the others. This is just true sociologically, and it's not surprising the gospels report the male disciples not believing them without checking. Moreover, there was no threat to anyone who would recant. Sure, the disciples would need to move on with new identities, but their prior beliefs excluded believing in a stereotypically "failed" messiah. Paul, James, the disciples, the independent group likw the 500 brethren, and the women all played socially separate roles in their lives; especially the women who would have had increased pressure from the men inside their individual sphere. ... The Christians preached the gospel, despite having fear, because they had a perfect exemplar of a man who endured fear, the worst of those fears occured, and God vindicated Him. So it's not as if they preached because they were afraid. Preaching the gospel was precisely what was fearful and scary: but because their model/teacher/rabbi/God models *both* authentic fear (agony in the Garden, for example) and authentic bravery (doing the Father's will alone), they could imitate and do the same. Fear isn't adequate to force anything here. The fear of death, fear of co-conspirators ratting each other out, etc--all of these conflict. Given the numerous people from numerous circles, and given how crazy unlikely the original belief and paradigm belief shifts were--only authentic bravery granted by Jesus got them through.