Quote from vhehn:
Was Isaiah 53 Even a Prophecy?
Be very careful with this stuff. Isaiah 53 is very tricky because it is such a tough one to crack. However, keep in mind that almost all the others are relatively simple. And the apparent "success" of Isaiah 53 would in no way make up for the monumental failures of the others. Isaiah 53 is a failure, to be sure, once you examine the nature of prophecy and see that it is not a prophecy at all and was never intended to be one: you must twist this thing all out of context to turn it into a prophecy. However, at first glance, Isaiah 53 looks pretty good! Remember, though, Isaiah 53 is just one passage out of 39 (currently canonized) books of Hebrew Scripture, and it says some things that have nothing to do with Jesus, and also omits some important elements of the Jesus story that you'd expect to see in something alleging to be a prediction about him.
The most crucial omission is even a hint -- a suggestion -- that this is intended to be a prophecy at all! It isn't a prophecy. At all. It has none of the elements of the classic Ezekiel "Thus Saith The Lord" if you don't do this, then such and so will happen. Isaiah even contains a prophecy just so we'll know what one looks like (assuming both sections were written by the same man). I shall retell the story based upon the famous commentary by United States Founder Thomas Paine: In Isaiah 7:14, the famous "Virgin shall conceive" passage is actually about Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz -- not Jesus -- and Isaiah gives this prophecy as a sign to Ahaz, the king of Judah, that he'd win the upcoming battle when Pekah, king of Israel would join himself to Rezin, king of Syria, to make war against Ahaz. In other words, the birth of this child would prove to him that these two kings should not succeed against him! And so, in order to "fulfill" the "birth of the child" section of this prophecy, what does Isaiah do? In 13:2, Isaiah says, "I went in unto the Prophetess, and she conceived and bear a son." Ah, okay! Well, there's a self-fulfilling prophecy if I ever heard one! In verse 18 he reiterates: "Behold I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel."
Was Isaiah Even a Prophet of God?
Oh, but even Isaiah is not fool enough to carry us through to the finish of this story. Another chronicler, one who was not working in league with Isaiah (and perhaps was unaware of this "prophecy"), tells us what became of this upcoming battle. In II Chronicles 28:1, the chronicler tells us, about Ahaz: "Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign. and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem, but he did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord." Okay, so we have a different picture: Instead of the Lord giving the king signs as a trusted servant, here he is disobedient and about to be punished.
But look very closely at the precise nature of this punishment, described in verse 5: "Wherefore the Lord his God delivered him into the hand of the king of Syria, and they smate him, and carried away a great multitude of them captive and brought them to Damascus; and he was also delivered into the hand of the king, of Israel, who smote him with a great slaughter." So, instead of things going according to the prophecy of Isaiah, they ended up happening in the exact reverse of what Isaiah is said to have prophesied!
You don't need to try to verify this one from outside sources, the whole thing is contained right here in the Bible itself. Also, the Deuteronomy 18 gives us a test to determine whether we're dealing with a false prophet:
[20] But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
[21] And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?
[22] When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.
If the prophet makes a single mistake -- if the prophet predicts one thing that does not come to pass, then that prophet has not spoken with God. So, since the Bible god botched this one, we don't have to believe a word that the Bible god says, right? Well, no, it's a bit more complicated than that -- but we've at least nullified Isaiah's claim to having been a prophet of God! According to the Bible, Isaiah was a false prophet, and ought to have been put to death. Do not pay attention to what Isaiah 53 says, no matter how impressive it sounds.
http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml8612.htm
Geez-O-Pete, what a bunch of dismal "scholarship" Mr. Walker has brought forth.
Mr. Walker should read on to Isaiah 7:9, and be admonished by the verse, as Augustin interprets it " Unless ye believe, ye shall not understand ".
You, of the no reason for faith persuasion, would do us dim eyed theists a favor, if you would do your own research to formulate your own arguments, and not rely on the various theoretical atheist web sites. I take each argument and do the rebuttal my self, which takes a lot of time. You guys are as bad as "Christians" who will not study on their own, but rely on paid clergy to tell them what and why they believe.
While Mr. Walker admits to "difficulties" in rebutting Isaiah 53, he is rather gleeful in the apparent "ease" of dissecting Isaiah 7, and indeed seems almost giddy in claiming to use a commentary on Isaiah 7 by Thomas Paine.
Mr. Walker postulates that the "virgin shall conceive" passage as actually being related too, and fulfilled by Isaiah 8:3 It is here that Mr. Walker falls flat on his understanding of the subject matter.
Isaiah 8 is speaking of a second child, and the mother of the child is none other than the wife of the Prophet Isaiah himself, and as commanded by the Lord, Isaiah named the child Maher-shal'al-hash-baz. I would assume that a third grader could understand this meaning of the 8th chapter. So, I would suggest that Mr. Walker re-think his flippant remark that chapter 8 is a self fulfilling function of chapter 7. Pure hogwash, to put it politely.
Finally, in a rather baffling blunder by Mr. Walker, he rather triumphantly states " .....Oh, but even Isaiah is not fool enough to carry us through to the finish of this story. Another chronicler, one who was not working in league with Isaiah (and perhaps was unaware of this "prophecy"), tells us what became of this upcoming battle. In II Chronicles 28:1, the chronicler tells us, about Ahaz: " Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem, but he did not that which was right in the sight of the Lord" Okay, so we have a different picture: Instead of the Lord giving the king signs as a trusted servant, here he is disobedient and about to be punished..."
Mr. Walker expounds on his above referenced remarks to state that the punishment of Ahaz was the "exact reverse" of what Isaiah is said to have prophesied (!).
If this statement was not so sad in its absurdity, it would be funny. Ahaz WAS disobedient in Chapter 7, versus 10-12 ! He was commanded by the Lord to ask for a sign, any sign that Ahaz desired, to prove that the Lord would keep the kingdom safe. Ahaz refused. Ahaz stated "I will not ask" when he was commanded " ask". Since Ahaz refused..The Lord Himself shall give you a sign........ 7:14. Isaiah 8 goes on to describe the judgement against the kingdom and Ahaz, which for some strange reason Mr. Walker fails to acknowledge.
Is Isaiah a prophet ? Of course.
Is Mr. Walker a competent exegete ?
