I will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of mercy and supplication, so that when they look on him whom they have thrust through they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and they will grieve for him as one grieves over a firstborn.
— Zechariah 12:10
Deacon Andy Weiss at the New Mexico Shroud Exhibit and Museum (iSEAM) has put together a new “reflection on the Shroud in light of primarily Zechariah 12:10, including "they shall look upon him whom they have pierced." Do read, Shroud & Zechariah: A Reflection:
I come to study of the Shroud in a most unexpected way. I know several Shroud researchers who would make the same claim, some of whom are my good friends, such as Deacon Pete Schumacher & Barrie Schwortz. These seem to be accidents or chance, but is there really anything as chance? Perhaps so or perhaps not – it sure does take faith to believe such a proposition. But when I look upon the image of the Shroud, I see it in a unique way…with my own two eyes. No one has ever seen the Shroud in the same way.
To put it bluntly, Jesus was beaten to a bloody pulp and I am startled. They did this to him while missing all the vital organs on purpose so as not to kill him. Then they stripped him naked to shame him some more. Yet I am saying they. Yes in history specific people did this. Yet my sins caused all this. If I were the only sinner on earth, Jesus would have come and died this horrific death for just me. Yet that is not the case, looking around at the state of the world, I think. But I am talking about me and my relation to this man. I am to see this and understand, reads the passage.
Do read, Shroud & Zechariah: A Reflection
Yes, do read the clickable above in the above article. It totally grabbed my soul.
Extraordinary essay and of “infinite” value. To collect the Old Testament prophecies into one place is a great service There is an ancient Prayer to the Crucifix that I first learned in high school. Now I know precisely where the line: The words of David the Prophet” come from.
It has been a guide for me in in my analysis of the Shroud image: “They have pierced my hands and my feet, they have numbered all my bones.”
While appreciating the paper, the need also arises to point out that using the Old Testament to hook some lines on to happenings in the New Testament period can also be problematic.
Belief in a messiah only began to emerge in 200 BC, there were many variations and there was no suffering messiah. According to J.J. Collins Jesus assumed more than one role, and that makes sense:
The clashes between what is in the OT and what exactly happened during the NT period is still an issue that is being discussed. It involves Professors Joseph A. Fitzmyer, SJ, Geza Vermes, Luke Timothy Johnson and Rabbi Jacob Neusner:
Further, what is in both in the OT and NT can generate confusion and has even reached literature. It relates to the problem of evil, as for instance the Nazi holocaust, and many questions have been asked: https://www.academia.edu/12823419/Book_Review_Jesus_and_Yahveh_the_names_divine
Traditionalists loves to believe that every important things Jesus did were already described in the Old Testament.
If that was true, Jesus would not have been so rejected by the Jewish leaders of his time who were specialists of the Old Testament and all the prophecies it got concerning the Messiah!
What is very important to understand is the fact that many of the Old Testament quotes Andy gave us in his paper did not concerns originally the Messiah but the whole Jewish people who had been deported in Babylon! Even though these lines seem to refer to only one individual, they were just images that refer to all the Jews who had been deported and who were suffering from this event. It’s pretty much like all the parables of Jesus who talks about one single character, while in truth, this anonymous character was referring to every human being that ever lived on this planet!
In reality, it is the first Christian communities who stretched these lines from the Old Testament in order to link them directly to Jesus; all this in a great effort to make believe that all that was concerning Jesus of Nazareth (especially his Passion, death and Resurrection, along with things like his birth) had already been described by the ancient Jewish prophets of the Old Testament… Every biblical expert who is not biased will tell you this is a FACT.
Important note: That doesn’t mean these lines from the Old Testament cannot be linked with Jesus and his actions in a symbolical way, but it’s important to understand that every Jews from Jesus time (starting with all the Jewish religious leaders and all the specialist of the Jewish scripture) never understood these lines as referring to him personally, because they knew perfectly that they were first and foremost talking about the suffering of the Jewish people who had been deported in Babylon a long time before Jesus’ birth.
Believing that all these lines were originally intent to describe the Messiah is simply wrong…
Last comment: In his paper, Andy talks about the nailing of the wrist of the Shroud man and made an error… He describe the nailing in the way Zugibe believed it to have been done, which would have started from the bottom of the palm and ended in the wrist area, through a space between the bones that Zugibe called as the “Z” space and not the Destot space. The nailing through Destot space was originally described by Doctor Barbet (and not Zugibe who was against this idea) and this would involve a nailing that would be done solely and completely through the wrist area without involving any nailing at the bottom of the palm like Zugibe described it in his hypothesis (which I do not believe for one second). I thought it was important to correct this error that we found in this interesting paper.
I believe that strict biblical exegesis can only take us so far, and that sometimes the insights of mystics are to be preferred. But not only the mystics …
“There is a Providence that shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will” Hamlet, V:2
Google on the line, and you will find any number of interpretations in the strict terms of Shakespeare’s play. but it is not too difficult to see the wider more general implications of a caring Providence.
In Isaiah we read “The young woman will conceive and bring forth a son … ” The exegetist will tell you that Isaiah was referring to Cyrus who would release the Jews from their Babylonian captivity. However in NT times, the Septuagint was the common text used and “the young woman” had been retranslated as “the virgin”. Matthew’s gospel had no compunction in applying the line to the conception and birth of Jesus.
Isaiah also refers to his mysterious “suffering servant”, and readers will be familiar with the extract used in the liturgy of Good Friday as a prelude to the reading of the Passion.
Again, Shakespeare’s Hamlet: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” Hamlet I:5 – Let him who has ears to hear, understand!
Isaiah’ suffering servant is a good example of what I told in my previous comment, which is that the “prophet” was in fact talking about an event that already had happened before he wrote his text, which is the suffering of the Jewish people deported from Palestine to Babylon! In Isaiah’s mind, you can be sure that never he was referring to a Messiah named Jesus who would come many centuries later to take the suffering of the world on his shoulders. It is the first Christian communities who desperately wanted to link Jesus with some texts of the Old Testament to comnfort their belief that he was truly the Messiah. Nevertheless, as I also said, that doesn’t mean that, as Christians, we cannot used those ancient texts for our meditation about the sacrifice of Christ.
Note: I use the word “sacrifice” in the sense of someone who’s ready, like Jesus was, to sacrifice his life in order to remain faithful to the truth he wanted to reveal to all people, i.e. that God is merciful love and nothing else… I will NEVER used that word like many Christian do (wrongly and sadly in my opinion) in the pure sacrificial sense, like the sacrifice of animals in the Temple by the Jews. Never because if Jesus’ sacrifice would have been like this, that would mean he would have make a deal with God in our place for our salvation, which would have been a purely commercial deal that would be totally contrary to real love! By the way, I believe that this is the true and profound meaning of Jesus’ chasing of the money changers in the Temple: God is pure love and nothing else and, therefore, he don’t do any kind of commercial deal with anyone! His love and mercy are FREE! No more sacrifice (in the sacrificial sense) is needed no more! The only thing that is truly necessary on our part is to simply recognize our state or poor sinner and, at the same time (one must go with the other), to recognize our deep need to be unconditionally loved and saved by God! Jesus’ “sacrifice” on the cross is the guaranty of this unconditional love and salvation that God reserve for everyone of his beloved children!
I think the prophets, whether Isaiah or others, were granted, unwittingly or not, rather more insight than Yannick seems prepared to acknowledge. It is correct that the ‘suffering servant’ section seems to be from the end of the Babylonian exile, whereas the ministry of the original prophet Isaiah extended from 742 – 701 BC.
Chapters 40–55 (Second Isaiah, or Deutero-Isaiah) are generally attributed to an anonymous poet who prophesied toward the end of the Babylonian exile. From this section come the great oracles known as the Servant Songs, which are reflected in the New Testament understanding of the passion and glorification of Christ. Subsequent chapters 56-66 (Trito-Isaiah) are post-exilic.
I see it is as no coincidence that there is a very close correspondence between Isaiah’s suffering servant, which he likely identifies as Israel, and the sufferings of Christ. The document Lumen Gentium sees the Old Testament account of the Jewish people as a type of pre-figuring of the New Testament events. I see it all as part of God’s purpose in revealing himself in the person of Christ over the course of very many centuries. As I mentioned previously, strict exegesis only takes us so far and “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Because the prophets saw the mission of the Jewish people as being a light for all nations and considering all their suffering through the ages (often because of the great difference of the Jewish religion versus the others), I’m not surprise too that the first Christian communities (often composed of converted Jews, at least partially) chosed to make a direct link between these ancient texts and the event surrounding Jesus life, death and Resurrection.
My point was that it’s an error to think that these ancient prophets had in mind a Messiah that would come to save humanity when they wrote their books.
Another important point I wanted to make is to help people realize that, up until after the Resurrection, there was no Jew (not even the prophets of the Old Testament) who ever thought that the Messiah would be rejected by the Jewish leaders, that he would died by crucifixion and that he would resurrect “three days later”… It is the Christians who tried hard, after the Resurrection, to make believe that all this had been announced by the prophets, which is not historically true… At the time of Jesus, the Jews were not even certain of what the Messiah would really be! Some believed he would be a new King David. Some believed he would be a new Moses. Some believed he would be a sort of “super” high priest. But no one ever thought he would be a humble carpenter from Galilee who would be rejected by the Jewish leaders, who would died at the hands of the Romans (what a shame for a Jew!) and who would resurrect later on to only appear to his closest friends!
To me, this historical fact that Jesus was very different from any Messiah the Jews of the Old Testament (including the prophets) and even the Jews of his time had in mind is one of the strongest argument against the idea that some people could have build up a story like that during the First Century. We just have to note another historical fact to be convinced: the majority of the Jews did not accept Jesus-Christ as the true Messiah and never became Christians! All these facts tell me that the story of Jesus of Nazareth is not a fairy tale invented by some Jews during the First Century because they were tired to wait for the Messiah! Of course, that doesn’t mean they really saw Jesus alive after his death, but to me, that means that they didn’t invent anything and that they were truly and honestly convinced to have seen him again after his death, even though he was looking different. Could there have been a sort of “error on the person” on their part at that moment? Possible, but for me, this hypothesis is far less credible than to think that the whole story of Jesus Passion, death and Resurrection is really true and was reported by people who were the first ones surprised by these events!
In sum, the story of Jesus Passion, death and Resurrection that is at the heart of every book in the New Testament is not the kind of story that could have been made-up by some Jews of the First Century because no one at that time had ever thought about a Messiah like that, even those who knew the scriptures real well, including all the books of the prophets!
On the road to Emmaus:
“25 And he said to them, “Oh, how foolish you are! How slow of heart to believe all that the prophets spoke! 26 Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer* these things and enter into his glory?” 27 Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them what referred to him in all the scriptures.” Luke 24:25-27
Clearly Evangelist Luke considers that the resurrected Jesus had a different view concerning the relevance of the prophecies of the OT from that mentioned above. To believe that the OT prophecies have no relevance to the coming of the messiah, and specifically to the sufferings of Jesus is a type of Cafeteria Catholicism!
Agreed, Daveb. They were indeed expecting a Messiah, that’s the core of the story of Israel to that point. The sons of Zebedee certainly thought Jesus was going to kick some butt. So too those who feted him on Palm Sunday. Jesus, however, was not the Messiah they had anticipated. That’s why he was executed without a revolt occurring. Even his own followers had lost faith in him – he was not ‘the Anointed one’ after all. Then the big reveal by God — Jesus wasn’t just the Messiah of the Jews of that time, He was/is Messiah of all humanity throughout time. It may have taken me a century to digest that reality too.
Besides Yannick misleadingly wrote too Jesus was a “carpenter”. Actually,Yeshu’a ha-Notsry was a “builder” (Aramaic naggar) in terms of stone cutting, stone & brick masonry and carpentry.
Good observation. So many of Jesus sayings make much more sense when one sees him as a builder. He speaks of stones that the builders rejected, building on solid ground and of making Peter his ‘rock’.
The Wikipedia article on Tekton discusses the possibility that it could be a translation of the word naggar. It seems unlikely, and the Septuagint distinctly contrasts the tekton with the mason, suggesting that tekton means something different. Carpenter, in fact.
Ken Campbell has a very good article on this topic:
Hugh, don’t you rely too much on wiki. Ever heard of translation entropy from Hebrew or Aramaic to Greek and vice versa?
If this was true, Jesus would have been easily recognized by the Jewish leaders and wouldn’t have finish on a cross!!!
The quote you gave is certainly not a verbatim of the Resurrected Jesus. It is much more likely St Luke who put words in Jesus mouth there in an effort to make believe the prophets of the Old Testament had foreseen the kind of suffering Messiah Jesus was.
The reality is this: up until after the Resurrection, no Jew had any idea of a suffering Messiah who would die on the cross and this includes all the ancient prophets! To believe otherwise is to be completely blind about history.
And even more than that: if the ancient prophetswould really have talked about a suffering Messiah who would have resurrect 3 days after his death like the first Christian communities tried hard to make believed (in order to try to convert the Jews to their faith), most of the Jews would have believed in the good news brought by the disciples after the event. The fact that a vast majority of the Jews did not is the best proof we got that none of the Jews of Jesus time or of the Old Testament era had any idea of a suffering Messiah who would died like a criminal and who would resurrect 3 days later! This fact indicates that even those who were experts in Jewish scriptures never accepted a direct link between these prophecies (which are, for the most part, talking about the Jewish people as a whole) and the events surrounding Jesus of Nazareth.
You seem to be now saying that no Jew was anticipating a Suffering Messiah – this is true – but that’s not what you implied earlier. The Jews were very much expecting a Messiah and they also were aware of a Suffering Servant motif. It’s in Jesus that those who ‘see’ him, after his resurrection, come to understand that He is both. It’s after his Passion that the Suffering Messiah becomes a theme. Can we agree on that?
Of course we agree! This was precisely my point, except for one thing: In the mind of the person who wrote the text concerning the Suffering Servant (known as Isaiah), this Servant was representing the whole Jewish people who had been deported in Babylon some time ago and not a Messiah that would come in the future… This is the Christians who, some time after the Resurrection, made a direct link between Jesus and this text, which was not originally created to talk about a future Messiah, but simply to gave some hope to the Jewish people deported in Babylon.
God in the flesh (Jesus) appeared to Abraham as Melchizidek (High Priest) in the Old Testament. Abraham made a tithe to Melchizedek and the tithe was passed down the line from father to son. Melchizedek blessed Abraham, as Jesus did with the disciples (bread and wine).
God in the flesh (Jesus) of the Old Testament appeared to Abraham at Mamre, prior to destroying Sodom and Gomorrah.
If you recall, there were three men in the OT who visited Abraham, two were angels, who went ahead to save Lot and his family and the third man was God in the flesh (Jesus) who continued on to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.
Yes, it is for these reasons, when Jesus was questioned by the Phaisees and they stated to Him, “You are not yet 50 years of age and you have seen Abraham?”
Jesus replied, “Before Abraham was, I AM.”
“I AM” not only references the name of God (I AM that I AM) in the Old Testament, but Jesus’ reply to the Pharisees, “Before Abraham was, I AM” can also be read as,
standing before Abraham…was I AM.
The Jews may not have considered Jesus as the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, but the passage represented both the suffering servant and Jesus’ fulfillment of the suffering servant.
For this reason Jesus cleaned the disciples feet, making the statement to the disciples that He was here as a servant, not a master.
Prophecy (OT) and Fulfillment (NT)
What was prophesied in the Old Testament was fulfilled by Jesus in the New Testament.
God in the flesh (Jesus) was there from the beginning (OT) and He will be here at the end (NT).
This fact was verified by the statement Jesus made, “I am alpha and omega, the beginning and the end.”
Extract from Good Friday liturgy:
6 We had all gone astray like sheep, all following our own way; But the LORD laid upon him* the guilt of us all.f 7 Though harshly treated, he submitted and did not open his mouth; Like a lamb led to slaughter or a sheep silent before shearers, he did not open his mouth.g
8 Seized and condemned, he was taken away. Who would have thought any more of his destiny? For he was cut off from the land of the living, struck for the sins of his people. 9 He was given a grave among the wicked, a burial place with evildoers, Though he had done no wrong, nor was deceit found in his mouth.h 10 But it was the LORD’s will to crush him with pain. By making his life as a reparation offering,* he shall see his offspring, shall lengthen his days, and the LORD’s will shall be accomplished through him. 11 Because of his anguish he shall see the light; because of his knowledge he shall be content; My servant, the just one, shall justify the many, their iniquity he shall bear. 12 Therefore I will give him his portion among the many, and he shall divide the spoils with the mighty, Because he surrendered himself to death, was counted among the transgressors, Bore the sins of many, and interceded for the transgressors. Isaiah 53:6-12
The words have a clear enough application to the sufferings of Jesus. And yet Yannick claims he has the special insight to enter into the mind of this prophet of 2500 years ago and that they had no more significance for him than the return of the exiles from Babylon, a secret known only to God.
In fact, there are passages in the text which can hardly apply to the Jews, but are particularly apt for the saving redemption of the just one: “laid upon him the guilt of us all”; “did not open his mouth”; “struck for the sins of his people”; “he had done no wrong”; “a reparation offering”; “the Lord’s will shall be accomplished through him”; “shall justify the many”; “their iniquity he shall bear”; “bore the sins of many”; etc.
If it was so clear that a suffering Messiah would come, all the Jews would have convert to Jésus-Christ. The fact is precisely the opposite, which should tell anyone who got a good unbiased jugment (and not a religious biased brain) that no one among the Jews up until after the Resurrection (including all the prophets of the Old Testament) had any idea of a suffering Messiah… All the reference to suffering you got in the Old Testament relates to the suffering of the Jewish people… Not to the Messiah that would come. Or else, all the Jews would have turned Christians after the Resurrection! This is clear. As I said, this fact doesn’t prevent us, Christians, to read these ancient texts as a meditation about Jesus’ Passion, death and Resurrection, but the fact remains that all these texts were not meant for this originally…
And as I already said. it’s not because an ancient text of a prophet seem to refer to one anonymous individual that this prophet had really in mind one single individual who would be the Messiah! It’s like the parables of Jesus talking about one single character that can be apply to every one who read or ear the parable… When a prophet use one single anonymous character, be sure that, most of the time if not always, he his talking about the whole Jewish people of his time…
Last thing: if, like Daveb and many other traditionalists think, the Jews of Jesus time would have known, thanks to the prophets of the Old Testament, about a suffering Messiah who would be put to death and then would rise after 3 days, then we would have serious reasons to doubt the testimony of the apostles by thinking that their account of a suffering Messiah named Jesus was just an invention based on what they knew about what the Messiah should look like and do… Their story of a guy named Jesus would have sound like all the Jews who knew the prophets had in mind about the Messiah! The truth is this: No Jews of that time (even those who were specialists of the Scriptures) had ever heard about the kind of suffering Messiah Jesus was! This explain very well why most Jews rejected the testimony of the apostles and, to me, this really smells like truth and not at all like an invention of some Jews desperate to see the coming of the Messiah.
And here’s another truth: The Jews of Jesus time (including those who were specialists of the Scriptures) had a very different portrait in mind concerning the Messiah, which was million miles away from the portrait of a suffering Messiah like Jesus! Some were thinking about a new king. Some about a new high priest. Some about a new prophet like Moses. But no one was thinking of the kind of Messiah Jesus was… Again, this smell truth! By wanting to make the Old Testament fit with the New, I don’t think the traditionalists Christians like Daveb realize that they are giving people good reasons to seriously doubts the reality of Jesus story and the honesty of the testimony done by the apostles! The New Testament present a brand new way to see God and his Messiah and this explain why most Jews rejected the testimony of the apostles! It’s human nature! Most people are secured in their mindset and don’t want to change it at all. We still see this constantly here today and a lot of time, we even see this on this blog!
It is a question of faith more than exegesis. The first believers, being Jews, looked back at the OT and connected these themes and prophecies to Jesus – one can see why. Did the OT author have Jesus in mind when he wrote of these things — no, how could he without a crystal ball? But that doesn’t mean the Spirit wasn’t inspiring him.
Do you believe in prophecy – a divine foreshadowing of things to come? If not, then linking Jesus to these OT themes is an exercise in confirmation bias – reading into the past things we wish to see a pattern for. This is a valid, rationalistic viewpoint.
But if you believe in prophecy, and that God has written Himself into our human story, then the OT is more than just a history of the Jewish people. It is the precursor to what will be the heart of the story. And what author doesn’t use set-ups and pay-offs in his tale? The OT is the set-up, the Gospels are the pay-off.
As you pointed out, many Jews did not ‘convert’ to be followers of Jesus post-Easter. But many did. Some saw the connection to the OT, some did not. God doesn’t force belief on any of us.
Correction: Most Jews did not see any connection. That’s an historical fact and you can see glimpses of that in the letters of Paul, which shows how hard it was for him to convert a Jew! As he said clearly: A crucified Messiah was a SCANDAL (very strong word!) for a Jew!
Read again: A SCANDAL!!! If the words of the prophets would have been understood by most Jews as talking about a suffering Messiah, there would have been no scandal at all for a Jew to admit Jesus was really the Messiah. The fact that it was a scandal for any normal Jew of Paul’s time truly indicates that no one had ever thought about a suffering Messiah prior to the Resurrection of Jesus.
On Good Friday, you can bet your house that even Jesus’ closest friends were thinking he was not the true Messiah of Israel since it was a SCANDAL for any Jew of that time to think the Messiah could end-up like that (dying on a cross like a criminal)!
The link that was made between some ancient texts and the events surrounding Jesus have been made later on by Christians who desperately wanted to convert Jews to Jesus (and to comfort the faith of the few Jews who had turned Christians). But looking at history, it doesn’t seem that making these links really helped to convert a lot of Jews to Christianism… The scandal (linked with the great novelty of this Messiah’s figure) was just to great for most of them to accept, while they prefered to stay in their old religious mindset, which is comforting for many people.
By the way, I don’t believe that any authors of the Old Testament had a divine foreshadowing of things to come… Did Jesus had one? I have great doubts about that, since I don’t think the future in space-time is already planed and, therefore, could be described in détails by someone with some divine wisdom or things like that.
“… like Daveb and many other traditionalists think, the Jews of Jesus time would have known, thanks to the prophets of the Old Testament, about a suffering Messiah who would be put to death and then would rise after 3 days, … ”
Where precisely in my contributions to this blog did I or anyone else ever say that? You will not be able to find any such a remark of mine! You have a reading problem, seeing only what you want to see, and wantonly make unjustified presumptions! David Goulet has hit the mark “… God has written Himself into our human story, … the OT is more than just a history of the Jewish people. It is the precursor to what will be the heart of the story. ” I am not a traditionalist, but you are a Cafeteria Catholic!
Dave, relax. I don’t care about your insult. But the thing is : in my mind, anyone who believe the ancient prophets had Jesus in mind when they were writing their books have a definitive « traditionalist » point of view, which is religiously biased and which is far from the reality. Period. If this definition don’t fit with your point of view, fine. If it does, then, like it or not, you’re a traditionalist Christian. By the way, I wasn’t aware that the term « traditionalist » was an insult…
Last thing for Dave (it’s an advice): You should read again the words of St Paul who tell us that, at the time, the idea of a crucified Messiah was a SCANDAL for a Jew! By meditating of what this mean, you should come to the same conclusion as me, i.e. that, up until the Resurrection, no Jew (including all the prophets) had any idea about a suffering Messiah! And even after the death and Resurrection of Jesus, most Jews stayed in their closed-minded set, which did not allow them to come to the truth about Jesus and his mission, which was to reveal the true face of God who is merficul love and nothing else and his plan of universal salvation for, not only all mankind, but all the other living creatures he created with love.
The simple fact that this idea of a suffering Messiah who died on the cross was a scandal for any normal Jew of St Paul’s time should give you a great clue about the fact that I’m right about that: no ancient prophet had Jesus in mind when they wrote. Most of them (if not all of them) had the suffering of the Jewish people in mind, which was not a suffering that would happen in the future, but that happened in the past and that was still present at the time they wrote their books! All these texts were meant to give hope to the people and, a lot of time, also to lead them to repentance… This doesn’t mean we can’t read these texts and associate the suffering of the Jewish people with the suffering of Christ, but that’s not something obligatory. Many Christians (and I include myself in that group) do not need these ancient texts for their faith and their hope. The New Testament is enough for them.
Dave I agree 100%; “The words have a clear enough application to the sufferings of Jesus” and one does not need to be a scholar to see this…As a child reading this for the first time, one has the instinctive knowledge of whom it was written…with no dilutions or bias of interpretation.
“unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter
the kingdom of heaven” Matthew 18:3.
Ron, please read my 2 comments above… It’s incredible to note how much traditionalists are attracted by the Shroud! :)
There are prophecies in the Old Testament (aside from Isaiah 53) that predict Jesus as the Messiah.
If Isaiah 53 referred to a suffering servant or Israel, how would these scriptures apply?
– Born of a Virgin
– Born in Bethlehem – He will come out of Bethlehem and be called Mighty God, Everelasting Father, Prince of Peace – Micah 5:2
– Pierced my hands and feet, cast lots for my garments – Psalm 22: 16-18
– Riding into Jerusalem on a donkey – Zechariah 9:9
– Daniel’s 70, 7s prophecy (Daniel 9: 24-27) predicted the exact date Jesus would be cut off.
Re Isaiah 53 and a JEWISH READING OF IT in light of “Yeshua’s Acts”:
Comments are closed.