What the high priests may have been or may not of been , is the interpretation discussed between both of us.
"Interpretation"? What do you mean?
I used Isaiah 53: in context to what the priests should have expected as a prophesy.
As did I, but why are you limiting it to just 53?
But yes as you mention here :
"the High Priests (the holiest of holies and anointed ones) *knew that Jesus was their Messiah (debatable)* --the one their religion teaches them will one day come from Jehovah to kill all of the enemies of the Jews and those who are not holy/anointed in preparation for their God's arrival in Israel to forever rule the Universe from His throne amongst His chosen people--" This maybe all they were looking for.
I said "if" the High Priests somehow knew and what do you mean "all they were looking for"?
Many Jews today don't know whats in Is 53
It is a safe bet that the High Priests of all Judea--some two thousands years ago--knew precisely what was in Isaiah and what their own prophets prophesied, but if they did not know, then why would they care at all about a homeless carpenter Rabbi preaching anything at all, let alone the exact same non-orthodox teachings as hundreds of others were teaching at that time as well?
How--exactly--does the political power of, say, Pope Francis and the Holy See (i.e., the Catholic equivalent of the Sanhedrin today) get in any way challenged by some homeless guy standing on a street corner in Rome--hell, in the Vatican courtyard if you prefer--shouting about the sins of opulence and excess of Catholicism and the like? Careful--once again--about Isaiah 53:3.
you said:
me said:
So, once again, you are doubling-down on the theory that the wisest and most venerated holy men--the High Priests--all suddenly forgot ALL of the above and thought (in unison), "Jesus is most definitely the divine, supernatural moshiach sent from Jehovah and prophesied by Isaiah--whose very presence means all of our enemies will be vanquished and we will all soon be in the Messianic Age of enlightenment and salvation and peace, where none will suffer or need or want again and all those who believe in Jehovah and obey him will be forgiven in his eyes--so we must KILL this unkillable divine, supernatural being or be out our jobs. And Jehovah will never know what we did, soooooo, we're safe."
Does that make any sense to you? To save our jobs, we must kill a divine savior and God won't ever find out what we did.
I see the logic you are making here but ... you're making the high priests out to be far less intelligent than they were (self-destructive) which doesn't really make sense.
Ooh boy. Ok, first,
I am not making them out to be anything; I am pointing out that the idea of the "power mad" theory (which is what you were in essence proposing and what is implicit in the gospels) is ridiculous. The theory is that the High Priests knew that Jesus was in fact their messiah, so they conspired with Pilate to kill him, because they didn't want to lose their jobs/political power/corruption racket.
Secondly, if, as you say, they were more intelligent than that, then you would be in agreement with me that the theory is nonsense. But without that theory, then there is no reason for the Sanhedrin to conspire with their enemy--Pilate--to try and convince him to kill Jesus. That would--again--include the "lesser" notion that the Sanhedrin did not think Jesus was a divine being--i.e., not their messiah--but just an extremely popular Rabbi preaching non-orthodoxy and therefore the Sanhedrin considered him a threat to their political power.
Again, not only does that not make any sense (see the Pope analogy above), it would also contradict Isaiah 53 in regard to YOUR other argument (i.e., that Jesus was the person Isaiah was talking about in I 53).
Clear now? There are two issues here that you are conflating. 1) is the power-mad theory behind the Sanhedrin inexplicably wanting to conspire with Pilate to kill Jesus and 2) is the fact that if it were in any way true (messiah or no messiah), it necessarily would mean that Jesus was not as Isaiah prophesied; i.e, that he was not, "despised and rejected by mankind" or held "in low esteem" and that he did, in fact, have a "beauty or majesty to attract us to him" (if you take that part figuratively and not in the literal context as it clearly is in Isaiah).
So, no matter how you slice it, Isaiah 53 in particular (or any part of Isaiah in general) could not be describing Jesus and the Sanhedrin had no reason to conspire with Pilate to kill Jesus.
And that is setting aside the fact that the Sanhedrin could have killed Jesus themselves (no, there was no prohibition against Jews stoning anyone to death for blasphemy as is affirmed by the fact that they tried to stone Jesus to death
twice before) and the fact that the "trial" of Jesus never could have happened the way it is depicted; from a Roman Prefect inexplicably wishing to appease a crowd of Jews by letting a
seditionist/murderer (of Roman citizens) go free and then at the same time ordering the
execution of a man he found completely innocent, betraying and revealing the Sanhedrin's plot to the festival crowd, no less, and yet, somehow, in spite of the fact that Sanhedrin had colluded with Pilate in the first place because they feared the crowd would riot against them, now, just two days later and after having their traitorous act betrayed by Pilate are just magically capable of whispering the crowd into inexplicably demanding Jesus be killed for no reason.
And please don't bring up the idiotic "We have no King but Caesar" as they did have kings and Jesus never was or claimed to be a King. Caesar, if he did actually make any such decree, certainly didn't mean
figurative Kings. But I digress.
They would have to follow through in the "acceptance" of the Messiah first! (as it is with "believers" of Christ ... be forgiven)
Yeah, no. That's a Christian cult concept, not a Jewish cult concept. In the Jewish cult, God does whatever he wants and his messengers are typically supernatural beings that in turn just do whatever God wants. There are no meaningless rules like, "You have to believe the messiah is the messiah for the messiah to kill everyone that isn't anointed" or the like. They just go ahead and act and you are either killed or saved. No magical "belief" tokens are necessary.
you said:
me said:
He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
8 By oppression[a] and judgment he was taken away.
So, again, Jesus was never personally oppressed and certainly not afflicted; he did open his mouth throughout his whole life (most definitely within the period prior to the "trial"); he was not "led a like a lamb to the slaughter" nor was he silent before his "shearers"; nor was he taken away by "oppression and judgment." Pilate supposedly washed his hands of it all and it was entirely the "fault" of the Jewish crowd that he was inexplicably killed for no reason.
Well thats your interpretation, mine is that "not opening His mouth " meant He didn't protest or complain.
Ok, but he
did precisely that
three times to God, no less, allegedly:
Mark 14:33 He took Peter, James and John along with him, and he began to be deeply distressed and troubled. 34 “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death,” he said to them. “Stay here and keep watch.”
35 Going a little farther, he fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. 36 “Abba,[f] Father,” he said, “everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.”
37 Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. “Simon,” he said to Peter, “are you asleep? Couldn’t you keep watch for one hour? 38 Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”
39 Once more he went away and prayed the same thing. 40 When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. They did not know what to say to him.
41 Returning the third time, he said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Enough! The hour has come. Look, the Son of Man is delivered into the hands of sinners. 42 Rise! Let us go! Here comes my betrayer!”
That's Mark's version, of course. Matthew's has some added flourishes, like the
threatening, angry Jesus:
24 "The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”
And then Matthew has him falling on his
face, no less, to pray "deeply grieved":
6 Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and said to His disciples, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” 37 And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be grieved and distressed. 38 Then He *said to them, “My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death; remain here and keep watch with Me.”
39 And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.” 40 And He came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, “So, you men could not keep watch with Me for one hour? 41 Keep watching and praying that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”
42 He went away again a second time and prayed, saying, “My Father, if this cannot pass away unless I drink it, Your will be done.” 43 Again He came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. 44 And He left them again, and went away and prayed a third time, saying the same thing once more. 45 Then He came to the disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour is at hand and the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. 46 Get up, let us be going; behold, the one who betrays Me is at hand!”
Luke's embellishment of Mark's story is even more pronounced (emphasis mine):
Luke 22:39-44 . Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. On reaching the place, he said to them, ‘Pray that you will not fall into temptation.’ He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, ‘Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.’ An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground.”
Deeply grieved, sweating blood, falling on his face and praying desperately to God
three times. One would think once should be enough--or, actually, zero times would be enough--for Jesus/God/himself to pray to Jesus/God/himself to not have to go through with his own torture and death to appease Jesus/God/himself, but there you have it.
But, let me guess, that is just "my" interpretation and you don't think that getting upset with his disciples for not being able to stay awake during his time of need and throwing himself on his face--deeply grieved/anguished/sweating profusely--begging God to change his fate
three times constitutes protesting and/or complaining?
And, of course, you missed several other examples of why Isaiah 53 (or any other part of Isaiah) could not possibly apply to Jesus--such as the fact that Jesus was no "afflicted" in any way and, if we are to believe Mark's passion narrative, was NOT taken away in oppression and judgement (again, Pilate declares him
innocent in fact and washes his hands of any wrongdoing, betraying the Sanhedrin's collusion and is only ordering Jesus killed to inexplicably appease the crowd of Jews who just magically want Jesus killed now, because the Sanhedrin somehow crowd-whispered them into demanding he be killed for no reason)--but that's all right. You'd have to.
