Except that, we weren't--or, rather, I wasn't--talking about scripture in regard to what actual High Priests would (or would not) know about in regard to their own religion.
Agree with me that High Priests would know better than either of us about their own religion? I didn't think that would be a controversial statement.
Who "knew" that Jesus was a supernatural messiah sent from Jehovah? And how would they know such a thing? Again, in no way did Jesus fit anything in Isaiah 53. He was not afflicted (i.e., disfigured) in any way; he was not despised or held in low esteem (again, quite the contrary); he certainly did not keep his mouth shut, no matter whether you think that was just about complaining (what was the Sermon on the Mount if not one long list of complaints, if only tacit?); etc.
But, fine, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that one or two members of the Sanhedrin (SH from now on) just somehow
knew the Jesus was one of their long-awaited moschiachs (there were several, btw, not just one). So what?
Let's say from one individual's perspective ; they were at odds with what the others were doing , not brave enough to say He is the Messiah.
Not "brave" enough? What do you mean? Why would bravery have anything to do with it? You need to stop assuming that any of these people would have anything at all to fear. Do YOU fear your messiah? No, you love him and can't wait for him to return. The exact same thing would be true of any Jew.
Again, no one thinks they are unworthy and therefore they must try to kill divine beings. Christianity, in general, teaches that humans are born "wicked" ("sinful") and that their only redemption is "through" (whatever that means) Jesus just as Judaism teaches that when their messiah comes, it will mean a new paradise. So why wouldn't every Christian--born wicked and sinful and evil and unworthy and more than likely going to burn in hell--likewise think, "As soon as Jesus comes back, I'm going to have to kill him so that I don't lose my station in life and burn in hell"?
If it makes no sense for a Christian, then it makes no sense for a Jew either. So if any of the SH somehow
knew that Jesus was Elijah/Immanuel, they would have rejoiced and danced and sang at his arrival, as, again, it would have meant that they--all Jews--would be immediately delivered from their enemies and exalted and that peace and harmony and love and all that other stuff would be the new normal, etc.
Whether you understand it or not, the notion that any of the SH would look upon their own messiah as a threat to their power/position is an extremely anti-semitic notion. It's how a non-Jew (aka, a Roman) would have viewed Jews.
It's just like the money-changers that Jesus was supposedly angry with. Exchanging money was a necessary service, as people would come from miles away to go to the Temple and therefore carried with them coins of the realm, i.e., Roman currency and the like, that typically had what Jews considered "graven images" on their coins. Those graven images (pictures of Caesar, for example) would desecrate the Temple, so no Jew would get upset that there existed a service--even if it charged a fee for services--to exchange out any such coins.
Going into the Temple was, of course, voluntary. So if you did not know the rule against desecration, there was still a way for you to enter the Temple. All Jews would know this and it would be as controversial to them as, say, exchanging US dollars for Canadian (or any other country's currency) at the border. Less so, in fact, since, again, it would only apply to anyone who wanted to go into the Temple exclusively and not for other "tourists" who just wanted to see Jerusalem or the like.
The point being, that, again to a non-Jew that may seem scandalous, but to every Jew in Judea (which would have included Jesus, of course), the notion of charging a small service fee for exchanging out coins with graven images of them in order to maintain the sanctity of the Temple would never in a million years cause any kind of angry outburst.
Again, there's that anti-semitism subtly at work, because to someone else--a non-Jew--seeing something like that?
They charge their people money to go into the Temple!!?? Well, no, they did not. If anything, they charged a small exchange fee, again just like anyone does who travels to another country.
The point being, context matters.
Thinking this is not a good idea to do harm to Jesus
You've got the cart before the horse. Again, if Jesus were just some homeless carpenter Rabbi standing on the street corner shouting anti-orthodoxy, the SH wouldn't give two shits about him. There were MANY people doing the same thing all over the place, not to mention entire
sects of Jews--like the Essenes and the Sadducees--who were openly anti-orthodox.
If there is any "good" stereotype, it is that of Jews of all different stripes endlessly and openly disagreeing and arguing over the exact meanings of every phrase/word in the Torah, from the highest of the High Priests to the lowest of the low servants or slaves. The fact that anyone existed that challenged orthodoxy and/or the status quo was somehow seen as a threat to the political clout/power of the SH is, once again, a non-Jewish perspective on things.
There were some
four thousand Essenes alone in Jerusalem at that time who openly preached anti-orthodoxy (or, rather, a radically different form of orthodoxy, one might say, which amounts to the same thing), so again, the idea that one homeless carpenter squeaking on a corner somewhere in "downtown" Jerusalem would even be on the SH's radar in
any capacity is ludicrous.
Which is where the notion that it was actually Jesus'
popularity that was at the heart of the SH's irrational fear/hatred of him. But, once again, if that were the case--that Jesus was so massively popular among a large percentage of the Jews in Jerusalem (which is what he'd have to be in order for them to feel in any way threatened by him in order to want to
murder him)--then he couldn't possibly have been the person Isaiah is talking about in I 53.
and would probably have said to the elder of the priests with the troubled feeling "I QUIT!"... or made some other excuse to leave the group.
Again, why? If for some inexplicable reason the other members wished to inflict harm on a homeless carpenter Rabbi for no reason--and some other members thought this guy was their divine savior/messiah--why would any of those people quit the group and not instead warn the others and stay to fight for their beliefs or simply watch as Jehovah smites them all? THEY wouldn't be in any harm's way from Jehovah for doing so! Quite the opposite in fact.
There may also be the odd few that did know ,by noticing the comparisons of Jesus and Is 53
Again, how? It isn't applicable no matter how you look at Jesus' life, particularly
while he was still alive, since the majority of the description in I 53 would only remotely be applicable only after Jesus was (allegedly) killed. Iow, only
after certain things the SH allegedly set in motion, not during and certainly not before for all the reasons given.
Although by not "fearing" any wrath reprisals from God may be down to their "self-delusion" or they " misinterpret" the prophecies in Isaiah.
Yeah, well, "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not bear false witness" were still the bigger hits on their hit parade, so, no, they would have been under no delusion they could somehow fool Jehovah by trying to kill an innocent man, let alone one that some among them claimed was their messiah.
Again, you're (presumably) a Christian, right? And not even a High Priest, I further presume. Do you think YOU would not need to fear any reprisals from your God if you murdered or conspired to murder an innocent man just because he was more popular than you?
Sorry, Learner, but no matter how you slice it, it makes no sense and, at best, proves that Jesus could not have been the person Isaiah describes in 53, let alone anywhere else.
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.
How indeed ... a homeless guy. However Jesus ... is another level.
Again, no, unless you are arguing that Jesus was
massively popular; so popular in fact that he somehow directly challenged the ruling authority of the SH. Think about what that would entail. Estimates
vary, but at that time, there were between 3,000,000 to 5,000,000 Jews in the world. In Jerusalem alone (pre-70 war and in a daily basis sense), the estimates are around
70,000 to 80,000.
The SH were, of course, the most exalted and highest of the high; like
our Supreme Court, except there were 71 of them. Yes, 71. So for
any of them to feel in any way threatened from just the Jews that lived in Jerusalem on a regular, daily basis, then Jesus would have needed to be not just popular, but so popular that a good 50-60% of Jews would be openly willing to back him in some political way (or seditionist way) against the SH (as positions were evidently appointed from the following sources: "former High Priests, representatives of the 24 priestly castes, scribes, doctors of the law, and representatives of the most prominent families.")
So, once again, in order for any of the
seventy one members of the SH to feel in any way intimidated by a homeless carpenter rabbi preaching what
thousands of Essenes and any other nutcase was spouting on a street corner at the time, it would necessarily have had to have meant that this person had
tremendous sway over the minds of some
forty to fifty thousand Jews in Jerusalem alone and some one to two
million Jews world wide (for the time).
And
then the threat would only be dire enough to act against him
iff [sic] Jesus had been inciting those tens of thousands of devote, fanatical Jews to rise up against the SH and overthrow them or kill them and instead do....what exactly? Put Jesus in charge of everything? He wasn't preaching anything of the kind, if the gospels are to be believed. He was preaching exaclty the opposite in fact. Be meek and you inherit the earth. Rejoice in your suffering because it means you're blessed. Turn the other cheek when struck. Don't risk going before the courts. Etc., etc., etc.
So even if he were
massively popular, it still wouldn't constitute any kind of threat to the political clout/power of the 71 members of the Jewish Supreme Court any more than if Kanye West were to instruct all of his fans to riot against the US Supreme Court. It just didn't work that way.
Which, once again, would conclusively prove that Jesus could not have been the person Isaiah was describing in I 53 (or elsewhere). You can't have it both ways. Either no one held Jesus in high esteem, in which case the SH had zero reason to fear him or he was held in such high esteem that the SH feared him, but then he couldn't be the one Isaiah prophesied.
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.
The political power I was talking about was between the Pharisees and the High priests. We just happened to stay on the high priests for the last few posts. The Pharisees eventually won out, becoming the dominant Jewish sect. There are no more priests sects (sadducees etc..)
Irrelevant to the point.
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.
I can mostly agree here. Jesus would no doubt have an effect on both pharisees and high priest's political status.
Then, once again, he could not have been who Isaiah was talking about in 53 (or elsewhere).
I disagree with your figuratively. No beauty or majesty means He was "physically ordinary in appearance.
No, it couldn't as you are conveniently omitting certain qualifiers (emphasis mine):
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted
...
He was oppressed and afflicted
This is very clearly describing physical afflictions. And, of course, there's the fact that I 53 is not in isolation. The storyline of the "suffering servant" actually begins with I 52 (and Jews consider it to be in
reference to Israel, not a person at all and certainly not their moschiach). There we have (emphasis mine):
The Suffering and Glory of the Servant
13 See, my servant will act wisely;
he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.
14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him—
his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being
and his form marred beyond human likeness—
15 so he will sprinkle many nations,
and kings will shut their mouths because of him.
For what they were not told, they will see,
and what they have not heard, they will understand.
But, of course, cherry-picking has its advantages, so you don't consider I 52 to be connected to I 53, but a simple demonstration proves it:
The Suffering and Glory of the Servant
See, my servant will act wisely;
he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted.
Just as there were many who were appalled at him—
his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being
and his form marred beyond human likeness—
so he will sprinkle many nations,
and kings will shut their mouths because of him.
For what they were not told, they will see,
and what they have not heard, they will understand.
Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
Etc. Again, everything there directly contradicts the power-mad theory. Jesus could not possibly have been "despised" and held in "low esteem" AND been immensely popular and held in the highest esteem to the point where 71 members of the Jewish Supreme Court feared his popularity against them.
Again, you can't have it both ways. You keep trying to, of course, but then that's the problem. Pull one thread...
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.
You mentioned others were described that way in
Isaiah:. Who are they and where is it mentioned?
The
other is the actual messiah Isaiah is referring to. Again, 53 is just a continuation of 52, which is, in turn, a continuation of 51, which is in turn a continuation from as far back as 41. It's all explained very succinctly here
here.
It doesn't matter who comes after
It most certainly does to just about every one of the millions of Jews left in the world.
Jesus beats everyone to the post, so to speak.
Nope. There is not a single Jewish prophecy that applies to Jesus. I know you think there is (and have been repeatedly lied to that there is), but just as I have done here, every single one of such claims is easily and readily disproven, most notably from the simple fact that nothing Isaiah prophesied about what would happen when the messiah came happened when Jesus came.
The first mention of any kind of "messiah" in Isaiah is in 4 with the "Branch of the Lord":
2 In that day the Branch of the Lord will be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the land will be the pride and glory of the survivors in Israel. 3 Those who are left in Zion, who remain in Jerusalem, will be called holy, all who are recorded among the living in Jerusalem. 4 The Lord will wash away the filth of the women of Zion; he will cleanse the bloodstains from Jerusalem by a spirit of judgment and a spirit of fire. 5 Then the Lord will create over all of Mount Zion and over those who assemble there a cloud of smoke by day and a glow of flaming fire by night; over everything the glory will be a canopy. 6 It will be a shelter and shade from the heat of the day, and a refuge and hiding place from the storm and rain.
None of that happened when Jesus arrived in Jerusalem. Not even figuratively, let alone literally.
Then in I 5, we have a song presumably about God's "vineyard":
I will sing for the one I love
a song about his vineyard:
My loved one had a vineyard
on a fertile hillside.
2 He dug it up and cleared it of stones
and planted it with the choicest vines.
He built a watchtower in it
and cut out a winepress as well.
Then he looked for a crop of good grapes,
but it yielded only bad fruit.
3 “Now you dwellers in Jerusalem and people of Judah,
judge between me and my vineyard.
Is that the messiah? No, because a little later it clearly states:
The vineyard of the Lord Almighty
is the nation of Israel,
and the people of Judah
are the vines he delighted in.
And the rest of 5 is about how God (not his messiah, but God) is going to do a whole lot of "woe" to everyone.
Then we have in 6 Isaiah's "commission" from God:
6 In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple. 2 Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying.
...
8 Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, “Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?”
And I said, “Here am I. Send me!”
9 He said, “Go and tell this people:
“‘Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’
10 Make the heart of this people calloused;
make their ears dull
and close their eyes.[a]
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.”
11 Then I said, “For how long, Lord?”
And he answered:
“Until the cities lie ruined
and without inhabitant,
until the houses are left deserted
and the fields ruined and ravaged,
12 until the Lord has sent everyone far away
and the land is utterly forsaken.
13 And though a tenth remains in the land,
it will again be laid waste.
But as the terebinth and oak
leave stumps when they are cut down,
so the holy seed will be the stump in the land.”
And that then takes us to 7, aka, "The Sign of Immanuel."
13 Then Isaiah said, “Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of humans? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you[c] a sign: The virgin[d] will conceive and give birth to a son, and[e] will call him Immanuel.[f] 15 He will be eating curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, 16 for before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The Lord will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria.”
Assyria, the Lord’s Instrument
18 In that day the Lord will whistle for flies from the Nile delta in Egypt and for bees from the land of Assyria. 19 They will all come and settle in the steep ravines and in the crevices in the rocks, on all the thornbushes and at all the water holes. 20 In that day the Lord will use a razor hired from beyond the Euphrates River—the king of Assyria—to shave your head and private parts, and to cut off your beard also. 21 In that day, a person will keep alive a young cow and two goats. 22 And because of the abundance of the milk they give, there will be curds to eat. All who remain in the land will eat curds and honey. 23 In that day, in every place where there were a thousand vines worth a thousand silver shekels,[g] there will be only briers and thorns. 24 Hunters will go there with bow and arrow, for the land will be covered with briers and thorns. 25 As for all the hills once cultivated by the hoe, you will no longer go there for fear of the briers and thorns; they will become places where cattle are turned loose and where sheep run.
So, yeah, flies and bees and a guy keeping a cow and two goats that somehow will have such abundant milk that it will fee all of Jerusalem or Assyria or something and briers and thorns! Lot's and lot's of briers and thorns.
And then 8:
5 The Lord spoke to me again:
6 “Because this people has rejected
the gently flowing waters of Shiloah
and rejoices over Rezin
and the son of Remaliah,
7 therefore the Lord is about to bring against them
the mighty floodwaters of the Euphrates—
the king of Assyria with all his pomp.
It will overflow all its channels,
run over all its banks
8 and sweep on into Judah, swirling over it,
passing through it and reaching up to the neck.
Its outspread wings will cover the breadth of your land,
Immanuel!”
9 Raise the war cry,[c] you nations, and be shattered!
Listen, all you distant lands.
Prepare for battle, and be shattered!
Prepare for battle, and be shattered!
10 Devise your strategy, but it will be thwarted;
propose your plan, but it will not stand,
for God is with us.[d]
Again, none of that happened. And shit gets really real in 9:
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the greatness of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the Lord Almighty
will accomplish this.
It didn't. At all. Nor the rest:
The Lord’s Anger Against Israel
8 The Lord has sent a message against Jacob;
it will fall on Israel.
9 All the people will know it—
Ephraim and the inhabitants of Samaria—
who say with pride
and arrogance of heart,
10 “The bricks have fallen down,
but we will rebuild with dressed stone;
the fig trees have been felled,
but we will replace them with cedars.”
11 But the Lord has strengthened Rezin’s foes against them
and has spurred their enemies on.
12 Arameans from the east and Philistines from the west
have devoured Israel with open mouth.
Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away,
his hand is still upraised.
13 But the people have not returned to him who struck them,
nor have they sought the Lord Almighty.
14 So the Lord will cut off from Israel both head and tail,
both palm branch and reed in a single day;
15 the elders and dignitaries are the head,
the prophets who teach lies are the tail.
16 Those who guide this people mislead them,
and those who are guided are led astray.
17 Therefore the Lord will take no pleasure in the young men,
nor will he pity the fatherless and widows,
for everyone is ungodly and wicked,
every mouth speaks folly.
Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away,
his hand is still upraised.
18 Surely wickedness burns like a fire;
it consumes briers and thorns,
it sets the forest thickets ablaze,
so that it rolls upward in a column of smoke.
19 By the wrath of the Lord Almighty
the land will be scorched
and the people will be fuel for the fire;
they will not spare one another.
20 On the right they will devour,
but still be hungry;
on the left they will eat,
but not be satisfied.
Each will feed on the flesh of their own offspring:
21 Manasseh will feed on Ephraim, and Ephraim on Manasseh;
together they will turn against Judah.
Yet for all this, his anger is not turned away,
his hand is still upraised.
Then in 10 it gets even weirder with mention of both a "Holy One" and a "Mighty One." And then, of course, we have 11, with the "Branch of Jesse" that so many apologists try to apply to Jesus:
A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse;
from his roots a Branch will bear fruit.
2 The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him—
the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding,
the Spirit of counsel and of might,
the Spirit of the knowledge and fear of the Lord—
3 and he will delight in the fear of the Lord.
He will not judge by what he sees with his eyes,
or decide by what he hears with his ears;
4 but with righteousness he will judge the needy,
with justice he will give decisions for the poor of the earth.
He will strike the earth with the rod of his mouth;
with the breath of his lips he will slay the wicked.
5 Righteousness will be his belt
and faithfulness the sash around his waist.
Seems good, right? Trouble is:
The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling[a] together;
and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.
9 They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea.
10 In that day the Root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples; the nations will rally to him, and his resting place will be glorious.
Never happened.
Which is why some cult apologists try to claim that this is in regard to the second coming Jesus (as if Jesus/God fucked everything up the first time and needed a do-over). And it also means that anything after--that says "in that day"--is likewise not applicable to the "first" time Jesus came. But the problem is, where is it mentioned about a "first time"? There is no mention of a "first coming." Unless we just inexplicably consider the previously mentioned "branch" NOT the "branch of Jesse" and the "Holy One" and the "Mighty One" and basically anything prior to Isaiah 11 not applicable to Jesus and Jesus is only the "Branch of Jesse" starting with 11.
And so on.
