Hi Tyler.
Interesting you picked ISAIAH 53 to contradict Jesus fulfilling any prophesies. The problem is not with the Bible but with your not understanding this is PRIMARILY about the SECOND COMING MESSIAH not the first. Jesus is suppposed to fulfill most of Isaiah 53 at the second coming not at the first.
So actually, I AGREE with you on most of the points that Jesus at the first coming did not fulfill these things but he wasn't supposed to (having children for instance); but at the second coming, when Jesus arrives as an imperfect man, the prodigal son, then he does fulfill these things.
I'll just comment briefly on this. But the main point is, you can't blame the Bible or Jesus for not fulfilling prophecy because you did not understand that the messianic prophesies are sometimes applicable to BOTH the first and second coming Messiahs and sometimes only to one of them.
Isaiah 53 can not refur to Jesus for the following reasons:
a) Jesus was never sick. Some say that he was sick during the crucifixion, but physical trauma (e.g. execution) is not considered sickness in the normal sense of the word.
At the second coming when Jesus appears as the PRODIGAL SON, this sickness is considered a reference to his spiritual sickness as a sinner. In the parable about "Lazarus and the Rich Man" Jesus is depicted outside the Rich Man's gait with ulcers licked by dogs. Of course, later Lazarus ends up in the "bosom position of the Father Abraham", obviously a reference to God, and thus is symbolic of the Messiah since that is the position unique to Jesus (John 1:18). Anyway, these ulcers are licked by dogs, dogs in scripture a reference to homosexuals and thus the "sickness" and despise that Isa 53 refers to is the prodigal son's succombing to homosexuality for a while before being redeemed. That's the reference to his garments at the second coming as king-priest at Zechariah 3 being befouled garments, representing his past sins that had to be forgiven before he inherits the identity of Jesus Christ to enable Christ to reenter human form in the modern age. Note how he gets "new robes" in Zechariah 3 and the same thing happens to the PRODIGAL SON when he returns. The private banquet the father gives the younger son is the same "wedding feast" of the second coming. I can give more details later, but that's the basics.
BUT IT AGREE! The original, perfect Jesus was not sickly or sick, so how could he truly fulfill this? The second coming messiah, the ordinary man, does fulfill this via his spiritual sickness and "death" as practicing homosexual. Thus Revelation describes the Messiah as being "impaled in SODOM..." associating his spiritual death in the environment of homosexuals.
b) Jesus had no children. Some say this refers to disciples or spiritual children, but the word "zera" is common in the Tanach and, when applied to people, always means linear descendants, not someone's disciples or followers.
Very good point!!! Somebody is ACTUALLY reading the Bible and seeing if it applies. Right! The first-coming Jesus could not have children since by giving up that right he purchased Adam's children from sin. For this same reason, giving up his fleshly body, he could not take it up again at the second coming so must take up the body of one of his anointed cult followers, only this follower is the "prodigal son" in scripture. This indivual, though homosexual, was prophesied to be a father, not Jesus of the first coming.
c) Jesus was not buried with the wicked. One cannot even say he died with the wicked since the Hebrew "rashaeem" is plural and, according to the crucifixion story, one of the thieves next to him ended up in heaven and so was not wicked.
Now you might not accept this explanation, but in application to the second coming, this "burial" and "death" has to do with the spiritual death of the prodigal son Messiah. The impalement of this pre-Messiah in "Sodom and Egypt" (Sodom=homosexual subculture, Egypt=African subculture). If you note the parable of the prodigal son, we learn that he spent time with "prostitutes" but when compared to the parable of the "Rich Man and Lazarus" he was homosexual, so when you combine the two, it was in the company of male prostitutes that he spent his time. Likely a reference to "pigs" has something to do with that reference as well (i.e. penned in ones?). But beyond that, during his death like absence from God's favor he would be in the company of rich persons, so that reference would apply to those he would be around. Biblically that would be literal rich men or Europeans vs non-Europeans. Since the Messiah was prophesied to resemble an "Ethiopian eunuch" (Note the Etiopian eunuch is reading your favorite passage, Isaiah 53!!!! This is so his modern-day followers would understand how the Messiah would appear, that is, as a black eunuch (i.e. castrated male, effeminate, etc.). So in contrast to that, the reference likely suggests he would be found in the environment of the "rich" which is a reference to the rich world of the white man, etc., besides perhaps knowing some wealthy individuals personally in a way that would have him associated with them, etc. to fulfill the passage.
d) Jesus did not have long life. Missionaries say he had long life in heaven, but that, again, is stretching the meaning of the word.
Of course, no problem with this verse. If you check Zechariah 3 you'll see the prodigal son Messiah at the second coming being granted the kingship and a long life and prosperity. This is a prophesy of his being approved for eternal life like the other faithful anointed ones. And I suppose you are correct, Jesus of the first coming did not live a long life.
e) verse 9 "Nor was there deceit in his mouth." doesn't apply because Jesus lied to his family about going to Jerusalem . (John 7:8-10), and lied in saying that he never taught in secret (see John 18:20 , vs. Matt. 24:3 and others).
Hmmmmm. Well I don't know about Jesus himself not having deceit in his mouth, I can't agree with that entirely. But, again, the primary application would be to the second coming messiah, and this would be a reference to his focus on detail and honesty about the truth. Notice that "Lazarus" though having his homosexual weakness is longing for the bread from the table of the Rich Man. The Rich Man being the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses. They are not giving him true bread. Later on, he is given all the spiritual truth he long for in the form of Biblical understanding, etc. Thus he is associated with truth and being honest. Part of his character is loving truth and not deception. Thus even if the WTS told him something that didn't work out well in the Bible, he would reject it, etc. Being truthful is part of his character. But that applies to the first-coming Jesus as well. I don't think there is a strong point here about him not fulfilling this part of the prophecy, this is rather generic and subjective.
a) contrary to verse 2, Jesus is never described as physically unattractive;
Thank-you! Jesus was a perfect man and might have even been especially beautiful physically, perhaps on the heavy side though (he liked to eat and drink), maybe not. But definitely not the "deformed" and unattractive individual described in Isa. 53 though Isaiah doesn't say he is "unattractive" just that he would not be someone outstanding to look upon; not the dead-known 10 you'd expect from the Messiah. An average-looking person basically. And like a "reed", meaning on the slender side and disproportionately tall. These are specifics to help the anointed who locate Jesus at the second coming to understand what the look for. It doesn't sound like much, but you can eliminate short fat people or incredible beauties. He is supposed to be "ethiopian" looking so that gives you an idea what to look for. Plus he is a "eunuch" in appearance, thus on the "soft side". All little clues about the person Jesus would inhabit at the second coming per the Bible. These, again, are fulfilled at the SECOND COMING by the IMPERFECT JESUS, not at the first coming!!! No problem with the second-coming Jesus being ordinary looking and not handsome per say. Bible doesn't say he was ugly though. Just not a pinup type!
g) far from being rejected and despised as verse 3 says, the Gospel writers describe him as being popular;
Absolutely! Jesus was a descendant of King David and they knew it. He was quite popular and did many miracles. So this would not apply to the first-coming Messiah. But the second coming Messiah, the person who becomes the Messiah, during the time of his prodigal son error, was DESPISED. Mainly because he was homosexual but also because he was "ethiopian" (i.e. black). Blacks and gays are discriminated against, of course and despised. And this is what is being described. Because of this, he was secretive in nature, hiding his sexuality, etc. He was a man of shame and rejected by his religion. Thus you see him as Lazarus, rejected by the Rich Man by being outside his gate. This means he is disfellowshipped for his homosexuality and despised by those in his religion. In addition, because of his effeminate character, being a "sissy" type, he was also despised by other boys who were his peers because he didn't fit in. Not a happy childhood, that of an effeminate gay boy.
h) contrary to verse 7, Jesus did a lot of talking; and
Now this is a SPECIFIC reference that is fulfilled by the "ethiopian eunuch" Messiah at the second coming. Note this is the very verse quoted in Acts that the Ethiopian eunuch reads. Thus the verse says: "He was hard pressed and he was letting himself be aflied, yet he would not open his mouth. He was bein brought just like a sheep to the slaughtering...he also would not open his mouth." I know I'm being brief here, but basically, what happens is the prodigal son, before he receives the spirit of Jesus has to die, symbolically. That is, give up his personal life. And this has to be witnessed. Thus this verse is a reference to his willingly going to his death. Thus at the second coming some kind of mock-death was set up wherein he would willing offer to die without speaking out. This is similar to Abraham offering up Isaac but being stopped just before. Same thing. This individual had to openly accept being assasinated or killed in some way, a way that was willingly his choice, that is, in a way that if he spoke up it could have stopped that action. So this is specific and not really in general talking about this person being a silent individual. Just that he would not yell out when threatened with death. So that had to be fulfilled. He has to symbolically die from his personal life before inheriting the life of Jesus as the Messiah.
i) instead of being non-violent (verse 9), Jesus overurned tables, chased people from their jobs, and promised to bring swords.
Hmmmm.. Well this is interesting. I'm reading this again for the first time. All I'd offer is that certainly one might find a contrast here in this scripture to the first-coming Jesus, though I think others would find him a peaceable man. But on the other hand, this is a referral to the character of the second-coming prodigal son Messiah, whom we know has been described otherwise as a homosexual and a "eunuch" and thus an effeminate person and thus of a receding and quiet character which is consistent with the "non-violent" ("non-atheletic"?) reference here in general. You know, the Bible is sort of making it clear this ain't a MACHO chap we're dealing with. Look for someone on the other end of "macho"....(smile)
Anyway, hope that was helpful. I'll post the an overview of the second coming as the Prodigal Son (Actually I did already but will add it here since it's pertinent to the above).
BOTTOM LINE, I agree that the Jesus of the first coming DID NOT FULFILL this, but that's your error since you didn't know it was to be fulfilled primarily by the second-coming Messiah, not the first. And for future reference, all the Messianic prophephesies have to be considered in the context of either the first or the second coming.
Case in point where it speaks of "putting on high what is low and putting on low what is high" in terms of the Messiah or God making the king whom he chooses, "even the LOWLIEST OF MANKIND" does not fit Jesus of the first coming, because as you said, he was of noble birth and magnificent. These are references to the "KINGSHIP" messiah, which is the second coming, and a reference to the Messiah as the ex-homosexual prodigal son. That is what is low that became high (like Lazarus), and Lazarus puts to shame what is high (the Governing Body of JW's who makes itself a god in God's house)...That is, Lazarus, the former disfellowshipped homosexual who loves truth, ends up with the advanced truth and thus what is low becomes high; but the Rich Man, the Governing Body with much research and knowledge at it's disposal but misuses this being more focussed on getting more numbers into the organization and building more kingdom halls, is rejected in the end and thus what is high becomes low. And now he is tormented by Lazarus since Lazarus now is the Messiah and has the truth and they are in a spiritual void and darkness with no truth and thus are in anguish. He wants Lazarus to give him a break in some way, but he can't.
THANKS for at least being HONEST ENOUGH to recognize Isa 53 does not apply primarily to Jesus of the first coming. On that we agree! But whether the second coming Messiah, whom Isa 53 is primarily about fulfills all this is something that must be checked out.
Glad to have been of help!
JCanon
