Monday, 14 October 2013

Hebrew Scriptures refute Contra Brown: Examination of Isaiah 53:9 by Gassen Duu.

"“His grave is with the wicked,and his deaths are with the rich.” (Isaiah 53:9)
The servant of God is buried with the wicked, but the Christian scriptures tell us that Jesus was buried with the rich and not with the wicked. God’s servant is to die with the rich, yet the Christian scriptures tell us that Jesus did not die with the rich, but with the wicked. It is obvious that Isaiah did not have Jesus in mind when he uttered these words." - Contra Brown

Isaiah 53 (NKJV)
9 And they made His grave with the wicked— But with the rich at His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.

Here we see an example of “grave” and "death”, being synonymous parallelism of the Hebrew Scriptures, mean the same thing.

Other examples:
Psalm 6:5
For in death there is no remembrance of You; In the grave who will give You thanks?

Psalm 49
14 Like sheep they are laid in the graveDeath shall feed on them; The upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; And their beauty shall be consumed in the grave, far from their dwelling.

Psalm 89
48 What man can live and not see death? Can he deliver his life from the power of thegrave?

Hosea 13
14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death. O Death, I will be your plagues! O Grave, I will be your destruction! Pity is hidden from My eyes.”

Poetic parallelism

Isaiah 53 is poetry in terms of it's form. Hebraic parallelism is used in Isaiah 53:9. I have given other examples of scriptures above.

You can see “grave” and “death” are synonymous parallelism in the verse.
Isaiah 53
9 And they made His grave קִבְרוֹ with the wicked—
But with the rich at His death בְּמֹתָיו,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.

Another verse that demonstrates anonymous parallelism with these two words is
Psalm 88
5 Adrift among the dead בַּמֵּתִים
Like the slain who lie in the grave קֶבֶר,
Whom You remember no more,

Yeshua was sinless and He died with the wicked: His being innocent is given in statements “He had done no violence”, “Nor was any deceit in His mouth” (V.9),and His being wrongly accused and put to death with the wicked: “He poured out His soul unto death, And “He was numbered with the transgressors” (V.12).

The grave of the wicked was given to Him, but He ended up buried in the rich man’s tomb.

In Isaiah 53, we see the prophecy of the Righteous Servant being put to death with the wicked and buried in the tomb of the rich. Yeshua fulfilled the prophecy.

Whoever reads the whole chapter Isaiah 53 objectively cannot deny that it is Yeshua the Messiah being prophesied. Only hyper literalists are trying to pick faults from the minute details. The scriptures cited above refute them.

(All emphasis in scriptures is mine.)

Gassen Duu

9 comments:

  1. I find it rather ironic that one who is not proficient in the Hebrew language claims to be able to use the "Hebrew Scriptures" [actually, (mis)translations thereof] to validate his apologetics.
    If you want to honestly learn, from a native-born Israeli Jew, what "Isaiah 53" teaches (and doesn't teach), I direct you to the following two articles:

    1. Who is the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53? Part I – The Jewish Interpretation, Valid or Not? - http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Isa53JP.pdf
    2. Who Is the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53? Part II - The Christian Interpretation, Valid or Not? - http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Isa53CP.pdf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I myself didn't write the article. I am not a Hebrew expert as you rightly point out. Also, Thanks for the links.

      Delete
  2. Answering Judaism, I think you have to learn some Hebrew too. I can refer you to a professor who taught Jewish people Hebrew in Israel.

    Please note that some people claim a monopoly on the Hebrew language, but a lot of scholars know the language much better than they do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Gassen, I would love that.

      Delete
    2. So, Gassen Duu, you made a statement without providing any specific support. Why should anyone accept it as factual? Nevertheless, let's see how your "logic" works in a few examples.
      According to your statement, "some people claim a monopoly on the Hebrew language, but a lot of scholars know the language much better than they do", the implication is that some non-native-Hebrew-speaking scholars know the Hebrew language better than native-Hebrew-speaking scholars.
      Then, if your statement is true, it follows that some western-native-speaking scholars (e.g., British, French, German, etc.) know the Chinese language much better than native-speaking Chinese scholars.
      And vice versa... Some native-speaking Chinese scholars know a western language (e.g., English, French, German) better than western native-speaking scholars.
      If you believe this, then it is not a great surprise that you believe what people such as Shapira try to sell as "the truth".

      Delete
  3. http://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/11/05/finally-a-response-almost/

    ReplyDelete
  4. Please note that in my original note “Hebrew Scriptures refute Contra Brown: Examination of Isaiah 53:9 by Gassen Duu.”, I have specified the refutation of one issue (to begin with).

    The reply of Mr. Blumenthal gives me a chance to further explains the concept of “Synonymous Parallelism”.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Isaiah 53 is poetry, and is filled with synonymous parallelism:


    Borne/carried

    Griefs/sorrows

    Wounded/bruised

    Transgressions/iniquities

    Oppressed/afflicted

    Open not His mouth/silent

    Grave/death


    Please read theses verses:

    4Surely He has borne our griefs
    And carried our sorrows;


    5But He was wounded for our transgressions,
    He was bruised for our iniquities;


    7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
    Yet He opened not His mouth;
    He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
    And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
    So He opened not His mouth.


    9 And they made His grave with the wicked—
    But with the rich at His death,
    Because He had done no violence,
    Nor was any deceit in His mouth.


    The burial/death are synonyms, while rich/wicked are antonyms.


    The suffering servant was innocent (Because He had done no violence,
    Nor was any deceit in His mouth).


    A riddle is embedded in the poem. The burial/death of the suffering servant

    is with the rich/wicked.


    With the wicked and the rich being contrasted, what do you think the servant’s final place should be “because” of his innocence?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Uri yosef, your arrogance does NOT help you nor does it help to convince your argument..If you want considerations then try a little meekness ie. Be humble! otherwise take your attitude else where and talk to the wind!

    ReplyDelete