Isaiah's prophecies that the Messiah will be obscure, invisible, silent, etc

[Giuseppe]

It is too much evident that here "Matthew" (editor) quotes Isaiah, but the his Jesus didn't realize these prophecies (by me put in red):


Matthew 12:17-21 New International Version (NIV)

17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:
18
“Here is my servant whom I have chosen,
the one I love, in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him,
and he will proclaim justice to the nations.
19
He will not quarrel or cry out;
no one will hear his voice in the streets.
20
A bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out,
till he has brought justice through to victory.
21
In his name the nations will put their hope.”

It is all the time that the Gospel Jesus has quarrel with scribes and pharisees, that he cries in the streets, etc.

At any rate, it is not Matthew to interest me, but precisely these passages of Isaiah. They explain why the Christ had to be silent, obscure, invisible. In a word: not-existent.

[rakovsky]

The part in red bold reminds me of the difference between Jesus and John the Baptist, the latter being someone who cried out in the wilderness. I don't remember Jesus acting that way, crying out with a loud voice in the streets.

[Giuseppe]

The part in red bold reminds me of the difference between Jesus and John the Baptist, the latter being someone who cried out in the wilderness. I don't remember Jesus acting that way, crying out with a loud voice in the streets.

That is the classical fallacy of distinction without a real difference.

When one is cursing or insulting, it is not necessary for him ''to crying out whit a loud voice''.

“Woe to you Pharisees, because you love the most important seats in the synagogues and respectful greetings in the marketplaces.
44 “Woe to you, because you are like unmarked graves, which people walk over without knowing it.”
45 One of the experts in the law answered him, “Teacher, when you say these things, you insult us also.”
46 Jesus replied, “And you experts in the law, woe to you, because you load people down with burdens they can hardly carry, and you yourselves will not lift one finger to help them.

(Luke 11)

That is named ''quarrel''. Isn't it?

And surely Jesus was preaching all the time in the streets, more than inside the houses. Only ask Timeus Bartimeus.

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

these passages of Isaiah. They explain why the Christ had to be silent, obscure, invisible. In a word: not-existent.

The passage of the suffering servant in 'Isaiah' (53) is about a man (not an invisible angel):
Isa 53:3 "He was despised and rejected by men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not."
He lived in the past (relative to when that part of the book was written: notice the past tense).
Nowhere the text says that man was "obscure".

Cordially, Bernard

[Giuseppe]

about one who “will not quarrel or cry out;” and of which “no one will hear his voice in the streets” I can to say in my own full right that he is an obscure figure.

Or at least, that that is precisely the sense given to that figure by any his reader (and by the his original author), pace what Matthew says.

[Secret Alias]

A divine being who is 'bruised' (מְדֻכָּ֖א)? 'wounded' (מְחֹלָ֣ל)? 'afflicted' (נַעֲנֶה֮)?

[Bernard Muller]

to Giuseppe,

Orat least, that that is precisely the sense given to that figure by any his reader (and by the his original author), pace what Matthew says.

And how do you know that?
And in GMatthew we have:
10:26 "... [Jesus saying] there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed, and hid, that shall not be known;"
"Matthew" did not intend his Jesus to be obscure.

Cordially, Bernard

[DCHindley]

It is too much evident that here "Matthew" (editor) quotes Isaiah, but the his Jesus didn't realize these prophecies (by me put in red):

Matthew 12:17-21 New International Version (NIV)

17 This was to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:
18
“Here is my servant whom I have chosen,
the one I love, in whom I delight;
I will put my Spirit on him,
and he will proclaim justice to the nations.
19
He will not quarrel or cry out;
no one will hear his voice in the streets.
20
A bruised reed he will not break,
and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out,
till he has brought justice through to victory.
21
In his name the nations will put their hope.”

It is all the time that the Gospel Jesus has quarrel with scribes and pharisees, that he cries in the streets, etc.

At any rate, it is not Matthew to interest me, but precisely these passages of Isaiah. They explain why the Christ had to be silent, obscure, invisible. In a word: not-existent.

Your beloved Gnostics believed Jesus did cry out so:

Irenaeus Against Heresies Bk 1 ch 21 "Others, again, set forth the redemption
thus: The name which is hidden from every deity, and dominion, and truth which Jesus
of Nazareth was clothed with in the lives of the light of Christ — of Christ, who lives by
the Holy Ghost, for the angelic redemption. The name of restitution stands thus: Messia,
Uphareg, Namempsoeman, Chaldoeaur, Mosomedoea, Acphranoe, Psaua, Jesus Nazaria.
The interpretation of these words is as follows: “I do not divide the Spirit of Christ, neither
the heart nor the supercelestial power which is merciful; may I enjoy Thy name, O Saviour
of truth!”

The Greek of this passage is extant in a very long quotation (the entire first book) of Irenaeus by Epiphanius in his Panarion. While I don't read Hebrew or Aramaic, I can read a concordance (in this case Young's Analytical Concordance), and this is what that mumbo jumbo seems to mean:

Μεσσία	mishchah (anointing)
οὐφαρὲγ	uph (fly) + arag (pant/cry)
ναμεμψαιμὰν	na (I beseech thee) mum (blemish) paam (move)
χαλδαίαν	holid (father)
μοσομηδαέα	masso (respect) + middah (measure/tribute/garment)
ἀκφραναὶ	ak (nevertheless) + pamin (face/presence)
ψαούα	puach (speak)
Ἰησοῦ	jesus
ναζαρία	nazaria

The super secret decoded mumbo jumbo above doesn't sound anything like the explanation Irenaeus gives for it, so he doesn't know Hebrew or Aramaic any better than me, maybe even worse (if possible). There are several more patches of "Hebrew" sentences in Irenaeus that could be ingeniously reformed as shining examples of hollowness and vacuity.

DCH

[Giuseppe]

"Matthew" did not intend his Jesus to be obscure.

that is precisely the my point. Who used that prophecy before "Matthew" (moving "Matthew" to use it too) meant an obscure messiah and could only mean it, given the clear meaning of the text.

[rakovsky]

"He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street." (Isaiah 42:2)
Certainly, anyone who talked outside would be causing their voice to be heard in the streets, so that is not what it is talking about. It is talking about a style of preaching loud, calling out like a prophet in the streets like Isaiah was. In general, Jesus was not a figure who was preaching by crying out like John the Baptist was, he wasn't lifting up and crying out his voice in the streets like Isaiah was. In modern times the Quaker prophetic founder George Fox went through the streets of a city and called out "Woe to the bloody city of _____". (Maybe Litchfield. I don't remember). Jesus wasn't doing that.

Elicott's commentary goes:

Isaiah's ideal of a teacher, but partly realised in himself, is that of one exempt from the violence of strong feelings, calm in the sereneness of authority, strong in his far-reaching and pitying sympathy. False prophets might rave as in orgiastic frenzy. We are reminded of Solon affecting the inspiration of a soothsayer in order to attract attention to his converts. Even true prophets might be stirred to vehement and incisive speech, but it should not be so with him. No point of resemblance between the archetype and the portrait seems to have impressed men so deeply as this (Matthew 7:29; Matthew 12:17-21).
https://biblehub.com/isaiah/42-2.htm

I find that some of the Messianic prophecies, and for that matter some Biblical prophecies in general, have an arbitrary or philosophical, abstract quality that makes them hard to pin down so definitely that someone on the other side of the debate will have to agree with it. I think that apologists and counter-missionaries (or whatever term you want to use) should focus on the arguments that are more definitive.

Take for example the prophecy in Isaiah 53 that the Servant won't do lawlessness/violence. An apologist can argue that Jesus was a peaceful leader. A counter-missionary can say that his turning over the tables in the Temple was violent lawlessness, and the apologist can argue back that the gospels doesn't specify that he hit anyone with a lash or hurt anyone. They could claim that Jesus' actions were lawful because he was the Son of God. Jesus Himself gave an example where it wasn't lawful for anyone but the priests to eat the shew-bread in the Temple, but that David did it.

So alot of this is abstract argument or an arbitrary issue, like whether Jesus "made his voice heard in the street" and whether he did it in the way that Isaiah meant or not. Or whether Jesus was violent lawlessly in the Temple or not (to give another example of these kinds of debates).