Isaiah 53, Micah 7 and Isaiah 62
Isaiah 53 (52:13 – 53:12) describes the servant of the Lord who shocks the world with his unexpected exaltation. The prophet presents us with the shocked words of the onlookers as they express their astonishment. From these words we learn that the onlookers were intimately familiar with the servant long before his exaltation. But they knew him as a wretched sufferer. The exaltation of the servant will cause them to reevaluate all of the theories that they had been propounding to explain the suffering of the servant.
Who is this servant?
I propose that in order to discover the identity of the servant we search the Scriptures to see who it is that will be exalted in the Messianic era and who it is that will be shocked and shamed when the Messianic era unfolds.
We do not need to wander very far to discover who it is that will be exalted at the time of the final redemption. Throughout the same book of Isaiah we learn that it is Israel who will be exalted and vindicated on that day and her enemies that will be shamed (Isaiah 26:2; 29:23; 30:26; 34:8; 41:11; 54:17; 60:2,14,15; 62:2;).
Micah 7:9,10,16, also describes the shame of Israel’s enemies when Israel is ultimately vindicated. Micah speaks of Israel’s enemy who taunted her with the words: “where is the Lord your God?” This seems to indicate that the shame that Israel’s enemies will experience will be a result of their own rejection of God. Isaiah, on the other hand, seems to focus on the revelation of Israel’s righteousness (62:1). According to Isaiah, it is the nation’s malicious evaluation of Israel that will cause them to be embarrassed when they see her righteousness shining bright.
So what is it that will bring shame upon Israel’s enemies? Is it their rejection of God? Or is it their vindictive attitude towards Israel?
My understanding is that these two are actually one and the same.
Throughout our long exile, we have been accused of many wrongdoings. But there is one “sin” that, in the mind of Christianity, towers above all the others – and that is our rejection of Jesus. According to the Christian Scriptures, it is only a child of the devil and an enemy of truth itself that could find it within themselves to reject the claims of Jesus (John8:44). In the eyes of the Christian, all of the suffering that the Jews experienced is the just consequence of this “sin”.
When that great day comes, and God alone is exalted on that day (Isaiah2:11), Christendom will realize that God is God and that Jesus was just another one of His subjects. They will recognize that their devotion to Jesus was – to put it mildly – misplaced. At the same time they will realize that what they had considered to be the greatest “sin” of the Jewish people was actually their greatest virtue. It wasn’t a rejection of Jesus as much as it was a fierce loyalty and love for God. They will realize that in a world steeped in idolatry, Israel, with all of her faults, maintained her loyalty to God – through fire and water, through the Crusades and the holocaust. This is the righteousness of Israel that will blaze brightly to the eyes of the whole world.
Israel’s enemies will realize that their vindictive assessment of Israelis rooted in their rejection of Israel’s God, and both of these will bring them shame together.
Israel’s exaltation is not something separate from the exaltation of God. When God is exalted, it will be evident that those who had hoped to Him and maintained their loyalty to Him were truly His representatives on this earth, and they will know no shame (Isaiah 49:23).
If you found this article helpful please consider making a donation to Judaism Resources by clicking on the link below.
https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=FEAQ55Y7MR3E6
Judaism Resources is a recognized 501(c) 3 public charity and your donation is tax exempt.
Thank You
Yisroel C. Blumenthal
1000 Verses - a project of Judaism Resources 
You ask the question; “Who is this servant?” I know that the Messiah is predicted as a son of king David, thus he is a Jew.
In Christianity it is widely believed that “Christ” is the Messiah. I personally cannot immagine an incarnated carven image on a crucifix ruling the earth on king David’s throne.
Quote: Christendom will realize that God is God and that Jesus was just another one of His subjects.
I personally distinguish YHVH from “God”, Yeshua from “Jesus”, Jerusalem from Babylon. E. g. Yeshua: He was a Jew and if his Genealogy in Matityahu chapter one is authentical, he was David’s son. On the other hand “Jesus” is a Roman Catholic divinity, a carven image, a Trinitarian pagan semi-god, son of the holy virgin and an idol, so to say. Reports about Yeshua have been transferred to “Jesus” by the church but from a Christian perspective no-one is able to see the Jewish points in “Jesus'” life. The “NT”-Jesus is a syncretistic figure that definitely must be discerned.
I agree the Greek Jesus is not Yeshua. Yeshua was a Rabbi and the Greek version has nothing to do with him. He was a man and not a god.
Paul tells us straight out that the god he is worshipping is “The unknown god” (In Athen on Marshill). The deity is call “unknown god”, not because no one knew him, but is was his name. This unknown god told to move Serapis to Alexandria. The followers of Serapis were call christians and their leaders bishops. (Hadrians letter to Caesar). I think this is the reason why Paul and those who followed his teaching also were called christians. The gathering in Jerusalem, lead by James was called “the way” because they were jews and lived according to Torah, as Yeshua did.
Christianity is not followring the words of Yeshua – then they would live like jews – they follow Paul who was an enemy of the gathering in Jerusalem. (many sources incl. NT)
Don’t fool yourself. The only way you even know about a “rabbi Yeshua” is by first reading the “Greek Jesus”. And then deciding you like certain verses better than other verses by the same “spirit filled” writers. Yeshua & Jesus are 2 “peas in a pod; mirror images of each other, despite the “semantics game” same folks want to play. Divided, Jesus-Yeshua’s house falls. “Both said the exact same words & did the exact same things. Most of the time Matthew says exactly what Paul says and James or Yaakov (who teaches Greek Stoicism & quotes Stoic writers & philosophers) often says just what Peter says which is often what John says which is often what Paul says. And what you all seem to be saying is that you can drop a “kosher sandwich” (the Hellenistic rabbi Yeshua’s words) into a “toilet bowl” (the collection of the Greek rabbi Jesus’s words) and you can “fish” it out, wipe the “corruption” off, and then continue eat your “kosher sandwich”?
Thank you very much for your answer.
I do not agree that Yeshua and Paul agree on the message. They do not agree at all. When I discovered the enmity between the 2 groups, I knew something was wrong and started to investigate. Found out that NT and the gospels are rewritten, overwritten and twisted beyond any imagination. If we look at Q1, Q2 and Q3 (oldest manuscripts) we see a development in the person described (Yeshua) from ordinary person and via wise person became the divine person called christ, and under the influence of paulinians he became god manifested in the flesh and suddenly the trinity is introduced. All lies. There is only one Father.
I found out that we have inherited lies from the generations before us. So now I am an ekschristian. Christianity is sun-god worship as many other religions are, only the names are different.
To your mention of kosher sandwich: my husband and I do not know enough about kosher food yet. We have contacted the chief Rabbi here in Denmark for guidance ect.
We now live according to Torah the best we know.
We are very pleased to have found a forum where many of the questions we have are being discussed, and so we get the answers.
Q1,2, & 3 are not actual manuscripts, but are part of a theory to explain what is common between Matthew and Luke and Mark. It doesn’t explain why John differs from these “synoptic” gospels nor why Luke & Matthew contradict each other (when they are not Q). It doesn’t explain why ideas that are called “Pauline” ideas are also a large part of Mark, Matthew, & Luke. Part of the reason is that scholars believe that the gospels where all written more than 20 years after the “true” letters of Paul (which is also only a theory). In others words, they believe Paul came first and then the gospels, which means that the Christians, influenced by Paul and believing in Yeshua, were the ones that wrote the gospels. First came the belief in the different Christian “communities” and then these communities each wrote their own gospels.
Jesus is only an English word that is used when translating Yeshua or Yehoshua or the Greek name Iesous into English. There are NO early manuscripts about an Yeshua. No stories about someone who was not also the “Greek Iesous”. The NT & the earliest Christian fathers called other believers in “Jesus”, Judaizers. In other words, “Jesus” came first and then only later did some Christians try to make Jesus more Jewish – to “Judaize” Jesus. Modern Christians have invented “Yeshua” in an attempt to make “Jesus” more Torah-like. It is an attempt to rewrite history. But if there was no “Jesus” or no “New Testament”, then we would have absolutely no “Yeshua”, no history. If Jesus is a lie, then Yeshua is a way to re-invent Jesus – to hold onto Jesus. It is a new lie so that people can still hold onto the old “lies”. If you take a “scissors” to the NT, you have nothing left. Any “Yeshua” you find in the scrap of pages all cut up, is a new god you are creating in your own image.
I agree. The Qs do not mention Yeshua, the person is called “he”. But they show how the false god Yeshua or Jesus developed and became “god manifested in the flesh”. Like for an ensemble also Krishna.
Still there were 2 groups who did not get along. Paul´s letters show this.
I do not know who came first, Yeshua or Paul, the scholars disagree.
Thank you very much for the information.
Based my readings over 40 years, I want to correct a couple points. It is one hypothetical document Q, not the Qs and it is thought to contain no stories about Jesus but just sayings of Jesus, like the Gospel of Thomas which seems related to it.
Maybe it’s I am not clear why you try to distinguish between Jesus and Yeshua and don’t think you succeeded. Aside from the Jesus and the allegedly risen Christ of the New Testament, there really is no good historical evidence for either figure. It is not as if we have two things–a knowledge that there was a man Jesus of Nazareth and also knowledge of the New Testament containing claims and stories about him. ALL we have are the writings.
Also, there is no disagreement among scholars about who came first–Yeshua or Paul. Jesus died and then either became a Christian after the alleged resurrection through the first Christians or he was the first Christian. Either way, it was after Jesus’ death.
Paul’s letters refer to false teachers. It does not say they are all from just one other group. It could be three or more.
The “unknown god” was the “God of Yeshua” & of Paul (or “Rav Schaul”) and Peter and of Abraham. The “unknown god” was a god unknown to the Athenians (including the followers of Serapis), the God who was not an idol and a God who was a Creator of ALL things (not just Jews & Israel). The “unknown” God was a creator of Adam & Eve and the God of Abraham. Paul speaks very much about Abraham. And you throw all those words of Paul away by providing us when one verse of Paul that is distorted and twisted all out of context. So you prefer Hadrians world view & his “evidence” over Peter’s & James’s (the “Jerusalem Church’s”) beliefs & “evidence”??? Neither James nor Peter nor John (the “Pillar” of Yeshua) believed Paul was preaching a “new God”. So throw all those words away because of modern distortions in an effort to dismiss Paul. when you dismiss Paul you dismiss ALL OF the New Testment, ALL of your reason to cling to either your Jesus or your version of “Yeshua”. Which is alright, since there is not only no evidence of a “Yeshua” (at least no one worth following if you strip all of him away), there is no evidence that a Paul or a Peter or a James or a John existed outside of the NT. Why base belief in an “unknown god” named Yeshua, when you believe your evidence for that faith is filled with lies or based on lies? Who determines which verse is lie or the “word of God”?
The “Old Testament” or the Jews show that we can know God without reading either the NT Jesus or the modern new-age version of Jesus called “Yeshua”. That God remains unknown to most who profess to believe in Him.
The Old Testament, the Tanakh, does not “show that we can know God.” It shows that those who composed the books of the Tanakh believed they knew or had known God.
Depends upon how narrowly you understand the phrase “show(s) that we can know God”. The NT also attempts to show that the individuals believed that they knew or had known God (entirely or mainly through Jesus).
Of course I dismiss the NT, that is my point. You cannot trust the gospels, because they are altered beyond any imagination – Q is the proof. Paul is a lier, so what do you have left? Nothing, since we found out – we only read Tanach.
Are you suggesting that the Tanakh was not altered? That’s a wobbly assumption. And why is Q the proof? The proof of what? That some Gospel writers took some of the sayings from it and worked them into the narrative? You seem to have some other motivation to characterize them so negatively.
My point is that one is not truly an “ex-Christian” unless they are also not a follower or believer in “Yeshua”. If you can’t say that Yeshua is the same as Jesus, then you are still Christian. If you still hold on to some major beliefs of Christians, then you are still Christian. If you are a follower of “the way” or James or Yeshua, then you are only at step one at being an ex-Christian. I am at least at step 2.
If a person can’t say either that Yeshua never existed or that his existence over 1900 years ago matters no more than any other nameless rabbi of the 1st century c.e., then that person is still a “Christian” although one might call themselves something else. Jesus or Iesous is 100% Yeshua, or vice versa, at least to the authors (or later redactors) of every NT book. It was Christians who wrote every word in every book of the NT (and Christians who wrote almost every non-canonical book about Jesus, who is also called Yeshua). It was Christians who assembled and preserved certain books into a “canon”, the whole NT that we have today, and they believed in ALL of it. It was a Christian who wrote, & it was many early Christians who accepted, the genealogy in “Matityahu” chapter one as authentic, just like Shomer, who made the 1st comment above, accepts it although he seems to want to reject other Christian writings because they are “Christian”.
To be honest, I do not understand why you think I am a believer or follower of Yeshua/Jesus. Perhaps my English is not good enough. I believe that 2 grubs existed and that they disagree on important issues. The one group lived – but not quit – like jews. The other group had a more Greek-like mind. But both were wrong. So I read only Tanach, translated by Jews. Because I discovered that even Tanach has been tempted with (a famous scr. in Jer. )
I do not believe the coming King has been born yet.
I believe the Jews are right and that I have inherited lies:
Like many religions are built up after the same pattern, a god gets a son – a hybrid between him and mankind – born of a virgin and sacrificed for everyone. They all believe in a trinity. So is christianity. And I believe they are wrong
That is why we have contacted our Chief-Rabbi (in Danish Overrabbiner). Where else can we go? The Jews have the truth.
Don’t you be concerned. You made ilt quite plain what you are and what you and your husband believe. Your English is fine, I understand you clearly. The one questioning you is just being argumentative.
thank you, I am happy I was able to make my self clear. Have a nice day. KH. Birthe
I forgot to say, that I agree the god in NT is very different from the Almighty Father, Creator and only God in “OT”. The “jewish group” is a mix of Greek and Hebrew mindset. The other group is much more Greek.
None of 2 versions of “christ” is true, he has not been born yet.
If his genealogy is correct, then he is not of the house of David.
because…..
In Judaism, as in most religions, the father determines the lineage. ALL of Christendom claims that he was born of a virgin, therefor Joseph (who was of David’s lineage) was NOT his father and by virtue of this fact, he cannot possibly be/have been the messiah.
Q.E.D.
“In Judaism, as in most religions, the father determines the lineage. ALL of Christendom claims that he was born of a virgin, therefor Joseph (who was of David’s lineage) was NOT his father and by virtue of this fact, he cannot possibly be/have been the messiah.”
Actually your wrong as the Mishna states it is through the Mother’s line. This is still observed by the Orthodox Jews as well.
Xander
Tribal and royal lineage always goes through the father – in the Mishna as in Scripture
I have not seen that, but assuming you are correct that would mean that if no male was born to a king then the throne would be given to another relative other than through the son of his daughter?
It wouldn’t matter. It wouldn’t apply to Jesus anyhow. None of Jesus’ “parents”, grandparents, or great-grandparents were kings or queens. And who knows how many thousands or tens of thousands could claim to be of “royal lineage” and much more suited for leadership. Now the non-Jewish Roman senate had “elected” Herod I as a “king of the Jews” and according to the NT, the non-Jewish Roman P Pilatus named Jesus “a king of the Jews” (without any authorization from the Roman government). But Jesus was never legally made a leader nor was he ever anointed by anyone. So I guess anybody can make any claim they want to make and some people will accept it as true or valid just because they want to.
I forgot to mention that it is only speculation or apologetics that the NT writer of “Luke” wrote of “Mary’s” instead of “Joseph’s geneaology”. Now according to the NT, Joseph did have sons (brothers of Jesus or “cousins”), either older or younger than Jesus, who also could claim to be “royalty”. And according to Luke, Mary’s cousin was Elizabeth, who super-naturally, miraculously gave birth to John a “baptizer”, who could claim the “throne” or the “title of messiah”. In fact, in the earlier NT texts of Luke, it is not Mary’s song but it is Elizabeth’s song about her “special son” John.
@naaria
I agree that anyone could claim a lineage and it would not necessarily be true, but you would think that since the claims of his lineage back to David were being circulated while the records that could disprove him were actually around that someone would have stepped up and said there is no way by birth this man could be the messiah. Oh well. Guess they did not think of that way to discredit the false messiah. There could have been a plethora of people who were of the Davidic line, as long as it was not from Solomon since he messed up his chances for the lineage of the messiah.
Yes, Herod I was a Jew and made king by the Romans. He even entered the holy of holies to see what was there and came out alive.
Latin really messed up both the Greek and Hebrew, so I understand why some copies had listed Elizabeth instead of Mary in Luke, but the Greek copies that are available cleared that up. All of Joseph’s sons would have been younger than Jesus, but they decided not to claim to be God. If Sarai can super-naturally become pregnant after having sex with her old husband, surely it I not wrong to think it could happen to Elizabeth as well? I guess John could have claimed to be the messiah, as others did before and after the time of Jesus, but he declined and rather proclaimed Jesus as that one.
All rather interesting but originally talking about lineage and how it was determined through which gender.
Which reports were being circulated while which records that could disprove him were actually around? None of the “messiahs” mentioned in the works of Josephus appear to claim “lineage” as “proof of their messiahship” nor are none discredited because of it. They were discredited for what they failed to do. There is no great argument between Jews, recorded by Jews nor the early church fathers, about who or what Jesus was. Rather, Jews in the 2nd century, seemed very baffled about even an aledged existence of a Jesus (aka Yeshua). None even seemed to be aware that a Jesus even existed, so how could they either accept or reject his claims? What happened to all his “Jewish followers” during or after the “first war” against Rome? There are no contemporary Jewish writings (negative or positive) and no Christian writings (until 150+ c.e). There is one legend (& only a legend) about his followers going to “Pella”, but then a deafening silence again.
Antiochus & his men, Greeks and not Jews, stood in the Holy of Holies as did the non-Jew Roman, Titus and they also remained alive. So what is your point about Herod? Jesus went to “cleanse” the Temple and vandalized it instead, but he did not leave to long after that and he withered like a cursed tree. So?
The earliest copies of the NT texts are Greek and not “messed up” Latin. It was Jerome, in the 4th century, who said that the copyists of the original Greek manuscripts were “more asleep than awake” while on the job copying the texts, so why shouldn’t he change them or correct them and “make them more suitable for Christians?”. Did John always know who Jesus was? And why Josephus reads John lived years after Jesus and even after Pilate, unlike what the gospels make it seem like. So some of the earliest Greek & Coptic texts shows John being exalted, not Jesus.
And it depends upon which early Christian canonical & non-canonical writings or “early church fathers” you would rather agree with, but Joseph is usually depicted as an elderly man and James is older than Jesus. But some believe brother & sister really means cousin, which is calling the NT writers liars.
If Solomon “messed up his chances for the lineage of the messiah”, why is Matthew even wasting our time going over this worthless genealogy?
Right, but then who could ever be proven to be of the lineage of David if in fact there is to be a miraculous virgin birth? So, whether it is Jesus or someone born next week who the Jews do believe is the messiah, how will lineage ever be proven? I believe that the way the Christian’s have proven lineage by both mother and earthly father, Joseph is about as good as it will ever get. God is the Father. We all have a heavenly Father and an earthly father.
Molly
There are normal ways to prove lineage – claiming a virgin birth disqualifies you
How true is your statement in that if there is no natural human father in the linage then he cannot be from the house of David.
A link From Davidic dynasty website to the following article
http://www.jewishgen.org/rabbinic/journal/descent_part2.htm
Careful examination of all available sources leads to the inescapable conclusion that there is no complete, reliable and positive proof of claims of descent from King David, whether via Rashi, Judah Loew the Elder, or any of the other families claimed. There are at present no known sources that could fill the gaps or set the record straight. It is possible that there may be actual descendants somewhere, but at present, no one can produce sufficient and unquestionable proof of this claim.
If I’m not mistaken, there are sources that state that Elijah will have to come with the Holy Spirit to disentangle the issues about genealogy for priests and the messiah.
Let’s say it’s impossible today to ascertain one’s genealogy. How is that relevant to the fact that Jesus could not possibly have been a descendant of King David on his father’s side according to the Christian claim that he had no human father?
As I see it, there are two possibilities. Either Jesus did have a human father named Joseph, or the authors were so sure that the genealogical requirements couldn’t be met properly by any potential candidate, that they said a miracle had happened, to make it occur, as many people did in antiquity. The point is, Nobody from antiquity or today has the legally relevant demonstrable genealogical background, but this hasn’t stopped the potential for messianism, because there is more to the role. The Ebionites believed Jesus’ biological father was Joseph, and we have Church traditions about his family having leadership positions in the Church, and they were said to be of davidic descent. When Jesus was presented at the temple, and throughout his life, the text says Jesus (as was assumed) the son of Joseph. So, the virgin birth (assuming it happened at all) didn’t give anyone any pause about his lineage. We also know that accusations of improper bloodline were common in biblical and extra biblical sources. (Such as David having Ruth as one of his ancestors.)
Concerned Reader, lineage has nothing to do with the messianic role but with the qualification to be king of the Jews in fulfillment of the Biblical promise that the kingship would continue through David’s son Solomon.
Every messianic claimant was rejected for one reason or another, so I don’t understand your bringing them as proof of anything. A claimant’s lineage may have been unknown, but you can be sure that if we know someone is definitely not a Davidic descendant, we know for sure he is not the Messiah. For example, no Kohen or Levite is ever going to be taken seriously if he claims to be the Messiah.
According to the Christian understanding, Jesus had no human father. That means he was definitely NOT qualified to sit on the throne of David.
If Joseph was his natural father, then the genealogies in the gospels present huge problems. They contradict each other, one is fifteen generations longer than the other (a gap of about 300 years), one is through David’s son Nathan, and so on.
I understand why the messiah must have have lineage through David, but I don’t think Christians (generally speaking) are as stuck on the notion that he must have a male descendant of David. I guess that would go to the notion that Christians don’t see Christ setting up an earthly kingdom over Israel as Judaism holds too.
Not being a descendant of Solomon is a nonissue as well seeing how Hashem himself took away Solomon’s descendants right to rule over all of the tribes when Solomon rejected him, unless I am missing something.
Hi Xander,
Jews are “stuck” on the notion that the Messiah will be a descendant of David (especially through his son Solomon) because that is the promise of Scripture (Genesis 49:10; 2 Samuel 7:12-14; 1 Chronicles 22:9-10).
You wrote that “Hashem himself took away Solomon’s descendants right to rule over all of the tribes when Solomon rejected him” and therefore “Not being a descendant of Solomon is a nonissue.” Please cite Scriptural support for this statement.
Thanks,
Dina
Sure thing Dina
The LORD was angry with Solomon because he had shifted his allegiance away from the LORD, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him on two occasions and had warned him about this very thing, so that he would not follow other gods. But he did not obey the LORD’s command. So the LORD said to Solomon, “Because you insist on doing these things and have not kept the covenantal rules I gave you, I will surely tear the kingdom away from you and give it to your servant. (1 Kings 11:9-11 NET)
Hi Xander,
You stopped short of the following two verses:
“In your days, however, I will not do it, because of your father David; from the hand of your son will I tear it away. Only I shall not tear away the entire kingdom from him; one tribe shall I give to your son, for the sake of David My servant and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen” (1 Kings 11:12-13).
This is in fact what happened. After Solomon died the kingdom split into the Kingdom of Judah, which consisted of Judah and Benjamin, and the Kingdom of Israel, which consisted of the remaining ten tribes who were exiled by Sennacherib and never heard from again.
I’m looking for unequivocal Scriptural support that God took away the kingdom from Solomon’s descendants.
Thanks,
Dina
Hi Xander,
I missed your qualifying statement that God took away the right from Solomon to rule over ALL of the tribes. As you know, the ten were lost. However, God will restore His scattered people at the end of days when a Davidic king will once again rule over all, as described in Ezekiel (34:11-end of the chapter).
So I think that contradicts your statement about the Davidic line through Solomon being a non-issue.
Sons of David? Amnon was one & a Jew. So was Absalom, “father of peace” & leader of a major rebellion that temporarily dethroned King David. A “king of Israel” who later was “reconciled’ to his Father, who still loved him despite his rebellion. Sounds familiar. “From a Christian perspective no one is able to see the Jewidh points” of the Sadducee’s nor of the Pharisees that matter. Nor the Jewishness of the Jewish prophets, who are quoted a few times in the NT & the Church of Yeshua, as if they were Christian prophets.
A house (NT) divided (by whatever method of “discernment”) can not stand. Who is the “wolf” in disguise and who is the “lamb” that is the disguise? Which one do you personally distinguish Jesus as?
What?
Christians say you’re suffering for rejecting Messiah?
The Jews suffered over the years because of *their sins against God* — and then, on top of that, rejecting (those who did reject) Messiah.
Don’t try to pass the buck; the Law says you must pay for your sins, and God was “punishing you 7 times for your sins”, etc.,.
Since no Moshiach (as defined by the Hebrew/Jewish Bible) has yet come (as promised by the Prophets of Israel/Judea), whose “messiah” did Jews reject? I see no evidence that Jews have suffered or died because of “punishment by God” (which is a matter between God and those individuals and which is not determined by biased or ignorant, sinful judgmental people who have no authority to speak for God). During WW2, Jews were “punished” along with, and sometimes no more than, many millions of non-Jews. Non-Jews who suffered, died, & were “punished”, although they had accepted “their messiah/Christ”!
Rather, many Jews have often suffered and have been persecuted by the hands of ordinary humans, who have accepted a messiah and truly believed they were doing the “work of the lord”. “Since the days of John until now the Kingdom of God has suffered violence….” and it’s people has suffered at the hands of the violent. Was Hitler & the Nazi’s evil or misguided individuals or were they, as you seem to suggest, just being agents of justice sent by Yeshua/Jesus to carry out the “7 times punishment” “required” of all those who “rejected the messiah” of peace & love? But is it not better to suffer than to persecute & cause the suffering; better to be killed than to kill? Did Abel suffer and die and was he “punished for his sins” or was it because of Cain’s sins?
WOW that is so powerful a response …thank you for your spirit filled insight ..
.Now backwards spells WON
I for one am trying so hard and in much prayer and study…to understand this very subject
Bilodeau: Read the end of the story Where we are vindicated. Yes we were punished for our sins. hmmm what about Christians? As I compare the two I find that God punished us for breaking the sabbath etc etc. What about Christians who killed us by the hundreds of thousands. What about Luther who said Burn their Talmuds and synagogues.? He was a genuine Christian Tsaddik (ahem Righteous one) I guess they will get it in the future. We Jews write about our own sins. While Christians write about everyone elses. Take a look inside it only hurts for a little while when it brings forth repentance.
Tsvi
Xander
Yes – the throne would pass to a brother or cousin
How does it work in 2 Samuel 21, where the Gibeonites are asking for male descendants of Saul and the boys are traced through their mother’s lineage? You would not think it would pertain since Saul only had one son, and his son could never have led the nation.
Interesting discussion- what do you think rabbi?
Xander
In 2 Samuel 21 the Gibeonites were not looking for heirs to Saul’s throne. Saul’s kingdom had already passed to David in an irreversible move (2samuel 7). The Gibeonites wanted to “punish” Saul posthumously – this was accomplished trhough the death of his descendants – any descendant would technically qualify. This is similar to the process which was repeated throughout the book of Kings whenever one dynasty replaced another – everyone related or even remotely connected to the previous dynsaty would be killed (e.g. 1Kings 14:10). The reason they picked on males as opposed to females is because of the public aspect of this execution – it would have been inapropriate to the leave the bodies of women hanging the way these people were hung.
I need help understanding lineage. Reading Ruth, Obed was given to Naomi to carry on the lineage of Mahlon, but in the lineage in chapter 4, it says he was the son of Boaz. Is Boaz in there to honor him or is Obed considered to be of his lineage and not Mahlon’s?
I am no legal expert, but Obed would not have existed unless Boaz was his father. Obed therefore will stand to inherit everything Boaz owns (in the future, and who knows how many brother Obed might have in the future). Obed is Boaz’s son and so his lineage is Boaz’s lineage. But there is still property around that belonged to Mahlon or Mahlon’s father. Ruth can “hold” (have temporary custody of) the property (in Mahlon’s name). But a near kinsman can marry her and keep the property “in the family”. Otherwise, Ruth must sell the property to strangers or outsiders and the property loses any and all connections to Elimelech and Mahlon. Any buyer who is a stranger will have no sentimental attachment to the land, no historical connection. Such a buyer might not know Mahlon, Naomi, Ruth, or any of Mahlons ancestors or history, and could care less about Mahlon, Mahlon’s name, Mahlon’s family and history. But if Ruth has a child with a close relative of Mahlon and Naomi or Naomi’s husband, that man will remember Mahlon and his family. Mahlon’s property will be inherited by Ruth’s son. A Ruth’s son will remember Ruth’s connection to her dead husband and also Naomi. But, Obed is not of Mahlon’s physical lineage. Obed is the son of another husband of Ruth. Obed has a direct connection to Boaz’s history and lineage, but only an indirect connection to Mahlon’s history and name. But he and his family will be remembered until who knows how many generations in the future. Well, I guess his name is even remembered up to today, or else his name would have “gone to dust” over 3000 years ago.
But if you look at the story of Judah and Tamar, it says that Onan would not put his seed into Tamara because he knew the child would not be considered his. The offspring would be considered his brother’s. We remember the lineage and that Judah acted as the surrogate father for Er, but I wasn’t sure if Perez or Zerah would be considered to be Er’s child. When the lineage is laid out, you don’t see it mentioned, but the stories reflect back to that. 1st Chronicles says that Judah had 5 sons total, but also makes a point to mention that the last two were with his daughter-in-law. Why denote that?
With Ruth, the closer relative passed on fulfilling his role as redeemer after he learned that he had to take Ruth as a wife. He was willing to buy the parcel of land, but not marry her. I wasn’t sure if it was because she was a Moabite and their offspring are forbidden from entering into the assembly of the Lord. This would make sense as he said he could not afford to impair his own inheritance, as any additional children he had with her would not be able to inherit the land. So, Boaz would have been the father of Obed naturally, but the inheritance he received is that of Mahlon’s.
And of course, Obed would receive an inheritance from Boaz, which would be a greater inheritance (after Boaz dies, which is after the ending of the book of Ruth).
Was Jesus Christ the expected Messiah as fortold in the Torah and the Tanach? There seams to be much debate about this topic on this post, so I hope that my statement below will help clarify any confusion on the topic.
A major objection concerns the two genealogies of Jesus that are claimed by the Christian Greek Scriptures (the New Testament) and Christian theology in general. Matt. 1:11 shows Jechoniah (spelt Jechanis in KJV) as an ancestor of Joseph and therefore of Jesus. Trouble is that Jechoniah’s line is cursed never to inherit the throne of David (Jeremiah 22:24-30). Jechoniah was deposed and none of his descendents were ever kings. The throne passed to Zedekiah, Jechoniah’s uncle because of Jechoniah’s wickedness. Then Matthew undoes the lineage by claiming a ‘virgin birth’ for Jesus, annulling Joseph’s line entirely. The lineage given at Luke 3 fares no better. Here Nathan is listed as the son of David through whom Joseph was descended, not Solomon through whom the Messiah must descend (1Chron. 22:9 et al).
As for the ‘virgin birth’, without a human father, no-one can claim to be Messiah as this means that GOD took the throne away from the house of David, violating GOD’s own oaths, something which GOD NEVER has done and NEVER will do. Clearly, both genealogies disqualify Jesus from being Messiah, as does a ‘virgin birth’ which itself is based on a (deliberate?) mistranslation and interpretation of Isaiah 7:14 which is not a messianic prophecy anyway.
Some of the things that the true Messiah will achieve are:
World peace – Isa 2:4; 11:6, Universal knowledge and recognition of GOD – Isa. 11:9; Jer. 31:34, General resurrection of the dead – Isa. 26:19; Eze. 37:12, Bring all the Jewish exiles back – Isa. 11:11, 42:5, Jer. 22:8; Building the Third Temple – Eze. 37:26. Not even the most enthusiastic of Christians can claim that Jesus did these things. The opposite is true, the world became much more violent and godless after Jesus’ time, especially once Christianity became the Roman State Religion. A dark age ensured from this time. I hope this will clear up any mis-understandings about who can or can not claim to be messiah.
And it would seem that the enemy of the Lord of Hosts would work to do the opposite…not want world peace, not want knowledge or recognition of the Lord or want Jewish exiles at all ; let alone brought back nor the 3rd Temple to be built. But on the other hand the antichrist does mean against christ, so how is it thought as posing as if he is christ???
You write very good English. And your last couple of comments are very clear about where you stand as an ex-Christian (what I might call step 2). Where you go from here is difficult to say. In America, non-Jews who follow Torah & Tanach only (who call themselves Bnei Noach -Children of God’s covenant with Noah and all his descendants – non-Israelites, non-Jews), might meet in small groups for prayer, worship, etc.
My focus is on providing information to readers on this blog (hopefully all true & unbiased) from the “ex-Christian”, non-Jewish point of view. I see that you do understand that there were 2 major groups who followed Jesus in the earliest years (actually, we could say there were several more). You see that the “Jewish group” was a mix of both “Hebrew & Greek” world views (Hellenistic Jews). Some people don’t see their error when they say “Jesus – or Yeshua – was “Jewish””, as if all Jews thought alike back then (except, for their so called “hypocritical” leaders). Or, as if “Jewishness” validated Jesus or any other person.
When many people (ordinary Christians or those in the “Hebraic Roots” movement) say the name “Yeshua”, they see it as just another name for Jesus. Many who say “Yeshua” hate the names “Jesus” or “Christ” because to them those are “pagan” names. But these people are Trinitarians & their beliefs are 100% Christian, only Judaized, because the “real” Jesus was a Jew and not a “Greek”. Some who say Yeshua, see that the only error in the Church was that brought about by Constantine or by the Catholic Church. They may actually hate Catholics, because they aren’t real Christians like the Protestants or “messianic” believers. Some who say Yeshua, disparage and even hate Paul, because they speculate that he “invented Christianity” and he “corrupted” “Yeshua’s original” teachings. Some Christians now say they only read Torah & Tanach, but they hold on to much of their Christian beliefs and see Yeshua as YWYH or the “One God”. They may be virulent anti-Trinitarians but Jesus -Yeshua is their God or their messiah or a prophet or messenger of God. They may have several different “sacred names” of the “One” they worship (e.g., Yeshua, Yeshua Messiah, Yahwehshua, Yhvh, Yahshua, Jehovahshua, Yehoshua, etc), but they are all just Jesus.
So arguments or debates about alleged differences between Paul and Jesus or “Rav Shaul” and Yeshua or the “Greek Jesus” vs. the “Hebrew Yeshua”, is all irrelevant. Except for the fact of how Christians or non-Jews interact with Jews, to the Jews (and really also to non-Jews) it doesn’t really matter whether Yeshua & Jesus are 100% similar or 100% dissimilar, it doesn’t matter if Paul & Jesus taught the same basic messages or if Paul taught the opposite, and it doesn’t matter if you see Jesus as a divine son, or a tri-partite personality of God, or God, or a messiah or only a Prophet or only a messenger or whatever. It matters to different Christian groups and they (like all my family, friends, & co-workers) can believe whatever they want about Jesus. But whatever non-Jews think about Jesus or a man from “Nazareth”, he isn’t a part of Judaism, nor does he play any part in their relationship to God/YHWH.
Pingback: Response to Line of Fire 11 | 1000 Verses
For those who believe Isaiah 53 is talking about the nation , please explain based on what conclusion is Israel excluded from the following words of Is53 v 6 ” we all like sheep went astray each of us turning his own way (…)” Also very important question’ how does the nation you fulfill the words of v 4-6??
especially v5 (..) the chastisement upon him was for our benefit and through his wounds we are healed.” How is the world healed by Israel’s suffering???????
Also the character of the servant as innocent and sinless ( v.9 ) how does it fit with the nation? And the other point; why does the servant have to acknowledge the guilt ( v10) and at the same time not belong to those who ” went astray like sheep..” ???? how does it fit together???
Also v.10 Why would God desire to oppress the nation???
It is not a secret that God will redeem Israel one day. Isaiah is talking about it so it is not a hidden fact to make assumption that the whole would will be shocked by this. More shocking will be seeing the one who was despised and killed ( Yeshua) who will be coming back in glory to establish God’s kingdom. At the Messiah coming the righteous dead will be resurrected and also Israel will be redeemed. All these events go together.
Eric
Thank you for your questions
Isaiah 53 is talking of the righteous remnant of Israel – the one’s who will be described as such as Isaiah prophesied (26:2) – in contrast to the nations around them they have not gone astray
The world is healed through the suffering of the righteous remnant because it is in their merit that God preserves the world as we find in Genesis 18:32 that in the merit of ten righteous men – God stays His hand
Verse 9 does not say that the servant is sinless – it simply says that he is not guilty of the crimes that he has been accused of – namely murder and deception
the servant needs to acknowledge guilt because he is not sinless – he needs to focus on what he needs to repair
But still and all – compared to the nations around him – he has not gone astray
You say that the world will not be shocked by the exaltation of Israel – but they will be shocked by the exaltation of Jesus
Which world do you live in? How many people do you know that think that Isaiah 53 is talking about Israel?
yourphariseefriend,
This is not a convincing answer. They have not gone astray buy have to acknowledge sin. So what does it mean to have gone astray? It means to go away from the path God gave people, to miss his words, or disobey them and follow your own way, which simply we call sin. If the ‘righteous remnant ‘ indeed has to acknowledge sin he also belongs to those who have gone astray, no difference.
From what I understand you see the world being healed because God is going to preserve it through the suffering of the righteous remnant. I see it differently how the suffering of the righteous servant can heal the world.
Preserving the sinful world is not a healing to the people. The world has been ‘going on ’till now and the world is getting worse and worse. Only turning to God is what brings healing to people God wants EVERY PERSON IN EVERY NATION to acknowledge guilt and repent , there are no exceptions. Then the healing comes to a repenting person not just the sinful world .
If we want to focus on the number of people through whom God could achieve His purpose we have another example in Ex 32;10 .
God could fulfill his promises for Israel through a single Jew. This would have been the case if God had carried out his threat to destroy the entire nation in the wilderness and leave only Moses – and then to form a new nation out of him (Exodus 32:10).
God gave the testimony about Yoshua being righteous and free of sin by raising him back to life.
Messiah ( Yoshua) is therefore ’the hope of Israel’ – the hope being that God will fulfill all His purposes for Israel through him. Isaiah foresaw that Messiah would not only gather the lost sheep of Israel, but would also fulfill its prophetic destiny – by achieving the blessing that Israel was destined to bring to the nations, by taking the knowledge of God to the ends of the earth.
“And now the LORD says -he who formed me in the womb to be his servant to bring Jacob back to him and gather Israel to himself, for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD and my God has been my strength –he says: “It is too small a thing for you to be my servant to restore the tribes of Jacob and bring back those of Israel I have kept. I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring my salvation (ישׁועתי)to the ends of the earth.” Isaiah 49:5-6
How many people already found God thanks to Yeshua’s call to repentance? You find people in almost every nation.
Very important question ; How can a nation carry peoples iniquities( v.11) and make them righteous ? If there is no personal need for repentance , you can’t make others righteous.
You are asking “How many people do you know that think that Isaiah 53 is talking about Israel? ”
The world consists of so many unbelievers that they have no clue what book of Isaiah is talking about at all. Not only chaper 53. Most people don’t even believe in resurrection. Most Catholics who call themselves Christians don’t take the resurrection seriously and neither Jesus’ return. It is not that the whole world is expecting return of Jesus the Messiah. Only believers CAN’T be surprised either by Jesus nor Israels redemption as I said it is not a hidden fact to believers who study the scriptures. Even Jesus said to the Jews about times when their redemption is coming. But it not all what Isaiah is focusing on. Redemption is connected with Messiah’ coming, and chapter 53 describes how the sinful world is turned back to God through him and how our sins are dealt with , why our restoration is possible.
You focus only on redemption of Israel . What about focus on Divine intervention ? That will be indeed shocking to people .
Also don’t you think the Messiah doesn’t deserve less exaltation and glory ( Isaiah 11) by the fact he will keep the world in perfect peace and rule it righteously with iron rod and deal with the wicked ones of the world ?
v.10 says the nations WILL SEEK HIM – THE DESCENDANT OF JESSE who will stand as a banner for the peoples ( compare with the v.1 Isaiah 11) . The spirit of God; the spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel strength and knowledge of God will rest upon him. In his days God will acquire the remnant of His people and gather them from four corners of the earth. Isaiah 11; 11-16 .
You see that the redemption of Israel is not the only theme Isaiah is dealing with, but also is showing greatness of God’s intervention and Messiah’ glory . ( also in Psalm 2 ) .
Most Catholics do call themselves Christians, but many might disagree with some of your beliefs and might think you have strayed. After all, Jesus helped to grow them the past 1500 years, or so, as his servants. “Many people may have already found God” thanks to them carrying the message of Jesus to the nations. And most Protestants also consider themselves Christian, and many might disagree with a bit of what you might believe. If there are so many “unbelieving” “believers” in the world, many outside the church might believe that there might be something wrong with the messenger’s message. Especially when the focus is on the messenger instead of on God who sent the messenger. Beside the message maybe having been so corrupted, that “urgent” message, promised to soon arrive so soon, also seems to have been so slow in materializing. In the meantime, many Jews, pagans and non-believers, and “believers” have been victims of violence or persecution in his name by servants of Jesus.
But what message might you see in some parables by Jesus that did not fit standard Christian ideas of a messiah or forgiveness or repentance, such as the “prodigal son”? A father who was willing to see his beloved son leave him and try to make his way in the world and not truly “dead” in more ways than one. And a father who supposedly didn’t know if his son was coming back to evict him from his farm, or steal from him, or maybe even kill him. A father who didn’t know what was in his son’s heart or mind, in fact, a son that wasn’t really interested in truly repenting or seeking or even desiring forgiveness. No blood was necessary. No action except one based on mainly selfish interests, a decision made just because of his dire circumstances due to “bad luck”.
Eric
Thanks for taking the time for this conversation
You seem to assume that all sins are equal – they are not. Some sins – such as idolatry are much worse than others. In a world filled with idolatry – a group of people who is loyal to God can be said to have not gone astray although they still need to acknowledge sin. According to you – who is the righteous nation spoken of in Isaiah 26:2?
I recognize that God wants every human being to be close to Him – But your insistence that “healing” needs to refer to total healing is not consistent with the passage – these people have obviously gone astray – yet they have already been healed by the stripes of the servant. The fact that God grants life is healing – as long as we live we can repent and do good.
Isaiah 49 is speaking of the prophet and of the righteous remnant – https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/05/06/1282/
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/armor-bearers-isaiah-5211/
The servant makes people righteous through his knowledge – and he bears the people’s sins by praying for their welfare and serving as a balance for God’s judgment
You say that “believers” won’t be shocked at Israel’s exaltation? Just read what “believers” believe about Israel.
You accuse me of focusing only on the redemption of Israel – That is what Isaiah 53 is talking about – there are other chapters – many others which speak of God’s exaltation such as Isaiah 2 – https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/isaiah-222/
and some which speak of the exaltation of the Messiah such as Isaiah 11 as you point out. Did you notice that the Messiah will be granted a spirit of wisdom and strength – these are not things that belong to him intrinsically?
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/yearning-for-the-messiah/
Yourphariseefriend,
You say that sins are not equall but they all result in our death, no matter what sin. Unless you don’t believe in that fact ? Adam’s wasn’t idolatry but still it brought him death.
Also your words; ” In a world filled with idolatry – a group of people who is loyal to God can be said to have not gone astray although they still need to acknowledge sin.”
How can you judge that all other nations are involved in idolatory and there is no single group among the people of other nations that is loyal to God?
Regarding the righteous nation spoken of in Isaiah 26:2? Also Is 49.
The fact that there will be people who turn to God and will be trusting Him doesn’t mean they will carry the sins of others Isaiah 53 is talking about . The book of Isaiah 49 is talking about people both from the nation of Israel and from other nations that will be restored by the servant who will be light for them Is 49 5-6 The servant will rise up the tribes of Jacob and restore ruins of Israel. So yes, Isaiah is not denying that Israel will be restored and will be called righteous , when it will turn to God. But Israel as a nation is not the servant lifting up others in
Is 49, to carry others sins as he himself needs restoration.
Second, when God picked his servant , Israel started with one person called Jacob. God is able to acomplish His purposes through a single person while others fail. He picked a single servant Moses to lead all people to the Promised Land. Just two of many many examples.
Refering to your explanation about how the nations are healed by Israels wounds, I don’t see what you mean by total or not total healing . Those who have gone astray can be healed if there is personal repentance, if they will turn back from their crimes , not because somebody just suffered.
The world is not healed right now just because it still exists. I wouldn’t call it a healing if there is no spiritual healing. Crime and hate is everywhere. People being killed every day. You have restored relationship with God , then you are really healed. So that ‘healing’ interpretation in Is 53 of yours doesn’t speak to me. Only those are healed who repented and turned to God..
You say ” The fact that God grants life is healing – as long as we live we can repent and do good. ”
But not everyone makes that choice no matter how long he/she lives. We call it ; giving people a chance to change rather than healing. You may live 100 yeas and still die wicked. Giving people a chance can’t be called the healing .
Also God doesn’t need to bring on others suffering so that he woould give life ( longer or extended) to others. He gives life by His grace and time to repent without anybody’s merit.
You said ” The servant makes people righteous through his knowledge” How????? How are the other nations made righteous nowdays ?
It is said the servant will make many righteous , it is that their punishment that he bears. v. 11
People who sufferend from the hands of others didn’t bear their punishment so that others would be called righteous. Would you call the Crusaiders righteous because somebody prayed for them???? According to your thinking they should be healed… but how??? Neither by praying , not by your nation suffering. Unless they repented at the end and turned to God giving up their crimes, they are not healed!! The same with others. The oppressed people may have prayed for their oppressors so that God would’t count their sin for the oppression, but the wicked ones will still remain wicked if they have no desire to change and will die for their own sins. I may pray for a thief who came to steal my money and ask God to forgive him for that stealing, but the person still remains a thief if he keeps stealing. So my suffering, my praying won’t make him righteous, nor can I bear his sins.
What do I mean by your focusing on redemption of Israel ? I am not accusing you of anything. I am just saying that because Is 53 exalts a certain servant , it doesn’t mean that by this fact it suggests the whole nation in this chapter , as the mission carried by that servant in Is 53 is the mission no nation can carry, except a sinless person. And Yeshua exactly did it all.
You also said “Did you notice that the Messiah will be granted a spirit of wisdom and strength – these are not things that belong to him intrinsically? ”
But what does it have to do with anything? Of course it is only God who has everything from th e beginning, and everything we get, we get from Him. So what’s wrong with the Messiah getting all the wisdom and strength from God? Matthew 3;16 records the spirit of God came on Jesus when he was baptized.
Eric
You say that all sins bring death – what is your source for this? The Bible clearly dishes out different punishments for different sins. Not every sin gets the punishment “the soul shall be cut off from its nation.” Just because some sins merit death doesn’t mean that every sin merits death.
The Psalmist speaking on behalf of the righteous remnant explicitly speaks of “our feet not straying from your (God’s) path” (Psalm 44:19).
You ask how I can say Israel is a nation that stands apart from others in her loyalty to God – OK – so how do you read Isaiah 60:2? How do you say that “believers” will not be shocked at Israel’s exaltation? Do you deny that Israel has been appointed by God to accomplish a given mission of testifying to His truth?
You assume that “healing” (in Isaiah 53) MUST mean complete and total spiritual healing – that is your assumption – there is no Scriptural basis for your assumption.
Verse 11 explicitly says that it is through his knowledge that the servant renders many righteous – read it
Who told you that the servant of Isaiah 53 needs to be sinless? That’s another assumption of yours that has no Scriptural basis.
You claim that God can accomplish His purpose through a single person – agreed – but He appointed a witness nation for a reason – and they too have a purpose to accomplish.
Isaiah 51;16 tells us that God planted His word in the mouth of the nation to accomplish his purpose – how do you read this?
But isn’t Jesus a “nation”, a principality, and not an individual “servant”, because there are several places in the letters of Paul that all believers and even the “one” Church (of many denominations of many members each and from many different nations) are considered to be the “body of Christ”? Such as in Romans 12:5 “so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another”, or 1 Corinthians 12:12 “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ,” and 1 Corinthians 12:27 “Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it”. According to Romans 12:1 each believer is commanded to “… present your bodies as a living sacrifice”, so Jesus was not the only body and not the only sacrifice, and therefore not the “only servant”. So all verses that would exclude the nation of Israel would also exclude the “nation of Jesus” or “Christ”?
To go along with what Yedidiah has said, Paul’s point about presenting ourselves as living sacrifices, shows that indeed Paul was not opposed to deeds of righteousness, and nor is Jesus some kind of vaccine, that once you accept it, that’s it. Christians can stand to learn so much from our brothers and sisters to be living examples of what G-d expects. Judaism doing what it has done, being faithful to the Torah, is what is needed for a faith that doesn’t lose it’s vigor, salt that doesn’t lose it’s bite. Faith without works is dead after all right? The whole body of the righteous (Jews and Gentiles) can be good servants, and show what it means to be religious.
Someone once asked me, why I was so lax on emphasizing Jesus. I remember saying that’s not the point of his message. If the whole world believed in Jesus, but not one person lived his mode of life, his life and coming had zero meaning or purpose. The whole impetus of the Bible is to teach you to value life, love G-d, love neighbor, and to show you that life is laden with purpose, meaning, and intrinsic value.
Yedidiah, I will go back to your comments later when I have time,
yedidiah, To your words about ” So all verses that would exclude the nation of Israel would also exclude the “nation of Jesus” or “Christ”? ”
You are not getting it right ‘ the body of Christ’ in refering to believers in Rom 12;5 didn’t exist untill Jesus died on the cross and then later the spirit was given to the believers . Then these people became God’s servants and not to be self suficient but needing each other completing each other while serving each other with different talents. That is what we call it ‘a body’.
So there was no body of Christ as a nation ( or a group of people ) to do the mission in Is 53 but Jesus did it himself. Believer weren’t dying for sins of others or carrying on their iniquities. Does it make it clear?
yourphariseefriend, To your question ” You say that all sins bring death – what is your source for this?”
I am not talking about imediate punishments that were applied to a person commiting certain sin described in leviticus. But I am stating that our final ‘end of life’ is due to our sinful nature. How many sins did Adam commit before God told him that he would die? Just one disobedience. Would that be different with us? Adam’s death wasn”t applied immediately. We die one day on the same basis. Last verses in Gen 3 tell us that since that time God made sure to guard the way to the tree of life from which if Adam ate he would live forever. Other verses confirm that as well ; ( sin brings death)
Deut 24;16 , that tells you we don’t die for each other sin but each will die for their own sin “, 2 kings 14;6 , Jeremiah 31;30.
Back to Isaiah;
You ask how I would say Israel is a nation that stands apart from others in her loyalty to God – how do I read Isaiah 60:2?
Standing apart means being entrusted with the oracles of God.. But it has nothing to do that the nation will remain loyal to God or not and the reason to exclude yourself from those ‘who went astray..’. People can know God’s word and still stary away. Being entrusted with oracles of God doesn’t make them better than others.
Before focusing only on v 2 I am looking at the sourounding verses. v. 21 says that the people will be ‘ all of them the righteous’. But we know not everyone is just righteous because he/she is Jewish. From the scriptures we know that the righteous is the one who trusts God and does His will. Also looking earlier at chapt 59; 20 says when it all will come to pass; “A redeemer will come to Zion and TO THOSE of Jacob WHO REPENT from willful sin.” It is about Messianic times when the Messiah will come as a redeemer. and times when Jewish people will be gathered from all parts of the world. v.4 These events don’t prove Is 53 to be a nation . Is 60 talks about Israel’s redemption.
Also Is 60 shows that God is still waiting till the people of Jacob repent, so how can th e Israel be better than others and fit in the mission described in chapter 53?
I also showed you in Is 49 the servant will help to lift up both the Jacob’s tribes and gentiles. The truth of Israels’ redemption is one thing, – it is all metioned , but the servant’s mission to justify others by bearying their sins is the other thing. God is showing his mercy to Jewish people because of His grace that He shows to everybody who wants to go back to Him. The promise about israel’s redemption is a great news but still doesn’t prove the nation is the servant in Is 53
You ask ” How do you say that “believers” will not be shocked at Israel’s exaltation? ”
Why would theose who expect these events to happen be shocked? Rather those who weren’t expecting these things and also weren’t expecting messiah’s coming ( because it is at his coming that the redemption will take place).
Also if you want to stay by your position that the nations are to be shocked by the glorified servant ( Israel) in Is 53, it still doesn’t exclude Jesus of being glorified as he is part of Israel , one among the servants if you want to consider all Jewish remnant as servants. You may not want to believe that one of God’s people suffered for a specific reason because he willingly took upon himself the quilt of our sins ( carried our iniquities) , bore the sins of the multitudes and died for it, but I have enough reason to believe it.
You disagree with me that “healing” (in Isaiah 53) means complete and total spiritual healing – Can you give some reasons to support ‘ the partial healing idea?
How any wicked person on this earth is healed spiritually but just ‘partially’ or ‘ not completelly’ by Israel’s wounds???? How are the Muslim healed , how are Christians healed????
In Verse 11 can you explain how through his knowledge that the servant renders many righteous ????
verse 11 continues giving the resason; it is their iniquities that he will carry.
You can have no matter how much knowledge , you can’t make others righteous unless they themselves repent and come to God .
Jerusalem translation puts it more clear; ” out of his anguish he shall see IT, he shall enjoy IT to the full through his devotion.” . The question is ; WHAT shall he see, what shall he enjoy? The answer is referting to the previous thought in v 10 ” that through him the Lord’s purpose might prosper.”
So another words ;the servant -although in his anguish- he will see /KNOW/ understand the Lord’s PURPOSE of it. ( of his suffering). Then it follows explanation ; what is the Lord’s purpose; that the servant will make th e many righteous , it is their punishment that he bears.” That is exactly what Jesus/ Yeshua did.
As far as Isaiah 53 servant being sinless.
It says he is righteous, no iniquity inflicted upon him for his own sins. He dies for other people sins not his own . You can’t bear sin of others if you are guilty of anything wrong yourself.
I also I will add God confirmed His servant’s righteousness by raising him back to life. There was no sin of his own to keep him dead.
To your question about Isaiah 51;16 , and God’s witnesses (Isaiah 43:10)and that Israel has been appointed by God to accomplish a given mission of testifying to His truth. ( I am answering it all with the questions from the other post.)
Of course I agree that God appointed a witness nation for a reason .
God appointed the witness and like I said Israel was entrusted with oracles of God and we read about them in the OT. Then we know that people although entrusted with God’s words, didn’t follow God.
Then when it comes to the mission of the suffering servant the witness splits two ways; Jews testifying that Jesus is God’s servant and Jews who don’t. Now you choose the path which one to follow. To me the testimony of Jewish witness doesn’t end with OT but continues with the witness of the events recorded in NT. Yeshua is not gentiles solution , the testimony comes from Jews. The reason I follow this testimony is – I have enough proof in my own life and in the scriptures that his testimony is true.
Another thing is that also people who come to God today and know him and follow him are becoming his witnesses of todays. His wintess doesn’t end with the past events but God speakes to peoples hearts nowadays too.
Also that specific mission one of God’s servants does described in Is 53 is being fulfilled in the vords of Is 49. He is lifting up the tribes of Jacob and he is the light to gentiles bringing people all over the world to repentance and to God.
Eric
Just because one sin (Adam’s) brought death doesn’t necessarily mean that all sins bring death. In any case – the point I was making is that not all sins are equal – and since the speakers in Psalm 44 are a plural entity – they are not sinless and yet they tell God that they did not stray from His path (psalm 44:19) – so it is clear that one could sin and still be on the path
Isaiah 60:21 is indeed talking about the time after Israel’s restoration – but the point I was making is that there is a righteous remnant who is loyal to God and who had hoped to God throughout the long exile as is obvious from Psalm 44, Isaiah 26:2 – the nation is described as one “who keeps the faith” – see also 25:9, 49:23 which give us to understand that Israel 9teh righteous remnant) has been hoping to God throughout the time of their suffering
Why do you insist that healing needs to mean total spiritual restoration? why can’t it mean simple physical protection?
Verse 11 explicitly says “with his knowledge my servant shall justify many” – how do you explain this?
You decided that one cannot bear the sins of others unless they are sinless – this concept is non-Scriptural – see Numbers 18:1and Ezekiel 4:4 – see also Isaiah 64;4
Israel is God’s witness to the truth of His sovereignty – not to the effect that some miracle worker is the “real thing” – read Isaiah’s words in context (43:10,12; 44:8)
And Israel’s message is the hope of mankind – did you notice – they put Isaiah’s words on the side of the UN building – not Jesus’ words – and there is a reason for it. Isaiah’s words are God centered and Jesus’ words are not
yourphariseefriend,
There are two different things in the bible regarding sin; one is showing origin of our mortality , that it is through our sinful nature we were not to live forever , second thing is that our sinful actions are not without consequences in our life as long as we live. This is what you call different sins and different punishments.
The answer to why we were not to live forever , is in Gen 3. How many sins did it take Adam to hear from God that he would die???? Also that didn’t mean he was to die immediatelly but Gen 3; v 22-24 tells you he was banned from living forever.
So now tell me where in the scriptures does it say we are not under the same conditions???? How, my disobedience , even one against God would not also result in the same what Adams??? We are not dying because we were designed for that from the beginning Gen 3;22-24 tells you that. There is no other reason shown in the scriptures of our mortality.
Also Jer 31;30 tells you that everyone will die for his own sin. These words are not about an immediate punishment for sin.
Now when in comes to ‘different sins and different punishments’ – our life is not free from the consequences of our sinful actions now although we won’t die right away. Daniel didn’t die right away from his crime yet he carried the pitiful results out of it for a long time. God is not leaving us to do whatsoever with sin not impacting our lives. Some evil actions might end our life quicker , some mess up the quality of it really badly. Some may bring more consequences than the other. You are speeding, you get a seeping ticket, you kill a person, you go to jail. So it is normal you have different consequences for different actions. These different ‘punishments’ in the bible for sin were giving people a ‘push’ to change their lives, to turn from evil and turn to God. They were lessons to learn to obey God. They were teaching you that it doesn’t pay off to disobey God. Or else everybody would be doing whatever they wanted to not seeing the reason for living for God.
You say that based on (psalm 44:19) – so it is clear that one could sin and still be on the path. One thing is they couldn’t say that when they were in their sin – they were on the path, only after they stopped and were aware of their sin. What is clear by words ‘ they didn’t strayed from your path is that they still trusted God and have not forgotten their God .
This can be said about anybody. We all are not free of sin but still want to trust God and know Him.
But the servant in Is 53 is specificly dealing with people’s sin, not with the issue of those who trust God or not.
And that mission finds no explanation to fit the nation.
I already gave you an explanation to this one Verse 11 “with his knowledge my servant shall justify many” That was my question how will you explain it? You focus only on the first line but v11 gives explanation in 4 lines; I said the following;
You can have no matter how much knowledge , you can’t make others righteous unless they themselves repent and come to God . Jerusalem translation puts it more clear; ” out of his anguish he shall see IT, he shall enjoy IT to the full through his devotion.” . The question is ; what shall he see, what shall he enjoy? The answer is referting to the previous thought ( based on context) in v 10 ” that through him the Lord’s purpose might prosper.”
So another words ;the servant -although in his anguish- he will see /KNOW/ understand the Lord’s PURPOSE of it. ( of his suffering). Then it follows explanation – the last 2 lines in v11 ; what is the Lord’s purpose; that the servant will make th e many righteous , it is their punishment that he bears.” That is exactly what Jesus/ Yeshua did.
To your words in Isaiah 26:2 – “the nation is described as one “who keeps the faith”.When we look at Is 26 , it starts with the words; On that day the song will be sung in the land… and the previous chapter tells you of the future events of the redemption time, destruction of death etc. God called many people righteous in the past despite their sin, He calls many righteous now and He will call them in the future those who will still keep their faith. But that still doesn’t justify that Jewish nation carries on the mission in Is 53. Is 53 has a specific mission to deal with all people’s sin.
You are showing me Is 25:9, and 49 ;23 and it talks about Israel’s redemption because God wants to have you all back, you were the nation entrusted with His oracles and He wants to keep His promise to have you all in your land redeemed and saved.
You say ; why healing in Is 53 can’t mean simple physical protection? Do you see more physical protection in the world now than before because if israel’s suffering? The whole chapter 53 tells you the healing refers to dealing with sin that others are justified and made righteous not physical protection.
Can you explaine verse by verse how you ( as nation) fulfill the words in that chapter?
The examples of people carrying the sin of others you are showing are not to set people free from death.
Jesus did it because he didn’t have to die for his own sin, but choosing to carry on sins of others and die willingly , he made our sins die with him. Another words God judged our sin on him .
The context in Isaiah tells you that Redeemer comes when your hearths will be ready. Is 59;20 That would mean his coming should already be now and redemption should be taking place now. I don’t call Jesus ; some a miracle worker’ but a servant fulfilling of Is 53 mission God gave him, also Is 49; 5-6 the one who will lift up the tribes of jacob and restore the survivors of israel also the light to the gentiles.
The example with words on UN building – you are giving- is not proving anything. We might say the same way about anybody; Moses words are not there so he wasn’t God’s man? Micah’ words are not there, was then he any less important?
ypfriend, Just finishing reading your link. I see there is a need to clarify the ‘ thing’ we are going around which is ‘the servant bringing the word to the nations’, light to gentiles etc.
Whether Israel is God’s witness or not ( as a nation) it is not to argue about/ it is not an issue but WHAT witness are are looking at.
Messianic Jews who believed the Messiah come ( as Yeshua) and those who witnessed him 2000 years ago can bring up all the verses of Israel’s witness and fully agree with them too. So wil I. And both them and I would agree th e witness of God comes from Jews
Also we can agree upon that when Israel is restored and will prosper it is all in the Messiah’s time, who will make it possible to sustain peace and justice within Israel and other nations around the world. He will be like the ‘lighbulb’ giving the source of ligfht for the while Israel to shine, because his sourse of light will be God, and he wil be also very close to Him
( Jer 30;21) ” I will bring him close and he wil be able to approach Me, for who would embolden his heart to approacv h Me?”)
so that other people who still don’t know God could come like to the light.
Is 11;10 clearly says how the nations will be enquiring of him and his knowledge ( as the wonderful cancelor etc Is 9;5-6)
So using arguments that Israel is a witness and will be even better in the future doesn’t eliminate the need for the Messiah so many Jews recognised in Yeshua and not only based on NT or Is 53 but based on the description of the Messiah in psalms and prophets . His mission of suffering and bringing the spiritual healing is not on the way/ against for Israel to be a witness. Second , comparing chapters 42;1-7 with all the servant’s songs ( I wrote you in the last email) wil easily lead you to the fact that the Messiah had to share in sufferings and exaltation also. Even skipping Is 53, the message of suffering and exaltation is there; 42;6-7 set for covenant to the people, light to the nations, leading prisoners out- is the same servant who is sharining the same mission and is despised in 49;7 .
I am not focusing on Jesus here but on the character Messiah himself based on psalms and Isaiah & Jeremiah that him being also despised and sharing in future glory is not the creation of NT or wrong interpretation of is 53..
You mentioned priests bearing sins to justify the right for the nation as those suffering and you belive they literally are ‘bearing others sins in Is 53.
If you read Ps 110 ;4 you will see that the Messiah is going to be a priest forever. If the nation that is called ‘ kingdom of priests’ ( which is not literal priests performing duries in the temple, but to be examples of service to God) and can bear peoples sin ( according to you) , so can definitelly the Messiah .
One last thing, you said new heavens and new earth is attributed to Israel and brought up
Is 66;22.
I recoment to read it again ; ‘ just as th e new heavens and th e new earth that I will make endure before Me- so will your offspring and your name. ” Which is about God’s promise to your name and people endure and not anybody’s attribution to new heavens .
Then read Is 48;6-11 (…) for sake for My sake I will do it..I will not cede my glory to another ” and then Is 59;16-17 ” but he saw there was no man and he was astounded…so His ARM wrought SALVATION to him and it was His benevolence that was HIS SUPPORT .”
Eric,
I would interject here regarding Is 42. When the verse says “Thus said Hashem… it is using that phrase to signify a new thought. That is why 5 changes the focus from one to another.
By the way, the reference to Malki-Tzedek (Shem) was not a Kohen and therefore doesn’t imply David will be a priest. Also, he erred when he praised Avraham Before Hashem and lost standing. As Torah states ‘you are a kingdom of priest’, i.e., a light to the nations.
Sharbano….. you say that brings new thought… but does it bring a different ‘object’ being described? well, who is then talking in verse 1-4? Hashem! And who is talking in v5-7 ? Hashem as well.
v.5 tells you what God said ( reported by the prophet) so it is in the 3rd person.
Then v.6 continues the message about what else God Himself says about that servant..
If the v.6 says ; “…I called YOU, then grammatically and logically YOU refers to the subject described above.
If I am a school principal and say; you Mr Jones are going to teach 2 grade this year. Then somebody says ” school principle said so. Then I continue; you will do this and this…. I am still talking about Mr Jones.
If you suggesting a new servant because of ” so said Hashem” notice that between Is 49;1-7 and v8 you have the same situation and in v.8 ” so said Hashem ” ( and even with the space between verses) doesn’t suggest a new servant.
Sharbano, today most Jews don’t refer Ps 110 to the messianic they think it relates to another king, but there has never been a king to whom God said to sit at His right hand till He would put enemies under the king’s feet. then .dispatching his ( king’s) staff of his strength FROM ZION, rule amid his enemies! at the same time called as king of righteousness ( Is 11;4 ) and a priest FOREVER.
v5. Th e Lord is at his right crushing kings on the day of His anger ( vengeance day) compare to Zeh 14.
Hi Eric,
Just wanted to let you know that I’m still working on your many responses on Isaiah 53. I printed out a bunch of them and I have over ten pages of single-spaced text! So I am getting through it slowly, as I wanted to also read yet again chapters 43 to 66 and take notes.
Thanks for your patience!
Best wishes,
Dina
Eric, thanks for sending me to this page. I just finished reading through all the comments. I’ll get back to you either end of this week or beginning of next, God willing.
Be well,
Dina
Dina, It is good to look at the surrounding chapters to have a better picture.
My question is on what do you conclude that God is addressing Isaiah as servant in cht 49? I have objections to that for the following reasons; To my observation v.1-3 God is talking about Israel, then you don’t mind that all of a sudden there is a swich of the servant? You didn’t like that about Is 53 but anyways we can see indeed that God is addressing a different servant in v 5-7 because of a CHANGE of DESCRIPTION of the MISSION. Then we don’t insist on the context. The same happens when talking about Is 53, ( the different mission tells you of a different servant) but I will get to it later. I just want to focus first on the thing why I don’t believe God is talking here about prophet Isaiah in ch 49.
First of all Isaiah is a messanger/ prophet speaking ABOUT the servants, not a servant carrying a mission of restoration himself. The book of Isaiah is referring to Israel about their ‘ ways of going astray’ and call to repentance and coming back to God and the promise of redemption. Then v7 explains; who is God talking to; He is talking to the despised soul, to the one loathed by nations, to the servant of the rulers. Kings will see him ( servant) and arise, officers will prostrate themselves ( because of God ) who has chosen you.
Definitelly from that description Isaiah doesn’t fit here, he is not a despised soul, not loathed by nations, and kings won’t bowe down before him.
Also based on v5-6 tells me the servant can’t be either Israel ( that the Stone edition is proposing) as he is going to lift up the tribes of Jacob and restore the ruins of Israel and will be light to gentiles. He is neither the nation , neither Isaiah but a servant who will take an important action of restoration of people ( all people). I believe it is about Yeshua./Jesus, That servant is matching the servant in is 53. The same way the servant in Is 53 will bring healing to the nations , the same way he will lift up tribes of Jacob in ch 49.
The servant is mentioned to be honored by the nations and leaders in ch 49, the same way the servant is exalted in ch 53. By the way the fact of Israels redemption in the future and God’s intervention and restoration of the nation where Messiah will be living in the midst and all that glorious time doesn’t exclude the other servant’s mission and exaltation by God.
You say ; ch 52 ” when the nations of the world are mentioned and described as being shocked, Israel is not included. Definitelly the remnant at that time can’t be shocked by God ‘s intervention and redemption because they will expect it and are looking forward to it. Second thing that is good to look at Is 59;20 that tellls you when the redeemer will come; when the peoples HEARTS WILL BE READY ” the redeemer will come to THOSE of Jacob WHO turn back from sin.” Then from Zah 13;9 we know that there will be 1/3 remnant left whom God will purify .
Also Zah 12 tells you that people will be humbled and mourning over a certain fact in a VERY specific way although it is said that God will give victory to the tents of Judah, He will shield the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the feebles of them shall be in that day like David. That would be the reasons for joy.
The Talmud at Sukkot 52a,cites a prophecy from Zechariah 12:10 –They will look on Me, whom they have pierced, and they will mourn for Him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for Him as one grieves for a firstborn son.
About chapter 40 , especially v 5 and v10 it is messianic. The glory of God will be revealed , or Jerusalem translation says ‘ the presence of the Lord shall appear and ALL FLESH as one SHALL BEHOLD /SEE and
v 10 talks about coming of God. So definitelly the redemption will include God’s visible intervention that I believe will be part of people’ astonishment, it will include God’s servant’ exaltation ( the Messiah) and exaltation over restoration of His people and glorification of the place ( Zion) where the glory of God will dwell.
Do you know that gentiles ( believers) will also be part of God’s people ? Zah 2;14-15
“Sing for joy and be glad, O daughter of Zion; for behold I am coming and I will dwell in your midst,” declares the LORD. Many nations will join themselves to the LORD in that day and will become My people. Then I will dwell in your midst, and you will know that the LORD of hosts has sent Me to you. “
Hi Eric,
I do think it’s appropriate to take up our conversation under this post, as the topic is Isaiah 53.
Before I continue, I’d like you to know something. I’m not trying to win a debate or prove you wrong. I’m interested in the truth.
The view of traditional Jews when studying our Scriptures is that context is indeed important and that the plain meaning of the text is its primary meaning. While we learn and appreciate additional layers of meaning and deeper insight, such as those provided by the Midrash, these do not replace or supersede the primary, plain meaning.
So when you say context does not apply in identifying the servant, then I must disagree with you.
I don’t have time to respond to all your points, so I will show you how context identifies the servant in Isaiah 49. Then in my next comment, God willing, I will show how the Jewish interpretation based on context really does make sense. I do not have as much time as usual this week, so I don’t know when I will get that out to you.
In the first verse, the prophet addresses the people and says, “Hashem summoned me [Isaiah] from the belly etc.” In the second verse, he says, “He [Hashem] said to me [Isaiah]: You are my servant, Israel, in whom I take glory.” (Isaiah, God’s servant, represents Israel, according to the very plain meaning and context.)
God tells Isaiah his task is to restore Israel to him. The context of Tanach shows that this was the task of every prophet, to return the people to Hashem. Needless to say, as Tanach records it, they often failed in this task. Isaiah expresses his frustration over this when he says in verse 4, “But I have toiled in vain and used up my strength for nothingness and naught.”
Going back to the context, Hashem nevertheless says that though his servant is despised by all the nations He will protect him; then the context identifies this servant as the people of the covenant.
7: Thus said Hashem, the Redeemer of Israel and their Holy One, to the despised soul, to the one loathed by nations, to the SERVANT of rulers: Kings will see you and arise, officers will prostrate themselves because of Hashem…Who has chosen you.
8:…I will protect you, and I will make you [the servant] the people of the covenant.
The parallel to Isaiah 53 of a loathed and despised servant who will be exalted–and who is explicitly identified as the people of Israel–is a point I will discuss in a future comment, God willing.
The context of Isaiah chapters 43-55 clearly identifies the servant as Israel. Therefore, the Jewish position that the servant in Isaiah 53 is Israel is logical, consistent, and makes sense. I am not asking you to accept our position. But I do think you can understand it even as you disagree.
My last point: this reading is not the result of my personal bias but conforms to the plain, contextual meaning of the Book of Isaiah. Some Christian bibles agree and also identify the servant in Isaiah 53 as Israel: The New Interpreter’s Study Bible, The HarperCollins Study Bible, and The New English Bible Oxford Study Edition, for example.
Dina, Eric. I think it is safe to say, that the pshat of Isaiah 53 is that the servant is the righteous and humble remnant of Israel, but that context also allows (as was the case concerning Isaiah the prophet that Dina mentioned) the messenger who represents the whole, to bear the title servant, on behalf of Israel. The reason there are midrashim which speak of messiah, and Israel, is because both and, Israel and messiah (the head representative,) can be present in the plain meaning.)
Dina, I will go back to you with delay, I have too many messages and little time. It’s vacation time for me.
Okay, thanks for letting me know and enjoy your vacation.
Dina, I am doing some research on Jewish old texts and interpretations of Is 53 and there are lots of interesting facts to solve the puzzle for both sides. I will go back to emailing hopefully after the weekend or around it- we will see whenever I find more time.
thanks for patience. I still have in mind the points I haven’t answered that I will do later.
Eric, that’s great! Do you mind sharing what texts you’re examining? Just curious…
Thanks,
Dina
Dina, yourphariseefriend,
The history of Jewish interpretation on Isaiah 53
A ) confusion and introducing two messiahs
B) references to older Jewish sources pointing to the Messiah
Ancient Jewish commenraties say that Is 52;13 and Is 53 were recognised as refering to the Messiah, so long before any christian influence. Many commentaries saw only some verses refering to the Messiah. Those who saw similarities to the nation also saw distinctive details speaking for an individual carrying other responsibilities among the nation. Similarities didn’t have to suggest the same subject as there are so many examples of that in the scriptures.( like Is 53 and Jeremiah 11; 19 ) Similarities also mean that 2 subjects might be sharing something in common but introduced distinctive details about one of them makes the other subject stand out as he carries some other responsibilities. That is how many ancient Jews saw both Israel and the Messiah in reference to Is 52;13-53.
1) One of the facts speaking for the evidence that the suffering of the Messiah was ever recognized by Jews , was introducing by a concept of having two messiah long before Christian influence.
The concept of 2 Messiah was simply result of not seeing how to put all the puzzles together – about the Messianic details found in the scriptures that seemed to contradict each other. Definitelly suffering of the Messiah didn’t seem to go together with the conquering hero and redeemer. The picture of 2 characters of Messiah ; one ,humble and suffering , the other conquering – was also influenced by daniel 7;13 which found its solution in th following Jewish conclusion ( talmud) ; If Israel is worthy , the Messiah will come in the clouds of heaven, but if not worthy he will ride in on a donkey ( based on Is 9;9). They presented two ways of his coming; one as a humble man , the other coming in clouds of heaven to conquer and rule . That was still before any Christian influence, and not based on any distorted christian translations, nor made up stories by Christian missionaries.
B) references to antient sources pointing to the suffering Messiah.
Prior to Rashi many rabbis frequently interpreted Isaiah 53 in reference to the Messiah.
The Talmud, likely influenced by Isaiah 53, describes the Messiah as the “sick one,” or the leper scholar (San 98b). Targum Jonathan ben Uziel recognizes the Messiah in Isaiah 53, although it emphasizes Messiah’s victory and not his suffering. Ruth Rabbah also interprets Isaiah 53:5 with reference to the Messiah. Midrash Tanchuma says the servant’s exaltation describes the Messiah.
The ancient Targumim, was refering Isaiah 52:13-53:12 to both Israel and the messiah among them.
The ancient Targumim from 2nd temple , particular 52:13 was interpreted as referring to mashiach.
“Behold, My Servant the Messiah shall prosper.” Targum (“Targum Jonathan”) to Isaiah 52:13, various editions (such as Samson H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation; the Messianic Exegesis of the Targum.” Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1974, p. 63).
“We know that messianic homilies based on Joseph’s career (his saving role preceded by suffering), and using Isaiah 53 as the prophetic portion, were preached in certain old synagogues which used the triennial cycle…” Rav Asher Soloff, “The Fifty Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Commentators, to the Sixteenth Century” (Ph.D. Thesis, Drew University,1967), p. 146.
Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b
“The Rabbis said: His name is “the leper scholar,” as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted. [Isaiah 53:4]. — Soncino Talmud edition.
“By the words “surely he hath carried our sicknesses,” they mean that the pains and sickness which he fell into were merited by them, but that he bore them instead. . . . And here I think it necessary to pause for a few moments, in order to explain why God caused these sicknesses to attach themselves to the Messiah for the sake of Israel.” The Karaite Yefeth ben Ali (10th c.)
Lekach Tov (11th c. Midrash) And let his [Israel’s] kingdom be exalted,” in the days of the Messiah, of whom it is said, “Behold my servant shall prosper; he will be high and exalted, and lofty exceedingly.”– Driver and Neubauer, p. 36.
Nachmanides (R. Moshe ben Nachman) (13th c.) “The right view respecting this Parashah is to suppose that by the phrase “my servant” the whole of Israel is meant. . . .As a different opinion, however, is adopted by the Midrash, which refers it to the Messiah, it is necessary for us to explain it in conformity with the view there maintained. The prophet says, The Messiah, the son of David of whom the text speaks, will never be conquered or perish by the hands of his enemies. And, in fact the text teaches this clearly. . . . And by his stripes we were healed — because the stripes by which he is vexed and distressed will heal us; God will pardon us for his righteousness, and we shall be healed both from our own transgressions and from the iniquities of our fathers.”– Driver and Neubauer, pp. 78 ff.
Yalkut ii: 571 (13th c.) “Who art thou, O great mountain (Zech. iv. 7.) This refers to the King Messiah. And why does he call him “the great mountain?” Because he is greater than the patriarchs, as it is said, “My servant shall be high, and lifted up, and lofty exceedingly” — he will be higher than Abraham, . . . lifted up above Moses, . . . loftier than the ministering angels.” Driver and Neubauer, p. 9.The same passage is found in Midrash Tanhuma to Genesis (perhaps 9th c.), ed. John T. Townsend (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1989), p. 166.
R. Mosheh Kohen ibn Crispin (14th c.) “This Parashah the commentators agree in explaining of the Captivity of Israel, although the singular number is used in it throughout. . . .As there is no cause constraining us to do so, why should we here interpret the word collectively, and thereby distort the passage from its natural sense?. . . As then it seemed to me that the doors of the literal interpretation of the Parashah were shut in their face, and that “they wearied themselves to find the entrance,” having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined after the “stubbornness of their own hearts,” and of their own opinion, I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah, and will be careful, so far as I am able, to adhere to the literal sense.” — Driver and Neubauer, pp. 99-100.
Another comment from R. Mosheh Kohen ibn Crispin
“If his soul makes itself into a trespass-offering, implying that his soul will treat itself as guilty, and so receive punishment for our trespasses and transgressions.” — Driver and Neubauer, p. 112.
R. Sh’lomoh Astruc (14th c.) ( those who saw Messiah and Israel as suffering servant)
And the prophet calls the King Messiah my servant, speaking as one who sent him. Or he may call the whole people my servant, as he says above my people (lii. 6): when he speaks of the people, the King Messiah is included in it; and when he speaks of the King Messiah, the people is comprehended with him. What he says then is, that my servant the King Messiah will prosper. — Driver and Neubauer, p. 129.
Midrash Rabbah interprets 53:5 with reference to the Messiah .
While Rashi, Ibn Ezra and Radak all interpreted the passage with reference to Israel, other equally prominent leaders, such as Moses ben Nachman (called Nachmanides or the Ramban) felt compelled to follow the weight of ancient tradition and embrace the individual, Messianic interpretation of the Talmudic rabbis (found in the Midrash, despite his belief that the plain sense of the text supported the national interpretation). Noteworthy also is the oft-quoted comment of Rabbi Moshe Alshech, writing in the sixteenth century, “ Our rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view.”
Followers of Menachem Schneerson (1902-1994), the Grand Rabbi of the Lubavitcher Hasidic movement, apply Isaiah 53 to him as an individual, believing him to the Messiah who suffered.
The Aramaic translation of chapter 53 , ascribed to Rabbi Jonathan ben Uzziel, a disciple of Hillel who lived early in the second century C.E., begins with the simple and worthy words:
“Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high, and increase, and be exceeding strong: as the house of Israel looked to him through many days, because their countenance was darkened among the peoples, and their complexion beyond the sons of men. “(Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 53, ad Iocum)
Babylonian Talmud:
The Messiah—what is his name?…The Rabbis say, the leprous one; those of the house of Rabbi say, the sick one, as it is said, “Surely he hath borne our sicknesses.” (Sanhedrin 98b)
In the Midrash Rabbah, an explanation of Ruth 2:14:
He is speaking of the King Messiah: “Come hither” draw near to the throne “and dip thy morsel in the vinegar,” this refers to the chastisements, as it is said, “But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities.”
Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Itzchaki, 1040-1105) and some of the later rabbis, though, interpreted the passage as referring to Israel. They knew that the older interpretations referred it to Messiah. However, Rashi lived at a time when a degenerate medieval distortion of Christianity was practiced. He wanted to preserve the Jewish people from accepting such a faith and, although his intentions were sincere, other prominent Jewish rabbis and leaders realized the inconsistencies of Rashi’s interpretation. They presented a threefold objection to his innovation. First, they showed the consensus of ancient opinion. Secondly, they pointed out that the text is in the singular. Thirdly, they noted verse eight. This verse presented an insurmountable difficulty to those who interpreted this passage as referring to Israel. It reads:
He was taken away from rule and from judgment; and his life who shall recount? for he was cut off out of the land of the living; through the transgressions of my people was he stricken.
Were the Jewish people, God forbid, ever cut off out of the land of the living? No! In Jeremiah 31:35-37, God promised that we will exist forever. We are proud that Am Yisrael Chai—”The people of Israel are much alive.” Likewise, it is impossible to say that Israel suffered for the transgressions of “my people,” which clearly means Isaiah’s people. Surely Isaiah’s people are not the Gentiles, but the Jews.
The commentary of the great Jewish educator, Herz Homberg (1749-1841), who says:
According to the opinion of Rashi and Ibn Ezra, it relates to Israel at the end of their captivity. But if so, what can be the meaning of the passage, “He was wounded for our transgressions”? Who was wounded? Who are the transgressors? Who carried out the sickness and bare the pain? The fact is that it refers to the King Messiah.
One of the greatest Jewish religious poets, Eliezer HaKalir, paraphrased this chapter in the 9th century into rhyme and metric poetry. It is recited in the Yom Kippur prayer of Kether:
“Messiah, our righteousness, hath turned from us: we are in terror and there is none to justify us! Our Iniquities and the yoke of our transgressions He did bear for He was wounded for our transgressions: He carries our sins upon His shoulders, that we may find forgiveness for our iniquities and by His stripes we are healed. O eternal One the time is come to make a new creation: from the vault of heaven bring Him up, out of Seir draw Him forth, that He may make His voice heard to us in Lebanon, a second time by the hand of Yinnon. ”
– The words of the prophet Isaiah are words of hope. We have a glorious future and an abundant present if we appropriate the salvation made possible by the One who “was wounded through our transgressions and bruised through our iniquities.”
Quotes from: Driver, S.R. and Neubauer, A. The Fifty-Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, New York, 1969.
Other facts about the Messiah;
According to Ps 110. he will be a priest forever.
Psalm 2;8 ; Nations will be made his inheritance and th eends of the earth his possession. ( There was no king over Zion ever to whom God made that promise
Jeremiah 30;21 – very close to God, able to approach Him.
Hi, Eric. I’ve saved over thirty comments from you and others to review and respond to. Goodness me, I don’t think I’ll get to them all! I’ll start answering them as I have more time, but I want to thank you for staying with me in this conversation. No one else has lasted as long as you have in such a discussion with me. What that says about me I will leave you to conclude :)!
Eric, I didn’t have time to read this whole comment, but I read about half of it, so I will respond briefly:
The Midrash does not replace or supercede the plain meaning of the text. The Talmud offers a Midrashic explanation but also accepted the plain meaning. Also, the two explanations are not mutually exclusive. Insofar as the Messiah is part of the righteous remnant of Israel, he suffers along with them.
Furthermore, a lot of Christians, like Concerned Reader for example, are under the impression that the Talmud was written in response to Christianity. Or else they believe that it was heavily influenced by Christianity. If the rabbis were trying to subtly sneak in anti-Christian arguments into a text that lacks mention of Christians, why not make the very obvious argument that Isaiah 53 refers only to Israel?
You wrote that ancient texts show that Jews accepted the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53 but not the modern Jewish one–but you provided texts that post-date, not pre-date, Christianity.
Dina,
When I said that context does not apply in identifying the servant I was pointing to your way of explaining the servant of Is 49; 5-6, according to the context it would still talk about Israel like it was in v.3. Because the subject of servant is not named clearly or given another name and we would not see the reason why it changed, it would still remain the same like in v 3. But the description of him and his mission is so different that we know the subject of servant changed. That’s what I meant.
That conclusion that God tells Isaiah that his task is to restore Israel to him can be debatable. It can be read both ways that it is Isaiah or Isaiah passing on God ‘s words about the servant who will restore tribes of Jacob. . So Isaiah- restorer or just Isaiah spokesman about another servant who belongs to the people of the covenant.
The same way like prophets were talking about the Messiah and his mission.
But why the second option speaks to me more is the description of him in v 6 b-7.
I don’t have to compare it to any other chapter but definitely being loathed and DESPISED BY EVERY NATION doesn’t fit to Isaiah here… Neither being light to gentiles as Jewish prophets were mainly speaking to Jewish nation.
Despised by all nations fits perfectly to Jesus where majority of unbelieving gentiles use his name in a curse, and treat the fact of his submission to death as an act of weakness.
You are saying the context of Isaiah chapters 43-55 clearly identifies the servant as Israel. But then we have situation when the servant is different and singular like in Is 49;5-6 . So that shouldn’t deny the possibility of a singular servant spoken in Is 53.
You know about that what you said ; ‘ Some Christian bibles agree and also identify the servant in Isaiah 53 as Israel: ” the same way I am finding Jewish sources from ancient Jews that do the opposite because they saw the Is 53 as Messianic or say it was at least partly messianic.
Again in what I am saying – I want to make sure- I am not denying Jews are God’s servants and will be restored in the future. God’s servants in Isaiah are shown as those who failed and those who are faithful. What I am saying is that the mission in ch 53 doesn’t fit to the nation or any group of people despite of sharing the suffering. It was done by one of the servants ( I believe Yeshua) .
The same way like for you the suffering of Jesus seems not needed to “heal’ people, the same way we don’t see the nation’ suffering as a purpose of restoring the world; that means healing, make others righteous, or coming to the knowledge of God. The future tells you that time of God’s presence dwelling with His people – its the best testimony for many unbelievers to see God, ( it’s not the need of suffering).
Eric, the reason I cited those Christian bibles wasn’t to prove that my position is correct. I agree, that would be silly. I cited those Christian bibles to show that even if you read Hebrew Scripture with a Christian bias you can still see that Isaiah 53 when read carefully in context is the nation of Israel.
My point is that the Jewish position that the context identifies the servant is not unreasonable. You think it’s ridiculous. I’m trying to show you why it’s not ridiculous, even if you disagree.
Thanks,
Dina
Dina, As far as the issue of context– locally and globally, that identifies the servant according to you , you make your identification based on th e future promised restoration of Israel . So lets say God is exalting the righteous servants from A to…. Z, but what you do is the servant Y has no place in His exaltaion.
Why? Because you don’t know if he ever existed? Well, if he did he will be exalted whether you believe or not.
Do I know who exactly were the righteous ones to believe there was some remnant that the songs of servant are talking about???
Future restoration of Israel and ‘ healing ‘ of people doesn’t mean you had to contribute to that with your suffering. God says he will restore you because He is merciful , for the sake of His name not because of the sake of the nation’s suffering Is 48;9-11
As far as your context based on th e words Is 52;15 doesn’t have to indicate the next chapter is the nations report in the future. My objection to your points was the fact that many christians believe in israel’s restoration so it is not matching the description in Is 52;15 ; there is th e news they have never heard before , they will see something which had not been told to them. Many books about prophecy are talking about Israel’s restoration!!!!
Another thing is, if half of Israel that is not called the righteous remnant it has to have it’s place in th e description in Is 53. If they don’t identify with the righteous, they would have to identify also with th e words of those who went astray like sheep. v 6 Then the nations are not the only ones speaking in that chapter. Then Israel is suffering on also on behalf of Israel. Then whose suffering brings healing? There are the righteous Jews who never had to really suffer, they are the bad ones who really suffered. I wrote before that th e description of the servant is simply not matching any group of people. Can you identify yourself with all th e words that relate to that servant? Are you annointed one with th e Spirit of th e Lord upon you? Is 61;1, Are you in ‘ his ‘ death with the wealthy? Is 53 Are you taken away by oppresive judgement? Are you cut off from the land of the living? You don’t live in Israel but what about those who do? The only person that matched all verse by verse description in Is 53 was Yeshua, not even mentioning the facts written about him from other verses so called ” songs of the servant’ that are happening now and will be also done in th e future during the Messiah ‘ coming. Matching the identity of the Messiah.
Another thing is ; The healing according to you (iIn Is 53) and justification would relate only to people in the future after Israel suffered. But we see that God worked with th e mankind on the same terms and conditions of showing His unmerited grace to all long before Israel came into existance, which didn’t include a nation to suffer on behalf of others.
The best example is Cain. God is ‘protecting ‘ th e man despite his crimes, He is protecting th e killer giving him time to repent and change. So does God nowadays.
It is hard not to be confused by Christian eschatology (“last things”, or death, the end of the world, the judgement & ultimate destiny of humanity) since there are several major branches of thought and numerous sub-branches or differences in the details. There is amillennialism (the mainstream Christian end-times theology which rejects the theory that Jesus Christ will have a literal, thousand-year-long, physical reign on the earth). Then there is postmillennialism (which sees Christ’s “second coming” as occurring after a “Millennium”, or Golden Age in which Christian ethics prospers). And there is
Premillennialism (belief that Jesus Christ will literally and physically return to the earth and take the righteous back to heaven with him, often called the Rapture). The last one is the most common belief in fundamentalist Protestant churches (the one my pastor usually seems to accept, except he alters it a bit in his discussions of “the end times” and “the world to come” with his Orthodox Rabbi friends). Differences occur, or are sometimes subtle” based on how literal or figurative or symbolic one takes the text and whether one favors the texts of the gospels or Paul’s letters, or John’s revelation.
There are other ideas in interpreting the texts. Some people are Preterists; Preterism is a view that interprets prophecies of the Bible as events which have already happened. One can be a full or a partial preterist. Preterism holds that Ancient Israel finds its continuation or fulfillment in the Christian church at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. There are other Christians who take the non-literal or the “spiritual or allegorical” approach in the interpretation of the Book of Revelation and they see all of the imagery of the book as symbols. Most Christians, at least “fundamentalists”, probably interpret all or portions of the books of Revelation and Daniel, and other prophecies, as future events in a literal, physical, apocalyptic, and global way. There are different ideas that deal with the concepts of resurrection and retribution and of grace and judgement of all persons.
Beliefs about Christian eschatology (like several other Christian beliefs) inherently have problems. This is not meant to be a complete list, but first, the NT text itself does not present one single coherent belief about this or other issues. Second, because there is no one single authority determining what is orthodox, which compounds the problem of the text. Third, the text of the Tanach did not anticipate nor speak clearly anything about “a Jesus” and one needs to parse its text carefully and interpret it in a pre-deterministic way in order to “read Jesus into its text”. Next, the Jesus “you found” in the Tanach, now has to be re-shaped a bit to remain in compliance with the Jesus found in the NT and the Jesus of the “end times” that is preached differently in different Churches. Jewish eschatology is different from Christian eschatology, although both claim some text as foundational (Tanach should supposedly be foundational to Jesus).
So, Jesus said he was coming back soon. Many of his “Jewish followers” left him before his arrest and more left soon after that, if we can trust the gospel accounts, and apparently most of the other followers died before or during the first war with Rome (or later), and he did not come then nor soon after that. Now what is confusing (based on how I read Eric’s posts above), Jesus is supposedly coming again to Zion or Jerusalem and then after the Jews accept Jesus, this 2nd time, then “many from the nations” will see that and will come to worship with the Jews. These non-Jews won’t believe Jesus, because they are already Christians and need confirmation from Jews believing Jesus? Or they are non-Christians and Christians can convince them of Jesus and only believing Jews can do that? I don’t understand his arguments, which seems to put the “cart before the horse”.
The 2nd to last sentence should have read, “Or they are non-Christians and Christians can’t convince them of Jesus and only “believing” Jews can do that?”
Jesus’ arrival didn’t convince these non-Christians? Perhaps, as the gospels say “Jesus can come as a thief in the night”.
Yedidiah, I don’t understand where you took that argument you are writing about- you are confusing yourself – maybe you didn’t read my post carefully if you say it was in my post because I didn’t say anything like that. First of all where do you take that idea’ ” These non-Jews won’t believe Jesus, because they are already Christians and need confirmation from Jews believing Jesus????”
When the Lord comes to Zion those who will be with him are both believing Jews and gentiles. Zah 2;14-15
“Sing and be glad o daughter of Zion For behold I am coming and will dwell in your midst. Many nations will join themselves to Hashem on that day and they will become people unto Me and I will dwell in your midst. Then you will know that Hashem the Master of Legions has sent me to you.”
That doesn’t mean all gentiles in the world will be believers.
So where is the problem?? Nobody will be convincing anybody at that time , the rest of the world will see where God’s presence is ” Many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the temple of the God of Jacob. He will teach us his ways, so that we may walk in his paths.” Is 2;3 but that doesn’t mean all will want to follow God or how you say that: ‘Jesus’ arrival didn’t convince these non-Christians?” Just knowing who Messiah is doesn’t change anything if you don’t want to obey God. ( read Zehariach 14;16-19 .) especially v.17 It talks about those events after time of redemption; “If any of the peoples of the earth do not go up to Jerusalem to worship the King, the LORD Almighty, they will have no rain.”
You mentioned the fact that Jesus didn’t come yet although expected in any time in the history, the same question I can ask why the Messiah Jews expect – has not come yet to fulfill all the words prophesied? God gives people time to repent. The Messiah’ coming is called also the great Day of The Lord in which God will judge many wicked who never repented. Those who are right with God are looking forward to him, those who don’t want to follow God – they won’t like the day of His arrival.
Are there different levels of sin according to the NT? According to Matthew 5:19. “So anyone who breaks one of the least of these commands and teaches others to do so will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever obeys them and teaches others to do so will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” So there is a ranking system or at least levels of reward in heaven based on your level of sin on earth. Note that there must be some people who do not break even one of the least of the commandments or else all are the least.
Matthew 11:11, “Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater.” If Jesus was greater than John, then he is among the least or the least in heaven. If he was sinless, you must consider that he was the least on earth, and among other people who are great in heaven.
Just want to follow this
yedidiah, You mentioned different levels of sin according to the NT Matthew 5:19. is talking about those who will find themselves in the kingdom of heaven! Are you aware that not everybody wil be there ? Why some won’t have to die eternally??? What makes them immortal ( although they sin) contra those who won’t see resurrection?
What’s wrong with the levels of reward in heaven based on your actions on earth? Don’t parents reward their kids for good or punish for bad ?
yedidiah, To your words in Matthew 11:11, “Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has arisen no one greater than John the Baptist. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater.”
Another words the least in heaven will be greater than the greatest on earth.
Notice that it is Jesus saying these words , he is above John as he is Son of God not only a prophet. John the Baptist is called great because he was preparing the way for Jesus.
What Jesus was saying by these words is to describe the greatness of heaven( kingdom of heaven) that even the least in the hierarhy in heaven is considered greater than John. ( who is on earth) That means the least ones will be on higher level than John being on earth preparing the way.. Hierarhy in heaven is above this one on earth
Right, earth and heaven are 2 different places. But remember Jesus is talking to people in one of those places and it is wise not to confuse the two. So was Jesus not born of a woman, or of those “born of women”? Can Jesus not praise another, even above himself? Or was that spoken in a moment of humility, unlike much of what is found in the gospel of John? And what sort of entity is a “Son of God”? Are you talking about human Messiahs and Son of God, like King David or Saul, or are you promoting some sort of polytheism? How can one tell one Son from another Son (when they said the same words and did the same deeds), except as some wish to believe, from reading the words written, and often edited, by ordinary, fallible humans promoting a type of god-man Son?
I hope that this is not taken harshly. But, remember some people whom you address, do not believe what you believe. They read their texts without your bias and closer to spirit and context of the original authors of the text.
There are indeed levels of sin expressed in the NT! Peter denies Jesus three times, and has ample chances to stand up for him, but he doesn’t until later. He becomes one of the three prime disciples. Judas does the same, hands, Jesus over, and then kills himself! Most early Christians considered him lost, possibly with the ability to receive reconciliation at the end. Before Augustine and Anselm, before Protestantism, all Christians believed that believing in Jesus meant obeying his mode of life, not just confessing him. Paul says if you believe in your heart that G-d raised him from the dead, you shall be saved. The heart in the ancient world was regarded as the seat of reason, and emotion. If you truly believe with your heart, it means you are devoted to the whole message, not just the name. Many have asked on this blog, how it is possible that I have maintained that believing in Jesus isn’t all that we need. Jesus said as much himself on several occasions. If you love me, you will keep my commandments. You say that you love me, and yet keep not what I say? None of his parables make any sense, if he didn’t want people to live righteously. None of the ethical or praxis oriented strata of the NT make any sense if you hold that all you need is belief. A savior cannot save one who does not want it, and because we have free will, we have to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Why would Paul say that if your deeds didn’t matter? People can live righteously according to the Biblical narrative.
You are slowly coming around. Except you still have have a simple or misguided understanding of protestant beliefs. It might help if you would respond to Protestants on this blog, so that they can clarify their positions on certain issues. Some are just as knowledgeable as you on the NT. But be careful about making unsubstantiated or unsupportable claims such as “Before Augustine and Anselm, before Protestantism, all Christians believed that believing in Jesus meant…” If they don’t see it as ignorance, they may see it as a strong bias.
Judas was a suffering servant. He was greatly despised for being sent out to carry out his mission. A sacrificial lamb and an essential element in the story.
yedidiah, can you explain here what you mean about Judas as a suffering servant and what mission are you talking about of him being sent out? Who did his suffering serve???
I would be glad to respond if I knew what you mean…
Judas was a trusted servant of Jesus and he suffered and he was despised. Take Judas out of the gospels and there would be no gospels or else Jesus would have to have another scapegoat or else the story would have to be altered some bit. What you are implying is that Jesus was ignorant, despite his words and deeds at the “last supper” (and before and after). “All shall fall” and Jesus even knew details denial by Peter. You appear to be implying that Jesus was ignorant, unless we should assume that the ignorance is on your part.
John 13:2-3, “The evening meal was in progress, and the devil had already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simonʼs son, that he should betray Jesus. Because Jesus knew that the Father had handed all things over to him….”
Luke 4:6, “And he said to him, “To you I will grant this whole realm – and the glory that goes along with it, for it has been relinquished to me, and I can give it to anyone I wish.”
yedidiah, I don’t see where are you going with bringing up a subject of judas and him being a servant. The reason we are discussing the subject of suffering servant in general was to show if jesus was the one fulfilling the mission described in is 53. So Judas story doesn’t really fit here but if you want to discus him I let you know; Yes Judas was Jesus servant till the time when he decided to serve somebody else, that means the devil and he betrayed his master for 30 silver coins. Again, you are adding some thoughts to my messages that weren’t there. There was no implying of mine that Jesus was ignorant in anything I said. Maybe you are refering your answers to somebody else ..
As far as Judas’ suffering and being despised – it was not as a result of serving God but making a wrong choice resulting in his suicide..
And God can make good use of everything and use our mistakes to accomplish His purposes because He knows ahead what’s coming. That is a big difference to what yoiu said. Also , first you have to have Jesus as a servant to point to Judas as a servant because he had his master to serve to. But where is your connection to Isaiah with it ?
Concerned reader, I agree with your observation that believing in Jesus isn’t all that we need.
I thought everybody realized that here that Christians are not talking about believing in terms of ‘ knowing of someone’s existence.’ Even rebellious angels know about God’s existence but that doesn’t make them any better. I just thought I would mention that.
Yedidiah, when I use the term Protestants, I mean those Protestants who hold to a sola fide approach, who do not believe works or deeds matter for salvation. For the record, the idea that G-d is mad at us, and needs to satisfy his wrath through the death of Jesus (in its current form of emphasis and popular western understanding) indeed comes from Anselm of Canterbury, in the light of his reading of Augustine. I myself was raised Protestant, so if I seem harsh, I apologize. I mean no offense. There are so many denominations, it is difficult to represent them all in their details. My understanding of Protestantism is not simple, and I will amend my statement regarding all Christians, to prominent orthodox Christians before Augustine and Anselm had different ideas, mostly in eastern Churches. Is that specific enough?
Many of them (I am not speaking for myself), will say the term salvation stands for one thing, perhaps one point in time. There is a “before” (seeking forgiveness, repentance, salvation prayer, etc.,) and an “after (joining a church family, attending services, etc). Somewhere in-between is baptism and maybe being-filled-with-the-holy-spirit and maybe speaking-in-tongues, etc. Some believe, that unless one assumes the Holy Spirit or Jesus is weak, then “once saved-always saved”, unless one was never really saved, but “were never repentant and stayed in their sins”. Others believe anyone can “fall from grace”, can “back-slide”, be “tempted by the devil” in their weakest moments, etc. Some believe you can be “saved without belief in Jesus” and some read scripture as saying that “Jesus died for everyone’s sins and therefore all are saved”.
Some will say that you are ignoring or minimizing (as a “liberal”) all the terms or ideas in the NT such as wrath (especially in Revelation), cup, blood, “cut down and throw in the fire”. A lot of people do get their theology from whatever their pastor tells them, but many believers get their belief straight from what they read without prejudice. That is where a lot of those pastors got their beliefs from as well, and if some even heard of Anselm or even Augustine, they would reject most of the teachings.
That’s the problem Yedidiah. People are just reading scripture on its own, and a lot of context (time,place,original audience, etc. ) are missed when these preachers interpret, that’s why there are so many denominations. One very important reason that people are confused about “saved” and what it means, is that they think that salvation is more a recognition of some theological concept, some doctrine, rather than simple righteousness and justice. I’m not minimizing wrath, I just pay attention to the plain ethical teachings first, and only read theological homiletical points second. The NT teaches plainly and in unambiguous terms, that the saved clothe themselves (in thought and deed) with the example of Jesus. Wrath is for those who are genuinely bad people, not the person who is attempting to live the message. I also realize that a central aspect of Jesus’ teaching is an emphasis on an avoidance of pride and self importance. When I hear a Christian say that they are saved, and a non Christian isn’t, it makes me sick. Are these people G-d? Do they know judgement beforehand? The one who is last shall be first, those who serve, shall be served, etc. Even if I take a common Protestant reading that says that nothing I do means anything in terms of salvation, and salvation is a free gift, that means to me, that I have no right to boast over people who haven’t accepted my religion. It is the height of Hubris for people to say that G-d gave me a gift, and now I can speak to someone as if I am better than them because of it. I don’t care if someone says I’m liberal, that’s fine, I would say these people are confusing faith and politics. The main problem is judgement against others without even knowing other perspectives. You can’t be a righteous judge, if you don’t give all views a fair hearing.
You would hope that reading the plain words is all that many people would need (for those who want more than only the “sound bites” or want to be “spoon fed”). Don’t forget that there are many others who are taught “time,place,original audience, etc.” and who do teach and who do life-long study. And some of the best or better scholars do produce translations & versions that are easier for the “normal person” to understand and that are acceptable to “all”. There are more & more “study bibles” (so many now that many are “pop bibles” telling the “customer” what they want to hear). Five or so years ago, quite a few people were truly excited when the “Orthodox Study Bible” came out since it was “ancient Christianity speaking to today’s world”.
I don’t really agree with the idea that people (at least most of those that I am acquainted with) think of salvation as some “theological concept” or “doctrine”. But then maybe even using terms like “righteousness and justice” will appear to be too “bookish” or too much like theological concepts for their taste. They would agree with looking at the ethics or the morality first (do into others, love, etc). In fact, many would be bored or “turned off” by “too much theologizing”. Some only want to be lead into “jumpin & shoutin”. Many people do feel justified to be pleased when the arrogant or boastful, judgmental “saved person” falls. The “unsaved” will say “see, they weren’t any better than me”; they admire the humble, confident, and pleasant Christian.
What I mean by ethics is not simply love, but practices, actions, ritual, and liturgy. There are many study bibles, that’s true. I have the orthodox study bible, it’s very hard to have an orthodox study bible, since the tradition has so much volume. One of the reasons I emphasize deep academic peer reviewed study, as opposed to plain reading of sacred texts is because it gets to the meat of the second temple context, the fact that these documents arose from a halachic culture. Getting to that level of understanding is very important, as it dispels anti-Jewish and anti Semitic readings of Christian literature, and puts them in a clearer context. If a person realizes that love of G-d and neighbor was in the Torah first, realizes that Jesus fits within the milieu of 1st century Judaism, they don’t need to see Judaism in a negative light. Jesus was not just a Jew, he was a Jew who was observant of the peculiars of the law in his day, and he argued from within that context. A preacher who “studies” and yet speaks of the new things Jesus did, doesn’t in fact understand Jesus very well. When he said I come to fulfill, to him this did not mean a new law, but the proper interpretation of the law of Moses. I don’t emphasize the need for scholarship to be boastful, or to indicate superiority, but to illustrate that much information in the text can not be properly understood simply by reading, even if it’s a good bible. Take the horrible evils spoken in John’s gospel about Jews. If you go to school, read academic journals in biblical studies, histories from non Christian scholars, you will learn a much broader context that gives deeper understanding.For instance, knowing John’s gospel was being written in 90 ce likely by a Jewish Christian with Hellenistic inflluence, who lived post destruction, in a community at odds with the Synagogue, illuminates the rhetoric in the text in a way that disarms it’s vitriol better than a church bible study ever could. “Sounding to bookish” or going too deep, there is no such thing. If people feel that study gets too deep, they probably shouldn’t be going around shepherding people, don’t you agree? These books are thousands of years old, we can’t read them as if they were the NY times, or a simple book, for simple folk. These books have authority structures, interpretations over centuries, unstated assumptions for the original readers, contemporary cultural insights, etc. all things that a plain reading does not divulge.
Eric
The point I was trying to make about sins being different is that it is possible for a person not to be sinless yet the Bible will still refer to him as “someone who has not gone astray” – Psalm 44:19 confirms my position.
Therefore – your argument that the servant of Isaiah 53 (who has not gone astray as did those who are looking at him) cannot be the nation is simply non-Scriptural.
You distinguish between two types of “not gone astray” – you say that there is a general one for people who trust in God and a more specific one that gives someone the ability to deal with other people’s sin. This sir, is your own speculation.
Now verse 11 explicitly says that through his knowledge the servant will render many righteous – this is a parallel to Zechariah 8:23 where the nations want to walk with Israel – to learn from them – after all – this nation (the righteous remnant) carries God’s Law in their heart (Isaiah 51:7). So the teaching of God’s ways will help the nations become righteous – through their own repentance, of-course, but with guidance from those who walk with God.
Yes, the servant sees God’s purpose succeed through him – this includes his suffering and what he will do in the future (teach the nations).
I showed you Isaiah 49:23 to demonstrate that Israel will be rewarded for having hoped to God throughout her exile – that means that in a certain sense Israel (again the righteous remnant) is righteous even before the restoration – at least as they hope to God. We also see in Isaiah 65:8 that for the sake of the righteous servants (plural) God has compassion on others as well.
The “healing” is spoken in past tense – it has been done already – so I understand this to be referring to simple physical protection. The rendering righteous is spoken in future tense – therefore I understand this to be a Messianic prophecy that has not yet been fulfilled.
You argue that the examples I used to show how people can bear other’s sins (Numbers 18:1 and Ezekiel 4:4) are not referring to redemption from death – neither is Isaiah 53. The rendering righteous is done through the servant’s knowledge in a future time and is not accomplished through his suffering.
You request that I show you verse by verse how Isaiah 53 refers to the righteous remnant of Israel – I hope to put up an article on that soon – it’s a fair request.
My point about the words on the side of the UN building – I see this as a fulfillment of Isaiah 49:6 where the servant is told that through him the salvation of God will reach the ends of the earth – it was Isaiah and the Jewish people who carried his universal message that gives hope to the world – and not someone who gives a very exclusivist message.
yourphariseefriend,To your words; “The point I was trying to make about sins being different is that it is possible for a person not to be sinless yet the Bible will still refer to him as “someone who has not gone astray” – Psalm 44:19 confirms my position.”
That would mean anybody can put himself in the same position considering himself the one who has not gone astray, no matter what sin he commited as long as he looks and trusts God. Second; since anyone can be called righteous as long as he hopes in God , there is no need for others to suffer to make them righteous like Is 53 . 11 says.
There are NO 2 types of “not gone astray” – if anyone who is with God can be considered; ‘ not gonen astray’, the one with the mission of dealing with other people’s sin is included in the same position-privillage ‘ not gone astray’ .
As far as Zechariah 8:23 where the nations want to walk with Israel this refers to the future events of restoration , times in which also gentiles are joned to the Lord as His people . ( zeh 2;14-15) You are trying to fit Is 53. 11 with the words “through his knowledge the servant will render many righteous” to these events with your own interpretation. I don’t deny there will be people in the nations at that time who still won’t know God and will be looking for guidance, but v.11 applies to completly another mission. v.11 clearly states that the servant will carry peoples’ iniquities. It doesn’t explaine the future events of the nations learning from Jews. Is 53 talks about the mission is ACOMPLISHED THROUGH THROUGH THE SERVANT’S SUFFERING.
Suffering of Jews is not needed for others in order for them to come to the knowledge of God. And the servant in that chapter is suffering by God’s desire.
It is said the suffering of the servant was to our benefit v5 So tell me who is included in that beneficial group?All people? Then how did Nazis or Cricaders benefit from causing Jews to suffer? How were they healed/ physically protected? That wouldn’t make any sense.
You say ” The rendering righteous is spoken in future tense – therefore I understand this to be a Messianic prophecy that has not yet been fulfilled.”
But you state that we can call people righteous as long as they hope and trust God ( like the righteous remnant) . On that base you consider your nation righteous now , why the gentiles who hope in God can’t and have to wait till the guidence in the future?
If there are gentiles joined to the Lord at the time of restoration ( to dwell together where the kingdom is set) as His people, how did they become righteous? ( Zeh 2;14-15)
In Isaiah 49:23 Israel will be rewarded for having hoped to God – no problem- but it is said that redeemer will come to Zion when the hearts will be ready. He will come to those of Jacob who repent . ( Is 59;20) If God is waiting still for the remnant to repent and for gentiles to repent, everybody is on the same path.
You are saying that in Isaiah 65:8 ” for the sake of the righteous servants (plural) God has compassion on others as well.”
The verse says; ” Thus said Hashem . Just as when the wine is found in a cluster and someone says. Do not destroy it, for there is blessing in it, so I will do for my servants, not to destroy everything. I will bring off offspring of Jacob and from Judah the heir of My mountain, my chosen ones will inherit it and my servants will dwell there.”
From what I see God is talking about offspring of Jacob to have compassion on. So for the sake of righteous servants God will bring off Jacobs offspring. He is not talking about the nations that because Israel suffered , now God is merciful to other nations. Then is says that those whom God called and didn’t answer and have forsaken God, He will consign to the sword. ( another words they will be destroyed)v.11-12.
Did you also notice that when Isaiah talks about God’s servants ( whole book) it doesn’t mean they all were doing what God told them to do? There are no words in Is 65;8 that God is talking about righteous remnant. He calls Israel His servants and says He is not going to destroy everything ( refering to them) . He knows there will be offspring from Jacob that will listen to Him. That is what Is 65;8 is talking about. So it is not supporting the mission in Is 53.
To understand what type of redemption is Is 53 referring to , you have to know what type of healing it is bringing and what type of benefit. But because we disagree on our interpretation , my words won’t be speaking to you. It would require us to go the scriptual base for sin-death relation in Gen 3 to understand the reason of mankind mortality. Then looking in the future promise of no death Is 25. Then you will see why Jesus’s suffering by bearing our sins and dying for them – make sense becoming our substitute punishment – so that death doesn’t have to hold us. God proved that by Jesus’ resurrection. More , it is said everybody will be resurrected through him. It will be his voice that God will call us. God proved it raising also Lazarus from the dead through Jesus. Nobody gets raised to life sooner untill at the Messiah’ coming. ( Ezekiel) You may doubt it but there is nothing in the scripture to deny him as God’s servant.
Don’t get me wrong, Jews are God’s people and His servants ( some failing, some true) and they suffered , but they – as a nation- are just not doing the mission in Is 53 of bearing peoples sins to others’ healing. One of God’s servants did on behalf of everybody..
Didn’t read this whole comment, just wanted to point out that “not gone astray” does not mean “sinless.” That’s all.
Dina, I have already put my point about ‘sinless’ and ‘not gone astray’ in response to
ypfriend. I think we are clear about it now.
Eric
You say that my position about “not gone astray” has that term apply to too many people. You say that anyone can trust in God – no matter what sin they committed – and the Scripture will refer to them as “not gone astray.” Yu further ask, that if anyone can be considered righteous through repentance then why do we need the servant to suffer.
Allow me to clarify my position and to try to answer your questions. I don’t believe that all sinners can say about themselves that they have not gone astray – but I do believe that all sinners can be rendered righteous through repentance.
Those in Psalm 44:19 who have not gone astray maintained a basic loyalty to God through a period of suffering – they did not worship idols and in this sense they did not go astray. Furthermore, they speak of not been unfaithful to the covenant that they shared with God. This cannot apply to just anyone who doesn’t worship idols (which is a more limited group than you seem to think) – but it needs to apply to those people who share a covenant with God. So Psalm 44:19 doesn’t just refer to anyone who trusts in God – it refers to those righteous people from amongst the Jewish nation who did not worship idols and remained loyal to God in a general sense.
Now when it comes to repentance – the path is open to everyone on earth – and through repentance anyone can be called righteous. This is explicit in Scripture (Ezekiel 33:16). So you ask- if anyone can become righteous so why do we need the suffering servant – good question. The answer is because for the most part – many people do not choose the path of repentance. They go their own merry way – or they walk down the path of false ideologies and with this they call down God’s wrath on themselves. But it is because of God’s righteous remnant that judgment is not executed – and this is the healing spoken of in verse 5.
I understand that there are two different era’s for the servant’s mission – the first is before he is recognized as God’s servant – and at that time he doesn’t render anyone righteous – he just bears people’s sins and provides healing in the sense of general blessing from God instead of wrath and judgment. (In this time period the servant also heals by setting an example and by bearing the torch of truth – but this is still not the future role of the servant). This is spoken of in verses 4,5,6 and 8. In verse 11 a new aspect of the servant’s mission is introduced and that is futuristic – after the onlookers already recognize the servant’s status – then the servant will teach (render righteous through knowledge) and bear sin in the sense that the priests bore the sins of the people (Numbers 18:1 – Isaiah 61:6) – that it is their responsibility to teach the people right from wrong and the burden of separating the people from sin and praying for them when they fall short is on the shoulders of the servant.
I hope to work on a verse by verse explanation of this chapter as you requested – but it will take me some time so please be patient. And thank you for your ongoing questions – although you differ with me and you speak your position firmly – you do so with respect and that is appreciated.
yourphariseefriend, You say ;” I don’t believe that all sinners can say about themselves that they have not gone astray” – and to your explanation based on Ps 44;19 – I have a strong objection to that. The phrase ‘ going astray or not going astray ‘ has not specific meaning or an implication of refering only to Jews.
Just because those in Ps 44;19 are shown as people of the covenant ( because psalms are recording Jewish peoples prayers) who didn’t forget their God, doesn’t mean ‘ not gone astray’ can’t apply to anybody else who decided to stay on the path with God. The same phrase can be expressed by anyone who knows he has not gone away from God.
But anyways Jesus was Jewish , so applying the above conclussions no matter how ( your or mine way) it doesn’t exclude him from being a servant.
You say that many people do not choose the path of repentance. “But it is because of God’s righteous remnant that judgment is not executed ” and that ” he provides healing in the sense of general blessing from God instead of wrath and judgment.”
Another objection to that. I am sure you are familiar with so called the Day of the Lord for all the unrepenting wicked people. Amos 5;18 That doesn’t indicate any healing…. however you interpret it. God has always given people time to repent no matter what, whether somebody else suffered somewhere or not. Do you have an idea how the wicked people persecuting Jews benefited from their crimes?? I don’t. Did God ever bless the oppressors of Israel
( Babilonians etc) just because they were oppressing Israel unrighteously?
You say ” I understand that there are two different era’s for the servant’s mission – the first is before he is recognized as God’s servant ” I don’t know how you get it that way but he is mantioned to be a servant from the beginning. Of course he can’t render anybody righteous righ away untill his mission of suffering and death is accomplished. Also people have to repent first before they can be even called so. You can’t make other s righteous in the eyes of God if they keep refusing God.
You pointed to the words in Numbers 18:1 that the priest was bearing sins of others They were in charge of the Sanctuary , and we know that priests In the OT had to offer first a sacrifice for themselves before they could offer it for the iniquities of the people, before they could even enter the presence of holy of Holies. Also priests didn’t have to suffer to bear peoples sin ( in the sense like Is 53 shows) and offer their soul to death willingly, they didn’t have to be oppresed by God because He desired that . Their duties completly differed comparing with the servant In Is 53. Also priests in Isaiah 61:6 is not about the priests doing the sanctuary duties.
You are trying to show me how the nation can fit here that consists from multiple righteous servants ( the number might be 1000- 5000, less or more ) but there is a Jewish servant Y among all of them who literary fulfills the words in that chapter without needing to speculate of adjusting his life to the words in Is 53, and you can’t find a reason that his mission might have a purpose, literal purpose like the words say.?
If God did such a thing in the past like telling Israelites to apply lamb’s blood on the door in order for the angel death to pass over you, I don’t see anything strange in the fact that God used his servant’s sacrificial death ( his blood) to cover for our sins.
To Eric; Where am I going with “Judas” and Isaiah? Below is a partial answer.
So, being used by God is indeed a mission. Judas, like the righteous servant, was vilified and yet ignored, “considered insignificant” in a large part of the NT. Did Judas bear the sin of Jesus that we see of him in the gospels? The scapegoat for Jesus? And, just who is this “devil” character? In the Tanach, haSatan (not the same thing as our Christian devil) is not an evil power outside the control of God.
Isaiah 53:3-5, “He was despised and rejected by people, one who experienced pain and was acquainted with illness; people hid their faces from him; he was despised, and we considered him insignificant. But he lifted up our illnesses, he carried our pain; even though we thought he was being punished, attacked by God, and afflicted for something he had done.” So, even though you thought Judas was “being punished, depressed into “suicide” “for something he had done”, that might not be the case.
Isaiah 53:10-11, “Though the Lord desired to crush him and make him ill, once restitution is made, he will see descendants and enjoy long life, and the Lordʼs purpose will be accomplished through him. Having suffered, he will reflect on his work, he will be satisfied when he understands what he has done.”. So, judas did reflect on what he done (did Jesus have these types of doubt and anguish of a “sinful” human?). After the restitution (likely of Judas, but not what we would expect of Jesus), he will see descendants (judas or Jesus will beget human babies?) and live a long life (Jesus is gonna be an ordinary man again?). If God used Judas for a purpose, we will see what the real purpose was. And almost assuredly, many, many people will be surprised.
Isaiah 53:12, “So I will assign him a portion with the multitudes, he will divide the spoils of victory with the powerful, because he willingly submitted to death and was numbered with the rebels, when he lifted up the sin of many and intervened on behalf of the rebels”.
Do you see Jesus “being assigned a portion with the multitudes” and sharing with them and “the powerful”, or do you see him instead doing the assigning and the ruling?
Since you brought up “suicide” is that not “willingly submitting to death” and being “numbered with the rebels”? Sort of the “chief rebel”, giving his life so that no others could “march” with him?
yedidiah, did you ask yourself a question how was Judas- after committing suicide , ” giving himself willingly to deaf ” as you called that , going to ;”divide the mighty as spoils’ after killing himself and being dead?
That’s why I see your Judas’ suggestions pointless to discuss.
Also Matthew 26; 24 might be a hint . “The Son of man goeth as it is written of him: but woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born.”
The “gospel of Judas” is one early Christian writing that explains Judas” betrayal in such a way that Judas was the truest disciple of Jesus; he is the “13th” disciple, since he will one day have authority over the other 12. Jesus revealed great “secrets” to him that he did not reveal to the others. Just as much as he revealed “mighty, powerful secrets” to Thomas in the gospel of Thomas and other books. Just as he revealed secrets to some of the other disciples in other non-canonical writings. Just as he revealed some things in our current gospels to only a few of his “other” closest disciples. Just as Jesus spoke to Paul. I am not agreeing with them; just saying what early Christians wrote.
And as “silly” as you think Judas is to being a righteous servant (after his restitution and 2nd coming), others think it is not to much more absurd and pointless to “shoehorn” Jesus into Isaiah 53 (and using the NT to prove other parts of the NT, as you do by quoting Matt 26:24 is invalid, circular reasoning). Early Christian writers did use selected verses from the Hebrew sacred writings to “paint Judas as the villain”, the “guy in the black hat”. He was “fulfilling prophecies”. Likewise, they intentionally selected a small number of other verses to paint Jesus as the “good guy”. But objectively speaking, many (all) of the verses would apply to Israel/Judah (their people and legitimate human leaders), exactly what Isaiah had meant to write. You could loosely interpret some to other humans or maybe even angels. Certain verses even apply much more to Judas then to Jesus (as I demonstrated with little effort). And those, if you apply them to Jesus, negates a good portion of what the NT is trying to show about Jesus. The Romans didn’t need anyone (who did not know exactly where Jesus went to after supper) to help them find Jesus. In fact, Jesus did not need to be arrested in the middle of the night (unless his enemies, “THE Jews” did protect him), Nor did the Romans
(approx 600 soldiers marching noisily in the dark) need to arrest him in the middle of the night, giving him a very great chance of escaping, as did all his other disciples. The verses minimize the power of Jesus. They make absurd his deeds and words. For example, some people see Jesus’ death as planned; no martyrdom, but clearly as much a suicide as some modern terrorists claiming sacrifice & martyrdom do. And, some people see that without Judas, then no “betrayal, no crucifixion, no salvation”. Or, as we definitely see in the gospels, Jesus was sinful, so if he became sinless after that did anyone “bear his sins, if sins HAVE to be borne by some other person- since God doesn’t need a person to save Jesus or you. Jesus supposedly didn’t need anyone or anything to prolong his life, have children, etc. Those verses make Jesus appear to be a character in an absurd fictional novel or dramatic play. A “devil” or an “anti-Christ” might read Jesus into Isaiah 53. Of course, the NT contradicts itself quite often, so apologists, sophists try hard to reinterpret the words to fit a few of the claims or “proofs” for Jesus.
yedidiah, I have no time this week to read all the comments and respond to them so I will go back to them later. I am trying to respond to a few of your old questions;
You asked ” Do you see Jesus “being assigned a portion with the multitudes” and sharing with them and “the powerful”, or do you see him instead doing the assigning and the ruling?”
You know all translations very so much and translate the following passage so differently; ” portion from the multitudes, with the multitudes, or ” portion of the multitudes.” Each one makes huge difference in interpretation. Seeing mistakes in Stone Edition the JPS looked the closest to the original text;
JPS (Jewish Publication Society) version:
Assuredly, I will give him the many as his portion,
He shall receive the multitude as his spoil.
The speaker here is God, and the Servant is not just “among the great.” He’s being given the multitudes. He’s not dividing his spoil with others ( it is not about dividing material things, although it may include it too) —the people are actually the ones who are becoming his. Psalm 2 might be helpful to see if that situation is prophesied;
“I have installed my king on Zion, my holy mountain….
Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance,
the ends of the earth your possession.”
(Psalm 2: 6, 8)
Psalm 2 is a messianic prophecy in which God announces that he has anointed his true King, the Messiah. As God’s king is appointed to reign, he is “given” the nations.
V10.” he would see offspring and live long days ” offspring doesn’t relate to having babies but children of God .
The servant gets killed in Is 53, he goes to the grave , he is cut off from th e land of living, he is mentioned to be “…in his death”, he poured out his soul to death . He is not mentioned to be hardly or barely surviving or almost vanished but still there.
How was Jesus, after committing suicide by giving himself “willingly to death”, “going to divide the spoils of victory with the powerful”. Based on the NET bible translation (among others), we have the servant being given a portion (not all) as a reward as any warrior would (with the multitude) & he then shares these “spoils” with “the powerful”. Different bibles translate verses differently, but good ones give good reasons why they translate verses the way they do.
Along with my Christian bibles, I do use the New JPS version most often, along with its Jewish Study Bible Notes. The JSB Notes looks at several different interpretations (be cautious when taking very poetic texts literally, especially when you take them out of the authors’ truth & their historical context & apply them to other circumstances 100’s, 1000’s of years later). Commentary is commentary.
The JSB Notes state that some hold to the theory that the servant is a specific individual, but “that is unlikely, since nowhere else does Deutero-Isaiah refer to the Messiah, and the absence of a belief in an individual Messiah is one of the hallmarks of Deutero-Isaiah’s outlook (in contrast to that of First Isaiah). Because of marked similarities between the language describing the servant and Jeremiah’s descriptions of himself (see Jer. 10.18-24; 11.19), Saadia Gaon argued that the text refers to Jeremiah, while the Talmud (‘b. Sot.’ 14a) records the opinion that it describes Moses. Both opinions have been echoed by modern scholars”. But the JSB Notes also explains that, “…many passages in Deutero-Isaiah view the prophet Jeremiah as a model for the nation as a whole without equating the nation and that prophet”.
Others hold to the view that the servant is a righteous minority of the Jewish people. Many argue that the servant symbolizes the entire Jewish people. According to the JSB Notes again, “The passage, then, describes the nation’s unjust tribulations at the hands of the Babylonians (and later oppressors) as well as the nation’s salvific role for the world at large”.
Some Christian texts were written with the agenda of making Jesus “the servant”. So, a big problem is that NT texts could likely be fiction or polemics, since there is no evidence if it’s characters or events outside of those Christian texts. Since some early Christians did not believe Jesus existed as a flesh & blood human, while others believed he was no more than just a human prophet, it could be Jesus was no more than “midrash” and the gospels only as allegory. The real issue is really not how close certain verses in the NT seem related to verses in Isaiah or other Jewish sacred writings, but who in the NT (and non-canonical Christian writers and church “fathers) uses or knows about these “proof texts” and who ignores them for some reason or is ignorant of them. The issue is how do verses in the NT contradict those verses in the Tanach or how do they make the actors or events irrelevant, meaningless, and absurd as they present their different versions of Jesus or the Christ as reality.
Concerned Reader,
I saw a comment of yours about the need for deep study of Scripture in order to explain away anti-Semitic passages. I’m responding here because I can’t find that comment. I wanted to reread it before responding, but if my memory serves me correctly, you wrote that a plain reading is not enough. The historical context, the understanding that John was a Hellenistic Jew addressing Jews, and such ideas eliminate the vitriol from the text and allow for an understanding that is not anti-Jewish.
That sounds reasonable until you consider that it took 2000 years or so for (some) Christians to arrive at that understanding, even scholars who delved deep. The second-century Church fathers who were about ten times closer to that historical didn’t read it that way.
There is also another problem. Scripture should be available to the understanding of all mankind, from child to adult, from brilliant scholar to simple farmer. While we appreciate the many deep and deeper levels of understanding that can be attained through careful study, we also understand that the Torah can be understood on a simple level that is not incorrect.
A man with a huge brain like Maimonides understands the Torah in a way that I with my wee little brain cannot even begin to grasp. Yet when I read Scripture with my unsophisticated understanding is still correct.
It’s a big problem when the understanding of a sacred text of a religion is only available to people who know words like “hypostatic” and “simplex.” Is Christian scripture only for elitists, who are the ones who will instruct the unwashed masses?
Eric
Indeed, the words “not gone astray” in and of themselves can refer to anyone who maintains a basic loyalty to God. My point was that those words in Psalm 44:19 refer specifically to the Jewish people. That’s all I was saying
It seems that you are hung up on the idea that the healing of Isaiah 53:5 must be referring to a healing such as the one spoken of in Hosea 14:5 – in other words a total and complete spiritual healing. But there is no contextual evidence for this position. The healing can easily mean a physical healing such as in Jeremiah 51:8
The two missions of the servant do not mean that the servant is not the servant throughout – but up until the onlookers recognize that he is the servant (at the time of his public exaltation) – the prophet says nothing about rendering people righteous. This aspect of his mission only begins after he is recognized by the world as God’s servant (in verse 11 – which speaks in future tense as opposed to the previous verses which speak in the past tense)
yourphariseefriend, You know I am ” hung up” on the idea that the healing of Isaiah 53:5 must be referring to a healing such as the one spoken of in Hosea 14:5 – You are ‘ hung up’ on the other as referring the physical healing such as in Jeremiah 51:8 – but can you defand your conclusiion and show me how does it apply in todays world and also via the Day of the Lord Amos 2;8 that clearly states that God will judge the wicked? How did the oppressors of israel ‘ benefited from Israel’s wounds ? I would at least see the reason why you are abiding by your statement of which I don’t see any fulfillment in today’s world.
You mentioned the fact that the servant is not recognized right away . That is correct. “This aspect of his mission only begins after he is recognized by the world as God’s servant ” I don’t know if you noticed that was a case with Jesus that after his mission was done and God rose him back to life that people understood the purpose if his death. Not really sooner.
Eric
Israel’s oppressors benefited from her suffering because Israel’s suffering kept her close to God and her prayers protected even her oppressors – as per Jeremiah 29:7
– for your second point – when Jesus “rose from the dead” he was only seen by people who were already fully devoted to him. This has nothing to do with the exaltation of the servant described in Isaiah 53;1 which is clearly an instantaneous international revelation as is described in 52:10
yourphariseefriend, of course the exaltation of Jesus didn’t relate to him being risen from the dead, but him being sat at the right hand of God and coming in power and glory when the redemption time comes . God is giving people time to repent before His judgement time comes and that includes Jews as well to repent. Is 59;20 .
You can pray for peace any time but that doesn’t have to involve your suffering. That’s why this explanation you are showing is not speaking to me.
Eric
But suffering humbles a person and brings that person closer to God – thus his prayers are more readily accepted – Psalm 25:18; 34:19; Isaiah 66:2
yourphariseefriend,
These two psalms you listed are simply showing the prayer of those who are in need and their trust in God’s help. That is not justifying your interpretation of suffering and it’s purpose in Is 53 Your whole concept means that God made Israel to suffer so that Israel’s prayers would be more accepted. Not much sense in it.
God would listen to the righteous one who intercedes with heart for others without a need to make anyone to suffer . God didn’t have a need to cause Moses to suffer in order to listen to his prayers on behalf of the whole nation and saving the whole nation that one time when Moses interceded for his people. Being close to God and having love for others that is what God respects. ( also Elisha’s example)
You are simply presenting a picture of a Father who inflicts his children with suffering so that He would have pity on them and thus have pity on others around and heal them ( protect them). Very interesting concept, indeed.
The servant in Is 53 makes himself as guilt – offering for others. He doesn’t have a mission of prayer but a mission of ‘undeserved suffering’ and interceding and sin -bearing that results in many healed and many justified.
If Jesus prayed for me and interceded before God on behalf of me and even offered his soul to die for me, I can be sure of God responding to his prayer no less than he responded to Moses at his time and no less while having any suffering group who believes their suffering and prayers will benefit others. And my real ‘benefit’ and ‘healing’ is when my sins are ‘covered’ and peace with God.
Eric, you wrote:
“You are simply presenting a picture of a Father who inflicts his children with suffering so that He would have pity on them and thus have pity on others around and heal them ( protect them). Very interesting concept, indeed.”
Why is this such an interesting concept to you? Let me paraphrase what you wrote: You are simply presenting a picture of a Father who inflicts his child–who did no wrong!–with suffering and death so that others will be healed.
Aren’t you?
(Although, Rabbi Blumenthal, please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Eric is misrepresenting your argument.)
Dina,-You are trying to show me that according to Christians the Father does something really weird by inflicting his child who did no wrong with death for our healing. But are you realizing that the suffering servant in Is 53 according to you being a righteous remnant ; he is not just suffering from minor bruises but thousands of Jews killed? …for our healing?? Which one makes more sense? Isn’t one righteous person not enough to God ? Look at examples of Moses and Elisha and their prayer how one righteous Moses intercession saved the whole nation. Exodus 32;9-14.
Also there is a question what type of healing are we expecting as a result of the servant’s suffering?
According to rabbi B it is physical protection… I can guess you are believing the same, so lets see how the Holocaust and Crusaders ( the worst oppressing factors in the history) benefited the nations around the world resulting in their protection… Look around at the world filled with wars and hate throughout the history where many simple innocent people are dying. So this theory doesn’t make much sense.
Another example ; God gave time to Ninivah to repent not because any other nation merited His grace toward the wicked people. The same chance to repent is given to all people no matter whether there was a Holocaust or not. Johan didn’t like that that God would have just mercy over the wicked who seemed not to deserve anything. The same is today that time to repent is given to all as a result of God’s love and his long-suffering.
You mentioned Jews can pray for each other and also that someone who is close to God might have a better chance of being heard. It is all true. But then you say we don’t need anybody special. If that was a case you wouldn’t need a High Priest in the temple either, as the each others prayers should fix all the problems.
The thing why we see Jesus intercession as needed and important is the promise in the scriptures that the Messiah will be very close to God and will be able to approach Him. Jer 30;21, also he is promised to be a priest forever, that means his priestly duties will be carried on our behalf forever. Ps 110;4 ( Our NT Hebrews 5-7 are explaining that but since you don’t believe it – I can’t add much)
Another thing; a person close to God can pray for you in the situation you may not even realize that you need a prayer. One example; did the nation know that God would want to wipe them out on the desert because they were complaining?
None of the people decided to pray to God but were just complaing, just one Moses paryed on behalf of them to save them.
Back to the servant’s “analysis”
Your interpretation also doesn’t fit the description presented in Is 53. The servant carries the sins of others.
Imagine I carry your heavy suitcase , does it mean do you still carry it or your hands are free? Then I take it with me and disappear. Your suitcase are your sins, my disappearing with it – is Jesus dying on the cross taking your sins with him to the grave. That is how the Father made your sins ‘disappear’ in the grave so that you might have eternal life that God promised to those who trust Him. That what is our obligation is just trust and repentance. There is no just belief in the Messiah what saves us. It is all about believing the Father that He can save us and He is showing you how He dealt with our sin.
Second, our believing in Jesus – doesn’t mean I consider just the fact of his existence. That doesn’t do anything! If the whole world just knew about him but didn’t repent, that knowledge about him wouldn’t bring any salvation to anybody.
For the record and for the sake of clarity, Eric, please know that when I say that you need to believe in Jesus in order to be “saved,” I mean that you need to accept him as your lord and savior.
Dina, just a quick question , do you agree the audience ( I mean including those who are speaking) of the Hebrew Scriptures are only Jews?
Yes, Eric, and I explained that over in “Seeds of Auschwitz.”
Eric
You are making several critical mistakes in your approach to Isaiah 53. First; you seem to assume that this chapter is the answer for the universal problem of sin and guilt. It is not, and the Author never presented it as such. Ezekiel 33:10-20 is presented by the Author as a central teaching on this subject.
Second, you misinterpret the meaning of the Hebrew word “asham” in verse 10. The word means an acknowledgement of guilt on behalf of the one offering it. In other words, the verse is explicitly saying that the servant needs to acknowledge his own guilt and not walk around thinking how he is suffering on behalf of others.
Finally, you misunderstand the Jewish position. – but perhaps I’ll hold off on that until I can do the verse by verse interpretation that you requested.
By the way – I presented three Psalms – not two. The first showing how suffering renders the sufferer righteous – thus giving him/her more of a chance of staying God’s hand of judgment against the community as a whole
yourphariseefriend, I don’t say that chapter 53 is the answer for the universal problem of sin and guilt. A problem of sin and guilt won’t solve itself unless a person is willing to submit to God and repent. The ‘audience’ that is speaking in Is 53 doesn’t say ‘ by his wounds the WORLD is healed” No, but it says ‘WE’ those who also admit that sinned , ‘we’ who know that are guilty and recognize that the servant carried our iniquities, NOT THE WORLD’S .
An unrepenting person doesn’t benefit from these words if he is not aware of his sinful state or condition , thus he has no need for his sins to be ‘covered’.
You brought Ezekiel 33:10-20 Yes, it is telling you how you can live by turning away from your sin, which means by repenting. But Is 53 tells you how God dealt with our sin of those who trust God. How He removed our sins. Placed them on an innocent and carried away with his death. They are simply gone and buried. He removed our sins as far as possible.; as east is far from the west . like Ps 103 ;12 says.
Another picture paraphrazing Ezekiel would be; The Father tells you to get out of mud and wash yourself then you will be clean so you can enter His house. Is 53 tells you how He disposed of that dirty water. ( that is our sin)
You mentioned that the words in v10 mean an acknowledgement of guilt on behalf of the one offering it.
How can you say a guilt can be offered??? If you are guilty you admit you are guilty, you are not offering anything. It is your obligation to plead guilty if you want to be called righteous. ( not an offering)
You say ; “the servant needs to acknowledge his own guilt and not walk around thinking how he is suffering on behalf of others” But Is 53 doesn’t say that the servant has to acknowledge HIS OWN GUILT but his suffering is because of those who deserved it. v.8. There is not even a single mentioning of him suffering for sin own sin. The whole chapter is talking only about the guilt of others.
– As far as psalms you gave me; Psalm 25:18; 34:19; and Isaiah 66:2
Ps 25;18 see my afliction and my toil and forgive my sins”
Ps 34;19 ” God is close to the brokenhearted and those crushed in spirit, He saves.”
Is 66;2 “(…) but it is to this that I look ; to the poor and broken -spirited person who is zealous regarding my word.”
You say the first one renders the sufferer righteous. From what I see it simply says God renders the repentanat one righteous, the one who asks for forgiveness. That is very true. But is not the suffering itself that makes him righteous unless there is repentance.
Ps 34;9 and Is 66 ;2 says He saves or looks to those of a humble spirit ( brokenhearted and crushed in spirit). There is nothing here that you have to suffer for your own salvation or in order to bring it to others. Your broken heart is enough. Moses was an example of a humble man. God didn’t have to inflict him with suffering in order to have mercy over the entire nation.
Also it is not enough that the servant just prays on behalf of others but he has to die.
God desired to oppress him that means allowing his suffering and including his death. That makes a huge difference. He is mentioned to be in his death and in his grave, not as barely surviving, not almost vanished but still there. He bears and carries ‘our’ sins to his grave.
I compiled this years ago and post it here.
Let’s go back a little ways to see the groundwork that is laid. If we start in Is 52:3
“For thus says G-d. You have been sold for nothing and shall be redeemed for free”.
The Jewish people were Not “sold ” into captivity but were sent there because of their sins. Thus, ransom is not needed to buy them back -only repentance can set them free.
(52:4) For thus says the L-rd G-d: Originally, My people went down to Egypt to sojourn there and Assyria oppressed them for no reason.
The Egyptians had no justified cause to enslave the Jewish people, who had only come to sojourn in the land. But even if their very presence as foreigners sparked prejudice, what excuse did the Assyrians have. They came from far away to oppress the Jews, simply out of maliciousness.
52:9-12) Break out in song, together, ruins of Jerusalem! For G-d has consoled His people and redeemed Jerusalem! G-d shall reveal His holy arm before All The Nations and All Ends of the Earth shall see the salvation of our G-d. Get away, Get away Get out of there! They are defiled – do not touch them! Get out of their company, purify yourselves, you who bear G-d’s vessels! But you shall not leave in haste, nor go in flight, for G-d is going before you and the G-d of Israel is your rear guard.
We are seeing the final stage for what is being brought down in ch 53. All will then see that Jewish salvation was only a supernatural “holy ” act of G-d. Those nations remaining, the “ends of the earth “, having endured the pre-Messianic era, will take part in the Jewish salvation. They are told to move on quickly, leaving the exile, to get away from the “defiled nations “, to purify themselves of the gentile culture and values, for the “vessels ” are G-d Teachings and prayer. To purify the hearts of all foreign beliefs as to prepare to approach G-d. Even though they go out quickly they will not leave as escapees, as when leaving Egypt. Then it was the Egyptians who pursued them. But when the nations left accept G-d, they will, instead bring them to Him as their “tribute “. There will be no need for haste, as in Egypt, for His Presence will be evident in your “fore and your rear “. It will be manifest throughout the world.
52:15) so shall many nations talk about you and kings will open their mouths, for they shall see more than what was told to them and witness what they never heard.
And as the nations were once stunned by the Jewish people’s degradation, some even questioning their humanness, shall they all be stunned by the Jewish people’s ascension and will all be talking about it. Even kings will open their mouths in amazement, not believing what they see with their eyes, for they shall witness that Israel’s greatness is even more than what the prophets foretold. The Groundwork has been laid, and NOW we have a speaker who is Now talking.
53:1) Who would have believed what we heard and for whom G-d’s arm was revealed?
The nations shall witness “things not told to them ” 52:15, for who among them would have believed it anyway, even what they were told, they disbelieved. And who would have believed that G-d would “reveal His arm ” (as done in Egypt) to bring down the mightiest nations in favor of such an insignificant people?
Who would have believed that the Jewish people, so downtrodden in this world, would merit the redemption of G-d’s arm? But who would have believed that they would have ever left Egypt, when they were in a similar situation.
53:2) He sprouted before himself like a shoot, like a root in arid land, having no form or beauty. When we beheld him without appearance, how could we have found him pleasing?
Who would have believed that the Jewish people would sprout so instantaneously, “before themselves “, before they themselves were ready – like a shoot taking root in the desert. It is as ifone minute they are in exile’s desert and the next, flourishing.
Who would have believed that the Jewish people, who had been so uprooted from their Land and cut off from their source of sustenance, would suddenly begin to grow once again. Their existence in exile has Not been in G-d’s grace, say the nations, but out of their (the nations) own good will. They were as vulnerable as a shoot in the desert.
53:3) Despised and shunned by men, a man of suffering, and plague-stricken. We hid our faces from him; contemptible, we did not regard him.
The Jewish people were so despised by the nations that no one wanted to be near them. Their company was shunned by all. They were chased in exile from one place to another because no one wanted them near. They were looked upon as less than human and no one even wanted to behold them. They were avoided as if they were plague-stricken. The Jewish people, indeed, became ill from maltreatment, but received no mercy from their beholders, because they were so despised. All a person needs to do is read the history of anti-Semitism throughout the centuries and this is evident.
53:4) But, indeed, it was our illness which he bore and our pains that he suffered, yet we considered him afflicted, G-d stricken and tortured.
(The nations and their Kings are Still speaking here) But when the nations will come to realize what falsehoods they believed in, they will attribute Jewish suffering to gentile sins and not to those of the Jewish people. They sinned in their treatment, as did the Assyrians. Instead of seeing the Jewish people as G-d stricken, (which is how the church saw Jews until Israel came into existence), they will see them as their scapegoat.
Whereas they once saw them as lacking in human qualities, in wisdom and ethics, they will now see that this character “illness ” was not inherent (as Germany thought) but imposed by circumstances, the circumstances which they, the nations, imposed upon them. And whereas once they tortured them “in G-d’s Name “, claiming they are G-d stricken, now they will admit that the torture was, indeed, all gentile imposed.
53:5,6) He is afflicted by our transgressions, oppressed by our sins. He was chastised so that we should have peace and with his wound we shall be healed. We all went astray like sheep, each one going his own way. But G-d met the sins of us, all upon him.
All of the earth’s nations (who are left) will then admit how they have strayed from the truth. Each of them may have gone his own way – Western civilization, Eastern civilization, and within them, each nation unique, but on persecuting the Jewish people they all agreed. Each of them claimed their religion was “The Truth “, as did each of each religion’s countless sects. But whereas once they all invalidated the Jewish faith, they will all now proclaim the falsehood of their former beliefs. They will proclaim how they all persecuted the Jewish people, following the dictates of their leaders like sheep. Yet, this will not absolve them of responsibility, for “each one went his ‘own’ way “, acting for his own benefit.
53:7) Oppressed and afflicted, he does not open his mouth; Like a lamb brought to the slaughter does not open his mouth, like a ewe is dumb before her fleecers.
The Jewish people were oppressed bodily, like a lamb being taken to the slaughter. One doesn’t have to stretch the imagination but only look at the images of the Holocaust to see it clearly. They were afflicted and fleeced like a ewe by the confiscation of their belongings. But both things they endured silently, as do the sheep and the ewe.
They also endured the gentiles’ religious torments, the “debates ” sponsored in the ‘name of truth “. But whereas the gentiles were backed by authority and power, the Jew was silenced even when he proved himself right. Who can argue with authority. This, too, they accepted with silent endurance and went to the stake with the faith on their lips.
53:8,9) He was taken from confinement and from judgment – who can speak about this generation? He was cut off from the land of the living, the sins of my people have brought a plague upon them. He accepted burial among the wicked and in his death among the rich, although he had done no violence nor spoken any deceit.
Who can speak about what each generation went through in the confinement and judgment of exile. The Jewish people had always been ready to give up their lives for G-d, to accept whatever devilish “deaths ” the powerful “rich and wicked ” decreed upon them and to buried wherever they would be thrown. Accused of being wicked themselves and of amassing wealth unscrupulously, they were slaughtered mercilessly as the wicked would be slaughtered and their riches looted in their deaths. Even in death, their graves were desecrated and dug up in search of buried treasures. But they had done no violence to deserve such fate, their only ‘sin’ was that they refused to apostatize and speak a faith of deceit.
53:10) But G-d chose to crush him and make him ill. If he considers himself culpable, he shall see offspring and live long. G-d’s cause will prosper through him
Although the Jewish people in exile maintained their faith, they were not free of sin. So they suffered and were “crushed ” to atone for their sins. It was G-d who made them ill. Yet, G-d’s intention was not to destroy them only to make them ill. His intention was that they seek Him from their pain and merit to hasten Redemption. But to do this they must confront their sins, to “consider themselves culpable “. They will then “see their offspring ” return to the Land and remain there for a “long time “. They will never be exiled again. All nations, then, will also serve G-d, when the Jewish people’s mission, G-d’s purpose, will end in success. The mission to proclaim G-don earth.
53:11) He will see the fruits of his misery and be satisfied. My righteous servant, with his wisdom, will make many righteous and will bear their sins.
In the End, the Jewish people will see the meaning of all that they went through, the “fruits of their misery “. They will see how it all was for their refinement and this knowledge will satisfy them. And with this knowledge, this wisdom, they will teach many nations and bring them all back to G-d.
And the truly righteous among them will see fruit in their misery even while still in exile: Their faith in the Future allays all pain in the present and satisfies them even now.
But the greatest misery that they suffer in exile is the burden of their own sins. This they see and realize themselves. But despite their own sins, they remained faithful to G-d and that very faith brought deep satisfaction, even though they were materially wanting. It helped them remain righteous to G-d even when they were burdened with the nations’ “sins “, their torture.
53:12) Therefore I shall give him a portion with many and he shall split booty with mighty ones. For he exposed himself to death and let himself be counted among transgressors, whereas he bore the sins of many and prayed for the transgressors.
Because the Jewish people were always ready for martyrdom, to “expose themselves to death ” because they bore the nations’ branding of them as “transgressors ” when, in truth, they bore their sins and prayed for them. G-d will return their Land to them, giving them rule over “many ” and the booty of “mighty ” nations.
There’s a story about when the Jews were under a terrible dictator and suffered greatly They poured out their soul and prayed to G-d to rid them of this dictator. Their prayers were answered and they rejoiced. The person who replaced him was much much worse of a dictator then the previous was. This time their prayer was that this man live a very long time.
Isaiah then continues on with ch 54 when the Redemption is taking place.
Sharbano, Thanks for your long explanation.
You are looking at one side of the story , I would recommend to also look at the other important details. Starting with background I would go to Is 42 where a servant is prophesied to be ” set for a covenant to the people and light to the nations” v.6 . Then to the contrast v18-24 talk about blindness of Israel, being given out to plunder by God against whom they sinned.
Till chapter 53 there is a call to repentance along with presented Israel’s fallen condition of being in the need for redemption and the promise of that redemption and then to the contrast there is a righteous servant set forward with whom God is pleased.
Is 48;6 says God is going to inform you about the NEW EVENTS, hidden things that you didn’t know about. v. 8 You have NEVER heard nor have you known , nor was your rear open to them before. (…) for I know that you have been called a rebel from birth. For my name;s sake I shall restrain my wrath … not to cut you down.”
Then we have Is 49 – again the servant with whom God is pleased to be light to gentiles and who will lift up the tribes of Jacob, the same servant from chapter 42 that is to be set for a covenant to people. Definitely it is not the Isaiah as the Isaiah wasn’t spoken about in chapter 42.
Is 50;1-2 tells you Israel is sold because of his own guilt.
“Why it is that I have come and there is no man? Why it is that I have called and there is no one who answers” ? says the Lord. Then again we have a contrast ; a righteous servant that God is pleased with is presented in v4-10 a servant who is understanding and listens!!!
Is 52 ;10 there is a promise of Redemption by God’s holy arm that is revealed in Is 53 , how it is possible that the redemption comes to pass and that God doesn’t have to hold our sins against us. So now I will go back to the points you mentioned; starting with the words ;” you are sold for nothing, so for free you will be redeemed.” Just think ; what it means FOR FREE, that means you are NOT PAYING, that means you are not paying with suffering nor death for your redemption! The only thing God wants from you is repentance!
Yes indeed , all nations will see the salvation of the Lord , accomplished by His Holy Arm. They are already seeing it now as many people are coming to God through His righteous servant
( Yeshua)
Now ; who is really speaking in Is 53. ? Nations or Israel?
We have the following words’
“(…) they shall see what was NOT told to them and witness WHAT THEY NEVER HEARD.” 52;15 then we have Is 53:1) Who would have believed WHAT WE HEARD and FOR WHOM G-d’s arm WAS REVEALED?
Now ask yourself a question how the nations can be shocked by the message they are already proclaiming ??? How they can be at the same time as those who HAVE NEVER HEARD ABOUT that message and at the same time being those who ARE PROCLAING THE MESSAGE AND “HAVE HEARD AND TO WHOM GOD’S ARM WAS REVEALED” ?
They say clearly” Who can believe what we have HEARD?” They KNOW the message. Do the nations know it??? All messages that God revealed to people He first revealed to the Jews! Not to the gentiles! So do you still think the ‘we’ are gentiles speaking???
I thought for a while so that it was nation but then studied it deeper and now I see it isn’t.
Does A and B = A?? To my observation there are two different subjects.
Since when gentiles would be prophesying future in the Jewish book??? There is no evidence that Isaiah even ‘switches’ to gentiles in referring to the following words ‘ for the sin of my people he was cut off from the land of the living.’
There are so many other facts testifying for the speaker being Jews and that fact itself changes everything how you see the redemption in Is 53. Then you know that all words ‘we’ ‘our’ refer to Jewish people, that the servant is suffering FOR THEM . It doesn’t mean we ( gentiles ) are free of sin, I am saying the speaker is aware of the fact that the servant is suffering for them, not you all suffering for others. The same servant who is lifting up the tribes of Jacob in Is 49. The same servant who will be a light to the nations- a light to me.
Remember you are redeemed FOR FREE.!
Now going through the verses;
v.1 as far as expression ‘sprouting’ or ‘ like a tree trunk , like a sapling, like a root out of a dry land ‘ – you have the same comparison in Is 11;1 “ A shoot shall grow out of the stump of Jesse” which refers to the Messiah. A stamp of Jesse who has been dead for so long out of which life start to grow , sprouting “ a shoot” .
Also Jer 23;5 “The days are coming,” declares the LORD, “when I will raise up for David a RIGHTEOUS BRANCH, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land.”
Jer 33;15 “I will make a righteous Branch SPROUT from David’s line” – all referring to the King Messiah.
You want to compare the ‘shoot’ to the people , I see it in the scriptures , it is the Messiah.
As far as 53:3) Despised and shunned by men, a man of suffering, and plague-stricken. We hid our faces from him; contemptible, we did not regard him.
The fact of sharing something in common doesn’t mean you are the subject. Even Jeremiah shared the same words of being led like to the slaughter Jer 11;18-19 . The suffering is also expressing the righteous servant in chapter 50; 4-6 which word by word was fulfilled with Yeshua ( Jesus) . No metaphor needed.
53:4) But, indeed, it was our illness which he bore and our pains that he suffered, yet we considered him afflicted, G-d stricken and tortured.
There is no way I can say the nations are speaking here. I already explained that above. I am not saying the nations are free of sin, I am just saying that it is Jewish people admitting here in Isaiah that the servant is bearing their sin and suffering for them. You didn’t suffer to bring redemption to others , you suffered because of your own sin. Nowhere in Tanach Israel had to suffer to bring redemption to others, except suffered for their own mistakes. . It is for free you are redeemed , by God’s arm. So are other nations.
53:5,6) He is afflicted by our transgressions, oppressed by our sins. He was chastised so that we should have peace and with his wound we shall be healed. We all went astray like sheep, each one going his own way. But G-d met the sins of us, all upon him.
You completely skipped explaining the second line; how by your wounds anybody gets healed??? How are the oppressors of Israel healed???? Crucaders, Nazi, Hamas?????
How do get people healed by Yeshua? By his call to repentance and message of God’s forgiveness that God’s righteous servant took our punishment. That’s how we know we have peace with God .
Healing doesn’t come to a person unless a person repents and turns to God himself. The nation’s suffering can’t merit it. How did God bring the healing to Ninivah??? People ‘s response to God and repentance.!
More explanation is here; https://sites.google.com/site/nakdimonspage/isaiah-53-part-1
53:7) Oppressed and afflicted, he does not open his mouth; Like a lamb brought to the slaughter does not open his mouth, like a ewe is dumb before her fleecers.
To that I will say; Yeshua was tortured and died for you on the cross.
Notice that suffering described in Is 53- is to bring you peace and healing and justification. It is not to be refered to the nation suffering for their own iniquities. It is not a description of Israel’s suffering for their own sin. That description we have in other chapters also in the book of Jeremiah.
53:8,9) being “cut off from the land of the living” , buried among the wicked and in his death among the rich, although he had done no violence nor spoken any deceit. 53:11) My righteous servant, with his wisdom, will make many righteous and will bear their sins. ”
No metaphor needed here either. It is clear like it is; a righteous servant dies and is buried. Did the whole nation die??? Where those who die all righteous? The verse is not speaking of a stage of partial vanishing, but total death.
Was the nation buried all ??? Also being “ in his death among the rich” there is a really poor explanation trying to match it Jews being robbed out of their wealth. You wouldn’t even say a person is buried among the rich that way. It is buried poor and robbed!
Now skipping for a moment to v 11, if the servant is dead how by his wisdom he can teach anybody??? How are we learning from those who were killed??? You are trying to find a way how the servant makes many righteous by referring to his wisdom ( putting aside the fact that the servant is dead) , but the words in v.11 tell you the way; “ my righteous servant makes the many righteous- IT IS THEIR OUNISHMENT THAT HE BEARS.” Another words he bears your sins and your punishment. He is punished instead of you!
53:10) But G-d chose to crush him and make him ill. If he considers himself culpable, he shall see offspring and live long. G-d’s cause will prosper through him .
Stone edition says” God desired to oppress him and He afflicted him, if his soul would acknowledge guilt he shall see offspring…. or JPS “ if he made himself an offering for quilt…”
God was never requiring you to make yourself offering for quilt. He required only repentance.
God didn’t desire you to suffer in Holocaust and being oppressed. Ever! He is not God who
rejoices over people’s suffering that comes on them due to their disobedience and sin.
Also ‘offspring’ refers to people of God, all those who trusted God and follow him.
How did Jesus fulfill these words in v10.? He made himself an offering for our quilt. He endured the suffering by the joy that was before him which is seeing redemption of his people. He accomplished God’s will by his obedience.
53:12) Therefore I shall give him a portion with many and he shall split booty with mighty ones. For he exposed himself to death and let himself be counted among transgressors, whereas he bore the sins of many and prayed for the transgressors.”
How did Jesus pray about those who were nailing him to the cross was; “Father forgive them because they don’t know what they are doing.”
Daniel 7;13-14 talks about Messiah’s exaltation by God.
Is 59;20 tells you when the redemption will take place; A redeemer will come to those in Jacob who repented. The question is why is not redemption taking place now??
God will redeem all those one day who repented. These will be His people a glorious nation when He will live in the midst of them. Their light will attract all the others to God – in the Messianic kingdom. All will see His salvation. Many nations will join God on that day and be His people. Zeh 2;14-15
Eric, if you want to appeal to context, as you have done in this comment, then you have to accept my appeal to context. You cannot have it both ways.
This is a very long comment, so I don’t know when I will have time to respond. In the meantime, I hope you read the explanation I wrote and posted for you online.
Dina, If you carefully read my response to Shabrano you would find many points answered. So now I will focus again on the context to show why we don’t believe Is 53 is speaking about the suffering nation.
Going through the verses is actually Jewish week point as you people come up with so many imaginary ideas trying to fit it to the words in Isaiah and the arguments are really poor to be accepted. So what about the context? To you it seems like a strong argument that the context is indicating the nation and the speaker ( voice through Isaiah – the nations,) but here is why we can’t accept it;
These are the following arguments why the servant is different than the nation based on the context;
1) The greatness of the servant and God’s favor over him in chapters 42, 49, 50;4-10 , 53 is far beyond the condition of the sinful nation which needs redemption. ( Is 50 , Is 42;18-24) The righteous servant is not identified as a group at all.
2) Is 48;6 God is going to inform you about the NEW EVENTS, hidden things that you didn’t know about. v. 8 You have NEVER heard nor have you known , nor was your rear open to them before. (…) for I know that you have been called a rebel from birth.” Redemption and exaltation/vindication of the remnant is already known together with other prophets. So what is the NEW things you will be hearing?
3) In Is 42 ;6 a servant is prophesied to be set ” for a COVENANT to the people and for the light to the nations”
The nation ( neither righteous remnant )was ever to be a covenant TO the people.
If the servant is set for the covenant promised to Israel, then he CAN NOT be equated with Israel and at the same time serve Israel this way.
4) The condition of ALL people is described as sinful, not pleasing God ;
Is 50;1-2 tells you ALL people of Israel is sold because of his own guilt. ( righteous people would have God’s protection according to covenant’s promise)
“Why it is that I have come and there is NO man? Why it is that I have called and there is NO one who answers” ? says the Lord.
5) Is 59;14-16 no righteous remnant mentioned. God and His Arm ONLY mentioned in the process of redemption of the people who repented in Jacob.
6) Is 49 – prophet Isaiah is not fitting the description of the servant being the light to gentiles ( he was a prophet to Jews) neither is he fitting to being despised by nations . At the same time he will lift up the tribes of Jacob- matching the same servant from chapter 42 that is to be set for a covenant to people. So neither Isaiah nor the nation , for in that case ( as a nation) you would be acting on themselves rather than receiving the promised deliverance .
That case applies also while believing ( by you) that your righteous servant is justifying , healing others by his wounds , that means all those who went astray that includes also the rest of Israel described in Isaiah ( as their sinful condition doesn’t indicate to be called righteous Is 42;18-24) . You ( righteous servant ) suffering would be suffering on behalf of the rest of sinful Israel throughout the ages as well. You would be ‘cut off of the land of the living ‘ for the sake of the rest of sinful Israel.
Isaiah doesn’t differenciate between those who oppressed Israel and those who didn’t but mentions all who ‘went astray’ for whom the servant suffers.
7)The verses so called ‘songs of the servant’ are clearly distinguishing between the servant and the repentant remnant of Israel TO WHOM the servant MINISTERS!
8) All the expressions ‘sprouting’ , branch, ‘ like a tree trunk , like a sapling, like a root out of a dry land ‘ found in Is 53;1 – all are linked to the Messiah throughout the scriptures in Is 11;1 , Jer 23;5 , Jer 33;15 , Zech 3;8
9) Arguments against the nation as the servant in Is 53 -Based on the message in Is 53;
One has to really allegorize the words of Isaiah in order to make them apply to the nation.
The words in Isaiah are not fulfilled by the nation ; Israel, the remnant is not a silent sufferer, Israel/ the remnant never died, never was in his death with the wealthy, etc. He is NOT mentioned to suffer for his OWN sin, he is NOT acknowledging his OWN guilt! The word ‘ OWN ‘is not even there. More about the verses I already discussed in previous emails.
10) my last argument ; Yeshua- Jewish God’s servant came and fulfilled all the words in Is 53. His death is the fulfillment of the Passover.
Your interpretation of the Is 53 as the nations and kings reporting the words in chapter 53 to you as the audience ( to your nation) at the end of days is very illogical. Especially v 10 is spoken in the future tense. In order to make sense for that message to be spoken in the future , you would have the action already completed. Even speaking to ourselves nobody would report it like that.
What about also the Jews who are atheist and don’t care about God? Shouln’t they also be shocked by final intervention of God if they don’t trust Him like those in Zephaniah 1;12 ?
Your interpretation like that is actually the first one I met. It is rather illogical to have a report of the gentiles in your scriptures ( with Isaiah’s voice) If they are to see and hear something they never heard and seen , why would you have words revealing what they will hear and see right after these words?? Very illogical.
The fact that any message from God came first to the Jews before it came to gentiles speaks for the Jews to identify with the words ‘ for the transgressions of my people he was crushed”, before we can identify with these words as well.
So you have a servant who is beneficiary to your nation, as he dies for the sins of the nation to make you righteous.
Also I will say; the redemption and deliverance of Israel is not a secret to surprise us. Many prophets are speaking about that. Also we are aware that the redeemer will comes to those who repent.
Okay, Eric, I will try to find the time to examine your response to Sharbano as well as what you’ve written here. I’ll need some time.
Thanks as always for your willingness and patience to hash this out.
Dina, I will be looking forward to your response , no rush. I have already repeated many things what I wrote to Shabrano while responding to your emails. One question, who is speaking according to you in Is 61;1-3. Of course we are skipping the fact Isaiah’ ‘narratorism’ . My question is who is he talking about in verses 1-3 ?
Hi Eric,
Thanks for your patience. I have saved all your comments. I need to look up all the references, and that will take some time.
Talk to you soon,
Din
Dina, my response to your link about Is 53.
You are saying that half of the population will not be shocked because they already believe in Jesus return so the words in Is 52;13-15 can’t be talking about Jesus. ‘ because they will see things which had never been told to them and perceve things they have never heard.”
So this is your counter- argument to mine, but are you realising that most christians are aware of Israels future restoration and exaltation? Almost every book I have about the prophecies in the old testament is talking about that which is an encouragement to everybody to see that God keeps his word. So how these words in Is 53 ;13-15 can relate to something we believe, we heard about it and we can read about it????
The difference is we know that your future restoration doesn’t exclude Jesus ( Yeshua) and actually all will be possible thanks to what he did by (washing our sins away). The other thing is we believe in your future restoration based on the scriptures but chapters Is 53 , 42, 49, 50;4-10 , 61 are clearly showing Yeshua’s merits to minkind’s restoration in the future
Back to your arguments based on Is 52;13-15 there are some other things that have to be considered Before all that redemption and exaltation happens the scriptures are talking about the Day of the Lord coming which is God’s judgement to all rebelling people. The situation
in the world will look completly different than we see it now;
There will be many unbelievers and lots of people judged and killed, Is 13;6-13., Is 2;10 Zeph 1
God will gather the humble ones and lowly , he will purify his people , Zeph 3;12-13, Zehpeniah 1;8- 12,
“I will search Jerusalem with lamps, And I will punish the men Who are stagnant in spirit, Who say in their hearts, ‘The LORD will not do good or evil!’
THE LORD WILL BE EXALTED ALONE ON THAT DAY Is 2;10-11, Is 2;17 BEFORE He exalts his gathered humble people and those who call upon His name.
Ps 46;111 ” Desist and know that I am God , I shall be exalted among the nations, I SHALL BE EXALTED upon the earth.”
Is 2; 17 And the loftinesse of man shall be bowed downe, and the hautinesse of men shalbe made low: and the Lord ALONE shalbe EXALTED IN THAT DAY
Is 2;10 ” The proud look of man will be abased And the loftiness of man will be humbled, And the LORD alone will be EXALTED IN THAT DAY. “
Zeph 3;12 ” For then I will remove from your midst Your proud, exulting ones, And you will never again be haughty On My holy mountain. 12″But I will leave among you a humble and lowly people, And they will take refuge in the name of the LORD.”
So what is the thing the nations can be so schocked because something happened that they never considered?
The fact that God will gather and be merciful to all his humble people and and those who will call upon His name will be delivered and the wicked will be punished???
It is all about God’s intervention. But first it is written the Lord will be exalted himself ALONE. Would the nations be shocked first af all by seeing exalted God or exalted nation???
Second thing against your arguments I would say is the fact that not all people in the world are despising and oppresing Jews. And many those who keep helping them believe in God’s coming redemption. So how can they be shocked? They can’t say they have never heard about exalted Israel, because they have!
You are saying the servant was innocent of th e crimes for which he had been punished. You are sooo close!
You would agree people can be punished for other people’s crimes and that punishment would benefit the world somehow , but denying that an individual suffering for our crimes might bring any benefit and you are denying that his suffering and death would have any meaning…. See, no base to accept one and reject the other . If suffering of sinful people can benefit others , so more would bring suffering of an innocent one. Would you agree?
If God wanted to exalt the sinners who suffered unrighteously , He would have more reason to exalt the innocent person who suffered the same way.
You are believing that Jews are punished because of people’s crimes? Look around at the world and see how many ‘innocent’ people among all nations are suffering as well because of people’ s wicked crimes and are dying every day. There were 60 million( estimated number) of all people killed in the 2 world war . You are not the only victim and your suffering is not making the world better.
Well, as for me I am not interested in Your ideas of what the text is speaking of. You can believe what you want but Mine was taken from Jewish sources. What, pray tell, is Your source. If from your own thoughts then sorry, they are without merit and insignificant. Should I rely on your opinion to understand, for example, the Chinese culture and writings by reading only a single volume. I think not. It is the same here. It is too bad, but you bring nothing to the table as an understanding of the Jewish perspective, which, by its own nature, is the context and source. Many have concluded they understand “Jewish thinking” but without that there can be no true understanding. This is why the failure continues.
Oh, and by the way, the link you post is another example of my reply. I simply do not waste my precious time looking at sites on the internet for any answers. My library consists of about six large bookcases filled with seforim. These are the True sources and whatever anyone else brings is meaningless.
Eric
The interpretation of Isaiah 53 as a reference to the righteous remnant is as old as the Messianic interpretation. I documented this in Contra Brown. I also demonstrated how these interpretations are not mutually exclusive at all.
The concept of two Messiahs is not born out of a struggle between a suffering Messiah and a conquering Messiah as you allege. The rabbis saw the son of David as the suffering Messiah quicker than the son of Joseph. The idea of two (or more) Messiahs is built on the verse in Obadiah (1:21) which refers to a plurality of redeemers together with a reference to the involvement of the house of Joseph (1:18). There are other Scriptural references that would indicate a role for Joseph in the Messianic scheme but this is the most direct.
Eric, I think the point to the interpretation of the servant song in 53 that rabbi B is offering needs to be taken in the totality with other interpretations, such as Judaism’s understanding of sin, and even other Christian views. Sin needn’t be seen as a wholly non providential thing. G-d uses the free will choice to do good or to sin as a chastening rod if the latter choice is made. It’s not like the concept of Augustine or Anselm where a single violation is all that is required for G-d to cut us off. Original sin and the fall needn’t be seen as an original guilt inspiring wrath, but as a confused carnal condition Adam and we inherited resulting in death that holds people captive in the sense that we seek our own pleasure and not G-d’s. G-d told Cain that he could master his evil inclination. Even in Christianity, such as among the Eastern Orthodox, there are traditional perspectives on the fall and atoning death of Jesus that do not require That G-d kill Jesus because he needed to satisfy his wrath. Rather, it is the obedience and submission of the servant Jesus, or Israel, to G-d’s will in a sinful world that is to G-d as a precious Jewel. The second Adam succeeds where the first failed.Take Noah. Noah, scripture says was righteous in his generation. He wasn’t perfect, but he was righteous for his generation. As where by one disobedience death enters the world, so by the perfect obedience unto death, a path is opened to life, if we respond to the call, and work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. Jesus’ obedience is the source of the atonement. Making your soul an Asham, can mean presenting yourself as a living sacrifice. It doesn’t need the penal substitution emphasis of Augustine. When you see Jesus on the cross you think. He didn’t deserve that, it should have been me up there. This produces contrition in you, which produces a reformed life of repentance, which leads to eternal life. Jesus and Paul never said not to do things, or that just being Christian gets you in, they said that community affiliation does not get you in automatically, only a G-dly life.
Eric
Verse 10 teaches that the servant needs to offer his own soul as an acknowledgment of guilt. This is the Scriptural usage of that Hebrew word (see for example Numbers 5:8, Judges 6:4). So yes, here the chapter (Is 53) refers to the servant’s own guilt.
Psalm 25:18 teaches that suffering is part of the cleansing process.
I am presently working on a verse by verse rendition of Isaiah 53 so I will hopefully answer the rest of your questions there.
yourphariseefriendI, I only wonder what type of quilt does the servant have to acknowledge that requires offering his own soul ( I am curious how do you understand that by words ‘ offering his soul’ , and second I don’t see much difference now between that servant ( righteous one who needs to offer his soul to acknowledge his guilt and is still called the one who didn’t go astray and between the rest of the nation ( who went astray ). The difference seems to be in your opinion thus the words in Isaiah show there isn’t any! ( of course I am excluding one righteous – Yeshua)
Eric
Here is my reply
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/08/07/whats-the-difference/
Eric How sad: First of all it is guilt not quilt. Looks the same but a slight difference. Now it is also interesting that Christians are seriously using a Quilt to cover up all the years that the followers of Jesus slaughtered your own brethren and stole our property as we went nation to nation to escape their fury. Now to answer your question. The verse reads: “to see if his sou shall make an offering for sin” (that is from the Old King James
Cameo Edition….of course center column reference in small print). If you look up the word Asham in your Strongs (Christian) concordance) you will find that it is always I say always the individuals sin. Never for others as Ezekiel 18 and 33 shows us. Eric take the blinders off. Yes Jesus among Evangelicals and Messianics is a love story, with sweet music…..but like the Movies Not True. It was once asked an old Rabbi who had a shteitala shul and at Mincha he banged his hand on the bima put his cigar in an ash tray on the bima. Rabbi when I go into a church it is clean respectful, quiet etc etc. but when I go into a shul people are loud, a cigar on the bima. Why: The Rabbi answered him in his European accent: “Because our God don’t got a momma” Forgive the humor I cannot escape my past. But seriously Your faith in Yeshua is based on a love story that never happened. The Tanach alone is your (and my) answer and it speaks quite differently about God, Messiah, The Law and life itself. Reconsider your decision. We love and need you back
Tsvi Jacobson
Tsvi, Thank you for your expressed compassion. Not needed really. I would recommend the same ; pray to God to open your eyes and reading Isaiah 53 by Mitch Glaser might be helpful too.
Eric, I posted this challenge to Mitch Glaser on his person blog. Instead of answering my challenge, he immediately deleted my challenge from his wall. Let’s see if you do any better…
And Mitch, concerning Isaiah 53, I challenge you to show me one reference in the entirety of the servant songs where the servant is referred to explicitly as “David” or “the stump of Jesse” or any other Messianic specifier used in other passages throughout the Tanach…
The fact is, the “servant” of Isaiah’s servant songs is referred to as Israel and Jacob multiple times. But where is the servant referred to as being “David” or “the stump of Jesse”?
Jews and Christians can agree on other passages referring exclusively to the Messiah! Here are a few: Isaiah 11:1, Ezekiel 37:24, Hosea 3:5, Jeremiah 30:9…
There is one thing all of these verses have in common: They all use a “Davidic qualifier,” meaning that they all exclusively refer to the Davidic dynasty in some fashion. This is why Jews and Christians can all understand that these future prophesies refer to one person: Moshiach ben David.
However, Isaiah 53 makes no mention of this servant having any exclusive association with the kingdom of David. This is why we understand it as referring to a collective group of individuals, namely the righteous among Israel!
Shalom and G-d bless!
Wow, Yehuda Yisrael, did you ever follow up and ask him why he did that? I’m so curious about what he would have answered! Truth has nothing to fear!
yehuda, I am away on vacation now so I go back to you when I can and have access to th e computer, thanks for asking questions
.eric
Yehuda Yisrael,
Is 53;1 doesn’t mention ‘David’ or a stamp of Jesse” but you have clear similarities; all th e verses talking about the Messiah referring to him as him as a ‘sprout’ or sapling.
Is 11;1 “mentiones a stamp of Jesse and a shoot that will SPROUT from his roots”
Jer 23;5 talks about a righteous SPROUT of David.
Jer 33;15 calls him a SPROUT of righteousness that will sprout of David
Is 53;1 He grew like a SAPLING or like a root from arid ground. ( no David or Jesse mentioned but there is the same thing that characterises them all’ something that GROWS out of the thing that was LONG DEAD ; like a root of dry land, shoot from Jesse’s roots that were long dead as there has been no king reigning for so long.
Second ; NOT ALL verses that mention Messiah are mentioning David or Jesse. Jer 30;21,
Mic 5;1-3
Any other Messianic specifier’
1) Is 11;1 describes him “with the spirit of God resting upon him” ‘ annointed one” so does
Is 61; 1 and 42;1
2) Is 11;11 says the nation will enquire of him ( root of jesse) Is 42;1, 4 islands longing for his teaching!!
3) Is 11; 10 standing as a signal to the peoples Is 49 , Is 42;6 ( light to the gentiles)
4) Is 11;1-5 ( ruling with justice) and Is 42;4 setting justice in the land
5) Is 11;5 and Is 53 his properties of righteousness mentioned.
6) Is 11;11 on that day ( of his reign) the remnant is recovered from many places. Is 49;5 he is to bring back Jacob, restoring the survivors of Israel.
7) Is 11; 4 he wil strike the wicked of the world with the rod of his mouth, Is 49;2 His mouth is like a sharp sword,
8) Is 53;12 he is given the many as his portion, receiving the multitude as his spoil.
( Future) Ps 2; 7-8-9 ” ask of Me and I will make nations as your inheritance and the nds of earth your possession. You will smash them with an iron rod..”
Zeh 3;8 A Branch identified with the servant of God . ( according to Targum this verse recognised as refering to th e Messiah)
You mentioned Hosea 3;5 . That is very good.
It says ‘ afterwards they will return and sick out their God and David their King. If Messiah ( ben David) is to be your King and you are already in the time that he can be found, that means Messianic times, messianic reign – why would you be looking for him????? Th e earth will be already filled with the knowledge of God. The scriptures say that His dwelling will be famous. You won’t have to look for him. It only makes sense to seek him out before the messianic kindgom on earth. That means he has already came once Also at the time when they wil be seeking out their King, they wil be seeking out their God. But at th e Messianic kIngdom God will be well known, still no need for you to see him out at that time.
The last few sentences depends upon whether one is an Amillennialist, Postmillennialist, Premillennialist Christian and whether one believes in a Prewrath Rapture, Posttribulation Rapture, or Dispensationalism. People could start to get “their act together” and no messiah would be unnecessary. Since there is no evidence that any messiah has “already come” (except for those who base their hypotheses on highly unsupportable and rather spurious claims), many will be deceived & many will later see that a minority was right all the time.
Yehuda Yisrael, Is it my interpretation of the healing? This is the final healing ( remedy and cure) that makes a difference described in Jeremiah 33;6-8 , not the healing of ‘temporary protection’ you all keep bringing up that has no fulfilment in this world. I say ‘temporary protection’ as there is a Day of the Lord coming before the Messianic time of peace.
The healing that people ( who come to God believing Him about Jesus) experience in their hearts; is repentance and cleansing from their sins resulting in peace and reconciliation with God. It comes from believing God that includes believing that His Son Yeshua took our punishment ( not the nation) .
It doesn’t mean you will never sin again but that death has no power to keep you because of your sin. Penelty is paid, and the more you know how God cleansed you to set you free, the more you want to obey Him.
You are bringing up the servant in Is 49. I will tell you why the servant in this chapter and also 42 ,53, 61;1-3 , 50;4-10 , 49;5-7 is not considered by us to the nation ( remnant). The nation simply doesn’t fit the description of the mission the ‘ righteous servant’s chapters are giving. If you want to call yourself the righteous servant , you may believe you are the servant who is lifting up the rest of tribes of jacob ( Is 49) , but how did the people in the past do that? God was still saying there was no man to listen.
Is 50;2 “Why was there no man when I came? When I called, why was there none to answer? ”
What about Is 53, are you suffering like him? Are you dying like he is dying, ? Are you with the rich in ‘your’ death? Are you taken away by oppresive judgement ? Are you cut off from th e land of the living? Th e list can go on and on, In Is 42;6 are you set for a covenant to the people? In Is 61 are you the one the Spirit of God is upon you? Are you the annointed one He is talking about?
The only person that fulfilled all words verse by verse without of need of paraphrasing the text in Is 53 was Yeshua. So are many other aspects I mentioned in th e previous email .
Next thing; if half of the Israel is not called the righteous remnant and they are going to be ‘healed’ that means Israel is acting on behalf on himself. That means that half of israel can indentify with the following words’ we all went astray like sheep’ . Then you don’t have just the nations speaking in Is 53. Second, even unrighteous Israel suffered, so one group would be bringing the healing by their suffering and the other not? That would have little sense because not even all good Jews ( righteous) suffered with the things described in chapter 53.
All the verses about the future restoration in th e OT are true, but the ‘happy end’ won’t just happen by the merits of the suffering nation, but one suffering servant that is matching all words spoken about him.
Is 51;4-6 , Is 52;10 tells you that when God is talking about salvation and redemption , He is not just talking about deliverance of Isreal’s people from the enemies of the hating nations. That is one thing but He also is talking about eternal salvation that the far lands / island are looking forward to. Although the inhabitants of the earth are going to die, His salvation is to last forever. That means He will raise ‘ the righteous ones back to life’ everlasting life Daniel 12;2. And the nation of Israel is not contributing to the eternal life but it is God’s dealing with the consequences of sin that brough death – we read about in Genesis 3.
Many keep mentioning that verse against us in Jeremiah 16:19. You are forgetting th e words’ can a man make gods to himself’? It refers to the gods people can make for themselves whatever materials they used. Christians don’t have a need to make themselves gods, they have One God in heaven.
Eric, your “root” comparison doesn’t hold. Are you aware that the “stump” of Jesse uses the Hebrew word “netzar” to describe the Messiah in Isaiah 11? That’s a completely different Hebrew word than the word used for “root” in Isaiah 53:2. It uses the word “shoresh” for the word “root” in Isaiah 53:2. So your “comparison” isn’t so clean cut…This is actually the same word used in Isaiah 5:24 for “root.” (Shoresh)
Second, I never said that ALL verses specific to the Messiah have those criterion. I simply pointed out examples that both christians and Jews agree refer to ONLY the individual of Messiah. Isaiah 53 does not have such a “Messianic qualifier,” and that is why Jews understand it as referring to not simply JUST the Messiah, but the collective Israel! Contextually speaking, our interpretation fits more consistently with the servant songs which explicitly identify the servant as Israel. Your interpretation is 100% based upon your presuppositions about who you believe the messiah is. Ours is based upon the fact that previous chapters explicitly say “Israel/Jacob My servant.” Nowhere does it say “David my servant” and certainly not “jesus my servant”!
Zechariah 6:12-13 mention the same “Branch” as Zechariah 3:8…Interesting that this “Branch” is described as BUILDING THE TEMPLE OF THE LORD in those verses…This is something jesus never did…Thus, he is not the “Branch.”
My mention of Hosea 3:5 should be a wakeup call to you and all other christians who wish to claim that the Messiah is “divine.” Notice the separation between the Messiah and G-d in the verse:
Hosea 3:5. Afterwards shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God **AND DAVID THEIR KING,** and they shall come trembling to the Lord and to His goodness at the end of days.
If we were to interpret this verse to your liking, Eric, then the verse would have said that we will return to “David our god.” (Chas V’Shalom.) In other words, Jews and christians both can agree that the title “David” refers exclusively to the Messiah in this verse. However, christians erroneously claim that this verse refers to a “divine messiah,” when there is a clear distinction between G-d and “David/Messiah.”
And as to your absurd interpretation that this verse implies that “the messiah already came,” I suggest you look at the context and you will find that you couldn’t be any more wrong!
Hosea 3:4. For the children of Israel shall remain for many days, **HAVING NEITHER KING,** nor prince, nor sacrifice, nor pillar, nor ephod nor seraphim.
This verse refers to the current exile. It does not say “David/Messiah already came as king but you just missed him.” NO! It says that we will NOT have a KING for many days. It does not say that this “king” is simply waiting for us to acknowledge him as our “lord and savior.” We are living in this period of time WITHOUT A KING AND WITHOUT SACRIFICE. According to your interpretation, we have a “king” (jesus) and we have a “sacrifice.” (jesus) According to G-d, we don’t have either now…
Hosea 3:5. Afterwards shall the children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God and David their king, and they shall come trembling to the Lord and to His goodness at the end of days.
This verse refers to when the truth coming of Messiah happens after our true repentance takes place after the ingathering of the exiles as described in Deuteronomy 30.
You also keep claiming that jesus supposedly fulfilled Isaiah 53 “word for word.” I have news for you. He didn’t. I can apply the same hyper literal standards and you just to reject jesus as the Messiah. It is a fact that jesus DID open his mouth as he was “taken to the cross.” It is a fact that Isaiah 53:10 says that the servant will “see offspring.” Of course, you believe this refers to “metaphorical offspring.” I guess jesus didn’t fulfill this so “literally” anymore eh?
The fact is, our interpretation has the advantage of having something that is truly scripturally consistent. Your interpretation is completely eisegetical and dependent on your subjective understudying of your supposed “personal healing” by simply believing that some guy “took away your sins” and all you have to do is “believe in him as your lord and savior.” That’s not the message of Isaiah 53 at all. That’s the message of the NT.
And Eric, are you aware that G-d forbids the worship of ANY FORM, be it man made or not?
Deuteronomy 4 makes this abundantly clear. Lets start at verse 9, shall we?
Deut 4:9. But beware and watch yourself very well, lest you forget the things that your eyes saw, and lest these things depart from your heart, all the days of your life, and you shall make them known to your children and to your children’s children,
Here we see that G-d is commanding Israel to teach these things throughout their generations. G-d is directly telling Israel to teach their children about the things they saw and the things on their hearts. What are these things you ask? Lets continue reading:
Deut 4:10. the day you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb, when the Lord said to me, “Assemble the people for Me, and I will let them hear My words, that they may learn to fear Me all the days that they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children.
Deut 4:11. And you approached and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire up to the midst of the heavens, with darkness, a cloud, and opaque darkness.
Deut 4:12. The Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of the words, but saw no image, just a voice.
Here we have G-d explaining to the children of Israel what they “saw.” Notice that what they “saw” was no image according to G-d Himself! Moving on…
Deut 4:13. And He told you His covenant, which He commanded you to do, the Ten Commandments, and He inscribed them on two stone tablets.
Deut 4:14. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and ordinances, so that you should do them in the land to which you are crossing, to possess.
This verse is important to read in context with the next few verses because it reiterates the fact that these commands are not just a “one time deal.” Rather, G-d is commanding Israel not to acknowledge Him in any form throughout all our generations! With this in mind, lets continue reading:
Deut 4:15. And you shall watch yourselves very well, for you did not see any image on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire.
Deut 4:16. Lest you become corrupt and make for yourselves a graven image, the representation of ANY FORM, the likeness of MALE or female,
Deut 4:17. the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the heaven,
Deut 4:18. the likeness of anything that crawls on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters, beneath the earth.
Deut 4:19. And lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and see the sun, and the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, which the Lord your God assigned to all peoples under the entire heaven, and be drawn away to prostrate yourselves before them and worship them.
So Eric, from this we see two explicit themes:
1. G-d is explicitly commanding Israel not to acknowledge Him in any form. (Deut 4:16)
2. G-d is explicitly commanding Israel to teach this to their children and their children’s children, even after they come to the land of Israel. (Deut 4:9-14)
It is important to note that this is not simply explicit to “man made forms.” Did G-d create Adam, the first man? Yes…But WOULD G-d appear in the form of Adam? Of course not! Same thing with the “first lizard,” or the “first fish.” How do we know this? Deut 4:16! We are not to worship G-d in ANY FORM.
Note that I am not saying that G-d CANNOT take on the form of a man. G-d can do anything! I am simply saying that G-d WILL NOT take not the form of a man because he explicitly forbids the worship of ALL FORMS. That includes man!
Shalom and G-d bless!
Yehuda Yisrael, Your issue with ‘stamp ‘ or ‘root’ and the hebrew words for that doesn’t change anything as throughtout the scriptures God is using different words to describe the same things.
You can keep saying that your interpretation fits more consistently with the servant songs yet there is no way to see how you are fulfilling the words in thoses ‘songs’ . I still haven seen your answer how you are fulfilling them to match the servant- nation.
No way untill you start paraphrasing making it fit but it doesn’t! You rely on the fact that previous chapters explicitly say “Israel/Jacob My servant.” but you are not realising that the nation consists of people and the same way like not everybody is God’s servant ( serves God) the same way you can’t say how many are ‘creating’ that good servant. Especially readying first part of Isaiah , you can start excluding the groups that are not matching the perfect description and then finally you come to the servant who fulfills all the aspects. And he is still Israel, if it was even one person obeying God, He would still call that servant; Israel. ( an example with Jacob)
You brought up the fact of the temple building. Does it mean he can’t ever do what he said if he lives forever? Have you ever thought that not all things are going to happen immediatelly? The temple will be built definitelly for God ‘s presence to dwell among the people when the peoples hearts finally will be ready ! The same way like it is said that rhe redeemer wil come to those in Jacob who repented. Is 59;20 Why didn’t he come now yet??? Doesn’t mean he won’t ever??? Should I stop believing because things didn’t happen yet like I desire? God doesn’t want to dwell among people who are disobeying Him. And knowing that Jesus lives forever I am sure he will still have time to accomplish what is said to take place during the time of Messiah’s ruling on earth.
Hosea 3:5 is not my wakeup call because to me God is God and Jesus is Jesus. King is King , God is God, is that enough to clarify??? So you don’t need to destruct yourself on the points that I have not even mentioned! And I am aware of the context that the children of Israel shall remain for many days, **HAVING NEITHER KING,** nor prince, nor sacrifice, nor pillar, nor ephod nor seraphim. And the fact that it is not about looking for David the king who ruled before , it apply to th e Messiah.
You either don’t see what I am saying or you ignored the message. My point was that during the Messiah’ time you won’t have to look for him as he will be already well known and ruling from Jerusalem. if you were to look for him , you would have to look before.
You are bringing the fact that jesus DID open his mouth as he was “taken to the cross.” You are not realising what you are bringing are the agruments against the remnant ( the nation to be the servant) more than Jesus. I can ask you the same way; did all Jews went silently to death or ever never said any words while persecuted or being killed??? Do you see how radiculous this is??? ‘Opening the mouth’ was not about you whether you said a word or two or nothing. What Jesus did, was he didn’t protest, didn’t complain to his oppressors, he let it all happen, submitted himself to th e will of his Father in heaven that he had to die. He didn’t beg for freedom, for mercy , for anything. He even stopped Peter from fighting with sword for him. If you want to insist on your version of ‘not opening mouth’ you would have to also apply it to th e nation and tell me how it worked.
About “seeing offspring.” It refers to the children of God, not Jesus children as he wasn’t married!
Trying to apply it to the nation? Did all Jews who died had kids so that thery could see their offspring/children after resurrection ? Now, we might say, it was about seeing the next generations who are children of God ( because they obey Him). The same way Jesus’s offspring iis about seeing again those ALIVE who are doing God’s will ( because they will be resurrected one day.)
The message of is 53 is not to accept ‘some guy’, who took our sins away, etc. It is about trusting and believing GOD for what He did on our behalf, because Jesus didn’t sent himself
( Is 53 is not talking about a suicider crushing from his own will) but it is said all was God’s will what happened to him in order to accomplish God’s purpose.v.10 ” God desired to oppress him (…) the desire of God would succeed in his hand.”
You are trying to radicule our belief that God would want to sent a person to die for our sins to heal us, to justify us, to cleanse us from sin and thus free us from ‘ everlasting death penelty. So I wil tell you that to me it is more radicule to keep a belief that God would want to oppress entire nation and let them suffer so much for centuries so that He would be merciful to all the sinners in the world. ( as if He wasn’t before without anybody’s merits; Cain , Ninivah’s people, etc ) First of all you can’t make a sinner repent untill he decides himself to repent, you can’t make an evil person better no matter how much you suffered. And it is not the NT idea that God used blood to ‘cleanse’ the altar and that the access to His presence was only by shedding blood. Levit 16. Could ever any High Priest just get right into the Holy of Holies just because he wanted? He would end up dead. Wouldn’t he? And I don’t think that the ‘bloody ceremony’ was just the result of not having any other idea for a cleanser in those old times. …
People create for themselves lots of problems to use them as an excuse for rejecting Jesus.
Nobody is asking you to worship Jesus as God. You won’t even honor Jesus as the king and respect him for His obedience to the Father in heaven.
Christians can recognise God’s spirit in Jesus, that’s why many say that seeing Jesus they see God ( that means WHO God is) . By saying ‘WHO’ I don’t mean they think God is a man, but they see His CHARACTER of being merciful , forgiving and ready to save His children by all means what it takes. That’s spiritual ‘image ‘ we see in Jesus.
What God wanted His people to learn by not making any image of Him was to learn that He is not limited to the material image, which would mean God is not limited to any man made object ( wooden, golden, silver etc) God is bigger than any object we can create that’s why you don’t make any images. But God’s character ( who He is) can be reflected in a person that follows Him. Then you can say; you see God in that person, but it doesn’t mean you see the shape of God because if that!
You will have God’s presence and the king ( the Messiah ) in the Messianic kingdom. To your last points about God’s image; even Jesus didn’t acknowledge Him in any form because he said God is a SPIRIT ( and we don’t see spirits) . Jesus himself said his Father in heaven ( God ) is bigger than him.
Yehuda Yisrael, Eric is a Unitarian Christian, so he doesn’t believe Jesus is God. It’s confusing arguing with Christians because they hold so many different beliefs regarding the very foundations of their religion.
Still, I say that having a man at the center of your religion if you call him a man and not God is idolatrous because it is giving a man what belongs to God. Trinitarians are like a woman who commits adultery and says that her adulterer is her husband. Unitarians are like a woman who commits adultery and says that by so doing her adulterer brings her closer to her husband. Both are committing adultery whether they call the spade a spade or something else.
To Eric, you might find Rabbi B.’s articles on this subject illuminating if you read them again more carefully (he addresses your challenges):
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/08/12/isaiah-53-a-verse-by-verse-exposition/
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/armor-bearers-isaiah-5211/
yourphariseefriend, Taking a bit of your message at a time, I wanted to say your concept of Is 42 is very interesting..
I am impressed that you saw the Messiah at least in the first 4 verses of Is 42. It is also very interesting that the servant has to change in (verses 5 thru 7) to the prophet because he brings God’s word to accomplish God’s purpose here on earth while th e Messiah is in verses 1-4.
It is as if the Messiah had nothing to do with accomplishing of any of God’s purposes and couldn’t bring God’s word to the people. Then I wonder why in Is 11;10 the nations will want to seek Him so much.
It doesn’t say they will be ‘craving’ for Isaiah.
So where is that plain meaning of the text in the whole chapter 42??? It just ‘fades’ , but the context of verses 1-7 is as plain and consistent within the whole chapter as much as possible. Whether being referred to in the 3rd person and then first , it doesn’t disturb the plain flow of the text speaking for ONE THE SAME servant. And th e main argument you brought ; the second servant is bringing the word to the people.
You are saying that chapter 42 v.6-7 is not anymore about th e Messaih and it has to refer to the other servant because he will also be the light to the gentiles ( by the way I don’t know of any person among gentiles who would ever say he/she were ‘enlighted’ by Isaiah.
To your information in case you overlooked it also Is 11; 10 which is refering to the descendant of Jesse ( the Messiah) says he will be standing as a banner for the people and nations will seek HIM.
Also ; another points ; notice
that in Is 42;7 ( chapter that started with refering to the Messiah’ and has no logical base to say it doesn’t continue) the servant is ‘removing PRISONER from confinement ,
also 49.9 the servant is “to say to PRISONERS; go out” and
in Is 61;1 the ANOINTED ONE ( the Messiah) is proclaming freedom for captives releasing from bondage for the IMPRISONED. Just in case you didn’t notice. .
Then you may see that it is NOT IMPOSSIBLE for the same servant in Is 42 ( who is not the nation ) to share the same ‘attributies ‘ to be despised 49;7 and being also exalted or honored by kings, 49;7 .
Compare his humble attitude; Is 42;1-4 and Is 53.” he will not shout , nor raise his voice..”
Also Is 49;8 the same servant who is the light to gentiles , who is despised , who is saying to the prisoners ‘go out’, he is to INHERIT desolate heritages.
compare to Ps 2;6-8 about the Messiah;
“I have ·appointed [installed; set] my own king over my holy mountain, Zion (…) He said to me, “You are my son. (…) Ask of me, I will give you the nations as your inheritance”
Other helpful verses to compare;
1) Is 11;1 describes him “with the spirit of God resting upon him” ‘ anointed one” so does Is 61; 1 and 42;1
2) Is 11;11 says the nation will inquire of him ( root of Jesse) Is 42;1, 4 islands longing for his teaching!!
3) Is 11; 10 standing as a signal to the peoples Is 49 , Is 42;6 ( light to the gentiles)
4) Is 11;1-5 ( ruling with justice) and Is 42;4 setting justice in the land
5) Is 11;5 and Is 53 his properties of righteousness mentioned.
6) Is 11;11 on that day ( of his reign) the remnant is recovered from many places. Is 49;5 he is to bring back Jacob, restoring the survivors of Israel.
7) Is 11; 4 he will strike the wicked of the world with the rod of his mouth, Is 49;2 His mouth is like a sharp sword,
8) Is 53;12 given the many as his portion, receiving the multitude as his spoil.. Ps 2; 7-8 ” ask of Me and I will make nations as your inheritance and the end of earth your possession.”
9) Zeh 3;8 A Branch identified with the servant of God . ( according to Targum this verse is recognized as referring to the Messiah)
I am glad that you are actually allowing a servant to be just an individual whether you see him as a prophet or the Messiah in that chapter 42 v-1-4 . No insisting anymore on having a servant being refered to the nation like mentioned in Is 49;3. That can open the eyes of others whose the most famous argument against christian view of Is 53 is that it can’t refer to the individual because of verse 3 , Is 49 that decides for all.
I don’t remember who brought that up before; that Is 53 can’t be about the Messiah because it doesn’t start with ‘ my servant Messiah” or ‘me servant David” To your information Is 42 doesn’t start with that either, yet rabbi B , noticed the verses referring there to th e Messiah.
Hello Tsvi
The very long and misused arguement against the Messiahship of Jesus, is not based on Who is was, rather on what acts of criminality were done in His Name, post resurrection.
John Hyracanus became a ruler of Israel in the post maccabean period. During the then struggle of independence, one of johns war acts was to murder any individual who oppossed Israel, and who wouldnt concert to Judaism.
The entire edomite nation, then known as Idumeans were forcefuly converted to Judaism.All done in the name of Judaism. As Moses could be said to be the father of Judaism, all the atrocities could be levelled at Moses feet.
However, logic, common sense and moral decency, would never blame such terrible acts at Judaism and Moses, because Judaism DOESNT teach such. The only person to blame would be John Hyracanus.
A orthodox Jew assinatated Yitzchak in name of Judaism, shall we blame Moses for the crime? Certainly not.
Your arguements are based on what crimes have been committed in a name. But that doesnt mean, in this instance that Jesus the Jew, His Jewish diciples, and the infant Jewish Church were antisemitic. Nor does the NT teach such views, in fact it makes very clearly the oppersite.
What happened to Jews can never be blamed on Jesus or the NT. Murdering antisemitic men yes, but not followers of the Lamb.
Personally speaking I think that non believing Jews would prefer the church of Jesus Christ to be antisemitic, so the arguement that you hold justifies your rejection of your God and King Yeshua Messiah. Hiding behind this pretence is your justifiable smoke screen for rejecting the God Adonai of Israel, just like your fathers always did. Just as the Torah said you would.
Your view of history is quite skewed. Before Hyrcanus, there was a long history of ill-feelings & hostilities between Edom or Idumea and Israel and Judea since Moses. Edom was also at war often with Assyria and Syria. Idumea helped Babylonia in the conquering of Jerusalem and destruction of the Jewish temple in about 586 c.e., and for a time Idumea ruled over southern “Palestine”. Read about the Idumean Antipater and his son “Herod the Great” and their connections to Rome. Herod married into the Hasmonean family & he became the “king of the Jews”, a title that is also given by non-Jews to Jesus. We don’t see much anti-Roman or anti-Herodian rhetoric in the NT gospels or other writings for a reason. But if many Christians, like me, can see very strong anti-Jewish sentiments in the NT and are repulsed and sickened by it, it is understandable that Jews are not unaware of the anti-Jewish nature of some of the gospel’s message.
You yourself have nullified your argument by your final (hopefully final) words ” Hiding behind this pretence is your justifiable smoke screen for rejecting the God Adonai of Israel, just like your fathers always did.” If that is not a very outrageous anti-Jewish sentiment, I don’t know what is. Their rejecting “your Christ” as a messiah is not a pretense. Jesus utterly failed as a messiah, especially by their definition of a messiah. They definitely did not nor DO NOT reject their God, how absurd & how arrogantly hateful!!! How do you even know about the God of Israel if “their fathers” rejected God??? And that relationship is between God and them – you are not God, nor a credible or valid spokesman for their God. You are an outsider. You can be an enemy and curse them if you want. That is not Godly and it is evidence that your Jesus is not in you anymore than it was in the anti-Jewish Christians of history that you try to deny as having existed or only “acted in the name of Jesus”.
Yet, you probably believe there is a “power in the name of Jesus”. You might end each prayer in “the name of Jesus (or aka, “Yeshua”). Mark 9, spoke of those who were not disciples of Jesus, but who did miracles in the “name of Jesus”. Jesus said let them for they can’t do wrong long and “whoever is not against us is for us”. So “much of what happened to Jews can” definitely “be blamed on Jesus or the NT”. See what the “lamb” is like in the last book of the NT. Those who did wrong the last almost 2000 years were some of the “realist” of the “real Christians” who not only did deeds in the name of Jesus, but in the very philosophy of Jesus (found in Matthew, John, all the hellish words & acts found in the book of Revelation, or in the concept of eternal punishment in hell for “sinners” and those who can’t believe in a “loving” Jesus).
Almost 2000 years, there were all sorts of beliefs that followers of Jesus had about who Jesus was and what he did and said. Some are contradictory. He might have been a man or he never was flesh-and-blood; he was a Jew or he definitely was not a Jew. So, Jesus is what people made of him, then and now. Lion and lamb. Warrior or peacenik. Wandering, poor, ascetic communist or the advocate for modern prosperity churches. Of course, there is little credible evidence that Jesus (of the NT) even existed, which is why some apologists spend an enormous amount of time and words trying to “prove him & his messiahship” by selecting a relatively few selected words or verses taken out of context from the Tanach. Like the gospels take images & copy words from Isaiah 53 to “prove Jesus”. All they show is poor copying or fictionalizing skills. You can’t proof as fact, persons that rely so heavily on midrash and imaginative story-telling for their existence.
But the synagogues of the 1st century c.e. and the early church up to and after the 4th c.e. are not the synagogues and churches of 200 years ago and those synagogues and churches are not those of the 21st century. There are many valid reasons in the Tanach and in Judaism for Jews not to believe in Jesus, plus they also have the many valid reasons that non-Jews have in not believing in Jesus.
Mitch Glaser obviously didn’t have an answer for me. He kept some of my original responses to him on his blog though. However, eventually he started deleting my posts almost as soon as I could post them! (I took screen shots of them and others could see them through E-mail, so I have a record if you’re interested.)
You see, Brian Crawford aka “Lev.Tahor” is a user on the Isaiah 53 forum website. I used to be a regular poster on that forum since him and the other CPM people insisted on debating there instead of Facebook. I decided to play their game, so I took my arguments to their forums. As expected, the only purpose of them debating from the forum was to “moderate” me…In other words, they censored my responses. I will give them some credit for not editing all my posts. However, it would take them nearly a week to “moderate” some of my posts, just to find out that it was rejected for being “off topic” or some ridiculous reason.
I abided by their rules on the forum, but I was criticized for having an “attitude.” By the time I started posting on Mitch Glaser’s blog, I was pretty much banned from the Isaiah 53 forums. After Mitch made a theological post on his blog, I decided to respond to it.
You can see his blog and comments of me responding to him here:
http://drmitchglaser.wordpress.com/2014/08/07/orthodox-jewish-group-opposes-chosen-people-ministries-brooklyn-messianic-center/#comments
You can see a few of my comments…All of them unanswered by Mitch…So instead of answering my questions, what does he do? Mitch posts another blog post entitled “Let’s Keep the Discussion Going.” In other words, he was opting out of answering. You see, Mitch wanted to “keep the discussion going” on the Isaiah 53 forum…You know, that same Forum that I was banned from for “having an attitude”…(Also, Mitch does not interact with anyone on the Forum to my knowledge. The most active user on the Forum is “Lev.Tahor” aka Brian Crawford, and he works for Mitch…) Essentially he was letting his right hand man, Brian Crawford, take care of the dirty work for him on the Forum. As you can see, I’ve had quite lengthy discussions with Brian Crawford aka “Lev.Tahor” on the Forums! Here’s just one example. Notice how at the end of the discussion, the Isaiah 53 “moderator” had to step in so that we could get back “on topic.” (By the way, Brian Crawford is a self professed “moderator” himself, so I would be surprised if he was the one censoring me directly…) Read through the discussion. I’m sure you’ll find it an interesting read!
http://isaiah53.com/forums/Evidence-that-Psalm-110-is-Messianic-146
Clearly, Mitch has no answers. Nor does Brian Crawford.
Shalom and G-d bless!
Fascinating how quickly “Lev” got angry at you while you were using a very calm, rational tone and being respectful at the same time. I did see the other post on the Mitch Glaser’s blog–you said it had been deleted? On that blog they didn’t even bother arguing with you.
I really enjoyed reading your arguments; thanks for sharing.
Yehuda Yisrael, was Mitch Glaser born into Christianity or did he convert? Do you know? Also, is his sidekick Brian C. Jewish?
Thanks!
Dina
Dina, Brian Crawford is not Jewish. He’s just an evangelical christian working for Mitch. Mitch got into christianity the same way Dr. Brown did. He grew up “culturally Jewish” with a “typical” Jewish education. Then he did drugs and sold drugs in his teenage years. It was in this state of vulnerability that he “accepted jesus.” Here is a video of his “testimony.”
http://www.chosenpeople.com/main/resources/videos/370-mitch-glasers-testimony-jewish-voice
It’s the same old story of an ignorant Jew in a vulnerable state succumbing to jesus…It’s sickening really.
Here’s Brian’s page.
http://www.chosenpeople.com/main/component/content/article/71-staff/627-brian-and-liz-crawford
Thanks, Yehuda Yisrael. Sad, really.
yourphariseefriend, You said the servant of Isaiah 53 acknowledges his own guilt and that this concept emerges from the words of the prophet. But the prophet doesn’t say that the servant needs to acknowledge His Own sin. Sorry but here is nothing mentioned about his own sin at all.
In the words ‘ if his soul would acknowledge guilt..” there is no indication he has to acknowledge His own iniquities as they are not even mentioned, not even slight sin! Neither in ‘servant’s songs’
Then you said” Christianity teaches that if someone is guilty on one point of the Law it is as if he violated all of the Law. But this is not the teaching of the Jewish Bible.”
My question is again; how much did it take for Adam to bring God’s curse of death and all that curse we read in the last verses of Genesis?
You showed examples of David and that he is still God’s faithful servant whose merit can protect others. I would complete the fact that his sin was not without the influence for the future.
2 Sam 12;10” Now, therefore, the sword will never depart from your house, because you despised me and took the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your own.”
You say; “The servant of Isaiah is no different” No, he is VERY different as his mission is completely not David’s. It is not about attaining his spiritual level of closeness to God through trials and tribulations. The servant in Is 53 , 42, 50;4-10 , 49 is already very close to God , with whom God is very pleased , without even one sin , no a single offense against God is mentioned.
I completely disagree with your argument that God wanted David to protect all of Israel that God brought him through so much suffering. The whole story of David testifies he suffered because of his own sin and mistakes, never for any other reason! God didn’t need ever to oppress any king to protect his people. A righteous king didn’t have a need to suffer, his obedience to God would be the best example the others to learn. About the blessings of obeying God’s covenant we read in (Deuteronomy 7:12-15; 28:2-12)
We have a different mission in view. Your suffering and repentance is not a key to save the world. There is a servant who is setting people free from bondage of sin while they repent. He restores them back to the fellowship with God. Back to righteousness. ( Isaiah 61 ;1-3) The servant is binding up the brokenhearted , proclaiming freedom to captives, releasing from bondage for the imprisoned, proclaiming a YEAR OF FAVOR unto God ( fulfilled) and a day of vengeance ( still to come) to bring about for the mourners of Zion, to give them splendor and instead of ashes. ( still to come) “ The servant is clearly to a benefit of those in Zion, so it is not a nation. The same servant speaking in Is 49;8 .
It is clear in Is 61 that it is by that servant’s contribution , that all the blessing is possible. Proclaimed freedom of captives is not about releasing prisoners but setting people free from bondage of sin. A year of favor of God is not a literal 12 months , but amount of time God gave to show his grace; time to repent, proclamation of a good news of salvation. v1 ” He ( God ) has sent me as a herald of joy to the humble” JPS translation or Stone edition” because God has anointed me to bring tidings to the humbled.”
Does it look like a merit of a nation???? Is 61 says ; you are benefiting from him!!!!!!
Based on that in Is 61 God’s purpose in not just a healing/protection brought to the nations by suffering Israel . Second argument t is ;here is a Day of the Lord coming with God’s judgment to all who didn’t repent; Zeph 1;12-18
Why the servant is not a nation of Israel but Yeshua I answered in my last email to Dina in;
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/isaiah-53-micah-7-and-isaiah-62/#comment-13526
You’re really hung up on this Isaiah 53 thing. A person would think your entire religion is based upon this one chapter. I gave you a verse by verse exposition by Jewish Sources but you haven’t revealed where your sources are from. If this is suppose to be about your god then G_d would have made mention of some reference to the real Messiah. You take what is vague and attempt to assign meaning to it without the totality of knowledge that encompasses it.
It is interesting that G-d would create a Torah with all the subsequent knowledge and decide to change and pattern it after virtually all the previous pagan belief systems of the nations. Shouldn’t a person question the merit of a religion that has a lamb of god, 12 disciples, a virgin birth and other similarities to those same pagans of ancient times. Why would G-d give the Israelites a Torah, unique to any other natoin, and then say “well these pagans must know better so I will pattern the redemption after their beliefs”.
I know Xtians Really want to believe in all this but you don’t realize how silly and nonsensical it all sounds to us. But you and others want to take “comfort” in believing we are blinded but if you were to truly analyze how you come to your conclusions it would be obvious that it is nothing less than reading something that is not there. How can anyone be blinded by something that is not there. A person cannot be blinded by the sun when it is not shining. Xtianity has no light therefore a person is not blinded by it. On the other hand the Torah IS Light and that is where the truth lies. Once a person ceases to read INTO the text, invariably they leave Xtianity.
It is interesting that G-d would create a Torah with all the subsequent knowledge (that took time and struggles of its own to develop don’t forget) and decide to change and pattern it after virtually all the previous pagan belief systems of the nations.
Sharbano, with respect, no ancient polytheists believed in anything like Christianity beyond an albeit real superficial similarity. If I told you that the epic of Gilgamesh had a serpent and a flood story, and that this “proved” the Torah to be a copy of pagan belief, you would disagree, again with due respect.
You say Christianity sounds nonsensical and silly to you. Have you ever seen a man created from dust? A sea splitting from a source you don’t believe in already? A serpent having a chat with a woman? A whole nation taken out of a country while not leaving a shred of substantial physical evidence of ever having been there? You have exegetical reason to believe that the servant is Israel, I understand. At the same time, those verses teach something more. I raised the point to rabbi B that we have seen Israel established in our days, and we have heard of its destruction and exile from times past, but this reestablishment has not produced the fruits of repentance and knowledge that your reading of the servant song speaks of. Rabbi B says it will be that something more will happen. Some great miraculous exaltation will happen to the entire righteous remnant. Forgive me, but it seems as though Christians claimed a renewal of love and service to G-d in similar fashion, something not experienced by Gentiles before that. Christianity May sound silly, but a lot of people think of the entire holy book as silly. So, respectfully, while you can say Christians have no sources, they have the fact that they believe in Hashem. There are also notions of suffering producing atonement and contrition, being uplifted by someone else’s merit (or the example they set for others etc.) Judaism has a messiah who dies in a war, why not one who died for his faith?
If Xtianity had merit and/or authority there wouldn’t be these discrepancies and divisions. Instead Xtianity is antithetical to Judaism. There is no continuity with Xtianity. It is Not what our fathers have known and ergo is nonsensical.
Every religion, including Judaism has its sectarian divisions Sharbano. As for statements that Christianity is totally antithetical to Judaism, how is it that all of its ethical teachings are based on ethics for G-d fearers? How could Christianity have started and taken off? I mean, what more could have been done to eliminate it? The Romans killed Jesus, their government had his followers executed, declared the movement illegal, etc. for at least 200 years. This little nonsensical belief system, if it did not bear resemblance to Judaism of the past, would never have existed at all. Granted, that doesn’t mean it’s true, but to maintain that it bears no resemblance to Judaism of the past is somewhat inaccurate. With respect.
How could something as Buddhism taken off and survived even longer than Xtianity. It too has many ethical teachings.
There is a vast amount to Judaism that cannot be covered here but basic ideas as “the devil”, Hell, are two that are antithetical to Judaism. The entire premise of the Satan has been distorted. There is no scriptural basis for these ideologies.
Concerned Reader, this brings us to the one question you refuse to consider. Jews say Jesus cannot possibly ever have been, nor can he possibly ever yet be, the Messiah. Christians say Jesus in the only one who can possibly ever have been, and who will once again yet be, the Messiah.
We cannot both be right! It’s impossible, don’t you see? According to Judaism, it’s a grave error for ANYONE to accept Jesus as the Messiah. According to Christians, it’s a grave error for ANYONE to reject him (with the exception of one Concerned Reader, who holds that it’s totally fine for Jews to reject him).
If that’s the case, it behooves us to discover who, if any, is right.
It’s not a question of overconfidence and certitude; it’s a question of seeking and hopefully discovering the truth.
Concerned Reader, when the Jews introduced the idea of ethical monotheism, it was brand new and radical. In other words, it was unique. Jesus did not introduce anything unique. His teachings of ethical monotheism? Plagiarized! His focus on himself? Nothing new there! Virgin birth, dying and resurrected savior man-god? We heard of those before!
So what if the resemblance is only superficial?
At least the Jewish claim had lots of unique angles :).
Shabrano, Yes, the reason I ‘am hung up’ on that chapter is because this is the main chapter that talks about the servant suffering and it’s purpose since you all reject NT. You said you gave me a verse by verse exposition by Jewish Sources but I haven’t revealed where my sources are from. That’s what we call blindness… because the references I put there are all from Isaiah I guess starting with chapter 42.
Apart from the verses themselves your explanation is a pure speculation based on your supposition ( no support in the scriptures to most of the points ) and the message I responded with- are questions how would you defend your point of view toward all you wrote which to us is as much a farry tale as Jesus to you. I addressed your explanation with the questions. Are you able to answer them?
How is the world healed now by your sufferings, how were the Jews with the wealthy in ‘his death’? I gave you a reason why your answers didn’t make sense. The list can go on and on, so I hope if you look at your explanation closer you will see how little sense they bring.
You would make a big deal of accepting the ‘ healing ‘ a righteous person that brought us through his suffering and substitution death, but instead , you want us to believe your suffering is a key to ‘fix’ the world… Far from the truth as God shows throughout the scriptures that His grace is unmerited and time for repentance given to everybody and other people’s suffering can’t make you come to God unless you respond.
Second you want us to reject God’s atoning that in in the blood.
You are making a big deal of Jesus being called the lamb of God , rejecting the message he brought and the meaning of his blood shed, yet you don’t see God already foreshadowed a lesson for you thousands years ago at the Passover.
I am sure the lamb’s blood marked on the door of the Israeli ties’ houses seemed as silly as Jesus to you now, yet it saved the people from the death.
To start with, what does Is 42 have to do with Jsus. One verse states Ani Hashem. It doesn’t say Jsus or messiah. Furthermore it says Hashem does Not give his glory to another. Therefore Jsus is not in the picture.
What does Pesach and the lamb’s blood on the doorpost have to do with Jsus anyway. Did the people of his time spread His blood on their doorposts. Talk about Not making any sense. G_d doesn’t speak in foreshadowing riddles as you would have us to believe. If Jsus was to be a sacrifice for sin it surely wouldn’t be about Pesach, which has absolutely Nothing to do with sin. And You think Jews are blind.
Now here’s a foreshadowing for you. It says in Matthew that Jsus told his people to go and find a donkey so as to fulfill a prophecy. Jsus looked at what he thought was a prophecy and contrived to make it happen. This shows a foreshadowing of everything in the Xtian text, that is, a contrivance of prophetic fulfillment. Foreshadowing is Not from G-d but rather a Xtian invention to fool Jews. Matthew thought he could pull it off but it didn’t work. If Jsus wanted to truly fulfill prophecy he would have done that which the real Messiah would do, namely bring peace to the world so Jews could keep Torah in peace. This is the entire sum of it all.
Sharbano, What does Is 42 have to do with Jesus? . The same what the other chapters 49;5-7 , 50;4-10, 53, 61.You have a suffering servant and his mission described. How does Is 42 start?v.1 Behold my servant (…) I have placed my spirit upon him…v.6 I will set you for a covenant to the people, for a light to the nations.
Are you as the nation set for a COVENANT to the people? Did God place His spirit upon you ?
This is the same servant mentioned in Is 49;5-7. So are you the one who is RETURNING Jacob to God? Are you that servant who is RAISING UP tribes of Jacob and RESTORTING the RUINS of Israel???
In chapter 61 are you the servant upon whom is the spirit of God ? Act2 tells you when the spirit was given upon people.
Did God sent you to proclaim freedom for captives and release from bondage for the imprisoned? To proclaim a year of God’s favor, -and you know the same servant will proclaim in the future a day of vindication by God,v.3 He will provide for the mourners in Zion to give them joy instead of mourning.
You see the nation doesn’t fit the description so that’s why it is not in that picture but Jesus who is fulfilling the words. ( and sorry not all overnight).
God doesn’t have to give His glory to another . The same way He promised to exalt Israel, the same way He will exalt His servant Yeshua who suffered for us by taking our sins upon himself.
You are asking what does the lamb’s blood on the doorpost have to do with Jesus? Of course it has nothing to do with spreading His blood on their doorposts. The same way like with the offered lamb in the past – It was offered so that people would have life. As atonement is in the blood. The same way Jesus offered his life so that we would have eternal life.
And Jesus is not called a lamb because there is something about lambs that God desires them to atone for our sins. A lamb simply symbolizes an innocence . The same way like a lamb was offered ( had to be killed) before the deliverance of the Israelites from bondage in Egypt the same way Jesus’ sacrificial death is for our deliverance from the bondage of sin.
You are saying that Jesus looked at what he thought was a prophecy and contrived to make it happen. Wow, he must have been really smart to decide about his place of birth and decide to be born in Bethlehem ( or Bethlehem area, or among the Bethlehem people, depending how some interpret it.) Then he had to be not only smart but have supernatural power to raise himself back to life after being killed. As Is 53 says a servant died was buried and was to be alive again in order to ‘ receive the multitude as his spoil.”v11, I would rather doubt a persons ability to return himself back to like , as these things are up to God and definitely he would not raise back to life a liar.
Talking about blindness Is 6; 9-10, , Is 48;7-8 Are you sure you listen?
Where does it say the Messiah was going to bring peace to the world right away ? How do you imagine peace brought by him? Like a magic trick that at his coming all the nations will just give up fighting? Every nation will just decide to be nice to each other knowing that since the ages they had been fighting against each other with a little bit of break ? People have to first repent and turn to God in order to change. And Jesus brought the call to repentance and a good message of God’s forgiveness before the final God’s intervention with His judgment when He will deal with all those wicked who didn’t repent and leave on earth the humble ones and rule among them.
Eric; does your bible include Isaiah in its entirety. If so, I suggest you begin from Chapter 1 verse 1 and read through Chapter 66. There are a number of places where it specifies this servant, many are explicit references to Jacob, My Servant. There are others that Isaiah is speaking of himself as the servant. Now, show me one single passage that says Jsus or even The Messiah is the servant. Otherwise you are just inserting Jsus where he is not there. Sorry to burst your bubble but you are just making things up as you go.
If this Yeshu is taking the sin upon himself why are there sin sacrifices performed in the Third Temple as written in Ezekiel. So apparently Jsus isn’t able to complete the task. As was said before the Pesach lamb is NOT a sacrifice for sin. This is just another made up idea that doesn’t fit the facts. If he were a sin sacrifice it would be more appropriate to have it related to Yom Kippur. Oh wait, that one isn’t a sacrifice at all. It is let go. Once again we have some faulty logic of Xtianity.
Decide to be born in Bethlehem? Where do you get this from. Doesn’t it say he was a Nazarene, according to prophecy. Oh wait, where is that prophecy recorded. I’m unable to find any reference to Nazareth.
Any references to Isaiah 53 have been dealt with by the last post, a verse by verse exposition. As a side note, what kind of bible are you reading. If you were able to read Hebrew you would fully realize why it looks like utter nonsense. Maybe That is why Xtianity cannot convince an educated Jew to turn to Xtianity. No wonder Xtians have to resort to accusing Jews of being “blind” to their own scriptures.
A “good message” What good message. We’ve experienced the Good Message and it hasn’t been a pretty site. We do not and have never needed any Jsus in order to be close to Hashem. He is the One and Only. As was previously stated, He gives His Glory to no one else and this includes any Jsus. It is also written that His Name will be One, and not two nor three, among the nations. This will occur when the nations will proclaim they have inherited lies from their ancestors.
Sharbano, you made an excellent point about the vagueness of the Christian proof texts. The most powerful proof text for the Christian is Isaiah 53, and nowhere does the text identify the servant as the Messiah (and certainly not as Jesus). Your other points are worthy of consideration as well.
To Eric, Christians ignore the context which repeatedly identifies the servant as Israel or Isaiah, depending on the immediate local context, which I have already pointed out to you. You cannot accept this because according to your understanding of Isaiah 53 it cannot be talking about the righteous remnant of Israel. This is despite the high level of corroboration throughout Tanach for the Jewish interpretation. I also provided the sources of those instances of corroboration to you in that link.
I have about six comments of yours now that I need to examine. Don’t worry, I will get to them, God willing.
D, I also provided you with sources that disqualify the nation to fulfill the words in the chapters 42, 49;5-7 , 50;5-10, 53, 61;1-3 and there is just lots of talking but so far nobody defended his points logically to prove your superior mission of healing the world and reasons to prove the right of putting your righteousness above Yesuah’s and disqualifying him of any merits to mankind through his suffering.
Eric, you provided a lot of sources without directly responding to my points. Nevertheless, I haven’t responded yet because I need more time to look up all your references. I ask again for your patience.
I have to disagree with you that no one has logically backed up their refutation to the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53. I have read Sharbano’s comments–they are logical. I have read Rabbi B.’s comments and his verse-by-verse explanation–they are logical. Furthermore, if I may so myself, the link I posted written by yours truly is impeccable :).
You continue to ignore context, and that is a big problem.
Dina, There is so much information in many emails , so of course I might have missed some of your points. Just remind me next time . I may go back to them.
You know all your interpretation of yours will be logical to you because you don’t see the need for Jesus and will see that the world will just fix itself by your nation’s suffering. So you are putting all the puzzles but skipping some to create the picture that seems to fit your picture but I see it doesn’t. I brought you some points to show you why the nation can’t be fulfilling the words in certain chapters about the servant ( that ‘he’ is not matching any group of people, I gave you examples so if you go through them we can discuss it) and that Isaiah is clearly distinguishing between one failing and the other impeccable, perfect pleasing God, servant that doesn’t fit any remnant ( although there will be people in the future saved, redeemed , exalted etc) We know it! You are mainly relying on the words Is 52 last verses and the references of the future restoration.
What I meant by saying that your clarifications verse by verse are not satisfying, you explain it all in metaphors while it all was written as literal and it was clearly done and fulfilled by Yeshua. Trying to apply it all to the nation simply doesn’t fit.
We have also different understanding about redemption. That makes a difference in what type of servant we are expecting, what type of healing and justification.
Hi Eric,
I was specifically referring to the points I raised in that link I posted to the article I wrote and published online. These are the basic points:
1. The issue of context–the context, locally and globally, identifies the servant.
2. The shock of the nations of the world–what will shock the whole world during the messianic era?
3. The suffering of the Jewish people–the oppression of Israel is consistent with the description in Isaiah. You say the suffering of the Jewish people is not unique (anti-Semitism is not unique? It is unlike any other kind of racism!). You fail to explain how you reconcile that with the fact that the prophets mentioned this phenomenon often (Isaiah 60:14-15; Lamentations 1:11; Ezekiel 34:28-29, 35:5-6, 16:5; Isaiah 49:13, 54:11,14-15,17).
4. The high level of corroboration–the Jewish themes of Isaiah 53 are corroborated throughout Tanach. I provided that information in the link (here it is again if you want to take another look: http://www.scribd.com/doc/236071979/Isaiah-53-for-Eric?secret_password=j7aBQGm31UgkYmFeeqZt). You have failed to refute that and to counter it with corroboration of the Christian themes (the Messiah will suffer and die for the sins of mankind, the Messiah will be hated and rejected by his own people, etc.).
Dina, I read your online explanation again;.
Th e first dispute is about who will be shocked and why. We all know israel wil be exalted. But that is not the fact excluding Jesus’ exaltation. You are bringing up th e argument that many Christians already expect that so they can’t be shocked or they may be shocked because seeing is different that just hearing about something. There is another thing that has to be considered; in the last days there wil be very few righteous people left and most of the world is described as becoming really bad that will bring finally God’s judgement. ( I gave you that description in verses about the Day of the Lord) You are then left with multitudes that can be shocked by God’s intervention. You said the people will be shocked because they never considered the fact of your restoration, but the words in Is 52;15 are not about considering or believing but about never hearing nor being told!! Never hearing person or never told one is the one who never read the scriptures or heard them. Because even Christians know th e prophecy and are not denying Israel’s restoration.
You mentioned manifestation of God’s arm as refering to physical salvation In all th e verses you gave me God’s arm was God’s intervention . So you should see it the same way while refering to Is 53 where God’s arm is revealed. He is bringing you freedom of guilt, he is showing you how your sins are taken away.
As far as the other verses about Israel’s wounds because of suffering, God is talking about your healing of the wounds because He is going to be merciful and restore you , but the verses are not mentioning any healing brought to the nations because of them.!!
The fact that many people will be coming to hear about God in Jerusalem is the result of God dwelling among His people again, not because of the nation’s suffering!
Similarities you find everywhere , even Jeremiah is mentioned as the one led to the slaughter, but that doesn’t show he is the subject of Is 53 because of that. He wil also be exalted while living in restored Isreal in the messianic times if he gets resurected, but that doesn’t mean he is the servant in Is 53.
Here are my references to the Messiah in connection to the songs of the servant.
Is 11;1 “mentions a stamp of Jesse and a shoot that will SPROUT from his roots”
Jer 23;5 talks about a righteous SPROUT of David.
Jer 33;15 calls him a SPROUT of righteousness that will sprout of David
Is 53;1 He grew like a SAPLING or like a root from arid ground. ( no David or Jesse mentioned but there is the same thing that characterizes them all’ something that GROWS/SPROUTS out of the stage of being DEAD FOR LONG ; like a root of dry land, shoot from Jesse’s roots that were long dead as there has been no king reigning for so long.
1) Is 11;1 describes him “with the spirit of God resting upon him” ‘ anointed one” so does Is 61; 1 and 42;1
2) Is 11;11 says the nation will inquire of him ( root of Jesse) Is 42;1, 4 islands longing for his teaching!!
3) Is 11; 10 standing as a signal to the peoples Is 49 , Is 42;6 ( light to the gentiles)
4) Is 11;1-5 ( ruling with justice) and Is 42;4 setting justice in the land
5) Is 11;5 and Is 53 his properties of righteousness mentioned.
6) Is 11;11 on that day ( of his reign) the remnant is recovered from many places. Is 49;5 he is to bring back Jacob, restoring the survivors of Israel.
7) Is 11; 4 he will strike the wicked of the world with the rod of his mouth, Is 49;2 His mouth is like a sharp sword,
8) Is 53;12 given the many as his portion, receiving the multitude as his spoil.. Ps 2; 7-8 ” ask of Me and I will make nations as your inheritance and the end of earth your possession.”
9) Zeh 3;8 A Branch identified with the servant of God . ( according to Targum this verse is recognized as referring to the Messiah)
The salvation that God is bringing is described also in Ps 102, especially v 20- 21
“For He looks down from His Holy height, the Lord beholds the earth from heaven to hear the groans of the prisoner to release those CONDEMNED TO DEATH that the name of the Lord may be recounted in Zion, His praises in Jerusalem.” matching the description in Is 61;1-3 , matching Is 53 mission of setting us free from sin consequences that brought death. Matching the healing described in Jer 33;6 which talks about cleansing from sin. Speaking for the fact that God will eliminate death forever Is 25;8-9 (…) let us exult and be glad in His salvation”
Eric
Who are the “Armor Bearers” of the Lord?
Applying Isaiah 61 to Jesus is the height of audacity – https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/a-letter-from-the-past-still-looking-forward/
And here is my verse by verse exposition – https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2014/08/12/isaiah-53-a-verse-by-verse-exposition/
Ypfriend, the height of audacity? Really? Then prove your point of view to the three first verses I described and tell me how you are fulfilling them. Definitely looking atJesus’ life he is more righteous than you, so I don’t have to have doubts about him being exalted , knowing God can even exalt sinful people.
Are you aware that Isaiah wrote Isaiah, as opposed to many books of the Xtian text that do not claim an author. Does Ch 61 say this is Jsus or does it say it is The Messiah. What is More direct is the post I made regarding “The Warning from Isaiah”. It quotes directly from the Xtian text and how Xtianity has turned against the prophet.
Maybe it’s about time you find yourself a teacher Eric.
S, just go back on the truck and answer the questions directed to you instead of discarding them and replacing with lots of talking. The questions were very simple , I am giving you just 3 verses how do you fulfill them as th e righteous remnant?
Eric
I am not sure which 3 verses you are talking about – but Jesus mocked the mourners of Zion and never comforted them
About Jesus being more righteous than others – claiming sinlessness is a pretty serious crime and so is demanding devotion that is due to God. Most people, even sinful ones don’t go this far.
Ypfriend, I meant Is 61;1-3 do you see yourself there? I once wrote my comments on these 3 verses in the previous email. ( a week ago)
As far as Jesus and him claiming no sin, I guess he had a reason to ‘go that far’ and his resurrection didn’t show God took it as a crime.
ypfriend, Referring to the link you shared “ still looking forward’ You are saying
“ They ( you mean the remnant) are being praised not for something new that is given to them but for the faithfulness towards God that they maintained throughout the exile. (Contrast this with the exaltation of the Messiah described in chapter 11 which will be for new qualities that will be granted to him at that time – not for qualities that he possessed before then.”
I understand you mentioned Is 53;11 there. Interesting that you see new qualities that will be granted to the servant ( as Jesus) , that he will be praised not for qualities possessed before and you make that observation and are referring it to Jesus – contrasting him with the praise of the nation in Is 26;2, Jer 8;23., yet if the chapter 53 talks about your nation – that observation of yours should also apply to the nation; that you will be praised for the new qualities that will be granted to you. So that comparison doesn’t make sense and doesn’t put Jesus contra the remnant on the opposite ‘priaise ‘ hierarchy.
Next; do you know when they are praised in Is 26;2??? Definitely not from the time of the exile! It says; “ON THAT DAY” and chapter 25 before tells you it is at the time of God’s intervention and redemption of the people.
From other verses we know God will save and gather all humble and those who repented. Zeph 3;12-13, Zehpeniah 1;8- 12,
Also Jer 8;23 talks about the future! That’s time of Messiah’ reign on earth when everything will be renewed.
By the way how it is possible that the many from the nations will join the Lord on that day and will be His people? Zeh 2;14-15?
You’ve cited quotes that give praise to Hashem. Isn’t it ironic that nowhere in Tanach, not in one single instance is The Messiah ever given any praise. If Jsus is this “savior” why isn’t there any acknowledgement or any type of praise given to him. It’s always written as Hashem/Elokim. Certainly if the greatest man of all time is doing Sooo much for mankind he would get at least a little recognition. In All of Tanach there is so little mentioned that miniscule is too great a term. Yet, in the Xtian text it is ALL about the man. It causes a person to wonder, how many times is G-d mentioned in the Xtian text, either as Hashem or Elokim. Considering this; who, then, is more focused on G-d and who is focused on man. It sounds like the age old Yaakov vs Esav / Edom / Rome being played out to the end.
Sharbano, You missed the point . I was responding to Ypfriend’s references in Is 26;2 who brought up the verses of the PRAISED NATION Is 26;2 and Zeh 8;23 ( sorry I typed Jeremiah 8;23 maybe that confused you)
You said the Messiah is not given any praise. The thing is; part of that is that you replaced his praise with yours ( by your sufferings), second read Ps 2, 45, 72, 110, Is 9;7, Is 11, , Hosea 3;5, ( you will be looking for him )
The Lord will be the king and the Messiah will be a king. The Lord will rule through His anointed One, so that His ( God’s ) name will be glorified.
The Messiah is not on God’s way.
Eric
I meant Isaiah chapter 11 where the Messiah is being exalted AFTER a spirit of God comes to rest upon him.
Isaiah 26:2 tells us that at the time of the redemption Israel will be praised as a nation who guards faithfulness – this doesn’t make sense if they haven’t being doing this (guarding faithfulness) during the exile.
Zechariah 2:14 speaks of many nations converting to Judaism – God will still dwell in YOUR midst – that is in Israel
ypfriend, By the way chapter 11 and any other about the Messiah doesn’t say WHEN exactly a Spirit of God comes to rest upon him. So saying AFTER doesn’t make him ‘ starting later’ than the nation or it doesn’t mean he wasn’t faitful to God before that ( or less faithful) . The nation will be exalted when God will live in the midst of you and will have all those who liten and obey Him. The fact He is not living there yet is that not everybody repented.
I also listed to Dina all the verses that talk first of God’s exaltation. Al what will be accomplished it will be by His merit; Is 2;11, 17 , Ps 46;11
About Is 26;2 . You mentioned those faithful at the exile. They are dead by now so ‘streatching’ their faithfulness till the end times doesn’t look logical. You might have lots of unfaithfull people inbetween.
It should be more measured individually who is a faithful servant rather than taking the whole group from the past till the last days.
Zeh 2;14 and your comment about converting to Judaism… that is your idea. It is said they will join the Lord and become His people , not the nation or their religion.
Eric
Isaiah 61:1-3 is talking of Isaiah directly and in an indirect way it is talking about those who carry Isaiah’s words to the world without eclipsing them with something else.
Isaiah was comforted to know that he was the man chosen by God to bring the news of God’s ultimate plan for mankind to the world. The Jewish people in exile were comforted to know that they bear the good news of God’s ultimate plan for mankind to the world and they do this by remaining loyal to Isaiah’s teachings.
About becoming God’s people – who are God’s people? its not about joining a race or “religion” its about joining a covenant relationship. The core of our covenant with God stands on our testimony that God is One and that there is no other (Deuteronomy 4:35). It stands on our heart for God (Psalm 44:18-21). those who ridicule our heart for God and claim that our testimony is false, shallow, and hypocritical – can be sure that they are not part of the covenant
ypfriend, you say “ Jeremiah 51:9 which actually proves my point – the healing of the nation is not some spiritual gift – but material blessing here on earth.”
Jer 51;9 doesn’t even talk about any material blessing here .And according to your words Babylon should have been healed by your wounds. So why isn’t he??Mission failure?
Eric
Do you really believe that there is no other meaning to the word “healing” other than complete spiritual rectification?
ypfriend, read the NT and see what type of healing he brought.
You know I am not trying to deprive you of the future hope that is in the OT and we all believe in the redemption of israel . To us you are just missing a point of all what the righteous servant brought to the mankind rather then a blessing in a form of protection because they prayed or suffered. That blessing was promised already long ago without involving any suffering. Prayer for others was also known as a blessing without having to involve a suffering. I was trying to show you that the servant did something also on behalf of your nation, so if you saw yourself also as those ‘who went astray’ it would be clear to you what type of justification and healing he brought.
ypfriend, It is not just about the ‘healing’ but the justification that he brought.
You are holding on to the line ‘ by his knowledge’ , ( we will be justified) we are holding on to the fact ‘ it is that their punishment that he bears.”
A servant of God Yeshua came, did it and proved it. So many people in the world came to God through him and were brought to repentance.
Ypfriend, instaed of Jer 8, 23 I meant Zeh 8;23 so that’s what I commented it talks about the Messianic time. You know mistypings happen especially writing at midnight. Goodnight.
Eric, you demand “healing” in a tangible sense from Israel concerning our interpretation of Isaiah 53, yet you seem content with a supposed “spiritual healing” through jesus according to your interpretation…
Let me ask you something Eric. Do you sin? Do have you ever told a lie? Have you ever stolen something?
If the answer is yes to any of those questions, then what “healing of sin” did jesus actually do? It’s a double standard for you to demand us to show you “tangible healing” when your jesus didn’t even do it himself! You can claim “I am healed in spirit” all you want but it doesn’t change the fact that your experience is subjective and intangible…Your claims about jesus “healing you” hold the same weight as a muslim claiming they are “healed in allah through the prophet muhammad,” or even a mormon claiming they are “healed in jesus through the prophet joseph smith.” There is no difference!
How about this Eric: The servant of Isaiah 53 refers Israel, as Isaiah 49:3-6 explicitly states:
Isaiah 49:3. And He said to me, “You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast.”
Isaiah 49:4. And I said, “I toiled in vain, I consumed my strength for nought and vanity.” Yet surely my right is with the Lord, and my deed is with my God.
Isaiah 49:5. And now, the Lord, Who formed me from the womb as a servant to Him, said to bring Jacob back to Him, and Israel shall be gathered to Him, and I will be honored in the eyes of the Lord, and my God was my strength.
Isaiah 49:6. And He said, “It is too light for you to be My servant, to establish the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the besieged of Israel, but I will make you a light of nations, so that My salvation shall be until the end of the earth.”
This is a two step process:
Step 1: The righteous remnant of Israel gathers in the rest of Israel back to righteousness. (Isaiah 49:3-5)
Step 2: The future restored Israel serves as a light unto the nations, ultimately bringing back the entire world to Hashem’s truth! (Isaiah 49:6)
Israel has not been fully restored yet, so this is a future prophesy concerning the “healing” and “restoration” of the nation. Ultimately, you will be healed in knowing the truth of Hashem’s Torah and you will recognize the spiritual poison you inherited form your forefathers:
Jeremiah 16:19. O Lord, Who are my power and my strength and my refuge in the day of trouble, to **You nations will come from the ends of the earth and say, “Only lies have our fathers handed down to us, emptiness in which there is nothing of any avail!**
It will be at the end of days when the Temple stands that you will flock to the Holy Temple and acknowledge the one true G-d of Israel.
Zechariah 8:22. And many peoples and powerful nations shall come to entreat the Lord of Hosts in Jerusalem, and to pray before the Lord.
Zechariah 8:23. So said the Lord of Hosts: In those days, when ten men of all the languages of the nations shall take hold of the skirt of a Jewish man, saying, “Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you.”
This is a future prophesy which has yet to be fulfilled unfortunately…Zechariah 14 also speaks about the nations who will wage war against Jerusalem in the future:
Zechariah 14:16. And it will come to pass that everyone left of the nations who came up against Jerusalem will go up from year to year to prostrate himself to the King, the Lord of Hosts, and to celebrate the festival of Tabernacles. (Sukkot)
Zechariah 14:17. And it shall be that whoever of all the families of the earth does not go up to Jerusalem to prostrate himself to the King, the Lord of Hosts-upon them there shall be no rain.
Zechariah 14:18. And if the family of Egypt does not go up and does not come, it shall not [rain] upon them. The plague [on Egypt] will be [the same as] that with which the Lord will plague the nations who do not go up to celebrate the festival of Tabernacles. (Sukkot)
Zechariah 14:19. Such will be the punishment of Egypt and the punishment of all the nations who do not go up to celebrate the festival of Tabernacles. (Sukkot)
None of this has come to pass in jesus. It’s no secret why we reject your jesus as Moshiach Ben David. May the TRUE Moshiach come speedily in our days!
Shalom and G-d bless!
Hi Eric,
I have published an explanation of Isaiah 53 for you online. It is very long, so I didn’t want to post it as a comment.
Here is the link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/236071979/Isaiah-53-for-Eric?secret_password=j7aBQGm31UgkYmFeeqZt
Dina, all my comments about that chapter are in the response to Sharbano.
Hi Eric,
Did you read what I posted? Your reply to Sharbano does not seem to directly address my arguments.
If you haven’t read it yet, please take your time. It’s long, and I don’t expect you to respond right away.
Thanks,
Dina
Dina, I did read what you wrote. While it is true that Gentiles have treated the Jewish people with unbelievably horrific treatment, and I accept that the servant can and does refer to Israel’s righteous remnant btw (see Luke 1:47-55, Romans 11) surely few Gentiles knew of Israel’s G-d when Isaiah wrote, but if you want to say that Christians have not known your report, etc. then this can’t be right. Christians have heard of Israel’s G-d, or have you not noticed the Christian obsession with biblical prophecy, and or bothering Jews with questions and comments about the bible ? If there are Gentiles out there who have a serious potential to be taught and potential interest in noachide law, or biblical values, surely it is those who share the Torah text with you? I’m not saying that Christians aren’t extremely pompous, arrogant, and sure of themselves, (and that this harms them) they sure as day are, but I would say that this is a human quality we could all stand to improve on. As for laws in Christian Kingdoms in medieval times placing Jews in ghettos, (such as in Rome,) prohibiting holding of political office, prohibiting intermarriage, etc. in medieval times, put forward by you as proving Israel is the suffering servant, (forgive me, but aren’t their laws like this towards Gentiles and even apostates in the Torah, just without the horrid extremes?) Death penalty for apostates, or charges for practicing the wrong idolatrous religion in times of direct threat to the cohesion of Israelite society in worship are punished. Right?) I’m not excusing this behavior by Christians G-d forbid, nor endorsing it, (it was as evil as possible) but laws against intermarriage and strangers holding political office, or too much societal sway prior to conversion. are indeed prohibited in the Torah so far as I know, to preserve the purity of Jewish solidarity in worship, if I’m not mistaken? Again I’m not saying I agree with this behavior at all by any means, just seeking clarification. It seems to me that who the servant is, is, both Israel and Moshiach. I say this because, even if Jesus were the messiah, those who truly live the way he did are the ones rightly called children of G-d. He lived an observant life, in good faith, so do pious Jews, and Muslims, and all righteous people. The problem I see in Christianity is too much emphasis on accepting the person, and theology, but not his teaching, or the deeds and meaning. If Christians put more stock into how Jesus lived, what he expected from his students, etc. they wouldn’t be so quick to treat Jews poorly. I see it as less a symptom of beliefs, but more about arrogance in beliefs, and lack of in depth knowledge if that makes sense? Religious people tend to not question what they hear in their houses of worship, and don’t search for more, or investigate, once they “know” the “truth.”
Most Xtians have Not heard the report. Those who have heard deny the report. We also have the text speaking of the leaders. If we look at all the nations in this current conflict it is quite certain they do Not believe they are the guilty in the way of treatment of the Jews. Just look at the support from virtually everyone for Hamas. Look at the UN and its Human Rights commission which has an agenda Against ONLY Israel. Then we have the Muslims who fit the scenario quite accurately. The text does Not say everyone is blinded by their hatred at all times in this history. But those who were the perpetrators certainly did Not understand this reference. Otherwise those nations would have acted differently.
It is quite clear the text has to be speaking of quite a length of time. What is written of Yeshu does not reflect what Yeshayahu wrote of. Xtianity has taken what is vague and attempted to apply it. If a religion is going to take everything that is vague to create such a religion then the religion itself is vague and has therefore little merit.
To insinuate that Israel has done the same thing “according to Torah Law” confirms what David write in Tehillim, in that the non-Jews cannot understand Torah Law because they aren’t given the understanding in order to do so. It is Only given to the Jew. When have you heard of any of these punishments handed out to the Gentiles.
Well, not everyone supports Hamas, or ISIS, or Alquedia, and the evil horrific types of things they do. Many many people support Israel, it’s hardly nobody. Not knowing the Torah (being ignorant) is to be expected, when the 30 to 70 some laws of Noah are all that non Jews have been given to understand, with very little effort made to spread those teachings among Gentiles being made by authorities. If I’m not mistaken there has been very little effort to organize existing noachide movements, to provide codified sources, etc. So, surely Christianity isn’t perfect, but it’s hardly groundless, or accomplishing nothing, with due respect. Also, Muslims supposedly have much more in common with your religion. They are halachic monotheists in every traditional sense, and Sharia has many parallels with Torah law. So, according to your understanding Non Jews are just out of luck and incapable of understanding your views? Forgive me if that sounds very Gnostic of you. Only you can understand the Bible, is that he gist?
Hi Concerned Reader,
I would appreciate clarification of two points.
I do not understand the relevance of your point that Christians recognize the God of Israel to the traditional Jewish explanation of Isaiah 53.
I also do not understand what bearing laws against intermarriage and apostates in Judaism have on the prophet’s description of the suffering of the Jewish nation throughout the ages, a topic that is mentioned often by the prophets.
If Christians should be paying attention to the ethical and moral teachings of Jesus, rather than to his person or to what he taught about himself, then I do not understand the point of Christianity, since all his ethical and moral teachings emanated from Judaism. So if Christians like those, they can discard Jesus and become proper Noahides–doesn’t that make sense?
I have a request: if it isn’t too much trouble, to please break up your comments into paragraphs. It’s hard for me to follow large blocks of text. Must be that old ADD of mine rearing its head :). Thanks!
Virgin birth, dying and resurrected savior man-god? We heard of those before!
Polytheists do not believe in these things in a way consistent with Christianity, your parallels are skin deep, and or inaccurate.
1) virgin birth: No pagan sources that are pre Christian teach a unique creative act of G-d in an effort to save humankind from sin. Virgin births in paganism are often allegorical, or indicative of a lustful liaison between a god and a mortal woman. There is a virgin birth story of Buddha in Mahayana sources (2nd century, and thus post Christian.) We know that the earliest Buddhist writings show the two parents of the Buddha. G-d did not have intercourse with Mary. Christians understand the virgin birth to be the incarnation of the second Adam. Adam was created from dust. The human nature of Jesus began to exist, through only a woman, because the source of the first transgression (the woman eve) served as the source of rectification in the woman Mary. No pagans conceived of their ideas this way.
2) Dying and rising gods: G-d did not cease to exist when Jesus died. G-d brought human beings back to himself through the effect and impact of Christ’s death. In this sense, G-d died, ie experienced the suffering and death in Christ. Not literally! Pagan rising gods were agricultural allegories, natural forces, not the Christian view!
3) Man-god: Pagans teach that full humans with natural parents (mothers and fathers like Buddha or Caesar or Pharaoh) are intrinsically “divine” as mere human beings. They acknowledge gods are just mortal, even if transcendent. Man god for them means a divine humanity, where all men of power or any human souls are all intrinsically divine. Christianity teaches things entirely differently. Jesus’ humanity is not divine. His word/person (that aspect that is him, but also the perfect reflection of G-d’s incorporeal will) is what we call divine. Not the human mind body or soul of the flesh and blood Jesus. Learn to understand that this distinction is vital to how we understand things. Judaism sees this as being excuses and plagiarism from Jewish ideas to make things consistent with Judaism. This is an imposed assertion by Judaism, not what Christians believe about themselves. Please try to understand that Christians believe sincerely.
As you say Dina, the ethics of Jesus are “plagiarized.” He was a Jew who taught Jewish ethics, what’s wrong with that?
Finally, you said, if accepting Jesus is unimportant, why aren’t Christians just noachides without Jesus?
“Ethical monotheism” as propounded by noachide law does not require a deep positive commandment of love of Hashem, or an experienced redemptive event like Sinai and exodus based on first hand knowledge. The seven laws are rules for any human society. Islam is a noachide faith. Islamic faith does not require the Torah to be a part of its understanding at all. G-d in Islam is not one who speaks face to face, or one who inspires redemption. He says, and you do.
Jews at Sinai learned not only to obey G-d, but to love G-d through the unique redemption they experienced from Egypt, through trial and tribulation, and the love G-d showed for the fathers that they inherited. Jesus through the sum of his life’s impact delivered this uniquely Jewish kind of experience (a loving redemptive experience) for Gentiles at cavalry. Only Judaism and Christianity can claim this kind of experience of G-d. When a Christian thinks of the knowledge Jesus brought, it’s not just the ethics. Ethics go together with the love of G-d the Christian experiences knowing that G-d is intimately interested in our lives, and the outcome of our lives. The statement, “for G- d so loved the world, etc.” embodies for Christians the thrust, the reason d’être for the love that grows for the ethical side of things, producing action.
Noachides experience an involvement in Israel and Judaism, in its liturgy, practice etc. but they do not have the shared experience or heritage unless they convert. This is the real importance of Jesus.
C.R.
You make a good point of the real importance of “J”. The laws themselves–six out of the seven–are prohibitions. There’s little or no active spiritual life, no prescribed ritual and liturgical life for Noahides. I read This is changing though. “Many people are working to give structure and clarity to Noahide life. Chabad and other rabbis, together with Noahides, are creating a Noahide siddur (prayer book) to standardize prayers, and a liturgy of lifecycle rituals, such as funerals and baby-naming ceremonies. Also in the works is a Noahide Shulhan Arukh, a comprehensive book of law pertaining to non-Jews, which will spell out specifically how Noahides should live, which mitzvot are acceptable for them, and which aren’t. There are also numerous Noahide organizations popping up, aimed at uniting Noahides, providing support, and spreading their teachings”.
That would be of the Noahide laws 6 of the seven, are …..
This document is from an unknown source but certainly is applicable to Xtian reasoning.
Using Xtian “logic” and polemics we can determine the following.
A Warning from Isaiah:
Isaiah 24:1
Behold, the LORD maketh the earth empty, and maketh it waste, and turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof.
Isaiah 24:2
And it shall be, as with the people, so with the priest; as with the servant, so with his master; as with the maid, so with her mistress; as with the buyer, so with the seller; as with the lender, so with the borrower; as with the taker of usury, so with the giver of usury to him.
Isaiah 24:3
The land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled: for the LORD hath spoken this word.
Isaiah 24:4
The earth mourneth [and] fadeth away, the world languisheth [and] fadeth away, the haughty people of the earth do languish.
Here we have a future description of what has happened to the earth. The very next verse tells WHY this has happened with descriptions of a world wide false religion and what it does. Verse 12 then takes us to the descriptions of the very beginnings of this false religion and the ending of chapter 24 gives us timeline. The false religion will be done away with in the end times.
Isaiah 24:5
The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
Transgressed the Law:
Galatians 3:13
Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree
Galatians 3:24
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
Galatians 3:25
But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
Romans 7:6
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not [in] the oldness of the letter.
Galatians 5:18
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.
Hebrews 7:12
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Changed the Ordinances:
Ephesians 2:15
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, [even] the law of commandments [contained] in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, [so] making peace;
Colossians 2:14
Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;
Colossians 2:20
Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Broken the Everlasting Covenant (which one to choose?):
this one?:
1 Chronicles 16:17
And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, [and] to Israel [for] an everlasting covenant,
Or this one?:
Leviticus 24:8
Every Sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, [being taken] from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant.
Colossians 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath [days]:
OR this one?:
Genesis 17:13
He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Galatians 5:2
Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.
Romans 4:13
For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, [was] not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
Romans 4:14
For if they which are of the law [be] heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
Romans 4:15
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression.
Romans 4:16
Therefore [it is] of faith, that [it might be] by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Maybe even this one?:
Numbers 25:13
And he shall have it, and his seed after him, [even] the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.
Hebrews 7:12
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
Isaiah 24:6
Therefore hath the curse devoured the earth, and they that dwell therein are desolate: therefore the inhabitants of the earth are burned, and few men left.
Isaiah 24:7
The new wine mourneth, the vine languisheth, all the merryhearted do sigh.
New Wine and Vine, who on earth goes by those names?
Luke 5:37
And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish.
Luke 5:38
But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved.
Luke 5:39
No man also having drunk old [wine] straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.
John 15:5
I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
Isaiah 24:8
The mirth of tabrets ceaseth, the noise of them that rejoice endeth, the joy of the harp ceaseth.
Them that Rejoice:
1 Peter 1:8
Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see [him] not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:
1 Peter 4:13
But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ’s sufferings; that, when his glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy.
Merryhearted’s harp:
Ephesians 5:19
Speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord;
James 5:13
Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms.
Please note, the Greek term for sing and singing is “Psallo”(#5567), and it means to play a stringed instrument or to sing to the music of a harp.
Isaiah 24:9
They shall not drink wine with a song; strong drink shall be bitter to them that drink it.
Isaiah 24:10
The city of confusion is broken down: every house is shut up, that no man may come in.
Isaiah 24:11
[There is] a crying for wine in the streets; all joy is darkened, the mirth of the land is gone.
Isaiah 24:12
In the city is left desolation, and the gate is smitten with destruction.
Jerusalem 70CE, perhaps? This verse is directly tied to the next verse with its new line of descriptions that date back in time to when this religion had its beginnings.
Isaiah 24:13
When thus it shall be in the midst of the land among the people, [there shall be] as the shaking(striking off) of an olive tree, [and] as the gleaning grapes when the vintage is done.
Although the KJV uses the word “shaking” for the Hebrew word “noqeph”(#5363), its definition is “striking off” and root meaning is “to strike off”. Any religion on earth teach the “striking off” of an olive tree? Here is your answer:
Romans 11:17
And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
Vintage is done:
John 19:30
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
Christians and especially Messianic Jews like to say that Christianity was really an offshoot or fell out of Judaism and v.24:13 backs up that very claim that it was “gleaned” from out of Judaism .
Isaiah 24:14
They shall lift up their voice, they shall sing for the majesty of the LORD, they shall cry aloud from the sea.
Isaiah 24:15
Wherefore glorify ye the LORD in the fires, [even] the name of the LORD God of Israel in the isles of the sea.
Glorify the Lord, Singing, Fires, and “isles of the sea”:
Acts 4:24
And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou [art] God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:
Hebrews 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
Romans 15:9 And that the Gentiles might glorify God for [his] mercy; as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name.
This religion “gleaned” from Judaism will not rise in Judah nor Jerusalem, but outside of it from among the nations. See the following for a definition of the relationship between Gentiles and isles/isles of the sea are:
Genesis 10:5 By these were the isles of the Gentiles divided in their lands; every one after his tongue, after their families, in their nations.
Isaiah 40:15 Behold, the nations [are] as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance: behold, he taketh up the isles as a very little thing.
Jeremiah 31:10 Hear the word of the L-RD, O ye nations, and declare [it] in the isles afar off, and say, He that scattered Israel will gather him, and keep him, as a shepherd [doth] his flock.
Zephaniah 2:11 The L-RD [will be] terrible unto them: for he will famish all the gods of the earth; and [men] shall worship him, every one from his place, [even] all the isles of the heathen.
Ezekiel 26:18 Now shall the isles tremble in the day of thy fall; yea, the isles that [are] in the sea shall be troubled at thy departure.
Isaiah 24:16
From the uttermost part of the earth have we heard songs, [even] glory to the righteous. But I said, My leanness, my leanness, woe unto me! the treacherous dealers have dealt treacherously; yea, the treacherous dealers have dealt very treacherously.
Glory to the Righteous:
Hebrews 2:10
For it became him, for whom [are] all things, and by whom [are] all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings…
…Hebrews 2:12
Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
The beginning of Is.24:16 shows that this religion will become a world wide religion. Isaiah calls their leaders “treacherous dealers” (i.e. this is very much a false religion)
Isaiah 24:17
Fear, and the pit, and the snare, [are] upon thee, O inhabitant of the earth.
FEAR:
Luke 12:5
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.
Matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
AND THE PIT:
Mark 9:45
And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
Revelation 9:2
And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.
Revelation 9:11
And they had a king over them, [which is] the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue [is] Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath [his] name Apollyon.
THE SNARE:
Mark 1:16
Now as he walked by the sea of Galilee, he saw Simon and Andrew his brother casting a net into the sea: for they were fishers.
Mark 1:17
And Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.
Luke 5:10
And so [was] also James, and John, the sons of Zebedee, which were partners with Simon. And Jesus said unto Simon, Fear not; from henceforth thou shalt catch men.
Isaiah 24:18
And it shall come to pass, [that] he who fleeth from the noise of the fear shall fall into the pit; and he that cometh up out of the midst of the pit shall be taken in the snare: for the windows from on high are open, and the foundations of the earth do shake.
Jude 1:23
And others save with fear, pulling [them] out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
Jude 1:24
Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present [you] faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy,
Mark 1:10
And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
Matthew 27:51
And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
Hebrews 12:26
Whose voice then shook the earth: but now he hath promised, saying, Yet once more I shake not the earth only, but also heaven
Isaiah 24:19
The earth is utterly broken down, the earth is clean dissolved, the earth is moved exceedingly.
Isaiah 24:20
The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and the transgression thereof shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again.
Isaiah 24:21
And it shall come to pass in that day, [that] the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones [that are] on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.
HIGH ONES IN HIGH PLACES:
Ephesians 2:6
And hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus:
Isaiah 24:22
And they shall be gathered together, [as] prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited.
Isaiah 24:23
Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the LORD of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously.
Lastly, we’re are given the timeline when this religion will end, it is in the end times.
Here is more on this same false “Snare[Is.28:13]” religion:
Isaiah 28:1
Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim, whose glorious beauty [is] a fading flower, which [are] on the head of the fat valleys of them that are overcome with wine!
Isaiah 28:2
Behold, the Lord hath a mighty and strong one, [which] as a tempest of hail [and] a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters overflowing, shall cast down to the earth with the hand.
Isaiah 28:3
The crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim, shall be trodden under feet:
Isaiah 28:4
And the glorious beauty, which [is] on the head of the fat valley, shall be a fading flower, [and] as the hasty fruit before the summer; which [when] he that looketh upon it seeth, while it is yet in his hand he eateth it up.
Any religion we know speak of a ףcrownפ that has ףglorious beauty on the head of the fat valleyפ that the Creator through Isaiah contrarily says indeed WILL fade away? Yes, but first please look at these supporting scriptures to know what the “fat valleys of them overcome with wine (i.e. the sheep)” are speaking of, and know the “head” of the fat valley is a shepherd, which is what the drunkards of Ephraim/ the priests and prophets/treacherous dealers are acting as. They err through wine, “feeding” false information to the people.
1 Chronicles 4:39
And they went to the entrance of Gedor, [even] unto the east side of the valley, to seek pasture for their flocks.
1 Chronicles 4:40
And they found fat pasture and good, and the land [was] wide, and quiet, and peaceable; for [they] of Ham had dwelt there of old.
1 Peter 5:1
The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
1 Peter 5:2
Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
1 Peter 5:3
Neither as being lords over [God’s] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.
1 Peter 5:4
And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.
Isaiah 28:5
In that day shall the LORD of hosts be for a crown of glory, and for a diadem of beauty, unto the residue of his people,
Isaiah 28:6
And for a spirit of judgment to him that sitteth in judgment, and for strength to them that turn the battle to the gate.
Isaiah 28:7
But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble [in] judgment.
Isaiah 28:8
For all tables are full of vomit [and] filthiness, [so that there is] no place [clean].
Erred through wine on an unclean table:
John 6:55
For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed[see Lev.17:10/Deut.12]
Isaiah 28:9
Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand doctrine? [them that are] weaned from the milk, [and] drawn from the breasts.
The ףweaned from the milkפ Teachers of knowledge and doctrine:
1 Corinthians 3:2
I have fed you with milk, and not with meat[see also Is28:10,13]: for hitherto ye were not able [to bear it], neither yet now are ye able.
Hebrews 5:12
For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which [be] the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat.
Hebrews 5:13
For every one that useth milk [is] unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe.
Hebrews 5:14
But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, [even] those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
Hebrews 6:1
Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God,
Isaiah 28:10
For precept [must be] upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little:
Isaiah 28:11
For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.
1 Corinthians 14:2
For he that speaketh in an [unknown] tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth [him]; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
Greek would also qualify as another tongue and is what Christianity was spread by (see Genesis 10:5) Next, see the most interesting identification:
Isaiah 28:12
To whom he said, This [is] the rest [wherewith] ye may cause the weary to rest; and this [is] the refreshing: yet they would not hear.
Rest for the Weary:
Matthew 11:28
Come unto me, all [ye] that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Isaiah 28:13
But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, [and] there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
John 18:6
As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, and fell to the ground.
The writers of John 18 sees their claim (subtlety “I am”= a claim to being God) as having the ability to make people fall backward. They also take the Hebrew scriptures and use a little here and there from it to snare people into their false worship. Who on earth takes a little here and a little there from the Hebrew scriptures for their religion?
Isaiah 28:14
Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which [is] in Jerusalem.
Isaiah 28:15
Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell(the grave) are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
Covenant with Death, Agreement with the Grave:
Hebrews 9:15
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament(covenant), that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions [that were] under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
Romans 7:4
Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, [even] to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.
Colossians 2:20
Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Romans 6:3
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Romans 6:4
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Escape the Scourge, Refuge, & Hid:
Hebrews 2:3
How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard [him];
Hebrews 6:18
That by two immutable things, in which [it was] impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
1 Thessalonians 1:10
And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, [even] Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come.
Colossians 3:3
For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.
Isaiah 28:16
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner [stone], a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
Isaiah 28:17
Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.
Isaiah 28:18
And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.
Isaiah 28:19
From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only [to] understand the report.
Yes, when these nations and their kings hear what they have not been told, they will shut their mouths and try to understand it and say “Who would have believed this report?” [see Isaiah 52-15-53:1]
Shabrano,I don’t know why are you coming up with all these long stories, but failing to address the points I addressed in response to your explanation of Isaiah verse by verse. It is very easy to just say to anybody ; your interpretation is made up or a fairy tale. But it takes an effort to try to address the points and defend your opinion which you failed to do.
Pingback: What’s the Difference? | 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources
Hello
I dont disagree with you on the points that you raised concerning Jesus, His resurrection, life family linage etc. These are are true points raised about Jesus and whom He is. That doesnt mean that who He is, is false. For every argument for, there is one against.
However having said that, once someone is convinced that a said statement if false, that individual probally will never be in a place to accept the truth.
There are hundreds and hundreds of prophecies, like for like and factual historic elements that Jesus authenticated, then, today and still future. With aligninment to all sciptures, this is quite clear.
Not one Man in the entire universe, from Adam until now, can and will be, ever, become to be close to this One Person, who from your viewpoint has caused so much misery. This One Man has become suchh a stubbling stone for you. A innocent Man, just wandering through life, caught up in the affairs of Israel, a mere Man, sent with his own deceptive will, to cause harm to Israel??? Who unknowingly had a life so complicted that somehow He managed to get His life mixed up with references to Israels life, Feasts and prohets???
A nobody that didnt even excist, so for the last 2000 yrs the worlds calendar has been aligned with a person who didnt excist??
If Jesus wasnt Messiah I would like to see in scripture evidence that He wasnt, and a warning to Israel not to listen to Him. Because all I can see is a promise of suffering for not following Gods servant, and a time of blessing if you do. Your factual history tells a factual story of Curses, pain etc, Does this factual history make God a liar? Gen ch 12.
To accept Jesus as the substitutional lamb offering to atone sin, one must see that he himself(me) is a sinner, that needs to be forgiven. Until then the arguement will go and on. Its nots bases on scripture evidence per se, its basesd on the convicting fact of Yeshuas death and ressurection according to Gods Devine will.
More importantly,YOU have to show that Yeshu was Mashiach without the vague references that comprise the totality of Xtianity.
Show me where in Torah where it says a male lamb atones for sin.
Hi Paul,
You wrote, “However having said that, once someone is convinced that a said statement if [sic] false, that individual probally [sic] will never be in a place to accept the truth.”
I hope you realize that this statement applies to you as well as to anyone else. We must all pray for guidance and openness to the truth.
I would also like to point out two other statements of yours:
One: “There are hundreds and hundreds of prophecies, like for like and factual historic elements that Jesus authenticated, then, today and still future. With aligninment [sic] to all sciptures [sic], this is quite clear.”
Two: “Its [sic] nots [sic] bases [sic] on scripture evidence per se, its [sic] basesd [sic] on the convicting fact of Yeshuas [sic] death and ressurection [sic] according to Gods [sic] Devine [sic] will.”
Do you see the contradiction?
Be well,
Dina
LarryB, I didn’t mean to sound as if I was disparaging the noachide path, merely noting that it doesn’t offer the first hand redemptive experience that Judaism does. There are indeed many sites I’ve seen that are putting forward prayer books, codified law books, etc. but at that point, conversion is usually the better option. I mean, if your a non Jew keeping a kosher kitchen, choosing more observance, and almost becoming entirely observant anyway, it makes sense to want to convert to truly be a member of the community. Staying outside (or having a unique newly developed or clarified liturgy isn’t the same.)
One of the main reasons I don’t consider Christianity idolatrous is not to be contentious or rude, but because Christianity provides this biblical experience that is otherwise unique to Judaism. I don’t think Hashem would allow for the whole earth to be deceived by creating the means in history for an idol to exist that is wholly different than any other form of idolatry, just to make a point. Christians need to learn more about the diverse perspectives within their own tradition, realize the fact of Jesus’ Judaism, and learn to grow with it. Many Christians (ancient and modern) simply did not know, or care to know about Judaism, or were simply so sure that they knew truth already, that they never bothered to ask questions.
Concerned Reader, is that the basis for choosing a religion, how satisfying you find the “redemptive experience”?
Rather, should you not search for what is truest, no matter how uncomfortable it makes you feel? (As it happens, nothing is more liberating or empowering or “redemptive” than truth seeking.)
You wrote that you don’t think God would allow the whole world to be deceived just to make a point. There are several things wrong with this statement:
1. Only one third of the world population is Christian. While that is a lot of people (two billion or so), it is hardly the whole world.
2. Basically, you are arguing that there is safety in numbers. So many people can’t be wrong! God wouldn’t allow it. So what about the other non-biblical two-thirds of the world population (7 billion or so people, okay, minus 1 billion Muslims and a few million Jews)? Would God allow them to be deceived? According to such logic, they must also all be right.
3. Way more than a third of the world population hates Jews. I don’t know the statistics, but watching what’s going in the world today is scary! So a lot of people are deceived about the Jews (meaning, there is no good reason to hate us). Therefore, by your logic, God wouldn’t allow the “whole world” to be deceived just to make a point. Anti-semitism must therefore be legitimate. I am not saying you said that, God forbid! I am just showing you the flaws in your reasoning and where it could go.
4. Rather than God allowing people to be deceived, God allows people to make choices. He sends us challenges, to be sure–Deuteronomy 13 teaches us that he deliberately sends us false prophets to test us–but people are more than willing to allow themselves to be deceived, for various psychological reasons.
You also wrote why you don’t consider Christianity idolatrous. What you consider or don’t consider is irrelevant to those who accept the truth of the Torah and who take it very seriously. The Torah tells us that any type of worship that was unknown to our fathers is idolatry. According to that definition, Christianity is idolatry even if you think its resemblance to idolatry is merely superficial and can be explained away.
You have argued that Christian worship of Jesus is not a new type of worship because of its resemblance to the intercession of Moses on behalf of the Jews. As I have demonstrated elsewhere, this is self-evidently and laughably absurd. I know that sounds disrespectful, and I apologize for that.
Jesus talked about himself in a way that no prophet, including Moses, would ever have dreamed of doing. What he taught about himself was unprecedented.
As I’ve noted to you Dina, the way Philo speaks about Moses, the way Maimonides speaks about Moses, and the way others have leads me to draw the comparison.
Concerned Reader, is that the basis for choosing a religion, how satisfying you find the “redemptive experience”?
Satisfying? Is that what you think Christianity is about? If you mean fundamentalist evangelical once saved always saved, I’m not worried about my actions, sing and dance churches, I could see satisfying as a possible view you mat have, but Christians don’t find satisfaction in unholy things. Ok, we eat bacon, guilty as charged, but as long as we cause no harm to a living animal, or any human being, have we sinned? we hardly find the fear of punishment for sin put into us from childhood to be a comforting experience. I don’t know how many modern Gentiles you have met outside of this blog, but we are not all bad, and most have never met Jews, let alone hated them. When you say most Gentiles hate Jews, that is quite a statement. I personally don’t know enough people to make that kind of claim.
Concerned Reader,
I was responding to this: “I didn’t mean to sound as if I was disparaging the noachide path, merely noting that it doesn’t offer the first hand redemptive experience that Judaism does.” You seem to make a big deal about the importance of this redemptive experience that only Christianity provides (not true; a lot of religions claim redemptive experiences). That’s why I wrote what I wrote.
Second, you seem to imply that the whole world is the United States of America. This is the second time you implied that! Are you not aware of how hated Jews are around the world? What world do you live in? Have you been following the news lately?
The US is a small island of tolerance for Jews in an insane world (although there are signs that is changing).
Concerned Reader, check this out:
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/books/143487/academic-anti-semitism
And this:
http://www.jta.org/2014/05/13/news-opinion/world/survey-more-than-a-quarter-of-the-world-hates-jews
By the way, the Christians that I do know in real life are American. They are wonderful. They do not hate Jews. But do you know that Jews are fleeing France in droves? This year saw the largest mass migration of French Jews to Israel. While many are escaping economic hardships, they also cite anti-Semitism as a factor.
And I have noted back to you that Philo, as a Hellenist Jew, is not a part of Jewish tradition. There is a reason Christians love to quote him, while most Jews never heard of him. He has influenced Christian doctrine but not Jewish, that’s for sure.
You cannot deny that what Jesus taught about himself in the gospels has no precedent anywhere in Tanach. As such, it constitutes a new type of worship that was unknown to our fathers; hence it is idolatry. Since the gospels are your scripture, quote my scripture back to me to show me that there is a parallel. Philo is not scripture. Maimonides is excellent, but he is also not scripture.
By the way, Concerned Reader, can you show me where Maimonides says anything about equating Moses with God? Just curious…
Thanks,
Dina
C.R.
I think I know what you meant, and I look forward to any book that would give some guidance. I do miss some of my previous routines. But obviously the experience is not what matters to me the most. Like Dina says below, its the truth, and idolatry is idolatry no matter how many P.H.D.’s you stuff behind your belief.
Concerned Reader
You might find this interesting – https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/all-the-nations/
Dina, I’m not saying Christians can’t be wrong, clearly I have stated otherwise. It’s not an issue of numbers, it’s an issue of claiming that G-d would allow 2 billion to hear about his name and the concept of redetion through what you see as an idol.
Concerned Reader, claiming that God would allow any number of people to believe anything proves nothing. You are not responding directly to what I wrote.
There are several statements in the NT which have Jesus or others stating that “the many” will be deceived. Now, some will say that the deception is from “the anti-Christ” or the “devil”. But what sort of being is a “devil”? So, God either “allows” or “allowed” those entities to deceive “the many” or else their God is not in control of “these enemy beings” or else their God is “not the Father” or else ____ or ____ or ____. There can be small variations in each of those options, but I would be most inclined to believe one of the latter, unspecified options. The NT states that some early followers or believers of the Christ Jesus were heretics and were deceived. So deception of “believers” is not only not exceptional in Christianity, but it is even expected to be part of “the plan”. There were “anti-Christs” and deceivers in the earliest days of the Jesus movement, as we see in the Church history and as we read in the NT. We have even seen that a few nations or areas in the world, that were once Christian, have become non-Christian. I wouldn’t want to state that God allowed those “deceptions” or that it was a part of “God’s plan”, but it is difficult to accept some Christian’s explanations for those changes.
Some “Messianic” Jews”, followers of Jesus, also may consider “Christians”, especially “Trinitarians”, as participating in idolatry. From reading some of their blogs, I have seen the argument being made by some “MJ’s”, who were “gentiles” or not born Jewish, that they were more “torah observant” that than the Jews who converted to belief in Jesus. Some non-Jews in Messianic churches seen becoming a “Messianic Jew” as a path to what they “considered as becoming a true Jew. Some of these non-Jews became disappointed with their “Jewish brother believers in Yeshua” and left the messianic church (sometimes the majority of the “messianic Jews” are non-Jews). A few non-Jews finally did decide to convert to Judaism, rather than be an “outsider”. A few Noachides also see themselves converting eventually to Judaism.
As someone mentioned, they see Noachides as “having a unique newly developed or clarified liturgy”. Well, the same is true, in “messianic Jewish” congregations. They both do that because “Christianity” doesn’t offer them Torah or the Lord”. I’ve seen the same as true in Christian churches “returning to their Hebraic roots”. We develope new songs, new liturgies, new “Haggadahs” glorifying “Yeshua”, aka Jesus. As one pastor says, Christians either chose the “church of Babylon” or the “Jerusalem church”. They say that the “return to their roots” is another “great movement by God” (maybe, but most likely not the way that they think?). Many Christians see both “MJ’s” and “Hebraic Roots Churches”, as “heretics” to Christianity. It is hard not to see that the “Babylonian or Roman roots of Christianity” is often more dominant than it’s “Hebraic roots”.
Some of this idea that Jesus and/or Christianity arose out of “1st century Judaism” (references to Philo, “prophecies”, some similarity of the Jesus story to Isaiah 53, etc) is part of a “Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc” fallacy (basically, some of what came before defines or determined what came later). The “Babylonian, pagan roots model” is stronger than the “Jewish Jesus model”. Which helps to explain a term like “Judaizer”, a being like a devil, a person like Marcion, a belief in gnosticism, and several other beliefs in early Christianity, etc. It helps to explain why “gentiles” found Jesus more acceptable than Jews did and why both Josephus (pro-Roman) and Philo (Hellenistic Alexandrian) were acceptable to Christians and virtually ignored by Jews (& even “disowned”). Philo influenced Christians such as Clement of Alexandria, Christian Apologists like Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, among others. According to the “Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy”, “Philo’s philosophy represented contemporary Platonism which was its revised version incorporating Stoic doctrine and terminology via Antiochus of Ascalon (ca 90 B.C.E.) and Eudorus of Alexandria, as well as elements of Aristotelian logic and ethics and Pythagorean ideas.” Hardly typical of the logic & theology found in the “Yerushalmi” (Jerusalem Talmud) and several other Jewish writings about 2000 years ago.
The “therefore fallacy” (A occurred before B, therefore A definitely caused B), may occur because we make unfounded assumptions of cause and effect or of relationships based on perceived similarities or correlations. Event “A” happened (or was written) before “B”, therefore A caused B (or A was a prophecy of B or B “fulfilled A”). If there are a few similarities between B and A, that may be merely coincidental. If there are many similarities, there may be plagiarism or some intentional plan by the “actors”, especially if there is very little evidence provided by the actors or if there are few or no corroboration provided by non-biased witnesses.
All Jewish philosophers have had influences from and been influential in the wider non Jewish culture. Philo and Platonism, Rambam and Saadia with Aristotelian influences, the kabbalists with a variety of influences, etc. post hoc reasoning goes both ways when people say either “this was or wasn’t influenced or caused by that,” as if there is only one black and white possibility. If you have a religious tradition, (I don’t care which one) you will always have some outside influence, and always have a level of diversity. Philo’s conception of the Logos as the creative speech of G-d, does not fit in a Hellenistic thought process, or any Hellenistic mythical framework. Though the terms and allegorical method Philo uses are borrowed from Hellenism, stoics, and platonic philosophy included, what these terms mean to him, how he uses them, and the ideas he espouses using those terms are not Hellenistic at all, but biblical, and found in other Jewish literature. The logos is not for Philo the impersonal plan that is the good in the realm of ideal forms that it was for Plato, it is not primal matter as it was for the stoics, it is the active providential will, even the agency, and providence of G-d. Sure Philo and Christianity used Greek learning, but the teachings do not impart Greek conceptions.
You say that it is a post hoc fallacy to claim that Christianity came from Judaism, maybe you are right, but we both know that you are at least partially wrong. Posts on this blog are not shy about saying that Jesus’ entire system is “plagiarized” from Judaism. So which is it, Pagan or Jewish? It is also a post hoc fallacy to claim that Christianity copied polytheism. I could see merit for your drawing points of similarity to polytheism if Christians had taken Jesus as a sage only, and deified him as such, like happened with therevada veneration of Buddha. Deification for an ancient Roman, ancient Egyptian, ancient Chinese, ancient Indian, etc. was based on the fact that these were rulers or men of wisdom who held terrestrial power or great sway with people. They understood that these people were just people, but special people. Deification in these systems is not about the one infinite G-d who comes to redeem men from some wrong, but is about honoring the accomplishments, power, and prowess, of the individuals. For instance, If Pharaoh were considered as divine man/god as people allege Christians copied from polytheism, why did Pharoah have to be given storage for food, weapons, wives, pets, etc. in his tomb? G-d does not need food. G-d is without need, without body, without cause. Polytheists saw their gods differently. They were deemed a part of the cosmos like anything else, including humans. Truth is abstract and mailable in their view, not dictated by a will of G-d in these belief systems. The problem I find with pagan parallel arguments, is not so much that no mythic parallel exists, but it’s that these arguments fall apart when you take polytheistic world views in to account, not just their stories. Sure polytheists called the king a god, a son of god, or son of heaven, but what do they mean by these terms?
If there is no correlation then why is there a day called “Easter”, why does Xmas fall on Dec 25.
Just because it doesn’t take the form in its entirety doesn’t mean there was not a strong influence. There is also the link to Mithra and Zoroastrianism.
“Concerned(?)”, but I don’t know about how “careful” your reading. I don’t always follow the rules for the proper use of quotation marks (or other punctuation marks), but when I am not quoting other people’s words, I may use parentheses & quotes to set off words and sometimes to separate what is not to be taken literally, such as if I write “plagiarized”, that is not to be taken literally as an accusation of a “crime”. I will discuss “plagiarism” below.
Where there are similarities, there are also dissimilarities. Some people believe that you can’t know what something is unless you first know what it is not. Ba’alist were Israelites, but their beliefs differed from other Israelites. Some Israelites worshipped God before a gold calf or they worshipped the “golden snake on a stake”; but others didn’t. Some people believe a human can be a suitable sacrifice; others consider that an abomination before God. Nebuchanezzar’s view of a “son of god” differed from the Jew’s view. The Roman soldier who stated that Jesus “surely was a son of god” had little in common with most Jews all around him, although the soldier is portrayed as a witness and what he said is used as testimony and “evidence of Jesus” as a divine being. There are influences, and there are resistance to and rejection of influences. It appears the crowd rejected the influence of mighty Rome. But that soldier and all the Romans around him saw nothing newsworthy in the day’s events; if those events were real and not imagined.
About influences, again, I was raised Christian, studied as a Christian, all of my relatives are Christian (more or less) and of various denominations, and at least 3 are ministers or pastors. Christianity is one of the major influences of my life. I’ve spent countless hundreds or thousands of hours in Christian services (zero in synagogues), untold hours celebrating Christian holidays (zero hours participating in Jewish holiday services), untold hours in formal Christian studies (zero in Judaism), and untold thousands of hours listening to Christian sermons or non-musical Christian programming on the radio. And while I was in Saudia Arabia, I spent several hours listening to a daily 30 minute program where a portion of the Quran was read/chanted in Arabic, which was then followed by an English translation and an explanation or commentary of the portion. But I don’t recall even hearing a single minute of a Jewish prayer on a radio. So, my thoughts, my world view are mostly influenced by Jesus. How important is influence? Most Jews in many parts of the world (now & for a lot of the last 2000 years) are or were almost assuredly more influenced by Christianity, than Christians were by Jews or Judaism. Many Jews and non-Jews can see what is wrong with not only Christianity and the NT, but with Jesus, despite the strong influence upon them to believe otherwise. Perhaps you would be less biased, if you were a true academic and scholar?
So many, if not all Christian philosophers have (also?) been influenced to some degree by Plato, Aristotle, and pagan philosophers and by pagan and polytheistic religions in their part of the world. That is plainly obvious to any true scholar. It is discussed in much detail by many of the “pre-Constantine church fathers”. Read what those early Christians that I mentioned above, that were influenced by Philo & Plato (more or less), believed, and don’t keep shying away from what they wrote about what they believed about Jesus. But don’t take them all that literally (as “gospel truth”), for they were apologists for their beliefs and they were opposed to other beliefs, including that of the Jews of their time. It is absurd to suggest that those differences that they had with Jews didn’t matter (unless you believe they lied?). Perhaps you may need to read Philo or the Gnostics a century before and after him, if his concept of the Logos did “not fit in a Hellenistic thought process, or any Hellenistic mythical framework”. It is doubtful that those early Christian fathers misread Philo and did not understand what Plato and other Greek and Roman philosophers thought. A couple of scholarly books that might help you to see Greek or Hellenistic ideas as Greek or Hellenistic, instead of as Hebraic is 1 by Thorlief Boman, “Hebrew Thought Compared to Greek” and another by E.J. Bickerman, “The Jews in the Greek Age”. Dr Avi Sion wrote “Judaic Logic” which might help to clarify what Jews think about Jewish thought and why they think a little differently from me and you.
I brought up the “post hoc” and other fallacies because it is definitely visible in Christian apologetics, as evidenced by some re-reading of Isaiah above to fit Jesus. Links can be shown and quantified when I tried to show links between early Christianity and pagan or Hellenistic beliefs, unless they lied about what they thought (I have several unfortunate quotes from early church fathers calling their fellow believers “liars” and “not saying what they really believed”). Dr. Sion wrote this about prophecy (not against Christian writings) and the 2 types of “knowers”: “It is all too easy to project whatever one wishes into the past, to ex post facto reorder events as one sees fit, to invent legends, to find in subsequent events the concrete realization of vague and ambiguous earlier predictions. How reliable are word-of-mouth or even written traditions, anyway? Witnesses, even assuming they witnessed something, may have been gullible, superstitious, easily fooled, because lacking scientific methods and knowledge”. I found that appropriate to these many words about Isaiah 53 and to the whole Jesus story as well.
I never said idolatry, paganism or polytheism was either bad or good. My personal beliefs (whatever they are or are not) are not on “trial” here and I have no need to defend myself, get angry nor hurt others. I don’t care what the source of my beliefs were. What others wrote was what they wrote & what I favor doesn’t change texts that others wrote 2000 years ago. So, have you ever heard of syncretism as it relates to Christianity? All polytheism is not the same (and your model of the “Pharaoh”, which is a title and not a name of a person, was not the only model of the gods in Egypt). For a time, monotheism was practiced in Egypt and it was practiced in a few other places as well. “Plagiarism” can be from several different sources (from the Hebrew Bible or Greek-Roman religion & philosophy). Have you read the footnotes in a good study NT and seen where much of the text came from? Did you see the miraculous deeds and events in one place and then find them met or exceeded in another place where they seemed so imitative, so out of place, so contrived? How did someone come up with a “new Adam”, a new “Moses”, a “new Elijah and new Elisha”, a “new David”? And why all this “newness” in the “middle of the story”? Isn’t the climax usually near the end of the story and not in the middle where it is followed by an anti-climatic dullness? A routine (actually a long dark age when some preached that light had already come) that is interrupted every now and then by self-proclaimed “prophets” claiming that “the end is near”. Have you ever read the several well-intentioned, scholarly (Christian) works claiming Jesus was a Stoic, a Cynic, a zealot rebel, a “good” Pharisee, a pacifist, a law keeper and a “law ender”? I first read about the significant similarities between Mark and Homer’s epics in articles written over 15 years by staff at the conservative Dallas Theological Seminary. Read Dennis R MacDonald’s book “Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark” (Yale University, 2000). What similarities are real similarities? Why did believers then and now see different images? Or are they holding up a mirror and see whatever they want to see? You keep forgetting (or just plain keep denying) what different Christians believed about their Christ.
There were and are different theories by Christians about those other gods. They all were “copy cats” of Jesus or they all were “false christs” sent by the devil in some sort of plot to usurp Jesus to lead them down a different path or to confuse Christians, etc. Some early Christians believed those other gods were real flesh & blood people, “special human”, powerful kings, like their king Jesus who was a special human. Some early Christians were indeed polytheists and accept more than one god. I don’t want to make to much about similarities where there is no direct evidence of connections and relationships (beside eventually everything is similar & connected in some way). You bring up dissimilarities to distance Christian from pagan, yet you deny real dissimilarities of Christianity to Judaism and the “old testament”. If there was no major (or significant) differences, there would be no argument for almost 2000 years. It appears similarity is stressed for some validation purpose that may be based on traditions handed down to us. If Christianity had followed the dualistic path (father and son are 2 separate beings -which can be supported by many NT verses and in other Christian writings) or if we had received the Marcionite doctrine (OT God is either the 2nd god or “bad god” or a 3rd god or the just god), we would have no “OT”. And much more of the world might be Christian today? That way, when bible sceptics confront Christians, you would never hear “well, that was in the old testament, Jesus did away with all that”.
Sharbano, you likely got this informational about Mithras from the Zeitgeist film. That movie is not based on scholarship. There are no ties to Mithras and Zoroastrianism. In fact, there is a Zoroastrian polemic against Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which shows very clearly that whatever parallels might be drawn, they are not borrowing from them, or emulating them. I will post a link to this polemic. Likely you are referring to the Christian view of Satan when you draw this parallel? First, not all Christians believe in stereotypical views of satan as a rebellious power opposing G-d Even when Christian scripture speaks that way, we know Satan cannot do something unless G-d willed it, or gave him the free choice, or permission.
Second, Christmas being celebrated in December has nothing to do with paganism, unless you want to say that Hannukah is also pagan because both coincide with the Roman Saturnalia. Early Christians didn’t even observe Christmas, but both of our communities have instituted observances.
I see what you are doing here. Just as Xtianity has cherry picked verses to substantiate a belief the same is done here to alleviate any resemblance to paganism. I believe many scholars have determined that Jsus could Not have been born in the winter solstice. Considering the many concepts Xtianity had created did not come from Judaism it must have came from somewhere. There happened to be a PBS series on religion and the scholars there admitted these facts.
One thing that is consistent with Xtianity is the evolution of thinking, i.e., Martin Luther among others. Many have rewritten their doctrines and in essence created that which is different. The scholar James Tabor has taken the Xtian text and organized it by the date written. In so doing he finds that an evolution of thinking had occurred during that time. It seems Xtianity has the individual determine their own beliefs. It seems you are doing the same.
Professor Tabor has some very strange very minority ideas that go against the prevailing scholarly perspective, as do those views of professor Price and others. His Jesus dynasty book as well as his work on the supposed tomb of Jesus are fringe ideas which go against the grain of historical scholarship. If these views had merit, why didn’t the rabbis use them against Christians in antiquity? The arguments that put forward pagan borrowing by Christians presuppose the Jesus myth hypothesis which is demonstrably false. It is true that Jesus was not born in December. It’s also true that both Christmas and Hannukah occur during the same time as saturnalia, and all 3 have some common theme. Does this imply paganism? Communities make decisions for various reasons. It is you who are reading nefarious motives into things. Dina wanted apples to apples comparisons. The Sikh religious text the Guru Granth Sahib is treated as a person, they even dress it up on occasion. A comparison could be drawn to dressing the Torah on simchat Torah. We all know that this is a sloppy comparison. There is no nefarious copying of pagan custom.
Channukah is not a proper comparison. We can have Channukah at Thanksgiving time. There is no resemblance whatsoever between the two. One celebrates a man and the other celebrates a dedication. You can do better than this.
For one thing Prof Taber lives now, not in antiquity. As far as antiquity you,of all people, should know what happened to Jews if they disputed Xtianity. That is really a ludicrous remark and is not befitting of someone who is suppose to be a scholar. It’s only been very recent that Jews haven’t suffered at the hands of Xtians for speaking up. Even nowadays when it does occur the Xtian complains they are being insulted. I, for one, have seen it go well past that to the point of anti-semitism.
Concerned Reader, you wrote: “If these views had merit, why didn’t the rabbis use them against Christians in antiquity?”
You must not be aware that the rabbis in antiquity didn’t use any arguments against Christians at all. They simply ignored Christians, much as they ignored all the other religions of their day. And they would never, ever have taken the time to study pagan myths and compare them to Christianity, repulsed as they were by idolatry.
Did you mention you have a degree in history too? Maybe you should also get a refund for that one.
I’ll be honest that I have been responding to a lot of the points on this blog, such as pagan derivation claims made against Christianity with a degree of in kind rhetoric that I can see has been misunderstood. I know that comparing Hannukah and saturnalia is a poor parallel, but various people have drawn that parallel, and this blog has made equally poor parallels between Christianity and polytheism. That was the point. Not to dismiss anti semitism, or deny Christian crimes. It was a rhetorical point.
Dina, I am very aware that the rabbis don’t make much mention of their gentile opponents ideology, or indeed have knowledge of it. The question I posed asking why they didn’t use these pagan copycat arguments against Christianity in antiquity was partially rhetorical. The point is exactly as you say. They don’t care to know what others really truly believe.
That is an immense problem. You cannot claim to be a just judge if you don’t actually know or attempt to know anything about the thing you pass judgement against. I am not condoning anti-semitism or anti judaism, I was merely showing rhetorically the fallacy people make (by drawing supposed parallels to Judaism in polytheism) that says Christianity says x which is similar to pagan belief y, therefore x caused or influenced y. The point was to say that these arguments are weak and not based on real information.
I know that it is only recently that Judaism has been able to stand up for itself. I support that fully. It’s the black and white one to one comparisons of Christianity to paganism and idolatry that I am objecting to. These are false comparisons that are just as ridiculous as me saying rhetorically that Hannukah copies saturnalia. It’s absurd! That’s the point. So much persecution and evil is caused by misunderstanding and in presupposing knowledge before we actually posses It.
Orthodox Christian tradition is the source I’m looking at, not Luther.
A quick Internet search reveals that there is a wealth of scholarly material that makes the case that Jesus is patterned after earlier mythical figures like Dionysus, Adonis, and Mithras. Go to Amazon to see how many books are written on this subject by people who spent many hours studying comparative religion.
I never heard of the Zeitgeist film until you mentioned it, but I had already read in other sources about the parallels between Jesus and Mithras.
There is also a lot of material arguing against it (by religious Christians, generally).
Dina those internet sites are wrong. Respectfully. You can’t believe everything you read on the google machine. There are no respected mainstream New Testament scholars or historians with the exception. Of prof. Robert Price, a scholar with a minority opinion who accepts those views. The sources that cite similarities to pagan deities presuppose what is called the Jesus myth hypothesis. With respect those books on Amazon are not representative of real scholarship on comparative religions, it’s popular guff like the davinci code. If you want genuine information, get it from a university professor, or take a class, better yet read the myths for yourself. With due respect, I spent years getting my degrees in comparative Religions and history studying religions like those of the Greeks and myths like that of Mithras.
Not even the Jesus seminar ( a very critical panel of NT scholars) holds the mythicist theory. Mithras was born from a rock, not a virgin. Mithras was a deity in Persia first, then in Rome. We only know something substantial about the latter. He was a popular deity of the roman legionaries. You can choose to believe whatever you want, but those criticisms of Christianity do not come from sources who have peer reviewed support. I’m not asking you to trust me, I’m asking that you look beyond Google, and Wikipedia.
Then why didn’t you answer the Easter question. Instead you deflected it by changing subjects. THIS is a typical Xtian response to that which is contradictory to their premise. If its origin is not pagan then why name it as such. Why does Easter observance include the hunting for eggs. Furthermore, why do Xtans adorn a tree at Xmas time. Now, you may say this is not the way things were done in the outset of the religion but the religion has definitely evolved to that point. One has to ask why. Since there is no chain of transmission as there is with Judaism no one, especially any “university professors” can say with any certitude what the religion really taught. Most of Xtianity is based upon Paul’s writings, i.e., his letters. At the most we only have a one-sided conversation, unlike the Talmud, which includes All. That is not indicative of a thorough understanding of a subject matter.
Here’s another question that when I first read it some 40 years ago left me astonished to say the least. Why would Jsus come up with a “Pesach seder” that says to drink wine which is his blood and eat bread which is his body, metaphorically notwithstanding. This is about as pagan as one can get. It certainly doesn’t come from Judaism. There is also the phrase “washed in the blood of the lamb”. How can anything being washed in blood be made white. Apparently all those commercials for products to remove blood are worthless. Or, is that lamb’s blood doesn’t stain like all other bloods. It’s looks more and more like Xtianity doesn’t follow Judaism very well.
I will answer it. If you shoot several questions, I need time.
The Easter bunny custom started as we now know it today with colored eggs, providing a lesson to children, egg hunts, etc. amongst German Lutherans, and it came to the US through immigrants like the Pennsylvania Dutch. Before that, the custom of association with a rabbit and colored eggs, or the narrative surrounding them, was unknown to Christianity in any theologically meaningful or purposeful way. Eggs were prohibited during lent, and so were hard boiled for the purpose of preservation, and for providing a simple food to acclimate the body after the fast of lent, but there was no sacral significance ascribed to a bunny, colored eggs, Ishtar etc. there still isn’t. There never has been any sacred significance assigned to Ishtar, a bunny, etc. in Christianity. Folk customs arise in every religion, right or wrong, even in Judaism, such as is the case with shlissel Challah. http://www.mesora.org/Shlissel.html
It doesn’t mean there is an express command, or sanction, or even conscious intention to serve idolatry. It does not mean polytheism is at play.
Here’s another question that when I first read it some 40 years ago left me astonished to say the least. Why would Jsus come up with a “Pesach seder” that says to drink wine which is his blood and eat bread which is his body, metaphorically notwithstanding. This is about as pagan as one can get. It certainly doesn’t come from Judaism. There is also the phrase “washed in the blood of the lamb”. How can anything being washed in blood be made white. Apparently all those commercials for products to remove blood are worthless.
If you say “metaphorically notwithstanding”, you already completely misconstrue the meaning of the text, and the historical teaching of the church, and this isn’t meant as a deflection. The usage of body and blood in the New Testament, and even in transubstantiation beliefs are not advocating consumption of literal blood or flesh. Celsus thought that too. The NT strictly prohibits consuming blood in Acts 15. This prohibition is also not some mere holdover custom from Judaism, as even later Christian manuals continue the prohibition. 2 peter says that believers are partakers in the divine nature (the logos by adoption.) what is the Logos? The Christ personality. Partaking of body and blood, is clothing yourself with the “manna from heaven” which is the actions and intentions (body/soul) (or body/blood) of Christ. This is all metaphor. The life of the soul is the blood. When you sit at communion, (Eucharist means thanksgiving in Greek) you are promising to clothe yourself with the actions and intentions of Jesus. The Eucharist is that which the church has always considered and called mysterion (mystical participation in the mystical body, and blood that is participation in Christ/the Church.) Transubstantiation (stressing the literal presence) was in response to people who denied the literal existence of a real Jesus, (Docetism,) or who saw no relevance to communion customs. The idea of a real mystical presence at an event, or a real participation as sacred mystery is not unknown to Judaism. The door is open for Elijah every year, and he is believed to be among angels, and so able to be present at events. Converts are also said to be present at Sinai are they not?
Concerned Reader,
Here is a rebuttal to Alfassa’s poor scholarship on the origins of schlissel challah:
http://www.vosizneias.com/127445/2013/04/04/new-york-shlissel-challah-an-analysis/
Concerned Reader, it could very well be that you are right and that those who worshipped Mithras believed he was born from a rock and not a virgin. That wasn’t my point. My point was that there are two sides to the debate, with each side claiming scholarly research to support their views.
So if I’m wrong about Mithras, so be it. Nevertheless, the idea of virgin births predates Jesus.
Do university professors have the final word? Then you might want to read this book by a French (and everyone knows Europeans are smarter than Americans) university professor called Christianity: The Origins of a Pagan Religion.
As for your degree in comparative religion, I am not impressed. You have misrepresented facts several times here on this blog and used words carelessly. I’m not talking about differences of opinion or different ways of interpreting scripture or history or even flawed logic. I am talking about solid, verifiable facts. I will give you five examples:
1. Larry and I both pointed out to you when you misquoted a rabbi on archaeological evidence for the Exodus. To your credit, you acknowledged the error.
2. Rabbi B. showed you how you misrepresented Lawrence Schiffman on the DDS. You did not acknowledge your error.
3. When I pointed out your mistake in referring to Philo as a Pharisee, you grudgingly amended your statement to say that he was influenced by Pharisaic thought (did you know that the Pharisees and the Hellenists bitterly opposed each other? So your amendment is hardly accurate. Nevertheless, I decided not to press the issue).
4. You wrote that God would not allow the whole world to be deceived about Jesus, not being aware that only a third of the world population is Christian.
5. You wrote that few gentiles hate the Jews today, not being aware of the actual statistics, which I posted in response to that comment.
Sloppy! If that’s how you were taught to think and write in Comparative Religion Class, and if you were not taught to carefully check your facts first, then you need to demand a refund. To err is human. But too many errors reflects poorly on your credibility.
1. Larry and I both pointed out to you when you misquoted a rabbi on archaeological evidence for the Exodus. To your credit, you acknowledged the error.
2. Rabbi B. showed you how you misrepresented Lawrence Schiffman on the DDS. You did not acknowledge your error. I did too. I know that 60% of the texts are Masoretic and have Masoretic urtexts. While it can be granted that the DSS support the Masoretic texts, Schiffman also noted in the encyclopedia Of the Dead Sea scrolls, (which I quoted) that variant readings needed to be studied on a case by case basis because despite Masoretic majority, Many textual variants are very well attested even when they contradict the Masoretic text.
3. When I pointed out your mistake in referring to Philo as a Pharisee, you grudgingly amended your statement to say that he was influenced by Pharisaic thought (did you know that the Pharisees and the Hellenists bitterly opposed each other? So your amendment is hardly accurate. Nevertheless, I decided not to press the issue). So why do you press it now? I amended my statement. I acknowledged I was mistaken. And Philo did have Pharisaic influence. You can be influenced by people with whom you disagree.
4. You wrote that God would not allow the whole world to be deceived about Jesus, not being aware that only a third of the world population is Christian. By “world” I did not mean the world is Christian (off course I know that.) I meant Jesus is discussed and known the world over, even by those who don’t believe. (I should have been more clear, I apologize.)
5. You wrote that few gentiles hate the Jews today, not being aware of the actual statistics, which I posted in response
I will check that out and amend my statements.
Concerned Reader,
I’m glad you acknowledged your errors. My point was–for someone who keeps reminding us of his degrees and his years in college, why so many? Why so sloppy? This carelessness makes me unable to take your degrees seriously, so it’s pointless, really, for you to point it out.
Nevertheless, kudos to you for taking a second look and correcting your mistakes when they are pointed out. Not too many people have the humility and graciousness to do that.
Best,
Dina
In regards to Easter, why is there a month in your calendar called Tammuz?
Tammuz is not a religious holiday. Let’s compare apples with apples. We refer to the secular months according to their pagan names as well–and the days of the week.
Just as Pesach is a remembrance of the exile of Egypt the naming of the months recalls the exile of Babylon.
Eric
In my article “Armor Bearers” I addressed the verses that you quote please read it – https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/armor-bearers-isaiah-5211/
Dina I am currently writing from an iPad. I don’t have access to a computer to give proper detail, clarification, and citation for every one of my statements. Things that I have said may be generalized or too quickly spoken, but it’s not like I’m saying things that have zero backing or room for discussion. The mistakes I have made, I have admitted and clarified my position on. It took so many years in school because it was two majors, I went for a teaching credential also, but finances were tight. That takes a few years even at 15 units a semester. I bring it up, not to put anyone down, but to highlight that many things are not black and white, take much more in depth knowledge, (beyond google) and are very open to diverse understanding because of various complexities. I can be wrong, I would never claim otherwise, but it should give you some pause that you have admitted that your sources don’t attempt to understand diverse ideologies, yet you can judge these views with a degree of absolute certainty. As I’ve stated before, the existence of absolute truth is one thing, whether I am qualified to judge based on limited knowledge and experience is another matter, especially given the presence of the evil inclination and the existence of free will. These two variables guarantee diversity.
When I have made statements about various diverse perspectives within Judaism, possibly making room for a Christian theology, or rather a Christian like theology, it’s not to be rude or misleading. I’m genuinely noticing that even in Judaism today, there are discussions and disagreements among sages about foundational issues in various sources. Are kabbalistic books like the Zohar authentic or aren’t they? What is the status of noachide religious movements? What do we mean by divine unity, are there divine emanations of G-d, or is G-d to be emphasized as wholly unknowable (rational v mystical approach to understanding theology.) Different rabbis have different answers. Are the perceptual appearances to prophets of angels and G-d in scripture metaphors or realities? Is the Shekinah to be understood as a creation that manifests G-d’s dwelling ie in an illusory or indirect fashion like a vision, or is this dwelling of G-d meaning a real manifestation of some attribute of G-d himself? How many principles of faith are there really. 3 or 13, etc. The answer depends on who you asked, and who you learned from. These kinds of discussions in your own tradition imply a great deal of maliability. Since so much diversity exists in Judaism today, surely antiquity had room for much more. That is a reason I don’t immediately find arguments to the contrary very convincing.
Concerned Reader,
In order to make claims about Christianity a Jew doesn’t have to study Christianity, because all Christianity is, is a claim about Judaism. If I know Judaism and I know that Christianity claims to posses the Jewish Messiah and the Jewish way of worshiping God–and they are both different than what I know–then I know that it is false.
Dina,
Well said. Very succinct.
MAS member,
Jim
Eventually some people begin to see the irony (or heresy as some Christians might call it) that the more you equate Jesus with Jewish or Judaism’s teachings the less “Christian” he becomes. The more he is made to resemble the “old testament”, the less “new testament” he has to offer. The more Jesus is made to fit into selected verses (like selected verses in Isaiah 52-53) the less he fits into the NT, The more his words & deeds are repeats of “OT” words & deeds, the less new he becomes, the less significant he becomes, and the more false the NT becomes. The gospel author “Luke” even winds up saying (v 5:39),
“And no one after drinking old wine desires new, for he says, ‘The old is better”. Some Christians begin to cull the NT of Christian teachings they have problems with. There are several “messianic’s” and Christian websites that quite convincingly show that Paul contradicts Jesus (as he is presented in the gospels and other parts if the NT) on many issues and in beliefs.
Is Christianity pagan?
Some find it difficult to call a religion that seems to have its roots in Judaism to be pagan. The supposed founder of the Christian religion is reported to have affirmed the shema, its monotheistic principle in tact. How then could anyone call Christianity pagan? Such a claim would appear merely polemical. But the fact is that Christianity, while not a wholly pagan religion, is an alloy, taking elements from Torah and from paganism to make a strange blend. Assuming the purity of the Torah system, any such addition of pagan elements is only a corruption of that pure system. So, while it might be unfair to call Christianity wholly pagan, it has elements foreign to the Torah system.
One can easily see this in the different treatment of Moses and Jesus within the two systems. Moses is a servant of God, never exalted higher than a man. Jesus is clearly given exaltation within Christianity higher than the status of man. The elements that differentiate him from Moses are elements found in the non-Jewish world rather frequently. Jesus is the product of a divine being and a human being, even if not sexually. This element has no basis within the Torah system, causing the Church to find a prophecy regarding a “virgin birth” where one does not exist, ignoring every other element of the prophecy they misappropriated. Of course, one finds semi-divine beings within the non-Jewish world quite frequently. The fact that they are usually made sexually is less essential than the glorification of a human. The God of the Torah says that He will not share His glory with another. However, the NT system has glory being given to both Jesus and the Father. Moses would never be given this sort of treatment, even as the “Law Giver”. It is not he that delivers Israel from Egypt, but God. Moses is His instrument. But the Christian world elevates their teacher. He can be nothing less than a god himself.
The mixture of Torah and non-Torah philosophies leads to a confused notion that Jesus is not just a teacher but God himself. He is the Son of God and the Son of Man. He is human and divine. He is God and God’s Servant. These mixed qualities allow the Christian to say that they are not worshipping any god other than the God of Torah. But they are notions wholly foreign to the Torah system. The Torah does not teach the expectation of a Son of God in the manner of Jesus. It does not teach a servant that is also the Master. These elements within the Christian system seek to reconcile their worship of a man with a worship of God. However, any such exaltation of a human is forbidden by the Torah system. It is within pagan systems that human beings are considered divine, sometimes due to their status as rulers and sometimes as teachers.
Further corruptive elements have slipped in from the non-Torah world. The Torah does not advocate the death of the innocent to reconcile God to man. When Moses offers to take the punishment for Israel, God tells him that the guilty shall be punished, not the innocent. Note that he does not tell Moses that Moses isn’t pure enough. He does not say that He needs a sinless being to replace them. The notion that an innocent shall suffer for the guilty is not to be found within the Torah.
Nor does God ever express a willingness to forgive the people if only they would bring a sacrifice. Never in Torah do the people repent, only to have God lament that He cannot restore them to Himself because they have not brought a sacrifice. The opposite, however, does happen. He does express that he cares nothing for the sacrifices of those whom have not repented. To be restored, He urges them to repent.
In the pagan world, of course, the gods are appeased by sacrifices. Virgins and children could be sacrificed in some cultures because they represented innocence to those cultures. The non-Torah world imagined they could earn the favor of the gods through hecatombs. This is the opposite of the Torah system, where sacrifices are brought, but neither appease God nor earn his favor that He might bring rain, protection, or bounty.
The sacrifice of Jesus, while often compared to the binding of Isaac, bears little in common with it. The Akeidah has nothing to do with earning God’s favor nor provide atonement for sin. Abraham is not being asked to bring an innocent on his behalf to restore him to God. Nor is Isaac accepted for this purpose. It is the pagan notion that the gods must be appeased and bribed that causes the misreading of the Akeidah as a foreshadowing of the sacrifice of Jesus. The differences in their essential properties make any such comparison superficial. The sacrifice of an innocent has no correlation to Torah. It is foreign.
This does not mean that Christianity is comprised of nothing but pagan ideas. But essential elements contradict the Torah they are supposed to fulfill. Christianity is a fusion of the pure concepts of Torah and the impurities of the pagan world. This is why one can find passages and ideas that align with Torah within Christianity. However, it contains elements that are absolutely foreign to the Torah, and these are not small matters.
The Church is like a man who found pure gold, but throughout his life, the only gold he’d ever seen was impure. Because of this, he thought that something was missing from the brighter, cleaner gold he’d found. So, he melted it and fused it with impurities to make it look like what he was used to seeing. When he got its appearance to match his idea of gold, he fashioned it into a ring and proudly displayed it. One day, he heard people excitedly talking about the work of a jeweler who made the most beautiful work. He went to see the jeweler, and while he recognized the artistry of the jeweler, his ability to create beautiful shapes in the jewelry, he laughed at the simplicity of the jeweler in not recognizing the proper color of gold. He never bought from the man, always believing in his ignorance that his impure gold was the finer.
Jim
Jim, I was about to return the compliment, as a member of the MAS. Then I remembered, what are you talking about? You don’t have a degree in Comparative Religion! Go read some books by university professors and then you will see that those elements in Christianity that resemble paganism are really deep ways of understanding and relating to God.
Is the Trinity a Greek or Jewish Idea?
When the Church asks us to worship Jesus as God, they claim that there are hints throughout the Tanach that reveal to the learned that the “Word was God and the Word was with God” the entire time. They want to find Jesus, as a part of the godhead, in the Torah. At the same time, they have to tell us that the reason that the Jewish people did not see any such notion in the Torah is because they were “blind”. The people who studied the Torah their whole lives, who preserved it as a nation, and to whom it was given by God, were unable to understand it. Those who could understand it were those who believed in Jesus, non-Jews who did not know the Torah and uneducated Jews. This view is obviously absurd, and is complicated by the fact that the Platonists had an idea of a Trinity, quite apart from the Torah, preceding Christianity. These facts make one question whether or not the Torah is truly a Torah idea or a Platonic idea.
Augustine learned much about the Trinity from Platonists. He writes in the Book VII of his “Confessions” that the students of Plato knew much about the Trinity. They did not know all, of course, because at the time of Plato, Jesus had not come. Therefore, they did not know, for example, that the Word had been made flesh. But they did “know” the following facts about the Trinity and the Word, though their words were different:
1. The Word existed before the beginning of Time
2. The Word abided with God and was God.
3. The Word made all things.
4. In the Word was life, and “that life was the light of men”.
5. The darkness could not overcome that light.
6. The Word is both human and divine.
Augustine finds the teachings of the NT in that of the Platonists. These teachings put him on the path to conversion to Christianity. He doesn’t get them from Torah. Later, he will find (i.e. invent) allusions to them in the Torah, but no open writing about them. These are things he will have to read into the text, hidden there from the blind Jews but open to him. Like the modern evangelical, he reads the Torah eisegetically to push Jesus into a text that does not support him.
But the problem remains: how did Plato know this? He was not a student of the Torah. And since it is not explicitly written in the Torah, it would appear that this is not a Torah idea at all. It does not come from God; it comes from Plato, a very fine thinker, but not the Divine Source of Truth.
Augustine recognizes the problem in “The City of God”. He has a theory that resolves this for himself, but one I do not think we need credit as true, no matter how ingenious it is. Plato had travelled to Egypt, by Augustine’s calculation at the same time Jeremiah would have been there. Augustine assumes, therefore, that they met. And Jeremiah taught Plato Jewish philosophy, and this was where Plato learned the idea of the Trinity. He learned it from Jeremiah. Of course, there is nothing of the Trinity in Jeremiah’s work, except by the manipulative way the Church reads any Jewish text.
This is all speculation on Augustine’s part. But it is not the absurdity of the solution to which I would like to draw our attention. It is the implicit admission that the problem exists. The Torah scholars did not have any idea of “The Word” or “The Trinity”. This was an idea originated from a Greek with no known connection to the Torah world. Augustine imagines a meeting between a Jewish prophet and a Greek philosopher, but, by inventing a solution, he has admitted a problem.
The Trinity is not in the Torah. Jesus is not in the Torah. The deification of Jesus comes as a result of mixing Torah and Platonic ideas, as well as other Greco-Roman influences. The Trinitarian notions preexisting the NT, appearing in the work of Plato and his students but not the Torah, only goes to show how foreign to the Torah those ideas are. Augustine’s solution is an admission that the ideas are Platonic in origin. They are not of the Torah.
Jim
Also, Philo’s idea of the Logos is entirely Greek. First, Philo was schooled in Greek philosophy. Then, later in life, he read the Bible. He liked it. So he figured out a way to make the Logos idea Jewish. His concept of the Logos is NOT to be found anywhere in traditional Judaism; neither was this thoroughly Hellenized Jew a traditional Jew in any way, shape, or form.
Concerned Reader, you say you get your comparison of Moses to Jesus from your reading of Philo and Maimonides. Philo is irrelevant for the reason listed above. I asked you to show me where Maimonides equates Jesus with God. Can you?
In particular, Greek Stoic philosophers identified the term logos “with the divine animating principle pervading the Universe”. To many Gnostics & “neo-Platonists”, no one can get to the supreme god without going through the “Logos”. You could climb the “spiritual ladder” as a “way” from earth to “heaven’s gate”. But the “gatekeeper Logos” decided who got to heaven. Jesus, the “way”, was claimed to be that gatekeeper, that mediator, that son of god and/or judge in some early Christianities (remember there were several early Christianities) with quite different ideas about “Jesus” or the “Christ”). Later, as Jesus was equated more as God than as “the son” (or sitting on the throne, on the right hand if God), “saint Peter” became the gatekeeper at the “pearly gates of heaven”.
Philo’s Logos is paralleled in Maimonides in his views of the active intellect which he views as an overflow of G-d which is how we have prophecy. His view states that Moses had the highest interaction with and served as the clearest reflection of the active intellect, and nobody ever was closer to G-d. Nobody, no other person has a clearer or a better knowledge of G-d than does Moses. This is like Maimonides using the Aristotelean version of Philo’s Logos.
Jim, while it’s true, and I freely admit, understand, and accept, that the Logos is a very Greek concept, found in Greek sources, it doesn’t mean anything like what the concept means to the Greeks in Philo. Philo used Greek ideas (I’m not denying that, and never was) to teach concepts from the bible that the surrounding culture couldn’t understand. It’s true it’s not in five books of Torah, but it’s in the targumim, it’s in proverbs, it’s in ben Sirach, and it’s in later works by Jewish philosophers etc. The immanence of G-d is referred to as wisdom/prophecy/shekinah.
Ancient Greeks and other polytheists had trouble with understanding the idea of the providence and will of G-d. For Plato the “good” is the highest conception of divinity and is an unknown goal humanity is constantly trying to attain, not a revealed set of mitzvot that humans already posses. The Logos of Plato is the world builder understood as a lower emanation of the ideal realm of abstract forms, an archetypal ideal concept that we continually seek to understand. To the Greeks the Jewish idea of the transcendence of G-d would in their view prevent the possibility of the otherJewish view of G-d from being possible, namely the view of G-d, as an active being seeking dwelling in the world. They would believe that if the divine were one or transcendental, this would demand that he be totally abstract, at least as far as humans can know. Revelation was meaningless to Greeks. Magic and oracles weren’t, but the idea that G-d has goals, absolutely foreign. As I’m sure you know, the Greeks believed in fate. Fate was the best way to explain transcendence. Transcendence implies the gods are unaware, inactive, and so subject to this impersonal “force” called fate that explains how the gods are not all powerful even if they are immortal, etc.
Philo took this very Greek concept of the Logos and described to the Greeks using it, how G-d is indeed active in this world. The logos is not an abstract idea for Philo, but is the revealed word of G-d, and in Philo, we know about this “word” from its clearest reflection, namely Moses. Philo introduces the Greeks to the idea of revelation in a way they can understand it.
So, it is true that the Logos is not found in the first five books. However, Philo’s usage is relying on the bible, and tradition, not the Greeks. If I only ride a tricycle, (Greek philosophy) and I want to ride a bike (Torah and Halacha worldview) I need an alloy as you put it, training wheels, to understand and learn how to ride a bike. This was how Philo used the Logos, and how Maimonides uses Aristotle’s idea of the active intellect. It’s true that it isn’t in the earliest books. I never said it was!
Dina, I never called you uneducated or mocked you did I? I explained myself and clarified didn’t i? Pardon me, but you are being slightly rude mocking the fact that I’m asking you to read scholarship. Why is that a bad thing?
It has seemed to me that it was condescending to assume that first, I do not read scholarship, and two, that the scholars I rely on are unreliable because they disagree with your scholars. I find it frustrating to talk to someone who rejects any side in a scholarly debate, whether it’s archaeological or historical, that he disagrees with, by dismissing the credentials of those scholars.
In general, your talking to all of us (Jim, Rabbi Blumenthal, and others) as if we are all untutored and uneducated because we didn’t study comparative religion in your universities is patronizing. (You do come across this way even if you don’t mean to.)
Nevertheless, I should have recognized that your attitude is irrelevant (and also outside my control) and focused on the debate without getting personal. For that I apologize and I ask your forgiveness.
And I do thank you for keeping your tone generally respectful despite all this.
Thanks,
Dina
Dina, I accept your apology. I am sorry that mentioning my studies seems condescending to you, it is not at all meant that way. I am not saying that you or rabbi B, or anyone else are unlettered G-d forbid. I know the knowledge is out there, and that you are learned, and have scholars of your own. My issue is that a lot of the scholarship mentioned is used for polemical and rhetorical purpose almost exclusively. I have demonstrated that traditional Christians do not believe in a demigod concept, that we understand that G-d has no body, that we have carefully defined the precise relationship between Jesus and the father, and that we ourselves realize in our own tradition that some worship directed at Christ is indeed idolatrous. I have provided sources. I have pointed out that some rhetoric and arguments on this site present a grossly simplistic picture of Christian self understanding and that Polytheistic similarity (where it does exist) does not denote derivation. This does not prevent this straw man from being employed by Sharbano and others time and again. You yourself have admitted that the rabbis are not concerned with other ideologies, and as a result I have pointed out that they may lack some important, even crucial details when they are attempting to draw parallels between polytheism and Christianity, that in fact show weakness of the claim of pagan derivation.
I really do fully understand that you see the Christian position (and my perspective) as doing the same disservice with your sources. I can appreciate that objection, and I apologize for any ill feeling. Both of our religions have traditional perspectives, and I realize that it is our duty to defend those perspectives. I realize that Judaism does not accept Philo, and I realize that the Dead Sea scrolls do not necessarily represent the rabbinic tradition.
The point that I have been trying to make is that because Judaism claims a chain of tradition going back to Moses, extreme diversity of views among different groups is to be expected, and does not damage that hypothesis, it actually helps it. That’s history. Let me explain.
Rabbi B has said that G-d has only preserved the rabbinic strain of Jewish tradition in the surviving Jewish people, as opposed to Samaritans, Sadducees, Qumran, Jewish Christians, etc. and that therefore this is the proper understanding of the promised covenant that G-d has chosen, and this then constitutes the fulfillment of G-d’s promise to preserve Torah and the people. The argument is that you are the only Torah observant perspective left in history, so yours is the right perspective. I understand that.
The issue I have with this view is not the point that rabbi B makes that a righteous remnant (Torah observant Judaism) has been preserved, rather it is that the rejection of other sectarian groups of history, and their views that are now absent, undercuts the credibility of your claim to a reliable national revelation, and harms the claim of a historically preserved national tradition. An orally transmitted tradition (being transmitted by fallible human beings) is bound to have very diverse opinions that’s to be expected in the transmission of historical experiences. If 600,000 people go to a ball game, as a historian, I expect to see 600,000 people will have 600,000 unique perspectives on that game. If I claim 1000,000,000 people saw the game, I should find as a historian 1000,000,000 unique reports about the game. Jewish history (which includes the Samaritans, Sadducees, Pharisees, Qumran sectarians, Christians, and modern Judaism etc.) shows us this exact kind of diversity in transmission, of perspective and dialogue that historians expect to see in such a case. The problem is that you want me to ignore that information, ignore similar ideas that resonate because it is not the correct information in line with your specific traditional perspective.
As an example: 600 people saw David copper-field make a plane disappear, a historian wishing to record the event would seek to record what really happened by speaking to witnesses, and corroborating the evidence.
400 people said they saw the plane disappear, but they don’t believe it really happened. It was just a harmless magic trick. 50 saw the plane disappear and believed that supernatural divine agency made the plane disappear. 150 people believed that there really was no real plane and that therefore nothing really disappeared. All of these people wrote books with the help of historians chronicling their diverse views of events. The 550 (majority) who believed it was a magic trick or didn’t happen at all were able to remain indifferent to the minority because their views were so clearly false in this instance, based on collective experience of reality, and memory of events, that the belief was just cast off as harmless. Children could hear all their parents tell the story that “I saw a plane disappear.” Enthralled by the meaning and wonder of the story, they would carry it on, and on, down through generations. After thousands of years, the only chronicle left of the event, was that of the 50 person religious minority who had over time become a nation.Their tome preserved the truth that 600 people saw the plane disappear and they said “our ancestors saw this and passed it down.” The other views existed, but they were only found in scraps of partial manuscripts that didn’t reflect mainstream tradition. In fact, you could see large degrees of continuity between the scraps and prevailing tradition, even while accounting for their very diverse even contradictory views. A historian wishing to investigate the event, takes note of the fragments that do not reflect the now majority position. He sees corroboration between the scraps and the tradition in some respects nonetheless, despite such clear divergences. One thing the historian can say for sure, something definitely happened, because all the sources corroborate it. Even other people who were not at the event had heard about it. Corroboration. What the historian knows is that something happened. When he brings up the divergent positions in the scraps to the prevalent position, it is cast aside because the faithful surviving testimony is that of the tradition. The historian asks, “how can you claim 600 people experienced this event, but only listen to the few voices that you already accept?”
I hope that didn’t come across as crass, or rude. I’m just trying to illustrate that even with wildly divergent views, the presence of the dialogue between sects serves as a verification of your claim that something happened. However, If you throw those other views out, it hurts your claim by limiting the voices to the accepted position.
All your “evidence” concerning the Oral Tradition comes from a single event that occurred and how it was perceived. Many I have spoken to seem to assume what the Rabbis taught was not unlike an educational setting. The material is covered Once and then to the next material. To put it simply it was taught, originally by Moshe, over and over again. Yehoshua was instructed the most times as he was present when Moshe instructed the leaders and the people. As the Talmud states the material would be reviewed every thirty days. Another difference is that in an educational setting a person is instructed for a 4 year term and then leave that institution, whereas the Rabbis spent their entire lives in Their learning. The Talmud also gives the arguments of the various Rabbis by those arguments can be determined what is correct.
There is also another difference in the way the Rabbis had learned. They would literally memorize all the material. As the Vilna Gaon once wrote to his wife he tells her to be sure the children Memorize the entire Torah. Not only would they memorize the entire Torah but Talmud also. I could go into the pin game if necessary. Therefore, the Rabbis went well beyond just learning from a teacher and going home for summer vacation and thus your illustration loses its merit.
Concerned Reader
You have come to this blog because you are concerned that our (the Jewish) perspective on the debate between Christianity and Judaism is shallow and based on rhetoric instead of information and sober thinking.
Did it occur to you that your perspective on these matters may be based on misinformation and astonishing shallow thinking?
Just for an example – you compare the debate between the Pharisees and Sadducees to a debate about the foundational events of Judaism. How shallow can you get? No sect ever debated the foundational events – or their direct ramifications. All agreed that God promised to preserve His covenant in the midst of Israel – so all sects agreed to the terms of the contest – according to all the sects the survival of the Pharisee version of Judaism proves its veracity – and all of this is only relevant after we all accept the foundational events of Judaism and their direct ramifications.
You still didn’t explain what it is that I said that made you think that I would deny the validity of Abraham’s and Elijah’s experiences – can you please explain those remarks?
Rabbi B. The point I was making about Elijah and Abraham wasn’t that you personally wouldn’t consider them valid, it was that the Torah doesn’t always use national revelation as the standard all the time as you claim it does and must. It uses experience too. 1 man Abraham transmitted his experiences with G-d to his descendants, so that when Moses came, the people were already predisposed to believe in supernatural agency. They were partial witnesses predisposed to the belief in question before national revelation had even occurred.) Your unique claim of national revelation then is only partially unique, because revelation existed before Sinai in the case of the claims of 1 man Avraham. Elijah while he was in front of the whole nation disproving Baal, was only witnessed by 300 people as having ascended to heaven.That’s what I was saying. The Torah does not use national revelation consistently for validation.
Also, you asked me earlier to provide evidence of the existence of another unique claim of a national revelatory event similar to and on par with that of Israel at Mt. Sinai. You say no other such unique claim exists. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki fit the criteria for similarity to your unique claim. The first atomic bomb was detonated in the eyes of the whole nation of Japan, and even those who dropped the bomb (the perpetrators) confess that they dropped it. We are aware that this was a truly unique unprecedented event.The traditional telling of its occurrence is on the lips of the entire Japanese nation to this day.
Con,
You wrote, “Both of our religions have traditional perspectives, and I realize that it is our duty to defend those perspectives.” I couldn’t disagree with you more. Our duty is not to defend our perspectives; rather, our duty is to discover the truth, keeping our minds as objective as we can, as no one is free from bias, and praying to God for His guidance.
The problem with your analogy is this: if a religious claim like the Jewish claim can arise according to your analogy, then why did this only occur within Judaism? You keep failing to answer that question, along with the remarkable prediction in the Torah that this would be the case.
Another problem with your analogy is that divergent views arise and splinter off in practically every generation, yet it is only the Pharisaic tradition that survives. The Sadduccees and the Essenes and so on were not the only groups in history to disagree with our tradition. This has happened many times over, and we see it today with the Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, and more branches of Judaism. It’s obvious to see which way the wind is blowing with these branches. Our tradition is and has been the only viable form of Judaism–and that is not just coincidence; it’s Hashem’s promise to His righteous remnant. When a pattern keeps repeating itself for 2000 years, it’s time to connect the dots, don’t you agree?
Our very survival is itself a miracle. According to every natural law under the sun, I should not be here tapping away at my keyboard. A weakened Israel, scattered across the globe, enduring the most incredible pressure to become extinct, driven from nearly every land she sought refuge in, has managed to preserve the Torah and Talmud. Not a single religious group or national entity has endured what we have endured and kept their culture and tradition intact.
During periods in history where there was little to no contact between European and Middle Eastern Jews, we find that nevertheless our Torah scrolls and Talmud remained identical–so the only differences today between Sephardic and Ashkenazic Jews is our accent and some minor customs. Despite everything!
Your example of Hiroshima is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Hiroshima is not a religious experience. It is simply a disaster that occurred, and although it was caused by man, it’s similar to witnessing a volcanic explosion or tsunami that also affects a whole country. It does not compare to the totality of the Jewish claim, the details of which Rabbi B. has already described for you.
The problem with your analogy is this: if a religious claim like the Jewish claim can arise according to your analogy, then why did this only occur within Judaism? You keep failing to answer that question, along with the remarkable prediction in the Torah that this would be the case.
You are building up a post hoc argument by framing the discussion as only allowing for two absolute possibilities, the truth or falsehood of your view, which is odd because the unique part of the argument you make rests on the probability that Sina is real, not whether or not it’s historically accurate or verifiable with archaeology or other studies. However, the mere fact is that you are also making a claim to a historic chain of transmission, by a literal historical people, and this opens your claims up to regular historical inquiry. The same as any real national claim about a national event. The diversity of views within Judaism’s own history past and present shows that a comparison to any other claim about a real national historical event is far from being an apples oranges comparison. You experience history the same as any other human being. That no other people has had the precise theological Jewish view about G-d, says nothing about the truth of what happened, which is why that part of your argument relies on probabilities. The thing you aren’t seeing is that saying your view is unique (which I grant) does not say anything about whether it’s true or not.
You haven’t responded to any of my points.
Con, I’m not sure how your response answers the question.
Thanks,
Dina
Con, I answered that in another place just a few minutes ago. I hope that isn’t too confusing. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Dina, Judaism has a unique claim. This says nothing about the truth of your claim. It’s irrelevant whether or not a similar claim could have, did, or did not arise among other cultures. In fact, all this says is that Judaism has a unique claim. It doesn’t prove anything about whether it happened! You are using a probability argument about a historical question.
Concerned Reader, the argument is that something that could have happened as a natural evolution of a mythology would have happened more than once–more than several times, in fact. That’s why the Christian claim has been replicated so many times by other religions which preceded and followed it.
The very uniqueness of the claim points to its veracity. Do you not think it’s amazing that the Torah would predict that no other entity would make such a claim?
I made zero comment about the rabbis dedication to their memorization, learning, or anything concerning the amount of time they spent. Christians memorize material too Sharbano, that wasn’t the point. It is a fact of transmission of any occurrence, and the descriptions of events, that there are diverse, sometimes even contradictory views of the same event. This is expected.
Of course you made Zero comment and that’s why it Had to be brought up. I have yet to see any Xtian who has memorized one book let alone At Least five, the Torah. Your entire premise was that it was impossible to Accurately transmit Torah. Because it was written in Torah to hand these tradition to the next generation it wasn’t taken lightly. Since Xtianity didn’t have an Oral Tradition they are left with a predicament of maintaining the teachings. Jewish tradition didn’t suffer this predicament.. All Xtians can say is “that is not possible”. The Talmud clearly shows how this was the case. Some of those traditoins came le-Moshe miSinai, i.e., from Moshe himself. You could say it actually goes further back, the Yeshivah of Shem and his teaching to Jacob. Therefore you have to Assume it is not possible. People have brought up the comparison to the “telephone game”. There was a Rabbi who performed this test and found even when a good amount of money was involved it didn’t transmit well. He then went to a group of frum Jewish women and told them what was at sake. Needless to say virtually all of them “beat the game”. Just as those girls knew what was at stake so did the Jews of ancient times. It’s not something that is taken lightly. We can see why the nations have this attitude merely by seeing Xtans method of arguing a point. If there is contradictory evidence it is either dismissed or ignored. Of course a tradition cannot be maintained with that atmosphere. Hence, the reason Jewish Tradition has maintained its traditions because it knows what it knows and doesn’t make excuses.
Concerned Reader
So where did I say that the Torah uses the standard of national revelation ALL THE TIME – what did I say that gave you that notion?
When I said a parallel claim for national revelation – I meant a parallel claim of an encounter with God – again the grand total of the exodus miracles, Sinai revelation and 40 years in the desert.
Rabbi, here you go. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
You claim that the national revelation at Sinai is the litmus test for an encounter with G-d. I have shown that scripture has G-d appearing to single individuals, and small groups, and this did not indicate falsehood, or inferiority. The patriarchs were noachide. There was not yet a nation in order to have a national litmus test.
I think you are missing the point entirely. Up until Sinai it Was individual contact by Hashem and His promise that continued to the next.
What was it that made Sinai unique to the previous generations. Simple, it was the Matan Torah, the giving of that Torah. This would put into writing and be incumbent upon every Jew from then on, we will do and we will listen. Now, when Xtianity comes into existence we now have what is called a “new testament”, a “New Torah”. This is why a Jew cannot accept a “New Torah” because Hashem gave it to the nation in its entirety and the Entire nation had to agree to it. When Jsus roamed the earth he did not give a “New Torah” to an entire nation. In fact he didn’t give anything. It was a church that did that. That’s even more reason why it is considered invalid.
Therefore, we see that Hashem used a national revelation in order to give a nation a Torah. In that Torah He says not to add or delete from it. When Torah says G-d called Israel His firstborn son He speaks to a Nation, whereas Xtianity is completely based on an individual experience, as you have said.
So according to you ” up until Sinai it was individual contact by G-d and his promise that continued to the next.” So Mattan Torah was a new experience by all accounts to the previous generations, and the previous method was a kind of old pattern. If Jesus did not change the Torah law when he came, as you said, and the gentile church patterned itself on ethics for G-d fearing Gentiles, in accordance with Acts 15, then can we really say that gentile Christianity and a “new model” is unprecedented by scripture’s account? We have according to you, a covenant before Mattan Torah that is renewed,but also amended at Sinai. What is to stop the same pattern in Christianity?
Also Consider the fact that what you think of as Christian innovation,
1)preserves the unity of the being of G-d despite the 3 persons
2) defines worship of Jesus only or without the father as idolatry
3) teaches that those who aren’t Christian can still know G-d,.
4) teaches the sovereignty of G-d.
I really don’t know what your point is here.
The point Sharbano, is that according to what you said, There was an “old” noachide revelation, and a “new” unprecedented revelation of Mattan Torah. Progressive revelation that does not annul what came before it.
Rabbi with much respect, you say that I am being shallow in my presentation, and I admit I have used rhetoric, probably in poor taste, I apologize. Can you blame me though? On this blog, on the one hand you say that Christianity is plagiarizing from Judaism, not unique, and derivative. On the other hand, you state that it is idolatrous and entirely unknown to your faith structure borrowing from pagan influences. Which is it? I can lay the same objections on Judaism btw, they are not strong objections. You are calling the legitimacy of the beliefs of a manifold and diverse religion made up of primarily non Jews into question because it’s claims don’t jive with your specific interpretation, even though you can demonstrate from this very source of theirs that you are correct to be observing Hashem’s Torah, and that your interpretation is not unknown to it. Further, your own tradition allows various Gentile cultures to remain Gentile, and calls them righteous among the nations, based on an acceptance of one G-d, and basic morals, even if that culture doesn’t accept the Bible, or the unique description of G-d found therein. Christianity though can accept your claims and evidence as probable, because it has adopted similar claims and evidence based on experience. You have said that the first Jewish Christians believed in the validity of Sinai, as did all other Jews, and that this must then frame the discussion. That claim you make may well be true for those first Jewish disciples. However, gentile Christians who came later, who accepted the authority of the Torah through the proxy of Jesus and his students alone, and had an objective first hand redemptive experience of their own, are not tied by that presupposition. You have called that experience into question, examined the experience itself, and called it deception. At the same time, you have used the good faith acceptance by Christians of G-d and the Torah narrative to discredit their clear and unambiguous experience. How can you accept your own faith claim on the basis of the uniqueness of the claim sans the ability to test whether or not it is literally tangibly true, but call the Christians to task when they use that same standard on your belief? That sounds slightly inconsistent to me.
Concerned Reader,
You wrote: “On this blog, on the one hand you say that Christianity is plagiarizing from Judaism, not unique, and derivative. On the other hand, you state that it is idolatrous and entirely unknown to your faith structure borrowing from pagan influences. Which is it?”
It’s both, of course. Christianity is a hodgepodge: Judaism repackaged to make it palatable to gentiles.
You further wrote that Christians “had an objective first hand redemptive experience of their own” and that is therefore the same standard as ours; therefore we are inconsistent to dismiss that experience.
You have said that our national experience was subjective; now you say that the Christian experience is objective. If we say the opposite is true, you call us inconsistent, but for you to say it it’s not?
You have also yet to show us that our claim, all of it, is not unique, your comparison to Hiroshima notwithstanding. (That’s self-refuting, no more need be said.) The fact that the Torah predicts no other entity will make that claim and the fact that this prediction has turned out to be true are both facts that need to be confronted.
Finally, you have not answered me on an earlier comment, which I will paste here for your convenience:
In order to make claims about Christianity a Jew doesn’t have to study Christianity, because all Christianity is, is a claim about Judaism. If I know Judaism and I know that Christianity claims to posses the Jewish Messiah and the Jewish way of worshiping God–and they are both different than what I know–then I know that it is false.
Dina Christianity’s claims are more objective in a sense because we don’t have to rely on Christian testimony to validate certain central facts such as the existence of Jesus, his death, or the fact that the gentile world experienced a widespread prophetic move from polytheism to monotheism as a result of his life. The difference is that your evidence is the utter uniqueness of your claim, and does not rely on outside evidence. Christianity looks to the Torah and also to a degree of historical fulfillment.
In order to make claims about Christianity a Jew doesn’t have to study Christianity, because all Christianity is, is a claim about Judaism. If I know Judaism and I know that Christianity claims to posses the Jewish Messiah and the Jewish way of worshiping God–and they are both different than what I know–then I know that it is false.
Your right, you don’t have to study Christianity to be a good Religious Person, unless you plan to pass judgement on its adherents. When you plan on doing that, you are indeed responsible to learn how Christians themselves understand their tradition, just as I am responsible to learn yours, and keep learning. That’s the only way to be just in your examinations. You can’t pass judgement on someone based on preconceptions. I’ve never disputed that your duty is to the Torah. That is a position substantiated by all the sources. No issue there. As I mentioned to rabbi B, I have provided evidence meeting the criteria he sets of a unique national claim, but he moves on to special pleading because G-d and a desert wandering isn’t mentioned in Hiroshima. If we can’t reasonably rely on a matter of historical consensus, a nationally attested historical event (Hiroshima,) as an event reasonably similar to Sinai, in what meaningful sense can Judaism be making literal concrete historical claims about an exodus from Egypt? That’s a claim that is open to historical inquiry. Judaism claims that the Israelites were slaves in Egypt, but provides no corroborating evidence from history beyond the unique subjective faith claim that adherents of Judaism already accept as true.
That is the height of special pleading.
Con, you keep saying that the Christian claim is more objective because we have evidence that a man named Jesus existed and that as a result, the gentile world moved from polytheism to monotheism. We also have evidence that a man named Mohammed existed and that the gentile population moved to monotheism on the other side of the world.
So if that’s your standard for objectivity, how about this: we have objective evidence that Judaism was already an ancient religion by the time of Jesus, and that the Jewish people introduced to the world the concept of ethical monotheism.
Whatever gave you the impression that we are passing judgment on the adherents of Christianity? We are simply examining a claim, a claim that is made about Judaism. Since we know Judaism, we know the claim is wrong.
I’ll answer soon Dina
Be well
Concerned Reader
I never said that a national revelation is a “litmus test” for revelation – I said that it is this factor that sets Judaism apart from other belief systems. Do you see the difference?
How does Christianity’s claim for truth much up with Judaism’s? Can you show where I have been inconsistent?
You are relying on a unique claim for the plausibility of validation, an epistemological philosophical/theological explanation to account for the occurrence of a supposed concrete historical event called the Exodus and Sinai. If we cannot trust the consensus about established practices for historical inquiry to determine the truth or falsehood of your claim, how are you able to make claims about literal history, and be considered consistent? Again, the presence of a thoroughly unique claim does not say either way whether the claim is in fact true or false, it only provides a probability.
Concerned Reader
Your continuous lack of comprehension of what I am saying (you are still responding to arguments that I never made) and your lack of comprehension of the “unique claim” argument is nothing short of astonishing.
The fact that you consider Hiroshima to be a valid refutation to the exodus/Sinai/wilderness experience shows that you did not begin to understand the “unique claim” argument. (note that I did not say that your non-acceptance of the argument proves that you didn’t understand it – I said that the content of your responses to the argument demonstrate that you do not understand it)
I don’t know where to begin with you because words seem to have no meaning – whatever I will say – you will respond to something else – but I will still keep on trying.
I will try to explain the “unique claim” argument again.
Many cultures and belief systems claim an encounter with God. Each of these makes some claim about practical events that occurred – that the particular culture interprets as an encounter with the divine. When we focus on the practical events that are at the root of the claim (not the interpretation – but only the practical events) they all fall into a certain pattern – Judaism’s claim about the practical events stands apart.
The argument then is – why is this claim different? The conclusion is because it is true – the competing claims (and they are all mutually exclusive) all fit into the pattern of typical human behavior – as opposed to the Jewish claim which does not fit into this pattern.
Its like showing you a painting amongst a bunch of stick man scribbles.
Now Hiroshima was not understood by anyone to be an encounter with God so how did it enter the discussion? Furthermore – would it be plausible to you to consider that Hiroshima never happened? of-course not – why not? because nations do not lie about concrete events that they collectively experienced and it is difficult for them to make the same mistake simultaneously – so Hiroshima serves as an example to explain the principle of the “unique claim” argument.
Since you claim to be a believing Christian – how would you explain the verses in the Torah – Deuteronomy 4:30-35? My presentation of the “unique claim” argument is simply spelling out these verses.
would it be plausible to you to consider that Hiroshima never happened? of-course not – why not? because nations do not lie about concrete events that they collectively experienced.
(Yes nations do lie rabbi, off course they do! the whole Egyptian nation apparently did evil to Israel in the Exodus, but denies categorically that such events ever took place.) You couldn’t hide evidence of the Exodus event btw.
What do you mean by concrete events? Do you mean Independently verifiable evidence of events occurring like every other historical event? It’s not about whether people lie rabbi, (off course people lie!) we know about Hiroshima as fact because we can check against possible lies about it from unbiased sources. The reality of the event doesn’t rely on any one opinion or testimony or chain of transmission from anyone to verify the event. There is concrete evidence. This is why I mentioned it. You can go to japan for yourself and check radiation Levels. You can speak to people who lived through the event. The people who dropped the bomb chronicled that they did it, as well as how survivors were treated. Your claim for Judaism has none of this despite seeking to demonstrate the plausibility of an actual claimed historical event based on the uniqueness of the revelation claim, (a painting among scribbles as you call it.)
Again, I’m not misunderstanding you, you are engaging in special pleading. I provided a nationally attested event witnessed by a whole nation. That it is not a claim about G-d, a desert wandering, or an exodus, exactly like your claim, is special pleading. just because the claim you Make is one of a kind, or doesn’t fit the pattern of human behavior, doesn’t speak to its validity or truth, this is true of both Judaism and Christianity. If all other spirituality is one way or type and Judaism is another that stands apart, that’s well and good, but it doesn’t make the claim or event true.
In one of your writings refuting Jesus’ resurrection you said “Who wrote these books? Who determined that the authors were trustworthy people? What criteria did the early Christians use to determine that these writings should be considered holy? What assures us that the early Christians who had these books, really believed every word that these writings contained in a literal sense? Since there is no direct chain of tradition concerning any of these matters, then there seems to be no definite way to answer these questions.”
Christians did have a chain of oral transmission (where we ultimately get the texts from.) The same arguments you are making here can be said of the Jewish Bible. You have a claim about oral transmission, but you exclude all data and diverse voices that can substantiate your claims to transmission because these views don’t match your authoritative interpretation. You claim an oral tradition that has other views in it, but speaks with one authoritative voice. We know that oral traditions don’t work that way from various historical sources.There is unavoidable variety in oral transmission. Jewish history gives us direct evidence of this diversity whichbyoubsaybisntbyourvtradition, and should be ignored.
Who cross checked your claims? The same can be asked of your tradition.
In the same writing refuting the resurrection claims of Christianity you said “Another interesting factor that comes to light when examining the various sightings of Jesus, is the point that the only ones who testified that they saw him were people who were already totally devoted to him. Even among the devotees, the Christian scriptures report that there was an element of doubt concerning the truth of the resurrection.”
This objection fits with the Torah too. Israel (a nation of one man’s descendants) was devoted to G-d and their beliefs way before the Torah was given on a national scale. Way before the exodus, before Sinai. Small numbers of related individuals with shared beliefs like Noah and Abraham received revelation, with no means of cross examination from beyond their group. Doubt entered the nation of Israel immediately after the reception of the Torah as shown in judges. According to your own standard presented, the data provided cannot be relied upon with certainty.
You have said that Christianity already accepts the Torah, infallibility of scripture, and thus needs it, making my objections inconsistent. While this may be true in part for the sake of argument, you have been the one to cast doubt on Christianity’s validity, disturbing the very ground on which the gentile Christian stands to be able to accept your premises. The Torah by extension Is damaged through your own standards. You accept a unique faith claim on the basis of its uniqueness. gentile Christians accept their faith claim through history, prophecy, and the unique claim, not just one or the other. You can say that the Jewish disciples accepted this claim of Judaism in good faith, that’s true, but this does not have bearing on those Gentiles who came to faith in G-d without the presupposition of the unique claims of Judaism. It’s your own standards you are applying to Christianity compelling me to apply the same to your claim.
Concerned Reader
I’ll start by thanking you for your tone despite the content of your message – your tone is hard to come by these days so I thank you for that.
Now for content
When I use the words “concrete events” in the context of “unique claim argument” – I am talking about a claim of concrete events – not necessarily independently verifiable concrete events. I thought that was obvious – but I guess with you it needs to be spelled out.
Next – do you really think that I am not aware of events with national impact? Do you think that I never heard of the holocaust? How stupid do you think I am?
The point of the claim is that people have a tendency to believe that they encountered the divine – the proof to that is that so many people came up with this claim. All of these claims fit a certain pattern while one doesn’t – instead it fits into a different pattern. All the claims focus on events (again not interpretations or philosophy – events) that would not leave corroborative evidence on a wide scale even a few years later – such as faith healings, post-death sightings, and revelations to individuals. Only one claim for an encounter with God focuses on Hiroshima, holocaust type events.
This lends great weight to the validity of that claim. That’s all. is that so hard to understand? what does this have to do with special pleading?
When you say that nations lie about concrete events on the basis of Egypt denying the enslavement – 1000 years after the enslavement it was still in the national memory of Egypt as documented by Josephus in Contra Apion
You completely misunderstood my arguments about the honesty of the gospel writers and about the bias of the witnesses that preceded the revelation claims – but I’ll leave that for another time.
Con,
I’m looking at this paragraph that you wrote:
“(Yes nations do lie rabbi, off course they do! the whole Egyptian nation apparently did evil to Israel in the Exodus, but denies categorically that such events ever took place.) You couldn’t hide evidence of the Exodus event btw.”
My mind is so boggled I hardly know what to say. I think for sure I’m missing something or I am misunderstanding what you wrote here. First you say that of course a whole nation can lie, and you bring Egypt as an example: Egypt denied that the Exodus ever took place. Then you say that they could not possibly have hidden the evidence of the Exodus, which implies that the nation of Israel is lying about the Exodus. Which is it, then?
If you do not accept the Exodus because it’s impossible to hide such an event in history, then you have wiped out the foundation of Judaism. And if you have wiped out the foundation of Judaism, then you have wiped out the foundation of Christianity, do you realize that?
If you want to say the Exodus isn’t true, then be consistent and say that both of our religions are false. But to say that Christianity is truer than Judaism makes zero sense.
“Concerned Reader,” you do realize that the entire foundation of your christian understanding of scripture is dependent on the infallibility of the Tanach, correct? Your NT writers didn’t “question” the Exodus before jesus came on the scene…They had full faith that there WOULD be a Messiah and that is why they quoted from the Tanach in order to “validate” their messianic claims about jesus. Of course, their claims were false, as jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophesies of the Tanach…
I always find it amusing when christians try this approach to apologetics. I call it “The Suicide Bomb Argument.” When Jewish people start to question the supposed “historical jesus,” the christian reaction is always to say, “Well there is less ‘historical evidence’ for the Exodus than there is for jesus.” In other words, the christian is putting on his “academic hat” in order to “discredit” the Torah. The problem is, without authenticity of the Exodus, there would be no basis for believing in the Messiah of the Tanach. There would be no basis for believing the words of Isaiah. There would be no basis for believing the words of Daniel, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel either…And of course, there would be no basis for believing the words of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, all of who extensively quote from the Tanach…
So Concerned Reader, are you willing to accept the authenticity of the Tanach without demanding your subjective standard of so called “historical evidence”? (By the way, the bulk of academia rejects the supposed “resurrection of jesus” to be historical fact. You can quote William Lane Craig all you want, but it doesn’t change the facts…) All this shows is that you have run out of steam when it comes to defending the theological inconsistencies between the NT and the Tanach. Do you honestly think attacking the authenticity of the Tanach does your NT any favors? The original NT writers would be appalled by your flippancy for Hashem’s word!
I already know where this conversation is going, Concerned Reader. You are convinced that the supposed “resurrection of jesus” is “historical fact” and that this supposedly “proves” jesus’s supposed messiahship and deity. Well I have news for you: The majority of academia overwhelmingly rejects that the resurrection is “fact.” Moreover, I suggest you read this article by Rabbi Blumenthal concerning the supposed “resurrection of jesus.” William Lane Craig isn’t a prophet…Let’s put it that way!
http://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/scriptural-studies/blumenthal/resurrection/
Shalom!
Actually Yehuda I haven’t mentioned the claims of historicity of Jesus’ miracles or resurrection, certainly not William lane craig?? even once because your method and mine do not see miracle as a standard qualified for answering this question.
Christians do have faith in the Exodus, and accept the plausibility of the events described (through the lens of their experience and knowledge.) it wouldn’t be necessary for Christians to doubt Exodus at all if the common arguments from Judaism weren’t taking a page from Hume or Paine (the arguments put forth) to discredit Christianity.
Hume and Paine said
“Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication – after this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and although he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.”
Judaism says “we and our fathers did not experience X at Sinai, therefore we cannot accept Christian view Y.” That’s a variation of the same argument from experience as above.
A Christian regardless of the miracles knows verifiably as real history that his ancestors used to worship Zeus, Thor, etc. and that now they worship the G-d of Israel, and not merely by saying that he is one, but by having the unique biblical knowledge of the face to face relationship, and the unique covenantal understanding of commandment and redemption. That is prophetic, providential, and not a miraculous sign. Only Judaism and Christianity view G-d in this biblical way. Our books also show that the anti Torah view (replacement theology) is not the forgone conclusion of our text. This goes back to what I said to rabbi B. Being a halachic noachide doesn’t by necessity mean you will see G-d in that way.
We have a difference of interpretation with Judaism, but we accept the same sacred text, and can even learn to appreciate your own commitments. When you call that into question, you can’t blame us for requesting that standard of the Torah.
However much you try you simply cannot convince a knowledgeable person the validity of Xtianity from Jewish sources. There is no interpretation when it is contradicted by the source. After studying the Xtian text for a couple of years some 4 decades ago I couldn’t help but to conclude the writers of those texts were unlikely to even be Jewish. I could easily assume the people of that time had enough of a basic rudimentary knowledge of Judaism and with the popularity for the morality of Judaism used their limited knowledge to interpret it in the way they did. For this reason we find so many many errors in that text. No authentic Rabbi would have made so glaring of errors as those writers have done. Apparently this Jsus wasn’t the only one of his time as their was the person named Apollonius of Tyana.
It seems strange to me that one who considers himself a scholar is as blind as most Xtians when it comes to the countless errors and mistakes written in those texts. Maybe this is why the religion keeps evolving generation after generation. Each of these evolutions have the people believing they have finally found the truth. In my own lifetime it was believed that Israel was completely done away with and the church was the New Israel. This was the predominate thinking as I was growing up. Now the masses will Israel is still chosen but only those remnant who believe in a man.
Sharbano, all religions evolve, even Judaism. History has demonstrated that. I’m not trying to take you away from your religion, and definitely have never said you were blind in any way. I’ve just been trying to see the logic in certain aspects of your understanding. Does a person have to be a rabbi before they can undestand the subtleties in your arguments?
Be well
Concerned Reader
Im sorry you find it necessary to resort to ad hominem attacks calling me blind when your foundation is to make a claim that is so subtle in its nuances that it can’t be investigated by everyday people through appeals to any other nationally attested event from history. I’ve not bashed your traditional readings, I’ve read many arguments, but I’m blind because I don’t fully understand the subtleties? When parallels to polytheism have been drawn, I’ve noted the shallowness of the similarities, because I’ve studied those myths. It’s already been said that Judaism isn’t interested in knowing details about other ideologies, so how can you actually know?
You have made up your minds to judge Christianity based on your perceptions of it, not their own understanding. Tell me how this is any better than how Christians have falsely prejudged Judaism?
I’m sorry about the ad hominem attacks, too, Con, but don’t you see the logic in the argument? If I know my family, and someone makes a claim about my family, who better than I is in a position to just know, without investigating the claim like a lawyer, whether the claim is true or false?
Concerned Reader, the argument that Judaism says “we and our fathers did not experience X at Sinai, therefore we cannot accept Christian view Y,” is actually found in the Torah itself! At Sinai, Hashem explicitly warned the children of Israel *NOT to worship Him in ANY FORM.* Not only that, He explicitly told them to TEACH this to all future generations!
Deut 4:9. But beware and watch yourself very well, lest you forget the things that your eyes saw, and lest these things depart from your heart, all the days of your life, and you shall make them known to your children and to your children’s children,
Here we see that G-d is commanding Israel to teach these things throughout their generations. G-d is directly telling Israel to teach their children about the things they saw and the things on their hearts. What are these things you ask? Lets continue reading:
Deut 4:10. the day you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb, when the Lord said to me, “Assemble the people for Me, and I will let them hear My words, that they may learn to fear Me all the days that they live on the earth, and that they may teach their children.
Deut 4:11. And you approached and stood at the foot of the mountain, and the mountain burned with fire up to the midst of the heavens, with darkness, a cloud, and opaque darkness.
Deut 4:12. The Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of the words, but saw no image, just a voice.
Here we have G-d explaining to the children of Israel what they “saw.” Notice that what they “saw” was **NO IMAGE** according to G-d Himself! Moving on…
Deut 4:13. And He told you His covenant, which He commanded you to do, the Ten Commandments, and He inscribed them on two stone tablets.
Deut 4:14. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and ordinances, so that you should do them in the land to which you are crossing, to possess.
This verse is important to read in context with the next few verses because it reiterates the fact that these commands are not just a “one time deal.” Rather, G-d is commanding Israel not to acknowledge Him in any form throughout all our generations! With this in mind, lets continue reading:
Deut 4:15. And you shall watch yourselves very well, for you did not see any image on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire.
Deut 4:16. Lest you become corrupt and make for yourselves a graven image, the representation of ANY FORM, the likeness of MALE or female,
Deut 4:17. the likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the heaven,
Deut 4:18. the likeness of anything that crawls on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters, beneath the earth.
Deut 4:19. And lest you lift up your eyes to heaven, and see the sun, and the moon, and the stars, all the host of heaven, which the Lord your God assigned to all peoples under the entire heaven, and be drawn away to prostrate yourselves before them and worship them.
So Concerned Reader, from this passage we see two explicit themes:
1. G-d is explicitly commanding Israel not to worship Him in any form. (Deut 4:16)
2. G-d is explicitly commanding Israel to teach this to their children and their children’s children, even after they come to the land of Israel. (Deut 4:9-14)
I would like to emphasize the fact that these commands put limitations on how Israel is to WORSHIP Hashem. It does not put limitations on Hashem Himself. Could Hashem take on the form of a man? Of course! G-d can do anything! But WOULD Hashem WANT us to worship Him in such a form? Absolutely not! Likewise, could Hashem take on the form of a golden calf? Of course! G-d can do anything! But WOULD Hashem WANT us to worship Him in such a form? Of course not! How do we know this? Deuteronomy 4:16! Any form means just that…ANY FORM!
I’d also like to emphasize the fact that the prohibition of “making” a form for worship is not limited to “man made forms.” Hashem “made” the first man, Adam, yet somehow we know that Hashem would never take on the form of Adam and expect us to worship him…Likewise, Hashem “made” the first lion…Yet we know that Hashem would never take on the form of a lion and expect us to worship Him in such a way…How do we know this? Once again, Deuteronomy 4:9-19!
This leaves no room for “jesus worship.” Clearly, jesus was a form and is thus disqualified from being worthy of our worship. According to Deut 4:9-19, jesus was not, is not, and never will be Hashem!
Shalom and G-d bless!
Con,
Regarding the “redemptive experience” of the Christian world, there are multiple faults with your argument. I hope over the course of today or perhaps the next couple of days to show why it is an argument without merit.
If Jesus is to be credited with such a redemption you will have to ignore the following:
1. If Jesus is to be credited with taking the Gentile world away from pagan gods, then we will have to make him also responsible for their anti-semitic acts done by the Church. You cannot credit him with the one and ignore the other. (See, Jesus did not perform any specific act of redemption for the Church. The preaching done to the gentile world was done in his name, but not by him. Therefore, the oppression of the Jewish people, also done in his name, must be credited to him as well.)
2. Christianity isn’t the only religion to have this redemptive experience. Islam also has taken much of the world away from paganism. Therefore, it has the same claim to legitimacy that the Church has.
3. It is not clear that the Church has truly had this redemptive experience, inasmuch as it has incorporated many pagan practices to accomodate its adherents, while the same time distancing itself from the Torah prescribed practices that would have been the way of life for its supposed founder (i.e. the replacement of Pesach with Easter and its attendant un-Biblical imagery.)
If the Church is a truly redemptive experience, it should not have led to the oppression of Torah scholars. A similar redemptive power should not be found in a religion that denies one of Christianity’s main tenets. And it should not be have replaced practices prescribed by God with those of the pagan world.
Jim
Con,
If we are to test the truth of Christianity, we will not be able to do so based on the “redemptive experience” of Christians. Why not? Because the very first Christians could not have based their belief in Jesus on the redemptive experience upon which your faith rests. This is especially true because you have defined the “redemptive experience” in terms of the gentile world abandoning their paganism and coming to a true belief in god.
For now, I am going to ignore whether or not Jesus did such a thing or not. We have good reason to say the he didn’t, but for the moment that is not our concern. Our concern is whether or not the gentile rejection of paganism could be a proof for Christianity.
We must go back to the beginning, to the first gentile. Up until he heard the gospel, he was worshipping, as you say, Zeus. And then he hears the gospel. So, what is that that compels him to follow Jesus instead of Zeus? The answer cannot be that Jesus has created a redemptive experience for gentiles, taking them out of paganism. First, that hasn’t happened yet. Second, this man is still a pagan worshipper of Zeus. Only when he accepts Jesus will he think of this as a “redemptive experience”. Therefore, there must be some foundation prior to the “redemptive experience” that proves the truth of the gospels.
The gospels provide a further objection. If the “redemptive experience” the Church offers were that the pagan world would abandon their false gods, then that work was already being done. The gospels mention “god fearers,” often understood to be Noahides. Clearly, if you had people who once worshipped Zeus, etc., now acknowledging the One True God, such redemptive work was being performed prior to the Church and without deifying a man. It was done without the redemptive work of Jesus.
Moreover, since it was already being done, without Jesus, then any doctrine involving Jesus to get it done is unnecessary invention. For the gospels to be bringing people to Jesus, when they were already being brought to God, adds unnecessary elements to the redemptive process. That is to say, one could already worship God without worshipping Jesus, even as a non-Jew. Any addition by the gospels is a corruption, therefore. It redirects the non-Jew from having a direct relationship with God to a relationship with Jesus, whom he imagines to be divine. Either belief in Jesus adds nothing, or it adds corruption. But it cannot add any perfection.
Thus, the foundation of Christianity cannot be the “redemptive experience” of which you write. Some truth had to precede that experience to convince the first gentiles. Moreover, it was unnecessary. God-fearing gentiles had already had the “redemptive experience” of which you write. Any elements that Christianity added could only detract from God. And in fact, while much of the pagan world stopped worshipping Zeus, they did not worship God truly, but a man they imagined to be God. From that they would need another “redemptive experience”. If I were to adopt your language, I would be one of those who had a “redemptive experience” away from the false god of the imagination, Jesus, and called to Hashem.
Jim
Jim, I’ll address this later.
Con,
A third point I would like to make regarding the “redemptive experience” of the Church is that it is falsely attributed. That is to say, Jesus had nothing to do with your “redemptive experience” or that of the gentile world in general. The best you could say is that Paul gave you a “redemptive experience” and even that would likely be stretching it.
Jesus did not carry a message to the world, even if he preached a universalist message. According to Matthew, Jesus was sent only to “the lost sheep of Israel”. And while he was on the earth, his disciples were sent only to Israel as well. Jesus did not go overseas looking to make converts. He speaks disparagingly of the Pharisees who did make converts, saying that they make converts who are even worse children of hell than the Pharisees are. (According to you, the Pharisees should be giving the gentiles a “redemptive experience by bringing them out of paganism. Meanwhile, Jesus was doing nothing of the sort.) Jesus, himself, did not carry the message of One God to the gentile world.
Nor does his death help to accomplish this. Already there were god-fearers. And besides that, some were coming to Judaism. Both are examples of people coming out of paganism without the death of Jesus. His death is not a necessary factor to delivering people from paganism.
After his death, it was not a priority of his disciples “to go and preach the good news to all the nations.” Peter has to be compelled in a vision to dine with the gentile Cornelius. The apostle to the gentiles is Paul, a man who never met Jesus and did not spend time with his disciples to learn his message. He writes to the Galatians that he got his message from no human source, but from “a revelation of Jesus”. He went to Arabia, rather than to Jerusalem, after his conversion. He is making clear that the message he is teaching is not that of Church in Jerusalem. It wasn’t until three years after his conversion that he spent two weeks (and a day) with Peter and met with James. He is insistent that he met no other apostle. Fourteen years late he went back to Jerusalem, and he has contempt for the leadership there, claiming they “contributed nothing to me.” He has had his own special gospel revelation. Peter is fine for the Jews, but Paul carries the gospel for the gentiles. It is no wonder then how little of Jesus’ words appear in Paul’s writings. (By little, I mean none, other than the Eucharist.)
(I should mention as an aside, that we must face again the problem that you previously side-stepped. Paul does not have a vision from God. He has a vision of Jesus. You have compared Jesus to Moses, but we see that such idolatrous notions do not revolve around Moses. What prophet ever had a vision of Moses? Who ever talked about the redemptive power of Moses? Who ever talked about the exaltation of Moses? All of these are foreign concepts to Torah monotheism. One can readily see that any comparison between Moses and Jesus is specious. The Church has claimed that a man is god.)
This redemption for the gentiles then, cannot even be properly traced to Jesus. It is not clear how much of Jesus’ teaching has made its way to Paul. He is at odds with the Church in Jerusalem, run by Jesus’ brother. He feels he has a superior message. Before long, the Church in Jerusalem would be crushed under the Roman boot heel. And after that, it was the gentile Church that would define the doctrine of the Church.
So I am left with the conclusion that the “redemptive experience” of the Church is not truly attributable to Jesus. He taught primarily to Jews. His disciples taught primarily to Jews. The man who carried the gospel proudly announces that he has his own gospel, given to him personally through a revelation of Jesus. He did not consult the disciples, seeing himself superior to them. He did not go and study at the feet of Peter or John. The chain of transmission between Paul and Jesus is non-existent. At best, you owe your experience to Paul. Even that I’m not sure I would say, however. The first domino does not knock down the last.
Jim
Spock has nothing on you.
Just posting to follow,
Yeah Jim and your sacred experience is more direct and obviously closer to G-d than mine. Please.
Con, why the sarcasm and derision? Jim did not hold up his experience as proof, just as an example of a rational point he made. All of Jim’s arguments are purely rational–even if you disagree with his conclusions. I think you are capable of a more thoughtful response.
Con,
Because Christianity bases itself on Judaism, you have things all mixed up. You have indicated that people here have too superficial a view of Christianity. Dina has countered that because she knows Torah, she doesn’t need to know Christianity all that well to judge its claims. From your response to her, it seems to me that you don’t understand the point. And I would ask you to consider that you too hastily accepted Christianity. You also too hastily accepted Torah, and in fact only accepted it in a limited fashion, not according to its content, but according to your biases based on your Christianity. I ask you to consider that your view of Torah is superficial, and that you were unqualified to accept either Torah or Christianity at the time that you did.
I am certain you understand that in evaluating the truth of the claims of Torah and the claims of the Church, there are only three valid outcomes, logically speaking. And these are related to the claims of Torah, because the Church has claimed that it fulfills the Torah. Therefore, our outcomes look like this:
1. Torah is true, and Christianity is true.
2. Torah is true, and Christianity is false.
3. Torah is false, and Christianity is false.
There is no outcome that reads: “Torah is false, and Christianity is true”; because Christianity affirms Torah. If Christianity is true, Torah is true. So “Torah is false, and Christianity is true” is an impossible outcome.
Because this is true, one can investigate the claims of Christianity in a limited fashion to determine if it is true by comparing the claims of Christianity in light of Torah. I call this “limited,” because this can be done without knowing if Torah is true. But it won’t necessarily tell us if Christianity is true, only that it is possible. If I check Christianity’s claims in light of Torah, they might match up, but unless I know if Torah is true, then I cannot know if Christianity is true. But if they don’t match up, I already know that Christianity if false. I still won’t know if Torah is true or not.
Even a limited investigation reveals that Christianity cannot be true. It simply is a different system than Torah. It appropriates some of Torah; it rewrites other parts. It demands sacrifices not demanded in the Torah. It asserts a divine man in contravention of the Torah. It is a different philosophy, disguised as Torah, a wolf in sheep’s clothing if you will. And because this wolf has covered itself in a wool shawl, anyone who points to it greedy fangs is referred to its outer trappings. “But Jesus supported the law. Not one jot, not one tittle. He affirmed the sh’ma.”
Of course, the system of the Church has to be different than the Torah in some regard, or it would be absolutely unnecessary. Some might tell us that the NT was for the gentiles who did not have a Torah, but you and I know that this is silliness. Jesus was sent to “the lost sheep of Israel”. Moreover, the additions of the NT, based in the killing of an innocent man on behalf of the guilty is an idea foreign to God’s justice, a point which relates equally to Jew and non-Jew.
The Church has had to invent ways to reconcile its innovations with Torah. Grasping at straws, they look for types and shadows. They denigrate Jewish learning of their own Torah. The impress meanings on passages that often directly oppose the meanings of the passages they quote. And this is no modern practice. You know as well as I that the same Augustine and Aquinas to whom you have appealed as great thinkers beyond the Strobel’s and McDowell’s of today, allegorized the Torah to press Christian doctrine upon it. They try to wrap that shawl around themselves, but you can see their real hide through the holes.
Because the Church has so roundly abused the Torah to support its theology, one can see readily that Christianity is not true. It does not accord with Torah. It does not fulfill it. It abuses it horribly. It violates the philosophy of Torah. It pays lip service to Torah, but that is all. Mostly it warps Torah to fit its own agenda.
This is why Dina does not need to study the contradictory (or, if you prefer, “nuanced”) writings of this or that Church father. She does not need to study Greek mythology and read deep analyses regarding the differences between Greek myth and Christianity. Christianity claims it fulfills Torah, with which she is intimately acquainted. She can see the differences between those two things quite clearly. She knows it can’t be true.
Please consider that you accepted Christianity too hurriedly. Consider that you did not understand the Torah system before coming to the conclusion that Jesus was a part of it. Perhaps your own opinion was too hasty. Your superficial understanding of Torah allowed you to accept what you could not possibly have known.
Consider also, that you put things out of order. You accepted Torah because you accepted Jesus. But that is to have things backward. You now have fallen into the trap that the Church has set itself. You cannot understand Torah, because you have to have it defined within Christian parameters. But Christianity is based on Torah, not the other way around. Determining Christianity is false does no damage to the credibility of Torah. It was either true or false years before Jesus was on the scene.
You have not truly accepted Torah at all. You have accepted a dressed up wolf, and no matter how fetching that shawl may be on him, it isn’t a real sheep. You have accepted an imitation Torah, not the Torah itself. You will only be able to accept that once you investigate its claims independent of the claims of Christianity upon which it does not rely.
Jim
Thank you, Jim. Important points, clearly explained.
MAS Member,
Dina
Concerned Reader, the argument is that something that could have happened as a natural evolution of a mythology would have happened more than once–more than several times, in fact. That’s why the Christian claim has been replicated so many times by other religions which preceded and followed it.
Yes Dina, again I understand the argument. Again, it’s not that I don’t get it, it’s that the premise that says something that could have happened as a natural evolution of a mythology would have happened more than once–more than several times, is not a necessary conclusion, or a necessarily true premise. The same is true for your second premise about uniqueness of Christianity. Who says that a claim needs to be made more than once to make it susceptible to myth generation? Nobody ever in the history of the human species has ever believed in or replicated the belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, (yes that’s an actual religion btw lol) but that does not by any means tell us whether it’s true or not, or whether such a belief has veracity. You could say that this argument makes your claim more plausible or probable, but that’s an argument for probability of truth, not the same as demonstrating truth itself. See the difference?
That the Torah is making a definite historical claim, (saying that an actual event called the Exodus occurred,) opens your argument up, and mine too, to historical inquiry. In historical inquiry, multiple attestation and replication is a good thing, not bad. Take all the myths that have stories of a global flood as an example. If 88 separate myths from different places all tell a similar story, we can reasonably infer that something (we don’t necessarily know what exactly,) might have happened in history. The problem with the argument is that the Torah isn’t just saying, this is a probable thing, the Torah is claiming that an actual event happened in this world’s history. If that’s a true, then we need more than an argument that says whether such an event was probable.
I’ll get back to Jim’s statements, there is just so much to respond to. BTW I wasn’t meaning to imply derision towards him when I responded the way I did, it was just that his saying that Paul is the source of the Christian redemptive experience, and not Jesus, would be like saying, that the rabbis (those who transmitted the message of Torah to your ancestors, and your generation post Sinai) are the real source of your experiences, and not G-d. Nobody would argue that you were literally alive during Sinai, or that you Dina, or I, were alive thousands of years ago during the Exodus. We know we have things by received traditions, and that there is a degree of faith.
Con, if you reread Jim’s comments you will see that his arguments are based purely on reason and have nothing to do with faith. Also, if you read them more carefully, you will see that your statement that “his saying that Paul is the source of the Christian redemptive experience, and not Jesus, would be like saying, that the rabbis (those who transmitted the message of Torah to your ancestors, and your generation post Sinai) are the real source of your experiences, and not G-d” is patently absurd.
If upon rereading you do not see this, please let me know and I will clarify (or perhaps Jim will if he has the time and inclination).
Best wishes,
Dina
Con, don’t be silly, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a parody religion, a satire, to show why religion in general and Christianity in particular is stupid. The satire is funny, I’ll grant you that, but satire about religion has been replicated loads of times. Nothing original here. This is not an actual religion.
(I know its adherents insist it’s a real religion, but everything their “prophet” Bobby Henderson says is obviously tongue-in-cheek.)
It’s getting hard to take you seriously, Con!
You are judging as patent absurdity things which you don’t already believe and hold as true. You are judging as satire something which people say they believe. If you can’t actually listen to or accept at face value what people say or explain that they believe, that’s called Self validation of your belief and judging others with preconceived notions. There is nothing illogical about my comments about what Jim said. The only generations that can claim to know with 100% certainty the facts of a revelation claim are the ones who witnessed it first hand, that’s why we today are only able to call our beliefs faith claims. All the rest believe at best in the plausibility of the truth that the revelation occurred. It’s hard to take you seriously because your arguments rest on non testable, non verifiable, evidences which you say it is absurd to compare to anything that doesn’t precisely conform to the exact nature of your unique claim. Contra your assertions, it is not illogical to compare the national exodus Sinai claim (a historical event) to any other nationally experienced historical event. To suggest otherwise is to beg the question.
The NT does not say anywhere that James, John, or Peter,(the actual disciples in authority over the community) saw Paul as a false teacher, or doubted his revelation experiences. Rather it says that SOME people from among James’ congregation doubted Paul. The text notes issues were resolved after the council at Jerusalem. The issue around Paul’s message was the question about whether gentiles had to convert to Judaism or not. Some later Jewish Christians among the Ebionites were sure that Paul was false,because they held the necessity of full conversion of Gentiles to Judaism before Knowing and believing in Jesus but Paul was only a conveyer of Jesus’ teachings, who told people about his life, death and resurrection. The text says that Paul received revelation, and then went to Jerusalem to check his message and revelation with those who were disciples and did literally know Jesus. Paul also stayed observant (as evidenced by his vow.) I’m not taking Jim’s statements seriously because he is cherry picking to discredit the text and acting like Jesus did nothing because Paul was the messenger. I responded in kind by noting that he wasn’t at Sinai, how does he know? It’s unkind, and an extremely biased reading of the text, that presupposes the falsehood of all Christian experience beforehand. Not too mention his extremely rude judgement of my motives for believing, questioning my sincerity, etc.
I’m sorry Dina if you find my responses objectionable.
Concerned Reader
I would contend that Thanksgiving never existed. It’s was made up a couple generations ago.
Con,
I do not recall calling you insincere, nor judging your motives at all. I have only evaluated the truth claims of the Church and your specific claims regarding a “redemptive experience”. The fact that you sincerely believe what you believe does not make it true.
I know a woman who sincerely believes that she has had past lives, which she has reexperienced through hypnosis. She “knows” that these past lives are true, because she gets goosebumps. The fact that she is sincere does not mean that the goosebump test is a valid way to test truth. I recommended she look into whatever records she could find that might support her claim (for example her previous life was in Kansas, so records might be possibly extant). Of course, she didn’t care to check. She knew her “experiences” were true. That’s fine. That’s her business, not mine.
The same goes for you. If you don’t care to hear that the Christian faith is not true, I won’t come to your door and tell you. No evangelist, I. However, if you are here, you are entering an arena where the truth of Christianity is being discussed. Here you must expect an honest criticism of that faith system, particularly since it so abuses the Torah.
(I do not know what Sinai would have to do with this at all. I made no claim to a “redemptive experience” at Sinai. I, accepting your definition that the “redemptive experience” of the gentile world means being taken away from false gods and becoming devoted to the One True God, have only stated that my “redemptive experience” is coming away from Jesus and being directed to God. I am only adopting your term. It is not one I would employ.)
Nor do I see any cherry-picking. But even if I were cherry-picking, I do not know how you or any Christian can complain. You have justified the cherry-picking of the Church many times, constantly appealing to sects to whose philosophy you do not hold. If I have cherry-picked (and your assertion does not make it so), I am no more guilty of it than the Church. Inasmuch as your own theology is built upon removing the words of the Torah and Prophets from their context, I see no way in which you can complain.
Everything I wrote was from Paul’s own testimony. I didn’t misrepresent anything he wrote. I did not alter the meaning of his words in any instance that I am aware. Nor did I purposely massage the text to make my point. If I erred, it was an honest error.
Jim
Hi Concerned Reader,
You wrote, “You are judging as satire something which people say they believe. If you can’t actually listen to or accept at face value what people say or explain that they believe, that’s called Self validation of your belief and judging others with preconceived notions.”
If you can’t tell the difference between a joke and a real religion, then I don’t know what to say! The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a joke, it’s not a real religion. Are you being serious?
http://spaghettimonster.com/bobby-henderson/
Just a small excerpt to demonstrate:
“The Flying Spaghetti Monster gave Captain Mosey the stone slabs containing the “Ten Condiments” in Mt. Salsa. However, the Pirate Captain dropped two of slabs on his way down, leaving only eight I’d Really Rather You Didn’ts” that we know now. These commandments are the ultimate guide in living how a true follower of the Spaghetti Monster should live. They address issues of everyday behavior, sexuality, and dealing with people who don’t believe in the Spaghetti Monster. Bobby Henderson used these commandments to summarize his criticisms of extreme and closed minded religiosity.”
You really think that the fact that I see this as satire means “self validation of [my] belief and judging others with preconceived notions”? Seriously?
!!!
I’ll try to respond to the other stuff later, if I have time, but I just had to write and say, really, sir!
Dina, 🙂 i know it’s a satirical joke religion, no worries. The honest reason I posted that response to you was to illustrate a point, and I think I made it. I blasted many unfounded knee jerk statements, and pointed to a skin deep definition of faith failing to distinguish between honest faith and satire. All the while, apparently judging your intentions, and comparing a well meaning well thought out rational religion to a joke religion. You then went out of your way to go learn the deep difference to show the real difference between the serious grounded spirituality and the joke religion by posting, and no doubt reading about the real difference.
When Judaism says Christianity is a hodgepodge of Judaism and polytheism it says “how silly and irrational these Christian people must be. They are joking right? Do they believe this? I know Torah, I don’t really need to know in depth what the Christian faith really means when it says things.” “They accept my position as true, therefore the dialogue starts and ends there.”
As you can no doubt tell, we jump to cheap conclusions and character judgements when we do things like that. A superficial similarity is just that, and nobody can rightly judge anyone as insincere based on a cursory understanding.
Be well Dina, sorry if that was too traumatic or theatrical, just wanted you to get a sense of the feeling I get when I hear things like “I don’t really need to learn this.”
Concerned Reader, it wasn’t traumatic or theatrical–it was dishonest and beneath you. You disappoint me.
But be that as it may. You have actually confirmed my point about rejecting the Christian claim. You mentioned a joke religion. I looked it up and saw at once that it was a joke religion. I did not need to study it and examine its proof texts and try to understand all its nuances. It was so immediately apparent that it was a farce.
The same with Christianity. A cursory examination reveals that its claims are false. Since its claim is about Judaism and I know Judaism, then I know at once it’s false without a careful, deep study.
You accuse me of jumping to cheap conclusions. Jim told you yesterday that perhaps your own conclusions were hasty; you were not okay with that. You think it’s fine to say that we are shallow and superficial in our thinking, but we can’t say that you are. Methinks I see a double standard.
Con, you have still not responded to Rabbi Blumenthal or Jim in a direct and meaningful way. You have also not addressed many of my points.
Looking forward to your responses,
Dina
Con, one more thing. You wrote that “we [read: you] jump to cheap conclusions and character judgments.” I have said this to you before and I will say it again: we are not judging anyone’s character. We are simply examining your claim. Stop taking it so personally!
Jesus, according to the NT, accepted the revelation at Sinai and much of the Hebrews writings, considered as sacred writings by both Jews and Christians, after that. Was Jesus knowledgable about the events at Sinai and the Exodus or did he just accept it on faith? Either way, any claims that he made contradicting or adding to Torah, would require as much or greater evidence than what Torah provides of its events. Any claims that he made would have had to have been justified with extraordinary evidence. Enough evidence or reasons to satisfy the majority (at least a large minority – much more than the very few that the NT claims, insufficiently, were convinced by his words and deeds) that he argued with or presented his claims to. Otherwise, his claims can justifably be ignored. In fact, to reject his claims (or other’s claims about him) is required by Torah.
If Jesus could read Torah (and if he accepted it as valid), he most likely could write (perhaps better than some ordinary tax collector or itenerant physician or others that the NT claims wrote some other writings about Jesus). Did he write anything? If not, why not if he wanted a better quarantee that his words would last (if he felt them worthy enough to last) and not be corrupted? Why would he haphazardly leave his words to be little more than hearsay or rumor or gossip by unknown chroniclers writing with questionable motives at untold years, decades, or even centuries later?
If he knew Torah, as it is claimed by faith, did he provide adequate justification from the Torah for unknown individuals to claim a seemingly unholy or pagan birth for him (or why hasn’t the writer justified his claim)? If he or others claimed that God became man, have they adequately justified what is an apparent contradiction (and perhaps a blasphemous claim?) of the Tanach (God saying that he is not a man)? Did Jesus or some later unknown author claim that drinking human (or god?) blood and eating human flesh was not only valid, but promoted by Torah (even if only symbolic, it promotes what many reasonable people would consider a disgusting or absurd ritual). Some people feel sacrifices of animals is wrong, is it not more morally repugnant to suggest a human die as a sacrifice (beside being an idea that Torah/Tanach rejected as unholy)? There is little if any credible evidence that the Jesus of the NT existed, so it is more appropriate that the claims in the NT be rejected until greater justification, than a desire to believe, is presented to overcome it’s problems.
Concerned reader, good points C !
Okay, Con, let’s examine the proof the Torah offers versus the proof that Christianity offers.
The Torah in Deuteronomy 4 tells us that the uniqueness of our claim points to its truth and predicts that no other entity will make that claim. Whether you agree with the Torah or not that the uniqueness points to its truth (astonishing that you don’t, given that Christians are supposed to accept the Torah as the word of God) is irrelevant. It is undeniable that our claim is unique and that no other religion has made such a claim. So at least that much we know is true.
Christianity points to the resurrection of Jesus. Jesus had promised his resurrection as a sign to the Pharisees yet he failed to appear to them. Furthermore, resurrection is not a terribly impressive event. It occurs several times throughout Tanach, which also promises a mass resurrection of the dead at the end of days. Therefore, the resurrection of Jesus is not undeniable, nor is it unique. So at least we can’t know for certain whether the resurrection happened or not.
I made so many points that I can’t keep track of them! You didn’t respond to my point about the Exodus. Or my point about the very low standard you have for Christianity that is at least matched by Judaism, if you won’t accept the Torah’s standard.
Again Dina, Christians are not accepting the Torah for the same exact reason as you are, ( an acceptance based on the uniqueness of the claim supposedly pointing to its truth.) We know that Nations rise and fall all the time.
The notion that a group of suffering or enslaved people get set free from slavery and become a nation is not odd or unprecedented at all. That such an occurrence is likened to some kind of providence or favor of G-d by those who it happens to, is also not unique at all. (In fact such an occurrence may have been plausible because similar events have happened before though not alike in detail.)
As rabbi B mentioned, he couldn’t accept the statements of Jesus’ students regarding his supposed resurrection, because the only witnesses were those who were already devoted to him beforehand. Israel as a nation was already devoted to belief in G-d well before the the giving of the Torah, so according to rabbi Bs own reasoning the Torah is subject to this objection too, and we should at least suspend judgement on the truth or falsehood of the claims made, until such time as it is demonstrated as true.
I have no doubt that Jesus and his students believed in Sinai by faith, but if you use one standard on a book that claims to be authoritative like Torah (the gospels), the same standard applies to your claims and the claims of Torah. Rabbi B and yourself have said that the unique unrepeated non replicated Jewish claim of national revelation, and the promise the Torah makes that it will stay that way, shows likelihood that it is true. There have been similar events in history, though not similar in every detail. You say that those events cannot be likened to Sinai, may I ask why? Those similarities with real concrete historical events like Hiroshima, may serve to reinforce the plausibility of your claims as opposed to discredit them.
I hope for a better explanation offered than that those claims aren’t identical in every detail. The Torah is making very real claims about very real history, so I’m not wrong in questioning both the Torah and new testament from that standard am I? What is inconsistent about that? You are assuming as part of your claim that the chains of traditional testimony about the events are trustworthy, as rabbi B said, nations don’t lie about national experiences. Please Demonstrate that this is true, I would say it isn’t.
Christians accept the Bible, but they don’t rely on the unique national claim that you do exclusively to believe that such events as Sinai happened or are plausible. We examine Torah’s claims in the light of wider history, prophecy, and shared experience. Jews in second temple times did not have one agreed upon theological notion about G-d, (this is historically certain) it is then likely that they also had several different approaches for judging the truths of history, just as we do today. National revelation is a claim Torah makes, but you wouldn’t just accept that claim if you didn’t already believe it. You would request demonstration of validity, just as you do of the New Testament. It may well be likely that both books are false, I’m not certain, but I need more than just a unique claim made by the people who already believe as true the claim they are seeking to prove.
” It may well be likely that both books are false, I’m not certain, but I need more than just a unique claim made by the people who already believe as true the claim they are seeking to prove.”
This is Not the premise you are trying to convince us of. We are examining a comparison, Torah vs Xtianity. The entire premise is because of what is written in Torah, that No nation throughout history will claim a “national revelation”. That should be a preposterous claim to make, especially to say, No Nation will ever do so. Because it is written in such a way it requires the nation of Israel to use This as a guide to determine whether or not any religion upcoming is valid or not. Whether You believe a national revelation is of no consequence since it is directed to the Jewish nation. It is why No Jew should Ever follow Xtianity. Otherwise they have forsaken Torah, which time after time the prophets spoke against.
So Jews must only listen to Jews about what Jews believe to be historically accurate? Isn’t G-d able to speak directly to all nations, and all nations able to call on him without the necessity of your mediation?
Yes, that’s the purpose of the Rabbis. As David HaMelech wrote, G-d did not give the understanding to any other nation.
Con, you are not responding to anything I wrote, just repeating the same arguments you made in the past.
If I have the time, I will try to explain again the argument because although you say you get it, based on your response and your comparison to Hiroshima, I can see that you don’t understand the argument. Rabbi B. responded to your Hiroshima comparison already.
In the meantime, I’ll just say this:
Let’s say I agree that our claims need outside sources for verification. I don’t, but for the sake of argument, let’s just say.
You offer as proof the historically verifiable facts that Jesus existed and was crucified and that the pagan world moved away from polytheism.
In so doing, you pretend that Judaism has no historically verifiable facts, like the fact that a Jewish nation existed many centuries before Jesus and which introduced ethical monotheism and belief in an invisible God to the world, a radical belief held by no other culture, at least no other culture that they came into contact with.
I don’t think we need to rely on historically verifiable facts to support our claims, but since you do, then, yes, it’s inconsistent to assert that Christianity’s claim is stronger because of outside facts when the same standard can be applied to Judaism. It’s a very low standard, by the way. For example, it’s historically verifiable that Mohammed existed and that he moved a different side of the world away from polytheism (a point you have yet to counter).
Finally, if you think the Exodus never happened, could not have happened, you have wiped out the foundation for both of our religions–another point among the many you have yet to address.
Dina I have countered your continual bringing up of Muhammad several times.
I never said that the exodus didn’t happen, I said that your argument for it and national revelation can only demonstrate a probability that it happened, and that this is not the same thing as proving that something did happen in history. You don’t have other evidence like you would for other real historical events. It’s your prerogative to say you don’t need it, but that means your arguing from personal faith. I understand your argument that if Sinai was just a myth then the whole claim would have been replicated elsewhere, but I find it unpersuasive, that’s not the same thing as denying the event. There is no knowing that this unique claim couldn’t arise, (whether it did or not, it would only demonstrate that the claim is unique, not that it’s true.
Which is more probable, that the entire nation fabricated a revelation from God or that a few men fabricated the story of a resurrected Jesus which they reported 47 days later than the event was supposed to have been transpired with no resurrected savior to show for their efforts?
Con, instead of repeating myself, here’s Rabbi B.’s comment to you about this:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/isaiah-53-micah-7-and-isaiah-62/#comment-13783
Concerned Reader
In your response to Jim you wrote (and I assume that you were describing my attitude because Jim hasn’t really discussed these issues) That I reject your comparison of Sinai to Hiroshima because it doesn’t “precisely conform to the exact nature of your unique claim. Contra your assertions, it is not illogical to compare the national exodus Sinai claim (a historical event) to any other nationally experienced historical event. To suggest otherwise is to beg the question.”
May I humbly request that you try to understand what I am saying before shooting back. I heard your arguments and I responded to them – please read and consider what I wrote. I appreciate that you have studied this subject for many years – so have I.
I will give you a little parable to help you see why your comparison is invalid – imagine a group of people claiming that they met the president – 10 of them say that they received a private phone call from the president and one says that he met the president in a nationally televised ceremony – you know for a fact that only one can be telling the truth – I come to the conclusion that the one claiming the nationally televised meeting is more likely to be telling the truth (or he is a more audacious liar) without getting into the question as to whether my conclusion is correct or not please bear with me – would it be appropriate for you to disprove with my conclusion by showing me that there are other nationally televised events?
Do you understand what I am trying to say?
ypfriend, I don’t know what you wanted to suggest by asking who are God’s people? But
Zeh 2;14-15 tells you that many nations will join themselves to Hashem and they will become people unto Him.
Also you didn’t answer the question how according to Is 61;1 the spirit of God is upon you and has anointed you…
ypfriend, you mentioned in your article verse by verse that that the sufferings and persecutions are God’s will for Israel ( for whatever reasons you mentioned) , that God chose to pour His wrath on you ( the servant) . If it is God’s will according to you, why blaming anybody else for anything ?? The servant in Is 53 submitted himself to God’s will, didn’t complain ( didn’t open his mouth) he knew it had to be done. You are not matching the description. Is 53 is simply not about you. No disrespect , just clarifying.
You keep making the mistake by trying to apply it to a single individual at a single point in time. The reason the nations are going to be astonished is they will understand this encompasses generations. Tell me the Shoah wasn’t people being led to a slaughter and didn’t say a word. Six million certainly isn’t insignificant. There was one thing said at the Wannsee conference.It was a question of why it was all necessary since the Jews were assimilating at such a rapid rate that in a generation or two there wouldn’t be any more Jews left. Out of that situation has came an explosion of Torah Jewry. During the time of the Six-Day war there were many leaders who didn’t expect Israel to survive. They even mentioned that they would take in the few remaining that Did survive. They were wholly astonished when it became the Six-Day war. Without the knowledge of Jewish history it is impossible to understand the context of Isaiah 53. Have you ever seen the anti-semitic pictures that have been drawn over the centuries, or even the ones during Germany’s time. They show images of a marred, ugly person. The Arabs use these images consistently when depicting Jews. Xtianity is so obsessed with painting Jsus into the picture they cannot see beyond that. If this was such an important time in history why wouldn’t G-d be more explicit in his words to the prophets as Amos 3 and revealing such.
As we have seen during the War No doubt this is one of the reasons G-d dispersed the Jews after the Romans came into power. He certainly knew that the Gentiles would be ever vigilant in their attempts to extinguish the Jewish nation (Am Yisrael Chai).
Sharbano, Ok, let do it the other way. We don’t expect all ‘servant’ were to fulfill all the verses in Is 53 and other songs of servants. But the facts were listed in Is 53 verse by verse and had to happen because they were written to IDENTIFY the servant. So we have a servant A fulfilling verse 7, a servant B experiencing disaster in verse 8, maybe a group of servants together CDEF went through the events in v9, G was praying according to v 12, maybe H was dying with the criminals and the wealthy in his death, BUT upps … servant Y ( Yeshua ) looks weird and has to be excluded as he claims to bring a different healing we expected, and well still I don’t know who is the anointed one in Is 61;1, ??
Oh come on now, give me a break. You’re just being ridiculous now. They weren’t written to IDENTIFY the servant. Jews Know who the servant is and have known.
To put this to rest Isaiah 53.8
“Now that he has been released from captivity and judgment, who could have imagined such a generation? For he had removed from the land of the living, an affliction upon THEM that was my people’s sin.”
THEM is used along with HE. Is Jsus a “Them” or is this them the trinity and all three were on the cross.
Sharbano, As far as the v 8, even Tanakh Jerusalem translation doesn’t put that verse in plural along with many others . And the other translations even using plural word from didn’t apply it to the way Stone Edition is putting.
You are discarding my saying that the servant is IDENTIFIED, well if there were no ‘distinctives’ about him, we might as well put the whole nation for doing the mission in Is 53 .
The words in servant songs are for a reason and many are not matching the nation. If the servant is described as suffering he had to go through the ‘suffering’, if he is described as ‘cut off from the land of the living, or dead , he can’t stay alive, if he was to be put with the transgressors, he was not to be put on the list of honored ones, etc, so are all other points to be met including Is 61;1.
To which translation are you referring. This is my point in another post. In some ways it may attributable to laziness, or maybe someone was attempting to make the text more uniform using the singular. It really does a disservice to anyone who doesn’t understand Hebrew and is left with only a translation. The word used there is (למו ) which is them. So, it doesn’t matter what a translator wants to use but the Hebrew word is what it is.
Yes rabbi, that parable would be convincing except for one important detail. The group that says that they saw the president during a nationally televised ceremony, when pressed by others who didn’t see it, to produce the film demonstrating the reality of their claims, is saying “we are the only ones ever to be uniquely claiming that we met the president on a televised broadcast, we don’t need to give you the tapes. You accept that the president goes on TV don’t you? The uniqueness of what all of us together are saying demonstrates that our claim is plausible enough to be true because we wouldn’t lie.”
If you could produce outside unbiased evidence, (the tape) then your comparison of Sinai to meeting the president on nationally televised broadcast would have some merit. I can go to any library to demonstrate the reality of any claim to meeting the president on national TV, because that claim is verifiable, and does not rely on private testimony. Such claims are open to cross examination. One televised broadcast is no different from any other. I can study many different national televised broadcasts to determine the consistency.
Lawrence Kelleman has an interesting argument regarding this.
Dina posted this lecture already and I responded to it. Here is my response.
Below is a paraphrase of some of rabbi kellermans main points with my responses interspersed throughout.
G-d spoke to one man, Abraham. (I thought to myself, ok this is classic revelation narrative.) Then G-d spoke to one man, Isaac, (ok classic myth.) Jacob, etc. then I read Exodus, parsha yitro. 600,000 male Jews heard G-d speak. (600,000 people who already believed in the existence, revelation, and providence of G-d.) This is the first problem with rabbi kellerman’s argument. According to apple white theorem, people with charismatic leaders will believe anything, (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob.) even if in every other area, they will behave rationally.) The argument isn’t G-d forbid that the Jewish people were somehow idiots, the issue is that they were already prone to accept belief in the very concept in question. They are already saturated with a traditional belief, even a family oriented belief, a belief which according to rabbi kellerman’s own words initially started with one man.
“Every single member of the heavens gate cult had an undergraduate degree” People are gullible, especially given a charismatic leader. People will BELIEVE ANYTHING, AS LONG AS THE LIE CANNOT BE CHECKED. (Here is where the second problem lies. We do not have independent evidence demonstrating the veracity of the events that the Torah describes. (Such as archaeology, impartial records, etc.) Therefore, the claim cannot be checked independent of Jewish testimony.
Rabbi kellerman also assumes from the start that the national revelation claim arose all at once without discord either in the past, the present, or the future. He says the theory can go one of 3 ways. Your ancestors (the nation) heard G-d speak, You heard G-d speak, or you will hear him speak. The fallacy is in assuming a once in time linear progression or occurrence of this claim. There is no knowing for sure whether or not the claim of national revelation arose all at once. Rabbi kellerman even admits that the past theory, and to a lesser extent present theory, could theoretically account for Judaism ‘s existence, though he believes this is unlikely.) Further, the Torah itself shows the likelihood, and even the fact that the entire nation as a whole rejected the claim, and only a faithful remnant accepted it.
Further, it states that they later forgot, and only still later, a faithful king and remnant restored it to glory. Ezra also had to do the same with the exiles. Rabbi kellerman counters this objection by noting the clear chain of transmission with a rather impressive list of teacher to student relationships. He says there is no other view. I would counter his point by saying that an oral transmission carries with it all the elements of human discourse including disagreements, and we have clear unambiguous evidence of these other perspective traditional claims in the Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, Nazarenes, etc. we have documented historical disagreements between Jews about fundamental issues of law and authority.
The other issue, as I pointed out, was the intermittence of national revelation. Not all prophecy was validated that way all the time consistently according to scripture. The final issue I’ve noted is with the claim itself of one national unbroken chain of transmission and thus the implied authority of one group of interpreters. The problem I have with this claim is that the Sadducees and priests made this exact same claim to being the authoritative biblical interpreters in the late Hasmonean and on into the rest of the second temple period. They were roundly criticized and refuted by the Pharisees on this exact issue of whether anyone holds that kind of authority over the people of Israel.
Finally, Rabbi Kellerman rests his acceptance of the Torah, “what he calls the bomb” on the unique nature (and so therefore supernatural) nature of the claims of Judaism. If the claim were just natural, it would be repeated. Christians claimed the experience of G-d speaking to them in a clearly defined unique supernatural and personal way, to communicate his will. Jews have attempted to show pagan parallels and thus the non uniqueness of Christianity, parallels which I have shown elsewhere to be based on a skin deep understanding of what we teach, and an understanding which does not account for or take seriously how we understand and define what is stated by us. In regards to data, the only religion to make claims even approaching similarity (beyond skin deep resemblance) is Judaism itself. When all the data is considered, and people call Christian or Jewish religious experience into question, it invariably damages the credibility of both claims substantially.
Then by default, Xtianity has even Less claim to validity.
“Christians claimed the experience of G-d speaking to them in a clearly defined unique supernatural and personal way, to communicate his will”
This is a non-sequitur when comparing an event to a feeling. This experience claim is Not unique. Many religions speak to experiencing something. Why not follow Yoga then. It is considered very uplifting.
This begs one question. Why? What is the purpose of accepting such a religion. In order to answer that a person has to depart from Torah, hence Xtianity and Judaism do Not coexist.
Another matter. How can Xtianity be based upon Torah when any observance of Torah has been removed. Does Xtianity keep Shabbat. This was an eternal Sign between Hashem and the Jewish Nation, never to be abrogated. Xtianity has made swine flesh kosher. Xtianity says sacrifices have ended but then does Yechezkel reinstate them, sin sacrifice and all. The list can go on and on. So, how can Anyone say Xtianity is “based” on Torah. It does nothing but nullify it.
Do noachides observe Shabbat Sharbano? Your own religion shows and posits the existence of righteous people of many nations who are not affiliated to the Torah narrative or Sinai or Judaism at all. I’m not saying no revelation from Sinai was possible, that it didn’t happen, I’m saying that its truth does not depend exclusively, nor should it, on the claim as Judaism presents it. It goes together with historical experience, prophesy, etc . The religion existed before Moses, before Sinai. Many different things work together in scripture to show the message as true. According to this site, the Christian bible does not present Jesus as against Torah observance. In that case, why can’t he be trusted (at least by Gentiles) in light of the fact that through his teachings we left polytheism? Before you say Muhammad did the same, I would respond that Islam’s entire perception of G-d presupposes that he is not directly involved, but only his angels. Our text believes in the Torah and supports your duty to observe it, but doesn’t confine it’s veracity to the unique claim argument.
Why not keep Yoga? Yoga doesn’t even involve a divinity. Why not hinduism? Because hindium supposes that oneness negates a notion like divine will or commandments. I’m not trying to tell you to leave Judaism, I am defending the fact that I read a bible and follow a faith that is not necessarily against your position, but you want to see it gone! You want me to be a halachic noachide,without Jesus, but that would be a step backwards.
What??? Noachides are Not Jews nor are they Xtian. But your contention is that Xtianity is based upon Judaisn and furthers it and doesn’t abrogate it then Xtians should be adhering to Torah. But Shabbat Was given as a sign between Hashem And the Jewish nation alone. Isn’t it interesting that Xtianity forsook Shabbat for Sunday instead. The Muslims have taken Friday for their Shabbat and now we have the Jews alone with Shabbat between two other religions. As Hashem said,, it is a Sign. If Xtianity and Judaism were basically “One” they would have the same Shabbat, but early on they split, and Did they ever split. It is a “Sign” that Xtianity and Judaism are separate and unequal.
“I’m not saying no revelation from Sinai was possible, that it didn’t happen, I’m saying that its truth does not depend exclusively, nor should it, on the claim as Judaism presents it”
You are dismissing the importance of that revelation. Torah defines its importance. Moshe said the people would not believe him. G-d says THIS is how they will believe that G-d sent Moshe. It is one of thee most important events in Jewish history. It is when the “Nation” said with One voice, we will do and we will listen. If it weren’t for that there would be no Torah today.
If you want to assert Xtianity left polytheism, but maybe not idolatry I assert, then at what cost. To the death of millions of Jews. What does it say about the faithful Xtians of today that are anti-semitic. Before you say “it’s not all, or a majority” so it has been in the past. Countries throughout history have wooed the Jews and then turned on them and it was predicated on Xtian writings. If G-d would sanction a religion why would it not be explicit in Not doing such acts. We have learned it takes very little to inflame public perceptions.
Since Hashem worked with the prophets there should be evidence that Gentiles would bring righteousness to the nations. It Does say in Isaiah that it is the dispersed of Israel who will bring “My glory to the nations”.
Jim
Con,
Because Christianity bases itself on Judaism, you have things all mixed up. You have indicated that people here have too superficial a view of Christianity. Dina has countered that because she knows Torah, she doesn’t need to know Christianity all that well to judge its claims.
If details of how Christians read scripture and understand scripture are ignored in favor of rhetoric, then you do need to know more.
From your response to her, it seems to me that you don’t understand the point. And I would ask you to consider that you too hastily accepted Christianity. You also too hastily accepted Torah, and in fact only accepted it in a limited fashion, not according to its content, but according to your biases based on your Christianity. I ask you to consider that your view of Torah is superficial, and that you were unqualified to accept either Torah or Christianity at the time that you did.
You assume Jim that I have not studied the halachic perspectives, Jewish history, Jewish philosophy, etc. assumptions of which are all unfounded and incorrect. I have sometimes made errors, which I have retracted.
I am certain you understand that in evaluating the truth of the claims of Torah and the claims of the Church, there are only three valid outcomes, logically speaking. And these are related to the claims of Torah, because the Church has claimed that it fulfills the Torah. Therefore, our outcomes look like this:
1. Torah is true, and Christianity is true.
2. Torah is true, and Christianity is false.
3. Torah is false, and Christianity is false.
There is no outcome that reads: “Torah is false, and Christianity is true”; because Christianity affirms Torah. If Christianity is true, Torah is true. So “Torah is false, and Christianity is true” is an impossible outcome.
Because this is true, one can investigate the claims of Christianity in a limited fashion to determine if it is true by comparing the claims of Christianity in light of Torah. I call this “limited,” because this can be done without knowing if Torah is true.
Because The NT teaches Torah is true, Torah can indeed be used as a guide to determining truth, this is true. The problem is though that the Torah itself is a text which can and does accommodate several very different meanings while still not betraying the spirit and content of the text.
But it won’t necessarily tell us if Christianity is true, only that it is possible.
I call this “limited,” because this can be done without knowing if Torah is true.
All of the biblical claims (Christian or Jewish) can only be demonstrated as possible, or probable, because of the way the claims and proofs are structured, they only demonstrate probabilities of events occurring or having occurred. We weren’t there we don’t know accept through hearing. We don’t rest on archaeology alone.
If I check Christianity’s claims in light of Torah, they might match up, but unless I know if Torah is true, then I cannot know if Christianity is true. But if they don’t match up, I already know that Christianity if false. I still won’t know if Torah is true or not.
If Christianity turns out to be false as you say, even though it is closer to the present, and taken along with the evidence that It does reasonably have (such as evidence of Jesus’ existence, death on a cross, and formation of a faith movement,) what is the likelihood that an even grander claim of grander scale, further back in time is true, given that it is more difficult to cross examine as you have cross examined christianity?
Even a limited investigation reveals that Christianity cannot be true. It simply is a different system than Torah.
It appropriates some of Torah;
Such as Ethics for god fearing Gentiles
The Shema
Jesus’ halachic disputes fit within a framework of second temple Jewish life.
it rewrites other parts.
It interprets other parts. Rewriting suggests nefarious intention which is entirely speculative.
It demands sacrifices not demanded in the Torah.
This requires interpretation, as sacrificial language in the NT is very often figurative. Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant churches have various understandings, The death of the righteous, as well as their service is often likened to sacrifice In Torah. Bread or meal could be brought as a sacrifice (the Eucharist is figuratively or mystically, never literally (in terms of human flesh and blood) applied to Jesus.
It asserts a divine man in contravention of the Torah.
No! That is your rhetorical perception you are imposing. Jesus in Christianity has a fully human (limited) existence, and a fully divine unlimited (expressed as incorporeal word or wisdom or personal revelation of the father) existence. Christianity understands and values incredibly the distinction between human and divine nature as essential to a proper theology.
As an example
Mormon corporealism is heresy
Worshiping Jesus without reference to the father is heresy
Treating Jesus as only human but invested with divine authority which only G-d can rightly be said to posses is heresy.
Worship of saints or angels is heresy. (Even in Catholic doctrine.)
It is a different philosophy, disguised as Torah, a wolf in sheep’s clothing if you will. And because this wolf has covered itself in a wool shawl, anyone who points to it greedy fangs is referred to its outer trappings.
If it is disguised as Torah, you are presenting an is seems dichotomy, and you then prejudge assuming nefarious intent.
“But Jesus supported the law. Not one jot, not one tittle. He affirmed the sh’ma.”
Yes, yes he did. This eliminates to a degree your case for nefarious intent.
Of course, the system of the Church has to be different than the Torah in some regard, or it would be absolutely unnecessary. Some might tell us that the NT was for the gentiles who did not have a Torah, but you and I know that this is silliness.
It was silliness to a degree, until the faith spread to Gentiles and it was determined by the movement that full proselyte conversion to Judaism would not be required.
Jesus was sent to “the lost sheep of Israel”. Moreover, the additions of the NT, based in the killing of an innocent man on behalf of the guilty is an idea foreign to God’s justice, a point which relates equally to Jew and non-Jew.
The innocent suffer, prompting the contrition and subsequent reformation of the wicked. This is how the death of a righteous person atones.
Augustine introduces the concept of ancestral guilt transmitted through generations, and Anselm the idea of Jesus’ death satisfying otherwise unquenchable wrath. Paul while using similar language maintains the importance and necessity of identity, maintaining societal roles, justice, and good deeds, as opposed to works (which clearly signify for Paul community membership such as forcing Gentiles to become Jewish.) He clearly views righteousness and action as necessary for salvation.
The Church has had to invent ways to reconcile its innovations with Torah. Grasping at straws, they look for types and shadows. They denigrate Jewish learning of their own Torah. The impress meanings on passages that often directly oppose the meanings of the passages they quote.
Aggadah often does the same thing to scripture in terms of ignoring context. Since Paul was preaching, and the gospels are for preaching, this is hardly odd.
Is it possible that rather than nefariously inventing parallels and creating justifications, Christianity merely moved through a natural development from a halachic culture and context to a gentile context that necessitated describing certain unknown Jewish concepts in a way understandable and consistent with broader cultures?
And this is no modern practice. You know as well as I that the same Augustine and Aquinas to whom you have appealed as great thinkers beyond the Strobel’s and McDowell’s of today, allegorized the Torah to press Christian doctrine upon it.
This method was used by Philo who was himself an observant Jew.
They try to wrap that shawl around themselves, but you can see their real hide through the holes.
Speculation and prejudging
Because the Church has so roundly abused the Torah to support its theology, one can see readily that Christianity is not true. It does not accord with Torah. It does not fulfill it. It abuses it horribly. It violates the philosophy of Torah. It pays lip service to Torah, but that is all. Mostly it warps Torah to fit its own agenda.
This is why Dina does not need to study the contradictory (or, if you prefer, “nuanced”) writings of this or that Church father. She does not need to study Greek mythology and read deep analyses regarding the differences between Greek myth and Christianity. Christianity claims it fulfills Torah, with which she is intimately acquainted. She can see the differences between those two things quite clearly. She knows it can’t be true.
Please consider that you accepted Christianity too hurriedly. Consider that you did not understand the Torah system before coming to the conclusion that Jesus was a part of it. Perhaps your own opinion was too hasty. Your superficial understanding of Torah allowed you to accept what you could not possibly have known.
Please consider that I have studied Judaism quite a lot, attended services, and even considered conversion at one point. Keep your judgements for yourself.
Consider also, that you put things out of order. You accepted Torah because you accepted Jesus.
I did not place anything nefariously out of order. I walked through the door I had accessible to me to learn about scripture. I love the bible, and I also support the duty of Jews to the Torah.
But that is to have things backward. You now have fallen into the trap that the Church has set itself. You cannot understand Torah, because you have to have it defined within Christian parameters. But Christianity is based on Torah, not the other way around. Determining Christianity is false does no damage to the credibility of Torah. It was either true or false years before Jesus was on the scene.
You have not truly accepted Torah at all. You have accepted a dressed up wolf, and no matter how fetching that shawl may be on him, it isn’t a real sheep. You have accepted an imitation Torah, not the Torah itself. You will only be able to accept that once you investigate its claims independent of the claims of Christianity upon which it does not rely.
If the church has erred in so many ways are you saying it is only you who have determined the truth. One question would have to be asked. Have you studied the entire Talmud or, have you studied Torah in the original Hebrew.
How can Xtianity be based on Torah when Paul himself claims it to be old and defective.
I’m not claiming any absolute knowledge for myself. None of us can claim that, since our proofs and arguments themselves are based mainly on probabilities of the truth to begin with. As I mentioned to Dina, the existence of absolute truth, does not mean we humans posses absolute knowledge. The only one who does posses it is Hashem, and he’s the one who decides what he tells us, so even that knowledge of G-d received by revelation that we do posses is a relative knowledge of G-d.
Paul claims the enmity between Jews and Gentiles embedded in the works of the law (not the commands of the law themselves) are old and defective. He preserves the covenant identity markers, Prohibitions, and G-d fearing ethics in all of his communities. He tells Jews to remain circumcised and in the station in which they were called (to maintain observance.) He says humans (Jews and gentiles are justified through faith, and faith is not just belief, or community membership, but faithfulness to G-d’s call.) Faithfulness to G-d does not necessitate being Jewish, or as Christians have forgotten, being Christian. A person can be righteous in any community that G-d finds him in.
1 Corinthians 3 Brothers and sisters, I could not address you as people who live by the Spirit but as people who are still worldly—mere infants in Christ. 2 I gave you milk,(basic rudimentary things to do) not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready. 3 You are still worldly. For since there is jealousy and quarreling among you, are you not worldly? Are you not acting like mere humans? 4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and another, “I follow Apollos,” are you not mere human beings?
5 What, after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. 6 I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow. 7 So neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but only God, who makes things grow. 8 The one who plants and the one who waters have one purpose, and they will each be rewarded according to their own labor. 9 For we are co-workers in God’s service; you are God’s field, God’s building.
Paul tells Christians in the Corinthian letters that they ought not be arrogant or sure of their favor because they have been disobedient of rudimentary commands and guilty of acting like squabbling children. A clear reading of Paul shows that doing the deeds of Jesus faithfully is what Paul means by faith in Jesus.
Whether knowledge of Hebrew is necessary or not is irrelevant as Hebrew itself is a context sensitive language where one word can have several different true primary meanings dependent on context. For example the difference between Adonai and adoni is all determined in the vowel pointing and context of verses. Texts with vowel points are already an interpretation done to the best of our ability. Elohim is another word with several correct primary meanings and things it refers to. I have studied portions of Talmud, I know it’s not simple or easy, and shouldn’t be studied without guidance. The same is true of Christian sources I would argue.
You use a typical straw argument that is indicative of Xtianity. By using the word “absolute” it deflects from the original point.
Paul says in Galatians that the law was a guardian and we are no longer under a guardian.
I don’t see how a person can say an original language is irrelevant, because, it has allowed the variety of Chumash, whether Rashi, Ramban, Baal HaTurim, R’ Hirsch, among the ones I have, to show how encompassing Torah is. It is nothing like the Xtian text. Because Hebrew is truly a Living language, by its very ‘nature’, the words and letters spell much more than mere words alone. I rather like the way Rabbi Akiva Tatz describes it. The Torah doesn’t reflect reality it Creates reality, simply because it is Hebrew. This is a much deeper subject not possible to discuss here.
Finally, those vowel points are there Because of an Oral Tradition. In fact you wouldn’t even be able to read it without an Oral Tradition.
Why can’t you discuss it here? It’s a fact that there are substantial differences in how Hebrew can be read by various rabbis, without any malicious towards the text. Your position is that a person can’t understand without Hebrew, my point was merely to note that even with Hebrew, or Greek for that matter, there are several possible extremely diverse readings, that do not betray the text.
I Said why I can’t discuss it here. It’s a Very deep subject and without Torah knowledge IN Hebrew it cannot be understood.
What substantial differences in the way Hebrew is read. In that respect it’s no different than any other language. A vav is a vav. If you are speaking of what the Rabbis bring down that was exactly my point in the various Chumash that I have. Without knowing Hebrew you cannot see the totality of Torah. This is why Xtianity has a superficial understanding of Torah. A Translation cannot capture all of that.
Sharbano that’s a copout. What do you mean incapable? Come on! Different rabbis translate the same Hebrew words in different ways in different Chumash. There is nothing mysterious about it.
Con,
I in no way indicated that you are totally ignorant of Torah. I wrote about the time and the manner in which you determined that Torah is true i.e. by accepting Jesus first. Where did I get such an idea? By your own testimony. That does not mean, of course, that you haven’t learned much Torah, history, Jewish philosophy, and what have you. But you have not started at the beginning, and so your understanding is confused. You have not built upon first principles.
Any reading of Augustine and Aquinas will show that they suffer from the same problem. These are men who had to rework Torah to fit their theology. It is the method of the Church. I have already shown areas in which they show their faulty understanding of Torah. (Perhaps I am not so prejudicial as you assert.) As you know, the Torah was a big sticking point for Augustine in converting to Christianity. He just couldn’t believe that the Torah, which he saw as a rather backward book, could be true. The NT with its likeness to Platonism was much easier for him to accept. The teachings of Ambrose made the Torah more palatable to him. And then he had his big “redemptive experience,” which I would argue was nothing more than an emotional outburst brought on by a massive guilt complex instilled in him while he was young, and he came to Jesus. Now, he quotes the Torah all the time, but he only accepted it through the lens of the NT and the teachings of Ambrose. He did not have a good understanding of it from the start. He does not operate from first principles and so his understanding of the Torah is confused. Even as a Christian, his constant desire is to allegorize the Torah, because he could not see much value in it otherwise. He accepted by faith, because of his belief in Jesus, that it must have value, but he couldn’t see it himself. And therefore, one can say that regarding Torah, he was an ignoramus, though he could quote huge portions of it, because he had no real understanding of it.
You think that I am prejudiced against Christianity. But I began as a Christian. I am not ignorant of Christian doctrine. I am not ignorant, for example, that Jesus is said to have a wholly human nature and a wholly divine nature. I never said otherwise. But Jesus was a man who walked on earth, not a divine being. The assertion by the Church that he was divine is a flight of fancy and a violation of Torah. As Dina has pointed out many time, and which you have regularly ignored, Jesus was not what the Jews experienced at Sinai, and worshipping anything not in line with that experience is avodah zara. I am fully aware of Christian “nuance” when it comes to its doctrines meant to justify their worship of a man. However, these are all confused notions meant to justify and explain the unjustifiable and the inexplicable. I know that the Christian does not worship Jesus qua man. But he was a man. The Christian asserts that he was divine, but that assertion is incorrect. They are no different than the man who worships an idol. The man does not bow to a statue qua rock but because he imagines some other spiritual power behind it.
You say that you have retracted your errors. However, you have not retracted to my knowledge any of the following:
1. You asserted that Jesus is just like Moses. I have shown that the exaltation of Jesus makes him completely unlike Moses. You did not retract.
2. You corrected Devorah regarding the imminent return of Jesus. I showed that your interpretation neglected that Jesus said he was coming to judge. You did not retract.
3. You misrepresented Maimonides in the same comment to Devorah, saying that he did not doubt that Jesus brought knowledge of God to the world. I showed that to be false. You did not retract.
4. You have asserted that one cannot compare the modern Evangelical in their simplistic understanding to the great thinkers of the Church’s past, including Aquinas and Augustine. I have shown that neither has a sound understanding of Torah, including the absurd point Aquinas makes regarding the Torah’s ceremonial laws, which he tries to understand through the Roman goddess, Ceres. You did not retract (or counter).
5. Dina has shown over and over that worshipping Jesus was not prescribed as Sinai. Any worship ascribed to him is a violation of the laws of avodah zara. You have not only not retracted; you have mostly ignored the point. (Do you think that we find the definition of avodah zara from the Torah or from studying pagan religions and looking for similarities?)
6. You have argued that Jesus never drew attention to himself, but only to God. I showed that not only did he draw attention away from God to himself, but he overwrote Torah commands meant to commemorate acts of God to commemorate himself. You did not retract.
Moreover, you have constantly cherry-picked your sources. You grab from Philo only because it fits your agenda. I may be mistaken, but I believe you even called his works a “tradition,” which is absurd. His writings are his opinions, his interpretations based on his hellenization. Opinion and tradition are two different things. You bring up the Dead Sea Scrolls ad nauseaum, not because you come from their tradition, but because you can turn them to your agenda. (As I write this, you might perceive it to mean that you do it with an intention to dishonesty. I do not. I mean that you argue incorrectly but not insincerely.) You appeal to their existence as if that implies their rectitude, which it does not. Your method isn’t sound. And when it has been shown that the abuse of scripture is not a sound practice, whether done by Essene or Christian, and that in fact you cannot tolerate such a style yourself for interpreting the NT or the writings of the Church fathers, you ignore such arguments only to hearken back to the existence of such works. Such appeals to authority are without merit.
With respect,
Jim
Jesus, according to the NT, accepted the revelation at Sinai and much of the Hebrews writings, considered as sacred writings by both Jews and Christians, after that. Was Jesus knowledgable about the events at Sinai and the Exodus or did he just accept it on faith? Either way, any claims that he made contradicting or adding to Torah, would require as much or greater evidence than what Torah provides of its events. Why is that? Any claim should be subject to the same level of inquiry.
Any claims that he made would have had to have been justified with extraordinary evidence. Enough evidence or reasons to satisfy the majority (at least a large minority – much more than the very few that the NT claims, insufficiently, were convinced by his words and deeds) that he argued with or presented his claims to. Otherwise, his claims can justifably be ignored. In fact, to reject his claims (or other’s claims about him) is required by Torah.
Since when in the bible or history does the majority ever get things 100% right or judge righteously? Jesus did not violate the Torah, he supported it by your own words, was defended by Pharisees from Herod antipas, but was handed over to the Romans for execution by a group of pro roman priests without the proper procedures for his trial being met or followed.
Yedidiah, it’s true that Jesus accepted and taught the Torah. We cannot jump to the conclusion however that he agreed in all the details with what is the modern Jewish interpretation in the way it is presently understood. We cannot retroactively inject teachings and claims found in the 2nd century redaction that is the Mishna into second temple religious life. There is no evidence that there was any agreement among Jews about the exact nature and authority of the oral Torah in the 1st century. (including the claims of one group’s authority that go with it.) Jesus supports pharisaic authority, that’s true, but we don’t know for sure what that acceptance meant for him or others at the time.
Yes, I agree, in this case the majority is & was wrong since Jesus did violate the Torah (according to his words or deeds the NT writers claim). Since Jesus (if he existed) did not write anything (that can be verified as his), “his own words” are based on speculation by unknown authors writing at unknown times. And these unknown authors often disagree, even when they supposedly use the other as a source (according to various hypotheses attempting to explain the “synoptic problem”). Since your arguments are often more probabilistically based on bias and personal prejudice, because of your faith, rather than on logic, reasoning, or common sense, it is not surprising that you choose to “side with” such a man as Herod Antipas” and perhaps even Pilate rather than with Pharisees and other Jews. There were indeed pro-Roman priests, who sided with Herod and Pilate. But according to Luke 23 (what are the other gospel verses that confirm this), Herod Antipas was glad to see Jesus (who he once thought was the resurrected John that he once so “reluctantly” beheaded). so it was strange that he would deliver Jesus back to Pilate to be executed. And strange how Pilate was so willing to relinquish his authority (maybe so he could later gain sainthood in the church). Strange how Romans & Herodians (enemies of Jews and Torah observant Pharisees or of God) come out “smelling like roses” in the NT, while “Jews are sons of the imaginary unJewish devil). Whitewash.
So you speculate that Jesus accepted and taught the Torah. Then why does parts of the NT clearly reject what he and Torah taught? Maybe we can jump to the conclusion that the NT is anti-Jesus and the “real Jesus” was obfuscated by their propaganda. Based on “Rome’s” history of rewriting the stories of the gods and heroes of the people they conquered or ruled over.
So Jesus agreed in all the details with the modern Christian “interpretation in the way it is presently understood”. “We cannot retroactively inject teachings and claims found in the 2nd century redaction” or initial writings of the Christian and non-Jewish and perhaps anti-Jewish writings into second temple religious life (it is worth remembering that there were several wars between Rome and Jews before 140 c.e., so it is not easy to assume that Roman Christian writings were not biased against Jews). There is no evidence that there was any great agreement among Christians about the exact nature and authority of Jesus in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th to 21st centuries c.e. Jesus, if he existed, supported pharisaic authority, so what that acceptance (or his disagreement with it) meant for him or others at the time is not totally speculation.
Sorry, if I used too many of your words, since so very many of your arguments are more applicable to yourself than to those you argue against. Just change a few nouns around.
Your misunderstanding what I wrote Yedidiah
Maybe. Or maybe not. More and more I am beginning to believe that you misunderstand other posters who disagree with you, since I am able to understand most of what most of them say most of the time. Usually, besides thinking “with their heart”, they “think with their head” and make logical and reasonable arguments. But it seems not only do you misunderstand them, you misunderstand (or else try to deny) what the NT texts say and what some early Christians wrote what they felt about who Jesus was and what he meant to them.
I believe you studied comparative religion (and what books you studied or where you took classes might give us a better idea of “where you are coming”), but it did not seem to give you a greater appreciation or understanding of those religions. I sense that you have quite a bit of hostility to “noachides”, Protestantism (especially “fundamentalism” especially if it’s adherents claim orthodoxy), Islam, and a Judaism which rejects what you want to claim as “2nd temple Judaism”. You did make me think that I had misread 10 years back (or had forgotten the essence of) Philo. But reviewing him again, no I did not misunderstand his philosophy. Philo was a hellenist and he did not influence Jews or Judaism much (except in Alexandria, later) and he could not have been influenced by Jesus nor would Jesus have been influenced by him. It might help you to review again the etymology and the history of the usage of such terms as “hellene” and pagan (as used by Jews) or “paganus”. One of the things you seem “hung up on” is polytheism. Monotheism is not the most important concept in later Hebrew or Jewish thought. And technically the concept of a “father in heaven and a divine son” is not monotheism, but we try to define those ideas as such.
Yedidiah, if I’m misunderstanding, it’s not intentional. I’m not misunderstanding purposely, But in some instances, I have reason not to accept certain premises of the arguments posted by others. I’m not so much dismissing the negative things that early Christians believed about Jesus, or what they said (such as replacement theology,) I’m noting that their rhetorical negative reading of Judaism is not a forgone conclusion, especially if Christians can separate the rhetoric from the ethics they are supposed to hold to as found in the text. Heaven forbid that I am saying that Christians have done no wrong, I would never say such things. I’m also not advocating an uncritical acceptance of everything Christians have ever said.
I’m not hostile to Noachides, but have noticed that most of the seven mitzvot are prohibitions. This pointed out to me that noachide laws may not be the best option in terms of community that Judaism offers. I grant this is my perception, maybe misperception, but it seems difficult to find an active liturgical life in noachide communities. Dina has said that Islam is not noachide, but I don’t quite see where it lacks adherence to those seven commands. It is fully monotheistic, establishes courts, doesn’t advocate immorality, etc. in a cursory sense, it is noachide despite rejecting Torah. Christianity can understand the drive to serve G-d, and the impetus for the commands (love of G-d and the notion of one on one covenant.) I do not hate anybody. I was raised Protestant, but I do have a problem with any position that is not willing to evaluate, I can be wrong about many things, but I’m not doing it intentionally, and I’ve read the posts several times to understand.
Well, it seems pointless when one just go around in circles. You started off by seemingly promoting better inter-faith relations and “non-orthodoxy” (everyone thinks they are right and that’s wrong). But you soon were promoting Orthodox Christianity or what seemed like a modern, slightly more liberal version of orthodoxy. You had me defending protestantism & I suggested that if you had problems with them speak to them, not Jews. When Jews countered your views of Judaism with what they really believed, you essentially said that you knew better because they didn’t agree with the points you wanted to make about your faith’s foundation. I felt I knew what points you were trying to make with the issue of polytheism, various beliefs among Jews in the late 2nd temple period, DSS & Philo, etc. because I heard them often enough & used them, believed them myself before. I tried to show you why and where they were invalid (as did Jim) but I failed (maybe not). I even tried to point out where arguments that you were making were more applicable to your own claims than to those you were arguing against. To make certain points, you even brought up arguments made by bible sceptics and atheists about the Sinai experience, even though that means totally invalidating any claim about Jesus. Only until you could use it to validate some other point you were trying to make, did you say something like “that type of argument hurts Judaism & Christianity”. I don’t know how to say it, but perhaps substance is not as important as image. The Torah writers made extraordinary claims, but presented them in “epic proportions” before 2 “nations”. One must remember the differences between the places & times when the NT writers made extraordinary claims of deeds or miracles (and the text emphasizes witnesses, testimonies, etc), but often only before a very few (Mark often emphasizes secrecy -“tell no one”). Testimonies (like a ascension to heaven) before several of your “enemies” helps your cause more than trying to keep it hush-hush and only newsworthy before your friends & maybe a few bystanders. Someone asked “Why were gospels needed?” Feeding a few thousand people with only a little would have been news that would have spread like wildfire and remembered. A Roman Procurator (who had to see that food, water, clothing, medical care, etc were procured for several thousand Roman soldiers) would have been very, very interested in “hiring this guy and his guys” & protecting them.
I don’t know much about noachides, but I occasionally visit a website or blog like http://noahide-ancient-path.co.uk. Most Noachides seem to like being noachides, just like quite a few Christians don’t go to Church (some say “Jesus didn’t start no church” and “he didn’t come to found no new religion”) and they don’t need liturgies and rituals. Reading and studying the bible as individuals or in a family or small communal group is “all God wants” they feel. Modern Noachide movements are modern and sometimes promoted by Jewish groups, so it wouldn’t apply to traditional Muslims. But what Muslims believe is not too far from what Christians believe (except for the Jesus thing, although there are Messianic Muslims, believers in Yeshua/Jesus). Liberal Muslims sometimes quote Surah 2:62,256[19] – “Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve…let there be no compulsion in religion”. They believe that all monotheistic religions or “people of the book” have a chance of salvation, which is what Orthodox Christians believe, I read somewhere.
Con,
I can see no way in which following the Noachide Laws could be a step backward from Christianity. You are in a total contradiction. According to you, the point of Christianity is to bring the gentiles back to God. But the Noachide has already returned to God. He didn’t need Jesus to help him do that.
And as I have pointed out repeatedly, Christianity distracts from God. One exalts a human being (not qua human but qua imagined divinity), worshipping him as God. This is a step backward. As has been shown, practices intended to draw one’s attention to God are overwritten with Christological meaning and emphasis. Christianity directs one to Jesus, rather than God, a step backward.
And if we take the NT as progress forward, we might imagine another revelation to come as well. Perhaps the Law of the Spirit will be the next one, and we will learn it from Horace’s Tree. (Of course, I remind you that when Horace worships his tree, he is really worshipping the Holy Spirit and not the wood and sap of the tree. He would do nothing so gross.) And perhaps there will be another revelation beyond that one, teaching us that God is not a triune Being, but a Quadrinity, or a Quintinity, etc.) And anyone who worships one of these avatars of God will not be worshipping the human, tree, mountain, rock or what have you associated with it; he will really be worshipping the One God of the Multiplinity.
We must also imagine that Aquinas is a step forward from Abraham, as assertion I doubt you’ll affirm. But if Christianity is the way forward and following the Universal Laws of God is a step backward, then we must make Aquinas the greater and Abraham the lesser.
Along these lines, we can posit two people alive at the time of Jesus, both non-Jews. One hears of the God of Israel, studies the matter, and abandons his false gods. He is a God-fearer. Another, hearing the same message, rejects it. Years later, he joins the Christian movement and abandons his Roman gods. According to you, the first man has taken a step forward from paganism, but not as far forward as the second man. But this is absurd.
I see no way that Noachidism could be considered a step backward from Christianity. The biggest sticking point is that the Noachide worships God already, and does not need to add the worship of Jesus. It is clear that his practice is the more pure.
Jim
Con, I would add this to what Jim has said about Noachides: you have in the past confused a true halachic Noachide with someone who happens to be a monotheist and who happens to be moral. You have for example said that Islam is a Noachide faith. It is not. A halachic Noachide is someone like Jim who accepts the truth of the Torah but stops short at conversion; in short, a Biblical, ethical monotheist. How is that a step backward?
(Islam is a bad example because it practices bloodshed with abandon, so it’s not even close to Noachide.)
Jim
May I ask you a question off topic?
glarryb@gmail.com
Muddying the Waters
One of the Christian’s favorite techniques is to introduce confusion into the mix. If he can say that none of us is sure about anything, then one interpretation is no more or less acceptable than any other. The Christian does not operate from the beginning and build his interpretations that way. He is left with no other option than to obliterate starting principles.
Listening to an introductory lecture to a series for countering the counter-missionaries, the counter-counter-missionary (CCM) had six principles for understanding Messianic scriptures. (I suppose now I am acting as a counter-counter-counter-missionary, or CCCM.) I was quite struck by the first of the principles which was that Messianic prophecies are not clearly identified as such. What strikes me so much is that this is not a principle, per se. It is true, but it does not tell you what makes a Messianic prophecy. And he says that he’ll be talking to a Jewish person and they will say that the Messiah must perform X, Y, and Z. And he says, “Hold on a minute! Where does it say ‘The Messiah’ will do this?” Of course, the answer is nowhere.
Now there are two problems with his objection. One is that he affirms that the Messiah will do X, Y, and Z himself, so it is disingenuous to raise the objection. He only holds that the Messiah will do them later, and the real question is: where does it say he’ll do them on the return visit? The second problem, and it is the greater is that he gives no principle for identifying Messianic scripture; he hasn’t given a principle for identifying Messianic scripture. How does he know that the Messiah will perform X, Y, and Z, which he does hold like the Jew? This he doesn’t tell us. That is because he is more interested in tearing down foundations for knowledge than building them up.
It is a clever tactic he has discovered. By introducing doubt, one cannot object to his missionary position. His position as a counter-counter-missionary is not to establish principles for clear understanding. It is merely to erode any objection to his evangelistic claims. He works to destroy understanding.
How can the CCCM (me) respond? I too will admit that Messianic prophecies are not clearly identified as such. So how do I know what is Messianic?
First, we must direct the question at him this way: Certain prophecies were clearly understood to be messianic before the birth of Jesus. The Jew and the CCM usually agree on these. Other prophecies only were understood after the time of Jesus’ supposed fulfillment of them. These the Jew and the CCM usually do not agree on. So we see that two different principles must be at work. What is the principle for identifying the scriptures to be fulfilled in the future? What is the principle for understanding those that Jesus already fulfilled?
Once we have identified that the two sets of prophecies must be operating according to two different sets of principles, I think we can ask what principles make the agreed upon set, that which is identified as relating to the future. There, we will see that we have a promised king to reign in the future from the line of David. We will look for all the qualities those principles have in common, which is not the topic of this comment. (This is about method, not doctrine.) In fact, all of those prophecies bear certain characteristics that indicate a particular person whom we call the Messiah, but is not called the Messiah in Tanach.
The second set of prophecies do not share these characteristics. That is why they could not be identified ahead of time. Consider, if it was the common understanding that the Messiah must die for the sins of the world, would we have so many contenders for the title? Not likely. Clearly, this idea which is not linked to the future set does not share the common properties of the future set.
So what properties do the second set have? Only that they were abused and misshaped to sound Christological. The fact that they are only identified as Messianic prophecies after the fact, out-of-context, by those who already believed that they related to Jesus makes them highly suspect.
We have before us two sets of Messianic prophecy. One set is universally agreed upon. The other is not. It does not take much speculation on our part to see why the CCM wants to muddy the waters. He does not give a principle, because there is no clear principle for the second set, other than his faith tells him it relates to Jesus. Read in context, he wouldn’t come to that. Read before Jesus, he wouldn’t even know it’s Messianic. He makes them out to be Messianic after his belief. And for that reason, he has to deny all foundation of knowledge. He has to point out that Messianic scriptures are not identified, but not tell his audience how to identify them. He has to muddy the waters.
(What this has to do with the current conversation, I will leave to the reader to contemplate.)
Jim
Eric you say “Your issue with ‘stamp ‘ or ‘root’ and the hebrew words for that doesn’t change anything ”
I really cannot believe anyone would say such a thing. If that is the case then are you saying that both G-d and L_rd are essentially the same.
It’s been said over and over again that the servant (Nation) is collective and spans generations. It doesn’t mean that every individual in all the generations this would apply to. Because it refers to the nation it is how the nation is perceived and This fits the narrative And history. Just as the Egel Hazav (the golden calf) wasn’t worshiped by all Israel, but because of the Erev Rav who did G-d told Moshe he would destroy them all.
“About “seeing offspring.” It refers to the children of God, not Jesus children as he wasn’t married!”
This relates to the beginning and Why Hebrew is so important. Children of G-d is NOT what Isaiah is speaking of. The word for seed here is Zera which is Literal offspring. If it were “Children of G-d” it would have used the word Bnai. So Hebrew IS critical in understanding the text.
If Jsus said G-d is a spirit then he is completely wrong. G-d is NOT a spirit. I’ve made the point in the past that if G-d were to manifest Himself in mortal flesh the result would be the entire Universe would collapse into a singularity. This is why He cannot take on any form, or even be present on the earth. He cannot become Anything.
Sharbano, do you even know what the spirit is? You reacted as if I meant this kind of a spirit kids imagine that is coming out of a dark closet at night;-) When I said He is a spirit that means He is not in any material form. His spirit doesn’t have ‘borders’ that means He is not limited to any size- form .
The “spirit” is what is within every living creature. One cannot describe what G-d IS. One can only say what He is Not.
Sharbano, I wonder how you relate that literal offspring to the nation in regarding what was said in Is 53.
Did you mean the Jews will see their kids who died when they get resurrected or you meant simply the next generations coming to life?
The text is quite explicit. I says he will live and in so doing he will see his children being born.
Sharbano, Whose children??? next generations having children? What is the problem with the fact that. Jesus’ offspring were to be next generations to stay alive?
I’ve never heard anyone assert Jsus had any children.
Sharbano, One thing the servant in Is 53 clearly dies . He is in his death , he is in his grave, One has to be really blind not to see it. So if the servant is going to see offspring, he has to be resurrected, also the offspring HAS TO be resurrected too.
What message is in that? Only through submitting himself to God’s will by making himself an offering for guilt ( v10) the servant can be resurrected and see offspring. So will the offspring ( children of those who ever lived and their children, simply next generations ).
Back to the ‘root’ and ‘branch’ in Is 53;1 Isaiah uses 2 different expressions to describe him; a sapling and a root. According to your theory we should have a problem as sapling in hebrew is definitelly different word that ‘root’ but they are describing the same ‘subject’.
You really need to read each and every word. The keyword is “IF”. IF he would acknowledge guilt. So how do you see a Need for resurrection.
Sharbano, it would be good if you put my name if you are addressing messages to me, as I would be quicker to find what relates to me- I don’t always have time to read everybody’s comments.
You brought the word ‘if’ I am aware of it- it gives you a condition, if one action doesn’t happen , the other won’t either. So what I was saying will be clear to you if you notice the servant DIES, it is not about the nation barely alive, with a few survives, almost vanished but still there, but the servant is literally dead ( in Is 53). If the servant met the condition of ‘ him acknowledging guilt… , he was to see offspring, but that can’t happen until he is back to life. That’s what I meant he brings resurrection.
If you see the servant in this chapter as the nation, you don’t take the servant as literally dead.
Then your ‘seeing offspring’ refers to just new generations being born, while the previous died or keep dying.
Eric,
Sorry about that. This format leaves me not considering the need. You might say I just want to get to the point because a flood of thoughts come to mind and unable to write fast enough.
I’m looking at that verse, 10, I think, grammatically in a logic sense, not unlike digital logic. If it were a programming statement it would be If ( x then y. ). You can also have If, then, else. This applies to the science of logic but also applies in applications such as this.
Therefore it says It pleased Hashem… (:) Then it goes to the if. After the if all these good things will come to pass and Then shall be satisfied (;). Then the subject matter goes to something different.
Sharbano, I don’t mean God and Lord are the same words, but what I meant is God used different COMPARISONS to describe a situation or a person. Just like He calls His ‘Branch’ with different names throughout the prophets.
As the saying goes, words mean things and the language used determines its meanings. You may want to “make comparison” but that is You. When you try to understand something based upon a translation that invariably introduces misconceptions. As Josephus said, he used the word “Law” for the Hebrew word Torah. It’s obvious to anyone that Torah does NOT mean law. But Josephus was left with a predicament of conveying a principle. In order to make a certain point the choice of that word worked for the purpose intended. But that in itself introduced a “distortion”. This is why your associating two words as being synonymous is a distortion. This is why I mentioned the two references, G-d and L-rd. They may represent the same but the meanings are Not the same.
Con,
When you assert that Mormon corporealism, worshipping Jesus alone is heresy and whatever other Christian sect’s creed is heresy, because it does not conform to your Christianity, you violate the spirit of inclusionism you are trying to impose here. If one of us says that the DSS or Philo are not legitimate interpretations of Judaism, you deny us that claim. But here you are choosing which Christian creed shall be accepted and what rejected. It seems that you are the final arbiter on what is Christian and what is Jewish.
Jim
Jim, I’m not meaning to suggest that those divergent Christian positions such as Mormonism, adoptionist views, or Gnosticism don’t exist, or that they couldn’t possibly fit the NT text at all, merely that the Orthodox catholic and mainline Protestant denominations don’t understand the text that way.
You are perfectly and consistently able to say that your traditional position doesn’t accept Philo, or the DSS, or their exact methods (though there are some similarities and resonances.) I am meaning to suggest that such diversity of interpretations, even when those interpretations seem to be mutually exclusive, nonetheless would be consistent with the hypothesis of a transmission of teaching over thousands of years in diverse situations.
I don’t mean to suggest a direct teacher to student line of transmission in a one to one fashion between groups, but rather transmission similar to how we find such situations present in various fields of knowledge and everyday life situations. A Milieu if you will. Take the claims found in various different groups to being the exclusive interpreters of scripture. The rabbis make this claim in modern times. In second temple times, we know that the Sadducees made this same exact claim, and that the two schools of thought (which had some mutually exclusive interpretations unique to themselves) argued about who if anyone in fact had that authority legitimately.
Modern manifestations of Judaism arose from the climate of those kind of discussions, as did the Churches. We see typical struggles for power and authority in this situation, telling us and showing us clearly that there indeed was a living breathing non monolithic community, or communities.
You can surely make the claim to hold the authoritative view, that’s fine, but to confine either Christian or Jewish tradition to say, this is the only correct reading, inevitably limits claims of historic continuity. In other words, part of what constitutes being the official “true” position includes the role of dialogue and disagreement with the fringe groups, and the role that this discussion plays in ones own identity formation.
Nobody would say for instance that Mormon corporealism, gnostic, or adoptionist (full Unitarian perspectives) are not a part of the broader Christian historical experience at all, but we would note that the tradition and dialogue over time has lead to what we consider today and back then as the correct position.
You have said that it is disingenuous to quote from something like the DSS or Philo because the Church was not an inheritor in the direct line of the tradition or the given person’s opinions. We know from everyday life though that community and identity, ideology, etc. forms out of a constant dialogue and mixing of ideas in society (sometimes without intention.) do you see what I’m trying to say?
You don’t always need in life or traditional transmission to have a one to one direct line. It’s sort of similar to how two geographically distinct places can have two very similar ideas without having had any contact. The Chinese and Europeans both “invented” printing, but there was no one to one contact.
My parallels drawn from Philo and the DSS were only meant to show the possibility that these ideas had a place in the literary culture, and so might, and I stress might, have been common literary practice. I was not meaning to draw a 1 to 1 this is “absolute proof” kind of comparison. I hope that clarifies my intentions a bit?
Also, I’m willing to accept that Jews don’t see those texts in DSS or Philo as authoritative or representative of Judaism, as Christians don’t see Mormonism as legitimate, or representative of Christianity, but I would say that taken as a whole, I cannot be consistent in claiming a historic chain of Christian tradition, if I don’t understand those other “heretical” views as authentic expressions of the religious dialogue that stimulated identity formation. Let me know if you understand what I’m trying to say.
If you are going to claim an oral tradition in Xtianity then you should be able to name those people IN that transmission. Let’s see the list.
There is a list of the succession of the bishops in Rome from Eusebius, but you wouldn’t necessarily accept that as evidence of preserved transmission, so I don’t see the point in posting it. I could if you still want me to. If I am going to be honest with myself, I have to say, that that kind of proof is as cheap as proof texting. We have faith that Moses delivered the Torah, and (for Christians) that witnesses wrote the gospels, but making the claim that this is so, is not the same as knowledge that this is so. Names in a book are just that, unless we can check, and we’ve already established that the claims made are unique and both aren’t subject to the same kind of checking that every other event in history is subject to. So I don’t see the point.
Con, the gospels frequently engage in proof texting. Why do you dismiss it as cheap?
Dina, Just because Christians today, or in the 4th century read the gospel usage of say Isaiah 7:14 as meaning virgin as a “proof” that Isaiah meant to say virgin originally, doesn’t mean that the author of the text, whoever wrote Mathew, meant it as a literal proof text in the way we think of such today. There is evidence (note I’m not saying proof) but evidence that a literary usage like fulfillment literature (this was spoken in order to fulfill that) could be used to speak about contemporary historical events or recent traditions through using that prophetic language. So, for instance, Matthew’s author may have received through his own community tradition, that Jesus was born of a virgin in some sense. So when he wrote his gospel he said, “thus it was spoken by Isaiah he shall be born of a maiden/virgin. It’s not necessarily the case that the author of Mathew actually thought Isaiah meant what he (Matthew’s author) was saying literally, maybe the author of Mathew was communicating what he personally received contemporaneously using the themes found in the prophetic books, such as the birth of a person who served as a miraculous sign of deliverance. See what I mean? There is a plugging in of verses from the Prophets, but it doesn’t mean that the author was transmitting what he believed Isaiah actually taught. He may be using the themes to communicate his own received history.
Con, you’re using words like “could be,” “may have,” “not necessarily the case.” I’m not interested in speculation. We don’t know Matthew and we can’t ask him what he may have meant. All we have is the text, and the text is quite plainly using proof texts, say what you will.
You wrote: “Just because Christians today, or in the 4th century read the gospel usage of say Isaiah 7:14 as meaning virgin as a “proof” that Isaiah meant to say virgin originally, doesn’t mean that the author of the text, whoever wrote Mathew, meant it as a literal proof text in the way we think of such today.”
This is stunning. You are implying that Christians have misunderstood the gospels’ use of Tanach pretty nearly from the beginning. You are implying that Christians even today misunderstand it. But, you, Con (and a handful of modern day scholars, I suppose), do understand it. You know what billions of Christians preceding you for nearly 2000 years did not know. I know you don’t mean to come across this way, but I think it takes a lot of hubris to believe that.
My point still stands. Your dismissal of proof texts makes no sense in light of the gospels’ clear and plain usage of it.
Furthermore, it is cynical to dismiss the proofs in the gospels this way. One way to evaluate the claims of the New Testament is to compare it to the Torah from which it claims its authority. Every time a Jew will point to an instance in the NT where a verse is mistranslated, quoted out of context, or fabricated, you can always dismiss it by saying, “Oh, you superficial reader, that’s not what the NT means. The NT is not using these verses as proof, you person who hasn’t studied the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Pseudepigrapha. The NT authors may be conveying ideas they received using themes from Tanach!”
Why is this not at least as self-serving as you have said some of my arguments are?
I’m not saying Christians are or have been misusing or blithely misreading, the gospel teaches clearly that Jesus was virgin born and other things, though some early Christians disagreed. I was criticizing the (case closed) common modern understanding of the idea of a “proof text.” Scholars don’t claim absolute knowledge, they seek a higher level of inquiry than the average reader, and that scholarship has been going on for a long time. Sometimes a degree of “speculation,” or more accurately, reasonable guesswork is all modern people can do when a text is thousands of years old. Doesn’t it seem slightly more likely that the author was drawing a themeatic parallel as opposed to an intentional misquote? I always hear how Christians twisted contorted, mistranslated, ruined, etc. When your literature does the same things you call it deep wisdom, secrets of Torah, issues too deep for those who don’t know Hebrew to understand. It’s all a matter of your perspective, respectfully.
Why are you getting so defensive? There are a great many religious NT commentaries that say things exactly like what I’m saying, not just critical scholarship. You have every right to your perspective, and I’m not doubting that.
Con, our literature does not do the same thing because in our tradition the plain meaning of the text is the primary meaning. Any additional layers of meaning, such as Midrash, yes, we do consider deep and wise–but we do not say that the plain meaning doesn’t mean what it plainly says.
Yet that is what you are asserting–that the gospels use of Tanach is not meant to be used as proof–although the plain meaning contradicts your assertion.
Then you give me two options: either the author is “drawing a thematic parallel” (what thematic parallels you see, I do not), or the author is intentionally misquoting. To you option one makes more sense.
There is a third option: the author was so enamored of Jesus that he read him into the text; if he had been more objective he would not have done this. Jim has shown, in Horace’s Tree, how it is possible to read almost anything into Tanach, with the best and sincerest of intentions.
Along with the third option is that the author did not speak Hebrew and had to rely on a second-hand source–the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Finally, you did say that Christians both ancient and modern (fourth-century Christians were not relying on a thousands-year-old text) were not necessarily correctly understanding the use of Tanach by NT authors. It’s frustrating to me that when I respond to what you wrote, you say that’s not what you said. You wrote that when these Christians see the virgin birth prophecy quoted by Matthew as proof, that’s not necessarily what Matthew had in mind. That’s what I was responding to. That point still stands, unless you want to retract this.
Furthermore, Matthew does say that Isaiah says the child will be born of a virgin. I don’t see how you can around the fact that this is a scriptural error, no matter how you slice it. And what about “And he shall be called a Nazarene,” found nowhere in Tanach?
” I always hear how Christians twisted contorted, mistranslated, ruined, etc. When your literature does the same things you call it deep wisdom, secrets of Torah, issues too deep for those who don’t know Hebrew to understand. It’s all a matter of your perspective, respectfully.”
I’d say you are over-simplifying the comparison far too much. You may assume that about Hebrew but since Hebrew defines the essence it allows for greater depth. It’s the reason G-d doesn’t have a “name”. A name would define the essence and that endeavor is not possible. The Torah wasn’t written merely to pass on information. If it were the information would have taken volumes. Instead, it was written in such a way that when read causes a person to ask questions. As a result those questions would require answers. In that way an Oral Tradition takes on a life. By reading that pasuk it makes it easier to remember the explanation. Xtianity, on the other hand, has no such tradition. Xtianity, invariably, says the scripture must be read literally. When the text references a place in Tanach it surely is making a direct connection. When speaking of deep secrets, Pardes, this doesn’t discount the pshat. Pshat is much what the Talmud discusses. In other words there’s just no way to compare Xtianity and Judaism.
What then is That oral tradition. Within Judaism it was Strictly oral until Yehuda HaNasi, when he realized it wouldn’t sustain itself in the events of the time. It then became Written, and thereafter there has been written copies. The question remains, where and what is this oral tradition of Xtianity. And if you want to dismiss it as irrelevant to any evidence of transmission then you would have to conclude that every written document throughout history is a lack of evidence. If you are going to suggest This, then why bother with ANY study of “comparative religions”. You have thus left the scholastic and ventured into the antagonist. I have to wonder if this is the methodology of scholastic endeavor to continuously dismiss any opposing ideas. I suspect you simply do not want to Accept the Jewish narrative and will use any means of dismissal.
Groups were writing down there group’s unique views of Halacha before the Mishna Sharbano. The apocrypha, Dss, and pseudepigrapha, show some evidence of that as early as 1 century BCE.
Sharbano, what exactly does Hebrew define the essence of? G-d has many names, only one of which (Hashem) can denote in any way what he is as it relates to us, the rest tell us how he relates to us. What do you make of it though Sharbano when people understand the plain sense differently? There are times when different rabbis read it differently.
It started when Adam came to name the animals. Each letter and parts of letters have a meaning and he used that to construct a name for the animal that matched its essence. It is reflected in the fact that the word in Hebrew for a “word”, and the word for a “thing”, are the same word, Davar. In English “word” and “thing” are different.
When G-d uses a “Name” or His name is written it is telling us what attribute is being employed. When Moshe asked His name G-d says Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh, I will be what I will be. In simple terms he will be “this” at such and such a time, and something else at another time. The two main usages, G-d (Elokim) brings about strict justice whereas Hashem, the Tetragrammaton, the ineffable name, brings with it mercy. If it says L-rd G-d then we can say a measure of justice with mercy is brought. So, when Moshe asked for G-d’s name he is asking in what merit does He come. Does He come bringing with Him strict justice or will He come with mercy to the nation.
Con,
Sometimes people look for more to serving God than is necessary. They want special rituals, a formula, something to raise their emotions and make them feel closer to God, whether or not they are actually closer to God. The desire to fulfill this religious emotion has led to great errors. People replace truth with “spirituality”, and invest themselves in all sorts of false practices that make them feel spiritual, closer to the divine, or “one with the universe”. Instead of getting closer to God, however, most of these practices take one further from God and into serving the product of one’s imagination.
This is a difficulty for many people. I have met Noachides who do not feel that there is enough service to God in obeying his commands. The fact that the Universal Laws are mostly, although not entirely, prohibitions, leaves some Noachides with a sense that they count less than the Jewish people, who have been given specific practices. The restraints placed upon their lives do not feel like service to them, and some have been tempted to create their own forms of worship. However, doing so does not bring one actually closer to God; it only placates the religious emotion. Sadly, they have not understood that adherence to the Universal Laws is service to God.
One may keep the Laws in one of two ways, incidentally or intentionally. When one keeps them incidentally, he does not observe the Laws because they are God’s Laws, but because society accepts them, or he fears reprisal if he breaks them, or he finds them sensible. He may, for example, refrain from stealing, because he understands that no society can exist when people do not respect the property rights of others. This self-restraint he practices is good, but he does not do it to keep God’s Law. He has only kept God’s Law incidentally.
One keeps the Laws intentionally when he does so because they are God’s Laws. Keeping the Universal Laws takes on the character of obedience to God. His self-restraint takes on the character of righteousness. And when he reflects on the Laws and sees that his actions submit him to the expressed will of God, he does not need to invent a service to perform for God. He is not seeking to titillate his own emotions; he is seeking to follow the Command of God. Such a man will not denigrate them because they are prohibitions. He knows that no Law authored by God is inferior.
On the other hand, some will feel that because they already do not steal that there is nothing special in not stealing. These have not avoided theft because of God’s command. Their actions are not devoted to God. Their self-restraint is not an act of devotion to God. They have not spent time thinking about these acts as obedience. They are too busy looking for something they can perform for God. What they do not realize is that God needs nothing, and there is nothing they can do for Him. They can only do what He has required.
Such people are like a husband who knows that his wife would appreciate him not leaving wet towels on the floor, taking off muddy boots before he comes in, and the like, but he does not do these small things that would show consideration of her feelings. He is always looking for some big gesture that will make him feel pleased with himself for his grandiosity. It is not her feelings with which he is concerned; it is his own.
Such people sometimes look to emulate the Jewish people. They feel that they have been denied something in lacking practice. They adopt Jewish practice, and it makes them feel good. And it is easy, because it is not required of them. They do it because they want to do it. But if it were to become a command to them, they would become rebellious. Once it becomes a requirement, the natural human propensity to resist command kicks in. They do not find themselves so pleased by the same actions as when it was not required.
If only they had sought to please God and not themselves, they would have been enriched by His Commands. They would become mindful of even minor violations. They would avoid taking extra ketchup packets from fast food restaurants when they have none at home, because they wish to obey God. To guard themselves, they would study the details of His Laws, and be mindful of them at all times. Their minds would be turned to God constantly. If they take on more commands later, it will be with wisdom, studied and thoughtful, mindful of their God, not attempting to please themselves. They would seek to understand His Torah, and not look for an interpretation that fit their philosophy. They would submit their judgment to His.
Such being the case, they will find that the prohibitions of the Universal Law are fulfilling. They are not without power to bring one close to God. Those Laws allow humanity to honor God daily. They may not give one an ecstatic experience, but they are the mark of devotion. And no Noachide who truly keeps the Seven Laws need ever feel like they are lesser children.
Jim
Con, I would like to add something to this excellent comment by Jim. You disagreed with me that Islam is a Noachide faith. There is no such thing as a Noachide faith, because a Noachide accepts traditional Judaism as the only truth. Islam does not. Furthermore, Islam condones, in fact encourages, bloodshed–one of the prohibitions included in the seven Noachide laws.
Again, there is no such thing as a Noachide faith. There are only Noachides.
I also challenged you on the notion that gentiles need Christianity over being Noachides because of the spiritual experience. I asked you if that is how you determine truth–based on the spiritual experience. You took great umbrage at that, yet you keep asserting that the Noachide way can’t be right because it doesn’t provide the kind of experience you seek. But worshiping God isn’t about seeking the right kind of spiritual experience; it’s about obeying God and doing what *He* wants, not what *I* want.
Jim, Don’t you find that you are inadvertently reading a lot of nefarious intent (unintentionally I know) or somehow weakness to these people who want to serve G-d without actually knowing their motivations? You seem to think that their need is self serving or motivated by a sinful desire? Following the commands as G-d has given them requires the formation of the basis of trust (such as G-d has given example of for the Jewish people at Sinai and in Exodus.) it’s not a matter of satisfying a personal emotional need, but of legitimately needing the impetus for sincere service that one has in a covenant commitment. Many noachides convert to Judaism for this reason. When an individual keeps the commands of G-d because G-d has commanded them, he can do so out of fear of reprisal, awe, or love of G-d as you say. The issue is that fear, awe, and love of G-d do not really require, and the Noachide laws do not directly present the specific notion of G-d that we find in scripture. G-d can be in this instance for a noachide, a vacuum of possible definitions, that happen to conform to the noachide precepts. For a person under Noachide law (who accepts G-d’s oneness, incorporeality, otherness, and the moral and practical requirements,) has not been shown to know as Jews have, so his service while good, pleasing to G-d, and adequate, lends itself to the very inventing of religious observances that you are proposing because it’s missing a component. To put it another way, the struggling noachide has precepts that were never given to him, to his community, face to face. Noachides walk the line of maintaining and creating new rituals because while they believe the G-d of the bible has given these commands, it was not to them, or their ancestors. Israel has served as the gateway for revealing these noachide commands to Gentiles, has been a mediator of sorts, saying “btw you guys forgot that G-d spoke to Noah your way distant ancestor, which means you should probably do these mitzvot.” It’s not mere emotion when you have a relationship that screams, (separate but equal.) btw there is no such thing as separate but equal. When reading about noachide laws, the noachide prayers, involvement of noachides in the holidays, etc, even testimony from Noachides I have seen, there is a sense of “blessed is their G-d, who did all this stuff for Israel, and thank you that I have been of the fortunate few to learn.” I’m not saying that Noachides are unfulfilled, I’m saying that the situation is such (and will be such) that they will thirst for more direct intimacy, and while that is emotional, it’s an essential component of being a human being, and a child of G-d.
http://www.wikinoah.org/index.php/Islam_and_Noahide_Law
Ok, so while Muskims do not count as strictly defined Ger Toshav, there seems there is much discussion as to a Noachide status to the religion.
Con, needing to accept the truth of Judaism is not necessarily agreed upon, but to deny it is another story.
Islam cannot be considered Noachide because it explicitly denies the truth of Judaism. But even worse, it justifies murder.
Con,
I have identified a source of error. I am not passing judgment on those who find dissatisfaction with the Seven Laws. Those who have come out of a prior religion, in particular, are bound to grope with the need to fill in a void. They are used to performing particular acts, many of which they have just renounced. Moreover, those things pleased the emotions. And now they have seemingly nothing to please the emotions. There is nothing nefarious in this. I am not judging people. It is, however, a source of error.
To correct the error, we must understand that the Laws given to us are good and by fulfilling them we are living a life of devotion. And that life is not one designed specifically to appeal to our emotions. Still, I think that anyone who understands those commandments, who turns his attention to the Creator will find himself fulfilled emotionally, for he will have directed his energies to something real.
I think if you will reread your comment to me, you will see that you have illustrated my point. You write that all the prayers of thanks on the holidays regard Israel. The poor Noachide who has this attitude is asking God, “What have you done for me lately?” Of course he should be offering his gratitude to God on behalf of the good given him by God. Is there any human who brought himself into existence? When I prayed this morning, I thanked Hashem for my wife and children, and the life that we have together. What human being can find himself contemplating his very existence and complain that God did not part the waters for my fathers? Let him thank God for his previous breath.
A Noachide who feels that God has done nothing for him does not truly understand the situation at all. I can find no reason for jealousy in the Noachide chest. And yet, I do give thanks for the things God did for Israel. I am very thankful for the nation that has preserved the knowledge of God in the world while my ancestors followed after their vain imaginations. I am thankful for that priestly nation which has carried the Torah, a burden made heavy by the nations who oppressed them. So yes, I offer thanks for God’s preservation of Israel, because it has redounded to my good. Let no Noachide feel inferior for having no national miracle, for every miracle performed for Israel has benefited us.
Let those who wish to convert, convert. It is a good thing. I said nothing against those who wish to convert. But if they wish to convert, I hope it is not because they feel less than the Jew. The Jewish people have performed a valuable service for us. We should give them our gratitude, not our envy. Let those who wish to convert do it for love. I write nothing against conversion, but like anything else in life, if done for the wrong reasons, it will not benefit the convert. He is likely to find himself eventually dissatisfied.
I could not write against conversion, for I and my family wish to convert as well. But if ever we want to do it because we think that it is not “good enough” to be Noachides, then let it not happen. If we do it because we feel envious that others have Pesach, tefillin, or mezuzot, may we never convert. If we don’t do it for love of God, love of Torah, and love of the Jewish people, may it never happen.
But please do not think that because I identify the source of error means that I think ill of people. Every human I have ever met has made mistakes. Most of the big one’s to which I have been witness, I have also been the source. But when we recognize an error, we must take steps to correct it. The Noachide who feels he cannot draw close to God through the Noachide Laws does not yet understand them properly.
Jim
I can’t speak to an “emotional” attachment since I never had that kind of attachment. Even though not growing up in a frum environment I came to it from a standpoint of first understanding the real possibility of a higher power. Because of that, I couldn’t help but approach it from an intellectual perspective. Therefore I cannot understand the “need” for such attachment. What I do is, take pleasure in the joy of Torah learning and all it intricacies. It is overwhelmingly fantastic.
A person could fill a need by learning the intricacies, or. even look to see the hidden aspect of G_d that lies just under the surface. This seeing takes a great deal of practice. It seems to take years to develop the capability to see. But the more a person looks the more is revealed. It goes without saying, giving thanks to Hashem for this accelerates the process. I don’t know if it is possible without Torah learning to accompany it. As Rabbi Akiva noticed, if drops of water can hollow out a rock then learning Torah bit by bit will be worthwhile. As a result he became one of the greatest Rabbis of all time. I couldn’t begin to suggest to a Noachide how to handle his predicament if he only is looking for rituals.
Jim, I found this very moving and inspiring.
Dina,
I am glad. Thank you.
Jim
I here what you guys are saying, again I’m not trying to disparage, just to show what I’ve noticed through talking to people, and hearing testimony. The Torah is full to the brim with intricacies, and is dependable for very solid and mature spirituality.
CR,
I would say this. When a Jew does a Mitzvah he is taking the mundane and raising it to a spiritual level but I don’t know if that qualifies as a “spiritual experience”.
I can see what you mean, but there are immense spiritual overtones and undertones, don’t you think?
Concerned Reader
I hope to get back to your arguments about “unique claim” in the near future. At this time I will limit myself to one point – and that is that you fail to consider what the Bible itself says about your arguments – The Torah expects us to accept the belief system on the basis of the testimony of our ancestors – bolstered by the unique claim argument.
And the Torah points to the knowledge of living Jews as the valid repository of information to help us identify who to worship
When you consider these points you will realize that your argument is with the Torah and not with me
Maybe, rabbi, maybe. I don’t know.
Btw I meant to post this response earlier
do you really think that I am not aware of events with national impact? Do you think that I never heard of the holocaust? How stupid do you think I am?
I do not think you are stupid at all rabbi, quite the contrary, I actually quite enjoy your lectures. But I think you are using an argument in this specific case that you would not use or accept as credible to demonstrate the probability of any other event. You have constructed a unique category for the Torah as a means of determining the plausibility or weight of this claim.
The point of the claim is that people have a tendency to believe that they encountered the divine – the proof to that is that so many people came up with this claim. All of these claims fit a certain pattern while one doesn’t – instead it fits into a different pattern.
I realize that this claim to national revelation doesn’t fit the average mythic pattern, at least in this case. In the case of the events before Sinai recorded in Torah, however, such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their experiences, Torah does fit the classical pattern of myth formation that other claims follow.
All the claims focus on events (again not interpretations or philosophy – events) that would not leave corroborative evidence on a wide scale even a few years later – such as faith healings, post-death sightings, and revelations to individuals. Only one claim for an encounter with God focuses on Hiroshima, holocaust type events.
This lends great weight to the validity of that claim.
In what sense does this lend great weight? It merely shows uniqueness of the claim, and perhaps a greater probability of truth. The holocoust and Hiroshima (like any other historical event) are not just unique claims or occurrences, but they are corroborated by multiple types of evidence, even by those people who caused the calamities. As I’ve said, your claim is unique, but I do not see why this event’s credibility should receive special treatment solely because it is unique. Your saying that the Torah is relaying an event, why isn’t it subject to the same standards of inquiry as any other historical event?
That’s all. is that so hard to understand? what does this have to do with special pleading?
The Torah is relaying a proposed historical event, but none of the data presented that we would use to determine historical accuracy in every other case is deemed by you as being an appropriate base of comparison because the claim is not unique enough.
How is there any objectivity possible here?
Your comparison still suffers under analysis. Even though the Holocaust was a significant event and the same goes with any Other event, the issue is the Holocaust was not experienced by the entire Jewish nation. And This is the Torah’s point. Moshe says all of you, the Entire Nation of Israel witnessed This event. That is why the statement is So profound. In making that statement the likelihood of it ever happening again is virtually impossible. Therefore, that impossibility doesn’t leave Any room for someone coming later to claim a “new covenant” or any other worship.
Sharbano….they witnessed all but how many kept believing God despite such a great
witness ??? It is not about the number .
Eric did you even read the subject matter. Moshe DID say it was about the number!!! and it is on that basis that any further revelation has to be compared to.
The better question is: how many didn’t. Very very few, and among those were the Egyptians.
Sharbano, I didn’t mean believing just a sign of revelation but continuing trusting God on the way to the promised land. Did it take much to forgot all the promises when Moses was away for a while with God? What did the people do? Went back to the statue worship! That is what I meant. God wants peoples trust not just ‘oh I believed that sign’ “, “that was a revelation” but I don’t trust you ( God) anymore.
Eric,
Went Back to Statue Worship??? The Torah doesn’t say the Israelites worshiped the calf. It was the Erev Rav who instigated the episode. What does Aaron say, “a festival For Hashem tomorrow”.
Eric, as Rabbi B. told Con, your argument is not with us but with the Torah. The Torah itself tells us this. See Deuteronomy 4.
That’s not what I’m arguing Sharbano. Rabbi B mentioned comparison to the Shoah not me. The issue I’m having is that this argument is one of special pleading when no other historical event is deemed to be an acceptable basis for comparison or study. Further the argument begs the question because it uses the narrative in question, (Torah) to demonstrate that Torah is true. Again, and I can’t stress this enough, this argument says nothing about whether the supposed historical event of the Exodus or Sinai is true, it only makes a case for the probability that it’s true. The supposed fact that this historical event cannot be compared to any other known event, means that the claim cannot be checked. A claim that cannot be checked is a common problem in a myth formation scenario according to rabbi Kellerman’s lecture posted by you, and by Dina.
C.R.
“The supposed fact that this historical event cannot be compared to any other known event, means that the claim cannot be checked. A claim that cannot be checked is a common problem in a myth formation scenario according to rabbi Kellerman’s lecture posted by you, and by Dina.”
And yet, you believe that Jesus is the messiah.
Concerned Reader
I never claimed “special treatment” – in other words – I don’t see how I am treating this event different than others. In every other event that impacted nations, and which drastically affected the lives of many in a practical way and whose veracity is testified to by a nation that is descendant from the original nation of witnesses – and this event is one which could have been easily corroborated at the time and for some time after – I would accept it.
That’s right rabbi, you would accept a historical claim that is corroborated by a wide degree and range of evidence, but the Torah has no corroboration like this for the claimed event.
You are judging the Torah’s claim as credible due to the uniqueness of the claim, (the fact that no other nation has made a similar claim, and that there is no pattern of human behavior that accounts for it) without any other outside Data.
You would never accept an event as historically accurate if the only testimony you had was a witness with a stake in the claim in question. Imagine if the only testimony from the dropping of the Atomic bomb on Japan, was the national testimony of the Japanese people. Would you accept that claim without corroborating evidence from other nations?
I didn’t say you personally sought special treatment, but that you are putting forward a unique standard and type of evidence for the Torah, that you would not accept for any other claimed historical event.
If I were to claim that a whole nation experienced something unique and transmitted the testimony of this event to their national descendants, I would require testimony from an unaffiliated group or outside source to corroborate that claim, no matter how unique or outside the realm of normal human behavior the claim was.
Do you see the issue I’m having? If you think I’m misunderstanding you, I’m sorry.
Eric
I will try to get into more detail in the near future but for now I will point out that your arguments are made without considering Scripture.
Israel has God’s spirit upon them – Isaiah 59:21, we are God’s anointed Psalm 105:15 and Isaiah 61:6 (priests are called into a special service – i.e. anointed)
Furthermore – your lack of comprehension of Isaiah’s role in the history of mankind is astounding. Isaiah is the prophet through whom God gave hope to mankind – all Christianity did was ride Isaiah’s good news and claim it for themselves – but it is the Isaiah theme that gives people hope.
Read this – https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/christianity-unmasked/
ypfriend, That is easy to say “my arguments are made without considering Scripture” Give me examples because every though I wrote is supported by words/verses in the scriptures I keep listing.
As far as Isaiah- of course – HIS message is what gives hope to all, and the message has the content and the content tells you something ; about WHAT IS the hope, what is the reason for joy. And that hope is the promised redeemer for all people so that is what people ( Christians) focus on, not just on Isaiah’s person itself. If you read my messages more carefully you will get the points I meant.
God brought the message about salvation and redemption through Jewish prophets. And all the Jews who recognized their Messiah brought it more to the world. They are the light to gentiles that there is God and there is forgiveness that our sins are paid if we turn to God. That is how they are the witness to gentiles; Is 65;1 God says;” I was access able to those who didn’t ask . I said ;Here I am . Here I am to a nation not called by my name.”
Is 55;3-5 Incline your ear….and come to me… I will make an eternal covenant with you , the enduring kindness promised to David.. Behold I have appointed HIM as a witness over the regimes, a prince and a commander to the regimes ( or in JPS translation; ” and prince and commander of peoples and I made HIM a leader of peoples so YOU shall summon a nation you did not know and a nation that did not know you shall come running to you , for the sake of the Lord, the Holy One of Israel who has glorified YOU.” Future blessings brought by the descendant of David.( the Messiah)
You listed a verse Is 59;21 that is talking about the future after the Messiah already came to reign and time of new covenant.
Eric
I gave you examples of your not listening to Scripture – you just provided another one – Isaiah 59:21 says “from now” – you also forgot Haggai 2:5
I’ll get back to you about the roles of the prophet and the Messiah next week
ypfriend, It is not even about who has the spirit. The question is did all Jews give a true testimony? No; Is 3;12
” O my people , your leaders mislead you and they have corrupted the direction of your ways.”
Lets imagine I am living at their times and hold on to the words ‘ you are the light’. Do I end up with th truth? No, if I hold on blindly the the teaching of those leaders. So arguing about the spirit won’t change anything. Even those with the ‘spirit’ could mislead people.
I will make it easy for you. At least you agree Is 42 ;1-4 is messianic. ” He will not slacken nor tire until he sets justice in the land and the islands will long for HIS TEACHING.”
The same facts are in Is 11;10. ‘standing as a banner to the peoples and nations will seek him..” So why is His teaching above yours?
So if they will come to you ( your nation) they will come because they will seek him and God . They will seek his teaching that will come from God ( without any errors) because he will be able to approach God more than any other man ( Jer 30;21) he will be very close to HIm,
So is he excluded from being the light to the gentiles??? Definitely not!
Also you keep bringing the verses of the nation after it will be restored in the messiah’s time after redemption. Do you know that untill that happens you are the witness of the right things?
Messianic Jews believe the same.
I showed you in the scriptures how many facts are there that the Messiah is also sharing with the nation. He can be the light to the gentiles, ( Is 11;10) he will share in exaltation.
Ps 89; 24, 27. Ps 2;6-8 , Is 11;10 ( king on a Zion above all other kings) , he will share in gathering and restoring the remnant of Israel Is 11;11, so he can share in what Is 49 ;5-7 is talking about . If he is sharing in that , he is sharing the words of is 53, too..
Last thing ; Ezek 36;26 and 11;19 says” I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you. I wil remove a heart from stone of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I WILL PUT MY SPIRIT WITHIN YOU and so on…”
So what are you missing now, that God will have to do such a change?
C.R.
“The supposed fact that this historical event cannot be compared to any other known event, means that the claim cannot be checked. A claim that cannot be checked is a common problem in a myth formation scenario according to rabbi Kellerman’s lecture posted by you, and by Dina.”
And yet, you believe that Jesus is the messiah.
LarryB I am not the one claiming that the Torah must meet this national revelation standard in order to have legitimate truth value and validation. As I’ve mentioned before, there is revelation in the Torah before the national revelation. My point is, that the claims that Jews and Christians make are faith claims first, and the only thing that either of our communities can actually comment on, is the probability that the events happened, the rest is faith. When people cast doubt on Christianity, such as the historicity of Jesus, doubting that Jesus brought knowledge of G-d, doubting Christian monotheism, rejecting parallels found in Jewish history and writings, etc. it casts some doubt in the mind about Judaism’s claims inevitably. It’s true that Christianity is making claims about Judaism, but if it is wrong, it’s more likely that both claims are wrong because neither claim can be truly checked in the sense that every other claim can be.
So, what am I getting at? You can come up with every argument under the sun for why the Christian faith is idolatrous, false, not sincere, not Jewish, etc. but we can demonstrate using some of the writings here, and careful study to note that in fact Christianity needn’t be against Judaism or Torah ethics, has a monotheistic faith that only bears skin deep resemblance to polytheism, has sincere followers (that though they are different in their perspective) are not horrible, and that these people have as much biblical reason for their faith as you do for yours.
Just quickly, Con:
I agree with your last paragraph to Larry, namely that:
1. “Christianity needn’t be against Judaism or Torah ethics.”
2. “Has a monotheistic faith that only bears skin deep resemblance to polytheism” (I would only add that it is a lesser form of monotheism, that it’s not pure monotheism).
3. “Has sincere followers (that though they are different in their perspective) are not horrible” (did we say you are horrible? How many times to do I have to say we are not passing judgment on Christians but merely evaluating a claim?).
However, that does not mean Christianity is true.
I disagree with number 4, that “these people have as much biblical reason for their faith as you do for yours.”
The Hebrew Bible has warned us about a faith such as yours being false (Deuteronomy 13:1-6). So you have no Biblical foundation for your belief. None at all.
C.R.
Give me a break!
We are not the ones developing any argument under the sun defending the torahs teaching. It is Christianity who shoves Jesus into the Torah.
LarryB we can argue until the cows come home about interpretation of verses, but even those traditional interpretations of verses do not mean the end of possibilities for those verses. Even if we state that the messiah must regather the people, rebuild the Temple, bring peace, etc. it’s a known fact that scripture makes these things contingent upon repentance, and further, that Israel can be in the land, with a temple, studying Torah, and still not fit with the prophetic picture of redemption found in the book. This is why both interpretations of the servant song, Israel and messiah as servant, have merit.
But an interpretation specific to Jesus, an interpretation specific to the notion that he, a sinless human being, died for the sins of all mankind, an interpretation specific to the notion that you are saved from your sins only if you accept Jesus as your Messiah–these interpretations of Isaiah 53 are indeed without merit.
Dina, You would understand ‘our interpretation’ if you would identify himself with the words spoken long before in Is 63;17 ” Why Hashem do you let us stray from your paths, letting our heart become hardened from fearing You?….” Then you would see that you didn’t suffer for us ( because of words in Is 53 ;6 ) but somebody come to suffer for you and brought a REAL healing and justification of God.
Nobody who comes to God and repents and accepts God’s forgiveness doesn’t ‘connect ‘it with the merits of suffering nation but understands that a specific servant literally took your sins as his own and paid for them.
As far as the words of ‘accepting Jesus and being saved”
Let go back for a moment ‘ to the future’ and let’s imagine we are living in the Messianic kingdom where we have no doubts the Messiah’s teaching is from God. Whoever will accept his teaching , will accept God, whoever will want to reject the King Messiah and his words , will be the same as wanting to reject God. So each time we say’ we accepted Jesus’ we mean we accepted God’s message, No different like it will be in the future. . If God can “make our sins as withe as a snow” according to Is 1;18 He can put them far away to the grave with Jesus according to Is 53.
Hi Eric, I can see that you do not grasp the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 by the way you repeat back the arguments. I finally finished reviewing over ten pages of your comments (I had printed them out).
You raised a lot of objections, I wrote a lot of notes. But now I have to organize my points and type it all out. That will, again, take me some time, as my kids have been home all day. When school starts I suppose I will have more time.
Thanks again for your patience,
Dina
Dina, correcting’ instead of ‘ himself’ I should be’ yourself’
If one makes a faith claim, no one else needs to accept that claim, especially if their arguments have continuously been shown to be unconvincing. One who “piggy-backs” on another’s beliefs must show that they are are not a burden, not harmful, not antagonistic or even “parasitic”. “Outsiders” remain outsiders unless or until they are welcomed in. If one can show agreement (or have similar beliefs) with the other 45 or even 60% of the time, they also show that they disagree 55 or 40% of the time. But percentage of similarities is not the most important factor to consider; the nature of the dissimilarities are (which is one way Christians try to separate themselves from paganism by showing differences in the details). Focusing on one man as God or as divine, accepting a human as an appropriate (yet unbiblical) sacrifice, drinking and eating blood and flesh (no matter how much it is only symbolic), etc presents differences that diminish or even negate any similarities with a different belief system, different religion. Those differing beliefs may be acceptable for many, but they are wholly unacceptable to others.
While some people find Christain faith claims unacceptable according to Torah (or what they see as valuable in the Torah), although they believe Christian faith claims are OK for Christians, I on the other hand argue against the very foundation or the very nature of the “faith claims” of many or most Christians.
C.R.
Give me a break!
We are not the ones developing any argument under the sun defending the torahs teaching. It is Christianity who shoves Jesus into the Torah.
You keep saying that Jesus is painted in, shoved in, You can disagree with Christian claims, that’s fine, but it’s not impossible for the Christian reading of scripture to be found in scripture. It may be silly to you, but it’s not impossible or painted in.
1. Adam was originally meant to eat from the tree of life and live forever with G-d. (Eternal life)
2. Before eating from the tree, Adam and his wife had not known Sin. (They were sinless.)
3 Jesus’ death is not a bug spray or vaccine for sin, rather Christians view his death as the sinless second Adam (who rectified through his life the sin of the first Adam) as the means for having the road to eternal life open to us again. That said, salvation is contingent on faith combined with righteous actions if you are a bad person, or a bad Christian, you do not get rewarded in the Christian worldview. You can however be a decent person who as a non Christian has a moral conscience that you are subject to, (what Paul called the law written on your heart) and G-d who is just will judge based on that. Why is it claimed that Jesus is the “only way” It’s because he was the only one, (or so it’s claimed) to have risen to the Eternal life of the world to come, the first fruits of the resurrection, that nobody has ever experienced except Adam before his Sin. Something G-d initiates must be carried out by G-d. Man cannot go it alone without G-d.
Again though what does it mean to follow Jesus? It means to be righteous. So, a Christian who is wicked, has less of a hope than a righteous non Christian. How am I being consistent you ask?
I’ll let Paul speak for me, with a few alterations.
1What advantage, then, is there in being a Christian, or what value is there in baptism? 2Much in every way! First of all, the Christians have been entrusted with the very words of Jesus.
3What if some were unfaithful? Will their unfaithfulness nullify God’s faithfulness? 4Not at all! Let God be true, and every human being a liar. As it is written:
“So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge.”a
5But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) 6Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? 7Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” 8Why not say—as some slanderously claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their CONDEMNATION is just!
No One Is Righteous
9What shall we conclude then? Do we have any advantage? Not at all! For we have already made the charge that Christians and Non Christians alike are all under the power of sin. 10As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”b
13“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”c
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”d
14“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”e
15“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know.”f
18“There is no fear of God before their eyes.”g
19Now we know that whatever the gospel says, it says to those who are under the gospel so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by the works of the gospel; rather, through the gospel we become conscious of our gift from G-d which if not chosen freely, is no gift at all.
Righteousness Through Faith
21But now apart from the church the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Gospel and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Christian and Non Christian, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and all are justified FREELY by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,i through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus. (Faith in Jesus means clothing yourself in his example and actions.)
27Where, then, is BOASTING? It is EXCLUDED. Because of what Gospel? The Gospel that requires works? No, because of the Gospel that requires faith. 28For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the Gospel 29Or is God the God of Christians only? Is he not the God of Non Christians too? Yes, of Non Christians too, 30since there is only one God, who will justify the baptized by faith and the unbaptized through that same faith. 31Do we, then, nullify the gospel by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the gospel.
C.R.
I don’t think you meant to say this. “Again though what does it mean to follow Jesus? It means to be righteous. I’ll let Paul speak for me, with a few alterations. No One Is Righteous. There is no one righteous, not even one;.” But if you did I’m confused.
CR,
The only way Xtianity is found in scripture is by assumption. There is no evidence to support it. Everything, literally everything from Tanach is Assumed to be Jsus without any clarity. If G-d were to institute such a religion He would have given it with clarity. We have a Torah that was given by G-d and there is clarity in it. It thoroughly covers the manner in which Jews are to live. What does Xtianity give. Very little. It mostly consists of living a life by self-guidance. Since there are no rules to live by hence the reason so very many in past generations did all their evil deeds. Without rules to live by a person can justify anything that is done. Also, these assumptions are taken with sometimes a single verse, and other times with a single word. Therefore the relationship is invalid.
There is no one who is righteous. I take it Paul wrote this. Apparently he was wholly ignorant of the Jewish bible. We read in Isaiah that
“The righteous one perishes, and no man takes it to heart; men of kindness are gathered in with no one understanding that because of the impending evil the righteous one was gathered in”.
This could not have been written without the knowledge there are righteous among us. There are plenty of passages that speak of the righteous. So, Xtianity clearly distorts what is written but further analysis shows even definitions have been distorted. The manner in which they use the term “faith” is unknown in Judaism. Supposedly the word faith is taken from the Hebrew “Emunah”. Understanding this word a person would conclude it doesn’t fit. Therefore, there is NO justification “by faith”. It is another in a long list of contradictions.
Sharbano, what on earth do you mean Christians have no rules to live by? Seriously? If you mean rules in a halachic context, I would say maybe, except Acts 15, but Christians have rules. If a Christian is orthodox or Catholic they have many rules. Jesus is read in by assumption? If your going to go that route, it’s all an assumption and all of our arguments for the proof of our claims seem to prove that. The arguments for Sinai and the resurrection demonstrate probabilities as opposed to demonstrable facts. They are faith claims. It doesn’t seem to me that Paul is saying there is no such thing as righteous, rather he is saying that nobody can claim righteousness before G-d. Even Job, who we all know was righteous, said before G-d that he was but dust and ashes. Paul is dealing with opponents who believed that conversion to Judaism was a necessary step for Gentiles to be accepted by G-d. Paul is saying, we all Sin, Jew and gentile, and choseness is not limited to community membership. A Jew can be righteous and a gentile can be righteous, but not just because they are Jews or Gentiles. Paul very clearly taught righteousness was necessary for salvation.
It’s important to know that Paul’s opponents were equating righteousness with conversion to Judaism, and were equating specific observances that showed commonly believed piety among that specific group as a necessity. There were apparently people who were not sitting at table to eat with non Jews. We know of this kind of behavior among some people in second temple times, because of the scrolls. Those sectarians had very specific purity requirements that restricted their interactions with others. I’m not saying everyone did this, heaven forbid, quite the contrary, but Paul’s rhetoric needs to be read against the actions of his opponents who held these kinds of views.
Regarding Acts 15:
Peter says they were accepted by the giving of the holy spirit. Is this the same spirit that Stephen had when detailing points of Torah that were so erroneous any child would have spotted.
Then he speaks about a yoke to great to bear. What! Is he saying that Torah is a yoke to great to bear. Once again a point of Torah that is in error. Maybe it was a burden for him since all the disciples seemed to be wholly ignorant in Torah.
The chapter does seem to reflect the acceptance of the Noachide laws. If this is being taught by the original leaders then why does No Xtian do so. In fact, virtually all Xtians today consider those laws made up and scoff at the notion.
All in all there’s really nothing in that chapter that has any details, unlike the Torah which includes literally every facet of life. Therefore, those congregations you speak of are instituting by their own ideas alone. Has there even been a Xtian who consulted Torah in order to adjudicate a conflict.
After this, Then you return to the same tired rhetoric, “Sinai isn’t a demonstrable fact”.
The problem with Paul and righteousness doesn’t correspond to your understanding. What Paul did here was quote a passage from Psalms. David, in no way, is categorizing all people. as Paul distorts.. David is speaking to those who are fools, saying “there is no G-d”. Your subsequent sermonizing of that which follows further complicates the issue. This just reinforces the issue of Xtianity in relation to Judaism.
The question of faith, what does faith mean in the NT? Faithfulness right? Faith cannot mean belief alone in the Christian bible, contra some Protestant perspectives. Faith has to mean trust, but also faithfulness, because the Christian bible necessitates that believers do certain things, and not do other things. Paul also only speaks of the hope of salvation, if we have not run the race in vein. He speaks about damnation befalling those who take communion unworthily. He clearly did not believe that faith meant belief.
Con,
You write to Larry above:
“You keep saying that Jesus is painted in, shoved in, You can disagree with Christian claims, that’s fine, but it’s not impossible for the Christian reading of scripture to be found in scripture. It may be silly to you, but it’s not impossible or painted in.”
This is absurd. By your own admission, you only accept the Torah, only because you accept Jesus. You have already shown that one does not come to Jesus through Torah, but finds Jesus in the Torah after looking for him. It has also been shown why this isn’t a sound technique. R’ Blumenthal has shown how one can read Charlie’s Gospel into the Christian Gospels. I have shown that one can find support for devotion to Horace’s Tree in the Bible. And I have shown that one can read the Torah to discover a Duality rather than a Trinity, an exercise you dismissed but didn’t even understand when you read it. You then argued that it only applied to Evangelical misreadings, but not brilliant men like Aquinas and Augustine, whom I then showed it applied to perfectly well, but you ignored.
The Church regularly takes out-of-context and alters the Hebrew Bible. You justify the former by claiming it a valid tradition, a tradition you only accept because it is convenient. You are quick to tell everyone here that they have taken the NT out-of-context, a principle to which you cannot appeal when you deny it as a principle. You ignore the latter, I suppose because it is harder to justify. When Matthew says, “…they will call his name Emmanuel” rather than “…she will call his name Emmanuel” it changes the meaning significantly. But because you accept Jesus, you accept this practice. This is the definition of painting Jesus into the scriptures. What you really mean to say is that you find it acceptable to paint Jesus into the scriptures.
Dina has shown that the definition of polytheism is irrelevant, that the definition of avodah zara is given in Torah, and that definition fits within the category of avodah zara therein. This point you have almost entirely ignored, and have opted instead to call her ignorant over and over. You have appealed to another source to interpret the Torah in a way suitable to your prior beliefs.
You have tried to reconcile Jesus and Torah by claiming that Jesus is seen as like Moses. It has been shown that the comparison fails. You have tried to reconcile Jesus and Torah by saying that Jesus only ever pointed to God, not himself. It has been shown that this is not true. And the fact that you ignore these arguments, and only come back to your argument that Jesus is not painted into the scriptures with no backing from the Torah, and ignoring all the proofs that R’ Blumenthal has given on this magnificent blog is quite ridiculous. Writings like “The Elephant and the Suit” have made clear arguments against your assertion.
You have stated that you retract your statements when you are wrong. In the following post, I listed several things you have not retracted:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/isaiah-53-micah-7-and-isaiah-62/#comment-13854
It is good to retract your statements when you are in error, of course. I think that when our beliefs are shown to be in error, that we must retract them as well. Do you think so too?
Jim
You claim I accept things because it’s convenient. That’s just Judgmental. You are not G-d, you don’t know my reasons for believing. All of the evidence I have brought is shrugged off as not part of your tradition., so it’s impossible to discuss. I never acknowledged that Jesus was painted In! The disciples had an experience, understood through scripture, they knew G-d spoke through Jesus. You gang up with 50 responses and expect me to respond right away, give me some time.
Con,
You misunderstand what I mean by “convenient”. Allow me to clarify.
When I say that you accept the DSS or Philo, because they are convenient, I do not mean that you come with malicious intent. I mean that you accept them because they can be used to prop up your world view. You don’t bring up the DSS because you come from an Essene tradition. You bring it up, because the existence of writings that employ a loose interpretation of scripture justifies the NT authors and Church fathers doing the same. This is convenient in that the mere existence of the DSS is supposed to support your view rather than an argument for the validity of the style.
It is convenient, because you did not come to Jesus through Essene tradition. You did not study your whole life with the Qumran community and learn their Torah methodology and out of their principles of interpretation come to discover Jesus. You believed in Jesus first, and then you claimed them for your side when their mere existence, not their validity, would give an excuse to Christian misreading of the Torah.
I understand that you come by these mistakes with good intention. But they are mistakes, and serious ones at that. They misdirect your attention and the attention of the Church in large. And you ask us to accept that as a valid religious system, even if we don’t practice it, but that is a thing we cannot do.
You misunderstand the nature of argument, so I am going to compare our two arguements.
I argue that one cannot accept a Christian interpretation of Torah, because any such method of interpretation is too open to mean anything. One can read anything into the text that fits their preconceived notions. Therefore, one must read the text to understand the text in context. Moreover, any method that allows for taking words out of context also will allow for Christian teachings to be taken out of context, which no Christian will allow. We know, then, that eisegetical readings are both meaningless and untenable. In arguing this, I have not once appealed to “my tradition”. I argue that eisegesis is invalid.
You argue that because other traditions exist, the Christian method should be accepted. At no point have you shown why such a method is reliable or valid. You have merely pointed to others, whose philosophies you likely reject, to prop up your own traditions failings. This is like a student who getting an answer wrong on a test says, “But Judy answered the same thing.” The existence of a bad answer does not make it true. The existence of a bad method does not make it valid. Your argument is not an argument at all. You never argue from principles. You appeal to tradition and authority. You accept eisegesis, because you accept Jesus. You don’t even argue that eisegesis is valid, only that others have done it too.
I certainly understand that you have not had time to respond to everything. I go for long periods of time where I also do not have time to respond. Take your time. (Although, I don’t know what ganging up has been done.)
Jim
Eric
Here are some responses to some of your points from previous comments.
You wonder who amongst the nations was enlightened by Isaiah. This question of yours reveals the extent of your obsession with Jesus. Billions of people have been enlightened by Isaiah. It is his words that give hope to all of mankind and through his words God brings salvation to mankind (for the power of a prophet’s words read Jeremiah 1:10 – when the prophet utters God’s words – God’s purpose is accomplished here on earth.
You want everything to be limited to one servant – but God has different types of servants – kings who execute justice, prophets who declare His word and a nation who bears the ideal of the king and the prophet in their collective heart.
Your argument that the followers of Jesus are the true witnesses – according to Scripture they are utterly disqualified – Ezekiel 13:9 tells us the fate of the false witnesses – since the Jewish followers of Jesus had that prophetic curse fulfilled against them in its entirety – we can be sure that they are not the true witnesses.
You ask what we are missing since we already have the spirit upon us – good question – the answer is that we have Ezekiel 11:16 but we are waiting for Ezekiel 37:28
ypfriend, You completely dismissed my questions. The verses you quoted don’t give the answer to what I was talking about. I asked if you are the righteous servant why God needs to give you all new hearts He is talking about in Ex 11;19 ?
And as far as the followers of Jesus Ezekiel 13;9 is not an answer either. Tell me how the followers of Jesus had a curse fulfilled against them and the fact that many of them are living right now in Jerusalem and many of them prospering all over the world. Many of them filled with peace in their hearts and gratitude for God.
You are talking about persecution? Then you should know that even Jesus told them about persecution coming, the same way why God’s people are persecuted and hated in this world. You are talking about a curse? Well, Jesus resurrection doesn’t show God ‘ s curse upon him. If somebody was talking about the curse I would refer to a person to Is 50;1.
And about Isaiah; he proclaims the message of salvation and speaks about THE WAY salvation is brought to people.
Eric,
I just wonder is it typical for Xtians to take a verse here then a verse there and develop a doctrine from that. None of your citations are explicit in the derivative of the narrative. It should then be obvious to the careful reader the narrative lacks credulity. My post, “A warning from Isaiah” does have explicit citations in relation to Xtian references.
Sharbano, You are not realizing that we get the same impression with your interpretations..
ypfriend, I mean Ezekiel 11;19 not Ex
ypfriend, you forgot the ‘ entering upon the soil of Israel” in the verse you gave me.
Concerned Reader
Its not a matter of me “thinking” that you have misunderstood my arguments. You have demonstrated over and over again that you have not understood what I have said.
I never asked for special treatment for any of my arguments. If a nation testifies about events that drastically changed their ancestor’s lives many years ago, events that were ongoing for some time (like 40 years) and that could have been easily corroborated AT THAT TIME – practical events affecting the lives of nations – I would accept it. Show me where you see a double standard in my policy of accepting historical events.
You also misunderstood my analogy about the nationally televised event.
One more thing. Why are you getting so defensive with Jim? Why are you so concerned that he is being judgmental? Let’s stay focused on the arguments
If a nation testifies about events that drastically changed their ancestor’s lives many years ago, events that were ongoing for some time (like 40 years) and that could have been easily corroborated AT THAT TIME
AT THAT TIME. Rabbi there are no records about an Exodus from Egypt dating from the relevant time period that corroborate the Torah’s claims or rendition of events. That’s what I’ve been saying to you. Your argument is a faith based argument that demonstrates a probability for the events recorded in the Torah. (Nothing wrong there) however, If close to 3 million people left Egypt in the 3000s BCE (as the Torah says) we would all know about it. We wouldn’t need to rely on the testimony of one book, or one people, even today to show that it happened. You are treating your source as a credible witness without first demonstrating that it’s testimony is accurate or credible. You wouldn’t do that with any other claim, that’s what I meant seems to me to be special treatment. Why are you trusting that the Torah narrative is accurate without demonstration that it is? You question the NT chain of transmission, claims, etc. but not your own also.
In response to why I have been somewhat defensive, it isn’t meant to be rude. Jim has been saying that my acceptance of the Bible is superficial. Having a disagreement with an argument, not responding right away, etc. is not the same thing as not understanding the argument, or why you present it. I have mentioned before that I have read the Kuzari, I am aware of the unique claim argument. Jim is saying that I supposedly retract when I am mistaken, he says I haven’t yet, therefore implying that I have no responses or am bowing out, or being dishonest. I have informed people that I am responding via tablet, so it is very hard to respond to a plethora of arguments quickly.
Jim questions the validity of my appeals to the DSS or Philo because he sees my usage of these sources as an exclusive exercise in self validation, as opposed to honest historical inquiry, because I was not in that specific tradition. That is a harsh private judgement he is making. I don’t allude to these sources because of one to one similarities or connections through chain of transmission, rather because concepts found in them resonate with later accepted strata of Jewish thought.
People can draw influence from traditions and norms that they are not directly involved in, sometimes unconsciously, that’s just life and human thought process. People take Philo’s Hellenism and consider him thereby not representative of second temple Judaism in any way because of it. Saadia could be said to be just as syncretic with the Kalaam and Mutazilite Muslim philosophy as Philo was with Hellenism, yet he is accepted and not thrown out. Maimonides is heavily indebted to Aristotle, but nobody throws him out as a Hellenist because of it. Philo has many views echoes of which can be found in later normative accepted thought. Scholars like Scholem and Idel have pointed these resonances out. Philo’s Logos is very similar to the active intellect in Maimonides, and the Kavod Nivra from Saadia Gaon. I should clarify and note that many accepted groups have had a similar train of thought, as Christian sources have, whilst remaining authentically Jewish. It is those resonances over very long periods of time that lead me to believe reasonably that certain methods, ideas, usages, while not coming directly from a teacher to student chain of transmission, can operate safely within a normative biblical framework, and not rob it of its content or intention.
You still discount the Mesorah that Has been transmitted From the time of Moshe to the present.This Mesorah lists Names bearing that transmission. Your only argument against it centers on it being impossible to transmit, simply based upon non-Jews experience. We know that the Xtian text doesn’t meet that standard since there are so many variations over the centuries. Therefore your continuous repetition of the same argument is flawed.
You can be defensive but the fact remains if a text, (Xtian), is flawed in its use of another text, (Hebrew) then that makes the validity of that text suspect. There are countless examples of such, the one concerning distorting righteousness as being one of the many.
One has to admit the difficulty in Jewish history of even maintaining the Mesorah considering the onslaught over the centuries by the Xtian community. On the other hand, Xtianity hasn’t suffered the same onslaught in attempting to destroy it as was with the Jews. Therefore there should be clear evidence of its beginnings, as you related concerning the bishops. but instead there have been revisions throughout those centuries. From this standpoint you will assume the same with Jewish Tradition, which isn’t the case. We were commanded Not to add or subtract thus preserving a heritage. Another point to consider is the effort put into the Tradition. When you speak of scholars it is likely that those persons spent a few years in achieving degrees, Master, Phd, etc. When the Rabbis learned it was over many decades, learning and reviewing on continuing basis. It doesn’t end after a Phd has been earned. It is the same with the congregants. People learn the weekly Parshah not only in one year, but year after year after year, never ending. This too, preserves the Tradition throughout the ages. This is not done in the non-Jewish world I’ll bet.
You still discount the Mesorah that Has been transmitted From the time of Moshe to the present.This Mesorah lists Names bearing that transmission. Your only argument against it centers on it being impossible to transmit, simply based upon non-Jews experience.
No Sharbano, I do not, and would not discount your Mesorah out of hand. Rather I see your traditional perspective on the chain of transmission as one among known others in the long history of the Jewish people. I’m not placing the emphasis on it that you are, that’s not ignoring it. It is true as rabbi B has said, that your perspective is the surviving one (except for that of the Samaritans off course), but this argument is akin to saying (we are the majority within the people, therefore our interpretation is right.) I would point out, that though the sects of Sadducees, Essenes, etc. no longer exist, the resonances of their thoughts, perspective, and their impact can still be felt within the living tradition, and their perspectives are still relevant because of the role they played in the identity formation that helped make modern Judaism. The rabbinic approach is, it seems to me, born out of continuous fruitful dialogue. For that, you need lots of different voices. Names bearing suposed transmission are fine, but they are names, that’s all. Christians have the names of all the popes from the time of Peter onward, does that mean you would accept their tradition? You say that there are corruptions in the NT, and that its transmission is untrustworthy. The NT is one of the most well attested of ancient books, and the vast majority of variations in it, are from the phenomenon of transmission itself. (Parablepsis: unintentional repeating of words while copying, different spellings of common Greek words between scribes, and yes some deep theological differences between sects reflected, (which the Church itself however is aware of, and addresses in its voluminous commentaries, forming the orthodox position and majority faith position.)
We know that the Xtian text doesn’t meet that standard since there are so many variations over the centuries. Therefore your continuous repetition of the same argument is flawed. All texts Sharbano, all texts, from all traditions, that are subject to transmission by human authors are subject to variation. To state otherwise, respectfully, is a faith claim. We do not have autographs (original manuscripts, tablets, ark, etc.) for the Torah, or for the New Testament, we have copies of copies, of copies, subject to centuries of debate, discussion, influence, and commentary. This is why I do not throw out different even conflicting perspectives, because they all play an essential part in the formation of the accepted faith structure. Every voice matters in a historical transmission, because what became the mainstream was initially one of those voices, rising from the midst of other voices.
You can be defensive but the fact remains if a text, (Xtian), is flawed in its use of another text, (Hebrew) then that makes the validity of that text suspect. There are countless examples of such, the one concerning distorting righteousness as being one of the many.
Sharbano, do you believe it is possible for G-d to transmit his truth through translations and diverse interpretations, or text styles? If not, I would say we are all in huge trouble. The Torah text we posses today is written in an Assyrian influenced Hebrew block script, this is a different script than the Paleo Hebrew script found on ancient stele and different textual variant manuscripts. Variation and development is a normal part of every language, its not awful. I know we have faith in authoritative transmission. Many Jews in second temple times spoke Aramaic as their primary language, and had to have translation alongside whatever Hebrew they heard, or spoke. That’s a normal aspect of any transmission. I don’t see how the Torah is in a better boat textually than the Christian Bible.
One has to admit the difficulty in Jewish history of even maintaining the Mesorah considering the onslaught over the centuries by the Xtian community.
I would agree, and I would also add that infighting among Jews also didn’t help. Judaism could have lost Rambam’s writings if history had gone differently G-d forbid. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0013_0_13046.html
On the other hand, Xtianity hasn’t suffered the same onslaught in attempting to destroy it as was with the Jews. The Romans tried to destroy Christianity, ISIS is trying to destroy Christianity today, and since you view it as idolatry, you might even want Christianity gone. I would never dream of downplaying the suffering of the Jewish people, but to say that Christians have never faced persecution is not true. Christians have often faced persecution at the hands of other Christians. Every faith has been through this, including your own.
revisions throughout those centuries. From this standpoint you will assume the same with Jewish Tradition, which isn’t the case. This is a faith statement, we cant verify it, because history says otherwise.
We were commanded Not to add or subtract thus preserving a heritage. Another point to consider is the effort put into the Tradition. When you speak of scholars it is likely that those persons spent a few years in achieving degrees, Master, Phd, etc. When the Rabbis learned it was over many decades, learning and reviewing on continuing basis. It doesn’t end after a Phd has been earned. It is the same with the congregants. People learn the weekly Parshah not only in one year, but year after year after year, never ending. This too, preserves the Tradition throughout the ages. This is not done in the non-Jewish world I’ll bet. Christians do the Same Sharbano. I am not meaning to say that the rabbis had anything but good G-dly intentions. Christians also care deeply about their transmission and learning.
Con, you wrote that according to the Torah the Exodus took place in the 3000s BCE. Actually, that date is closer to Adam’s time. The Exodus took place in the 1000s BCE.
I know the date isn’t important to your point; just making a note here in the interest of accuracy.
Concerned Reader
You still do not understand what I have written to you – yes I know you have read it but I also see that you don’t understand it. I’ll try again. The fact that we have no Egyptians today corroborating the exodus events does not bother me because it is very hard to find clear corroboration from events in the distant past. As I pointed out to you – many years after the exodus Egyptians were corroborating the events – with their own twists – but Josephus documents Egyptian historians who accepted the exodus as a given fact.
You still have not demonstrated where I hold a double standard in accepting historical data. If you find me something that is of the category of the exodus events from beginning to end – I will have no problem accepting it – but it has to be in the same category and the Christian narrative is in a different category altogether – it is not a matter of being one detail different.
I never said that your defensiveness is “rude” – its evasive. In order to get your Christianity to be “authentically Jewish” you have redefined both Christianity and Judaism. Please go beyond reading what Jim wrote and try to understand what he has written and respond to his arguments – not to what you perceive as his judgmentalism – the readers will appreciate it.
Thanks
I know modern Egyptians don’t corroborate the Exodus rabbi, that’s not what I meant. My point was that Egyptian historians of ancient times didn’t corroborate the event as described in the Torah either. Some ancient historians hypothesized that Moses was a heretical Egyptian priest who taught Monotheism, but they never saw it as factually Moses, they said it may have been Moses. We know today that this heretical Egyptian priest was not Moses, but was the Pharaoh Akhenaten who viewed the Sun, called the Aten, as the singular Egyptian deity to be worshipped.
As for the Hyksos mentioned by Menatho (via Josephus), they were a labor class who took over Egypt in an armed revolt. In short, no there weren’t ancient historians who corroborated an Exodus event, rather they hypothesized a historical connection after hearing the Exodus story. These events and testimonies are anything but a corroboration for the events described in the Torah narrative as they appear there.
Note well that I’m not saying that you have no reason to believe. Why may I ask do you consider Josephus as a source, but not Philo? They have some very similar methodology. It is hard to find corroboration of ancient events, that’s true, but ancient Egyptian history is not one of those areas with a spotty historical record.
We actually have a ton of ancient Egyptian history documented. It would be very hard indeed not to find evidence today if 3,000,000 people indeed left Egypt during a mass Exodus after several Plagues had already devastated the country, not to mention the populace of Egypt. If you don’t mind my asking, Why do you insist so strongly that any comparison drawn between history and the events in the Torah be of the same category? Why does a comparison have to fit the same pattern of the Torah as you suggest?
How have I redefined Christianity? We know historically that at one point there were Torah observant Christians. In this respect how could observance be bad? We also know that there have been orthodox Christian views of the atoning death of Jesus, that did not necessitate dualism, the Augustinian emphasis on guilt, faith only, or pervert biblical notions of reward and punishment, or speak of the salvation of all people.
You suggest that I ignore Jim’s rhetoric and questioning of my motives. I will surely try. 🙂 I’m not evading anything rabbi, I’m studying as we discuss these issues.
It’s always great getting your replies rabbi B, have a pleasant evening
Concerned Reader
Concerned Reader
My point about Josephus’ corroboration was that the ancient Egyptian historians assumed the story was true – I don’t expect more corroboration for such an ancient event.
You ask why I consider Josephus a source but not Philo – simple – I don’t trust Josephus as a philosopher or as authority on authentic Jewish thought – I see him as a historian and I trust him as little as I trust any historian – you are quoting Philo as if he was an authentic expression of Jewish thought – for that you need outside corroboration.
I do not believe that we have a clear picture of Egyptian history – many arguments have been presented that challenge the conventional way of reading that history.
The reason I want something to be in the same category like the Torah is because the reason I expect the Torah’s story to be considered seriously is precisely because of the category of evidence that it presents.
You have redefined Christianity by claiming that it exalts God instead of Jesus – I have never met a Christian who would say this except under polemical pressure.
I have not see Jim use empty rhetoric neither have I seen him question your motives – he simply showed how your position is self-contradictory
ypfriend, I am not limiting everything to one servant. I am showing you that salvation is brought thanks to one servant who took our punishment for us. He is not eliminating or replacing kings of the earth and other prophets and neither he is replacing thoses who are serving God or witnessing about God’s righteousness.
When asked about the “Documentary Hypothesis” of the Torah (or also if asked if the Exodus or if Moses were just national myths of Israel or Judea), some people will respond that it doesn’t really matter, since Moses was not a divine being and the Torah and Law came into existence somehow. If Jesus of the NT existed, he could have been wrong about his faith claims about Torah, which may explain why he got several parts of the Torah wrong. Some people claim part of the Torah (rewritten), like the Samaritans. Some people say they claim all of torah/Tanach, but really primarily selected portions (some parts of some Psalms and Isaiah “53”), so some of their claims can be justified as not being some new man-made religion, but is part of something “ancient”.
The NT agrees that Pharisees followed a “tradition”, but it disparagingly claims that it was of “tradition of men”. But that claim can be made about Christian claims as well or actually, even more so, when we look objectively at the history of the Christian texts and at their many different sects and doctrines. Christians have a harder time with Torah or other “faith claims”, because they were making new claims about Torah simultaneously trying to “fit into their Roman-Greek world” while trying not to distance themselves from old pagan ideas yet not abandoning ideas they picked up from the Hebrew Bible. Some Christians find it hard not to “take Jesus just on faith” or as a myth, because the Christianities that became the different orthodox ones are so Christ-centered (as Jesus is pictured variably is the NT that evolved over time); a Christ that was flesh & blood human (yet divine & miraculous), suffering (yet stoic & accepting of pain as good or as a path to holiness), and empathetic and temptible (yet super-humanly or divinely sinless and not vulnerable to temptation). To even question any of those many special-pleading, unique (supposedly), extraordinary (and unverifiable), claims, could mean the death of the faith. Some asserted that if their Jesus was not resurrected from the dead, then their faith is or was in vain. Some believe that if they lost faith in the traditions of Jesus (as they were handed down to us over many centuries by mere fallible humans), than they necessarily could not believe in God. God would be dead, except to those who believe in God (without depending on or requiring the traditions of Jesus for belief or to those who find no good reason to believe in Jesus or to those who find good reason to reject faith in Jesus). But others see that in Christianity, there were many different traditions, so one can be a “Marcionite” believer in Jesus, a Docetist believer in a Christ, or a believer who believes Jesus was only and just a man, only a prophet or only a teacher. Some Christians rejected the “Jesus of Nazareth”, which may have been wise or just maybe more traditionally based, since there is no archaeological evidence of a town of Nazareth in the time of Jesus (whenever that time was supposed to be -since early Christians did not all agree when his time was).
Philo was seen as a commentator and philosopher, not as a prophet nor as one with a true revelation from God. He loved Torah but he reinterpreted it, not as a Jew, but from his Hellenistic educated up-bringing and world view. Philo was a unique individual, but he did not know Jesus, nor did he influence Jesus, although he had an influence on later Christian writers. As an Alexandrian, he was either not known or was intentionally ignored by the stream of Judaism that was dominant 2000 years ago and that is present today. The Masoretes ignored much written that was written in Greek, because Greek was not Jewish and the writings were not considered holy or sacred. Plus, Philo’s brother and one of his sons were pro-Roman and political traitors to Jews. Josephus, was likewise unknown to most Jews or else seen as a pro-Roman traitor to Jews and Judaism. His histories understandably have a pro-Roman bias, until he became a victim of “regime change” in Rome when he began to try to make amends after the damage was done and when he claimed to be a “true Pharisee”.
They were Jewish gnostics who were not considered Jewish by normative Jews, just like most Christians would not consider most of the Christian gnostics as Christian but as heretics and “anti-Christs”. Some Christians would not consider many early Christian writers as orthodox but rather as heretics simply (?) because they personally didn’t agree with the doctrine or substance of the beliefs by other followers of Jesus.
Is it being suggested that Augustine wrote or rewrote some of the NT, since his ideas are mostly found in the NT. He did mention that some of the apostolic writings, particularly letters, were written by bishops and church leaders in support of their philosophy. Some of you may be familar with or be interested in looking at Paula Fredriksen’s book,
“Augustine and the Jews: A Christian Defense of Jews and Judaism”. Many Jews however can not and will not see Augustine as their friend. Because Augustine is mainly in the orthodox tradition of Christianity.
Eric
I don’t have time to answer all of your questions right now – but please be assured that I appreciate them and that I take them seriously. I will answer one of them right now. I say that the curse of Ezekiel 13:9 was fulfilled against the followers of Jesus because that Jewish community did not survive in the midst of God’s chosen people – today’s messianic Jews are biological children of those who did not accept Jesus and spiritual children of gentiles.
ypfriend, You can’t say they didn’t survive because you don’t know about them, besides I am not sure that statement of yours is a right conclussion because you can apply it to every group of people. Someone might get it and messure it agaist Jews saying that because their kings’ reign didn’t survive till today (as the last one was really bad)- that should mean they all are cursed including those before them.
It is also like saying the next generations have no right to walk right with God because of their parents or grandparents who disobeyed God and weren’t pleasing Him.
God had always people in every generation who didn’t listen to Him and then in the next generations their children who listened. Then according to your statement you would call them the children of the unrighteous ones. ( because of lacking the continuation of those who were pleasing God in the family .)
Today many God’ loving Jews might be biological children of those whose families weren’t pleasing God in the past. We might say; righteousness didn’t survive until being born later . Would you exclude them too because of that?
Last thing Messianic Jews don’t have to go to gentiles to be their spiritual children. They go starigt to Jewish sources of the testimony God gave about His Messiah.
Eric
The punishment that the Bible threatens against the Jew for the worst crimes is that they be cut off from among their nation – and this is precisely what happened to the Jewish followers of Jesus. They were eradicated by the followers of Paul and this is attested to by history this is not guesswork. No Jewish community of Jesus-believers survived beyond the third or fourth centuries. This tells us that God exacted this punishment (cut off from the nation) against this community – this punishment was not placed against the community who did not accept Jesus’ claims.
Your last point is also incorrect – anyone who wants to find out about Jesus needs to go to the books edited and preserved by the Gentile church of Paul. The early Church historians tell us that the Jewish followers of Jesus had their own version of Matthew and that they didn’t accept Paul as an authentic apostle
ypfriend, more nonsense and more nonsense. You are creating your own idea of punishment for Jewish followers of Jesus.
Ez 13;11 says; ” ..and my hand will be against the prophets who SEE WORTHLESS VISIONS and who divine falsehood, they will not be among the counsel of My people , nor will they be inscribed in the record of the House of israel, nor WILL THEY ENTER UPON THE SOIL OF ISRAEL.”
Is that where you get your idea of punishment as ‘being cut off from the nation’? If yes, that verse is not talking about being ‘cut off from the nation. “Cut off” can be anybody who died as he is simply not among the people.
So for some reason that ‘eradication’ of Jews following Jesus didn’t succeed as there are thousands of Jewish believers living right now on the soil Israel ( and all over the world).
Second thing; For some reason the messianic interpretation ( suffering servant as Yeshua) has a long history in Jewish Bible exegesis; so the belief in Yeshua among Jews has been ‘on’ till 20th century.
The Targum
Behold, My Servant the Messiah shall prosper.
Targum (“Targum Jonathan”) to Isaiah 52:13, various editions (such as Samson H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation; the Messianic Exegesis of the Targum.” Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1974, p. 63).
In the early cycle of synagogue readings
We know that messianic homilies based on Joseph’s career (his saving role preceded by suffering), and using Isaiah 53 as the prophetic portion, were preached in certain old synagogues which used the triennial cycle…
Rav Asher Soloff, “The Fifty Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Commentators, to the Sixteenth Century” (Ph.D. Thesis, Drew University,1967), p. 146.
The addition of 53.4-5 [to the cycle of synagogue readings] was evidently of a Messianic purport by reason of the theory of a suffering Messiah. The earlier part of [the Haftarah] (52.7ff.) dealt with the redemption of Israel, and in this connection the tribulations of the Messiah were briefly alluded to by the recital of the above 2 verses.
Jacob Mann, The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue (NY: Ktav, 1971, © 1940), p. 298.
Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b
The Rabbis said: His name is “the leper scholar,” as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted. [Isaiah 53:4].
Soncino Talmud edition.
Ruth Rabbah 5:6
The fifth interpretation [of Ruth 2:14] makes it refer to the Messiah. Come hither: approach to royal state. And eat of the BREAD refers to the bread of royalty; AND DIP THY MORSEL IN THE VINEGAR refers to his sufferings, as it is said, But he was wounded because of our transgressions. (Isa. LIII, 5).
Soncino Midrash Rabbah (vol. 8, p. 64).
The Karaite Yefeth ben Ali (10th c.)
As to myself, I am inclined, with Benjamin of Nehawend, to regard it as alluding to the Messiah, and as opening with a description of his condition in exile, from the time of his birth to his accession to the throne: for the prophet begins by speaking of his being seated in a position of great honour, and then goes back to relate all that will happen to him during the captivity. He thus gives us to understand two things: In the first instance, that the Messiah will only reach his highest degree of honour after long and severe trials; and secondly, that these trials will be sent upon him as a kind of sign, so that, if he finds himself under the yoke of misfortunes whilst remaining pure in his actions, he may know that he is the desired one….
S. R. Driver and A. Neubauer, editors, The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters (2 volumes; New York: Ktav, 1969), pp. 19-20. The English translations used here are taken from volume 2. The original texts are in volume 1. Cf. Soloff, pp. 107-09.
Another statement from Yefeth ben Ali:
By the words “surely he hath carried our sicknesses,” they mean that the pains and sickness which he fell into were merited by them, but that he bore them instead. . . . And here I think it necessary to pause for a few moments, in order to explain why God caused these sicknesses to attach themselves to the Messiah for the sake of Israel. . . . The nation deserved from God greater punishment than that which actually came upon them, but not being strong enough to bear it. . . God appoints his servant to carry their sins, and by doing so lighten their punishment in order that Israel might not be completely exterminated.
Driver and Neubauer, pp. 23 ff.; Soloff pp. 108-109.
Another statement from Yefeth ben Ali:
“And the Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all.” The prophet does not by avon mean iniquity, but punishment for iniquity, as in the passage, “Be sure your sin will find you out” (Num. xxxii. 23).
Driver and Neubauer, p. 26; Soloff p. 109.
Mysteries of R. Shim’on ben Yohai (midrash, date uncertain)
And Armilaus will join battle with Messiah, the son of Ephraim, in the East gate . . .; and Messiah, the son of Ephraim, will die there, and Israel will mourn for him. And afterwards the Holy One will reveal to them Messiah, the son of David, whom Israel will desire to stone, saying, Thou speakest falsely; already is the Messiah slain, and there is non other Messiah to stand up (after him): and so they will despise him, as it is written, “Despised and forlorn of men;” but he will turn and hide himself from them, according to the words, “Like one hiding his face from us.”
Driver and Neubauer, p. 32, citing the edition of Jellinek, Beth ha-Midrash (1855), part iii. p. 80.
Lekach Tov (11th c. midrash)
“And let his [Israel’s] kingdom be exalted,” in the days of the Messiah, of whom it is said, “Behold my servant shall prosper; he will be high and exalted, and lofty exceedingly.”
Driver and Neubauer, p. 36.
Maimonides, Letter to Yemen (12th c.)
What is to be the manner of Messiah’s advent, and where will be the place of his appearance? . . . And Isaiah speaks similarly of the time when he will appear, without his father or mother of family being known, He came up as a sucker before him, and as a root out of the dry earth, etc. But the unique phenomenon attending his manifestation is, that all the kings of the earth will be thrown into terror at the fame of him — their kingdoms will be in consternation, and they themselves will be devising whether to oppose him with arms, or to adopt some different course, confessing, in fact, their inability to contend with him or ignore his presence, and so confounded at the wonders which they will see him work, that they will lay their hands upon their mouth; in the words of Isaiah, when describing the manner in which the kings will hearken to him, At him kings will shut their mouth; for that which had not been told them have they seen, and that which they had not heard they have perceived.
Driver and Neubauer vol 1: p. 322. Edition is Abraham S. Halkin, ed., Igeret Teman (NY: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1952). See Soloff pp. 127-128.
Zohar II, 212a (medieval)
There is in the Garden of Eden a palace named the Palace of the Sons of Sickness. This palace the Messiah enters, and He summons every pain and every chastisement of Israel. All of these come and rest upon Him. And had He not thus lightened them upon Himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel’s chastisements for the transgressions of the law; as it is written, “Surely our sicknesses he has carried.”
Cited in Driver and Neubauer, pp. 14-15 from section “va-yiqqahel”. Translation from Frydland, Rachmiel, What the Rabbis Know About the Messiah (Cincinnati: Messianic Literature Outreach, 1991), p. 56, n. 27. Note that this section is not found in the Soncino edition which says that it was an interpolation.
Nachmanides (R. Moshe ben Nachman)(13th c.)
The right view respecting this Parashah is to suppose that by the phrase “my servant” the whole of Israel is meant. . . .As a different opinion, however, is adopted by the Midrash, which refers it to the Messiah, it is necessary for us to explain it in conformity with the view there maintained. The prophet says, The Messiah, the son of David of whom the text speaks, will never be conquered or perish by the hands of his enemies. And, in fact the text teaches this clearly. . . .
And by his stripes we were healed — because the stripes by which he is vexed and distressed will heal us; God will pardon us for his righteousness, and we shall be healed both from our own transgressions and from the iniquities of our fathers.
Driver and Neubauer, pp. 78 ff.
Yalkut ii: 571 (13th c.)
Who art thou, O great mountain (Zech. iv. 7.) This refers to the King Messiah. And why does he call him “the great mountain?” Because he is greater than the patriarchs, as it is said, “My servant shall be high, and lifted up, and lofty exceedingly” — he will be higher than Abraham, . . . lifted up above Moses, . . . loftier than the ministering angels.
Driver and Neubauer, p. 9.
The same passage is found in Midrash Tanhuma to Genesis (perhaps 9th c.), ed. John T. Townsend (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1989), p. 166.
Yalkut ii. 620 (13th c.), in regard to Psalm 2:6
I.e., I have drawn him out of the chastisements. . . .The chastisements are divided into three parts: one for David and the fathers, one for our own generation, and one for the King Messiah; and this is that which is written, “He was wounded for our transgressions,” etc.
Driver and Neubauer, p. 10.
R. Mosheh Kohen ibn Crispin (14th c.)
This Parashah the commentators agree in explaining of the Captivity of Israel, although the singular number is used in it throughout. . . .As there is no cause constraining us to do so, why should we here interpret the word collectively, and thereby distort the passage from its natural sense?. . . As then it seemed to me that the doors of the literal interpretation of the Parashah were shut in their face, and that “they wearied themselves to find the entrance,” having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined after the “stubbornness of their own hearts,” and of their own opinion, I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah, and will be careful, so far as I am able, to adhere to the literal sense.
Driver and Neubauer, pp. 99-100.
Another comment from R. Mosheh Kohen ibn Crispin
If his soul makes itself into a trespass-offering, implying that his soul will treat itself as guilty, and so receive punishment for our trespasses and transgressions.
Driver and Neubauer, p. 112.
R. Sh’lomoh Astruc (14th c.)
My servant shall prosper, or be truly intelligent, because by intelligence man is really man — it is intelligence which makes a man what he is. And the prophet calls the King Messiah my servant, speaking as one who sent him. Or he may call the whole people my servant, as he says above my people (lii. 6): when he speaks of the people, the King Messiah is included in it; and when he speaks of the King Messiah, the people is comprehended with him. What he says then is, that my servant the King Messiah will prosper.
Driver and Neubauer, p. 129.
R. Elijah de Vidas (16th c.)
Since the Messiah bears our iniquities which produce the effect of His being bruised, it follows that whoso will not admit that the Messiah thus suffers for our iniquities, must endure and suffer for them himself.
Driver and Neubauer, p. 331.
Rabbi Moshe Alshekh (El-Sheikh) of Sefad (16th c.)
I may remark, then, that our Rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King Messiah, and we ourselves also adhere to the same view.
Driver and Neubauer, p. 258.
Herz Homberg (18th-19th c.)
The fact is, that it refers to the King Messiah, who will come in the latter days, when it will be the Lord’s good pleasure to redeem Israel from among the different nations of the earth…..Whatever he underwent was in consequence of their own transgression, the Lord having chosen him to be a trespass-offering, like the scape-goat which bore all the iniquities of the house of Israel.
Driver and Neubauer, p. 400-401.
The musaf (additional) service for the Day of Atonement, Philips machzor (20th c.)
Eric.
How many of the long list of sources have you actually studied. Come to find out it has been literally copied and pasted, word for word, off the internet. It means little for discourse when something that sounds as if it supports a point but lacks the evidence.
Sarbano, it doesn’t matter whether just copied and pasted. I read it all – no worries. I pasted it on purpose to make sure I included the source of each words that are there to be found in Targum and Midrash throughout the centuries, to show you that it is not just a christian idea that the suffering servant is the Messiah who brought the healing. Even though some of their explanations are not as accurate but they didn’t miss the point that the Messiah suffered. Simply that what matters what I was going to bring with that message.. And for more evidence simply go to the listed sources in Targum and Midrash that are given under all the words. I am sure you can find them.
Eric, you will not find anywhere in Chazalic works that the Messiah’s death will do away with the Levitical priesthood so that a new “better” priesthood will be established.
Yet that is what your false book of Hebrews teaches about jesus…
Hebrews 7:12 literally says that the priesthood was “changed” and then goes on to say that this was due to “jesus blood.”
Nothing in the Tanach even remotely reflects such a ridiculous idea. Your NT is false.
Yehuda Yisrael,I saw you in the other blogs with the same story.
You say there is nothing in the Torah about a change ; but there is a change from mortal priesthood to eternal ‘ Ps 110;4 and also about the messiah able to approach God unlike other people Jer 30;21
Priesthood was ‘changed’ because a HOPE of SOMETHING BETTER was introduced, through which we are drawing near to God.
He ( God) showed you that His priest’s blood does a better work than the animal’ blood that couldn’t make people righteous forever and the atonement had to be repeated every year over and over . And that is what you can’t get what it is all about.
Hebr 7;20 explains; ” What is more God SWORE AN OATH. For an oath was sworn in connection with those who become cohanim now, but Yeshua became a cohen by the oath which God swore when He said to him;
“Adonai has sworn and will not change His mind, You are a cohen FOREVER” Ps 110 ; 4.
( was there ever any priest who could do his office forever? No, because, they all were dying , so you have evidence of a CHANGE. Change of a priest with a better ‘office’ )
Hebrev7; 22 -26 explains; This shows you how much better is the covenant of which the Messiah ( Yeshua) has become guarantor. Moreover the present cohanim are many in number , because they are PREVENTED BY DEATH from continuing th e office. But because he ( Yeshua) LIVES FOREVER , his position as cohen does not pass on to someone else and consequently he is totally able to deliver those who approach through him ( Jer 30;21) , since he is alive forever and thus forever able to intercede on their behalf.”
v.28 also explains;” For th e Torah appoints as cohanim g’dolim men who have weakness , but the text which speaks about the SWEARING OF THE OATH , a text written later than the Torah , appoints a Son who has been brought to the goal forever.”
Who wrote “Hebrews” and when and what other author is specific about his claims? Why would his extraordinary claims be valid when he offers no proof? Eternal priesthood was established in the Torah, so it was nothing new. Ps 110 was written long before Jesus and was not spoken to him, but to a king. And it would be God, not the King or lord, who would make the lord’s or king’s enemies the king’s footstool.
On another recent reply, the statement of “Not having a source of evidence is not proving the falsehood of the fact.” makes little sense. It would be more coherent to say “falsehood of the claim”. Since you haven’t provided any of the tremendous amount of evidence to prove a “resurrection of Jesus”, the Rabbi need show no evidence “to disprove the fact” (unverifable claim) “that it never happened”. Something is not true until proven true, which is your burden. An unreasonable claim must be shown to be reasonable before it can be accepted.
Yedidiah, just shortly about what you wrote; focus on Ps 110 if should be enough for you. You don’t have to look to Hebrew NT if you already know about everlasting priesthood. NT just clarifies it. If you want to argue about evidence I would have to raise so many of facts to be proven from the OT.
Back to Ps 110 that talks about the king. Don’t you know the Messiah will be a king? So that was pointless to say, “it is not about him, it is about the king.”
Go to Talmud and ancient statement in it about interpretations of that psalm. Many Jews clearly saw it as Messianic for the following reasons; there was never a king so far to whom God would say” you shall be a priest forever because you are a king of righteousness. God talks about everlasting duty, not a temporary status given to any previous king.
There will be finally only one righteous king that will rule over all nations from Jerusalem. No other king is taking his place Is 11;1-12
Next ;it is said; “The Lord is at your right, He crushes kings on the day of His anger.and v.6 ” He will judge the corpse- filled nations… These events relate to the time of God’s vengeance when He will come to judge the nations. At that time God is crushing kings (of the nations) “on the day of His anger” Compare to Zeh 14.
Last thing; there was never a king to whom God said the words in v.1 “wait at My right hand until I make your enemies a stool for your feet” No enemies of any king were ever made submissive to the king ( here a priest king ) , until the Messiah comes to rule and judgement will come on the day so called ” the Day of the Lord” when God will deal with the people who were against Him . Then you have a picture of nations and kings submissive’ put as a stool under the king’s feet” , who will rule over them with iron rod ( see Is 11 and Zeh 14.)
Eric,
How did jesus fulfill Psalms 110:5?
Psalms 110:5. The Lord, on your right hand, has crushed kings on the day of His wrath.
Which kings did jesus crush? Also, which of his enemies were “made a footstool” at “his feet”? That’s in Psalms 110:1.
How did jesus fulfill these verses?
Shalom.
Y Y, Don’t worry he will come like he said; the year of favor unto God will finally end and the year of vengeance will come; Is 61, Daniel 7;13-14 , Zeh 14
The reason I mentioned you copied and pasted was this tripe is all over the internet and people like you Assume its validity. Dr Brown has used the same material in his books and had to retract much of it because it was found to be sourced from Xtian writings years ago and Not from authentic Jewish sources.
In any event you want to bring Proofs from Midrash!!!? It looks like desperation is setting in. Who are you trying to convince, me or You.
Just because you overwhelm with long comments doesn’t give any further authenticity. It actually reduces any credibility. What you read is from Xtian sites and not from Jewish sources and therein lies the problem. Xtians will always distort reality in order to further an agenda. Needless to say, ALL your references lack any merit and are typical Xtian polemics. That is, taking a word or phrase and “assuming” it to be Xtian when those same sources would turn over in their graves at such an idea.
S, it is not my business what you want to believe. Many Messianic facts are listed in Midrash that you keep rejecting and your great great-fathers didn’t!.
Eric, are you saying that Yehuda Yisrael’s great grandfathers accepted Jesus? If that is what you are saying you could not be further from the truth. Our ancestors were not the first followers of Jesus but their opponents, the Pharisees.
I didn’t say they accepted Jesus but they knew the psalm 110 was messianic
Eric, how do you know that my ancestors the Pharisees saw Psalms 110 as messianic? And if you accept their interpretation for one thing, why not for all?
Dina, you still didn’t get it. I don’t mean your exact ancestors or anybodys but simply ancient Jews who saw it as messianic. I confused you with my using ” great great fathers” .
Dina, I read all the objections of mine you collected, but I discussed most of them already with others so I know your Jewish point of view of them. There are some that weren’t really discussed so maybe you would want to focus just on those instead going over and over the same stuff?
Eric, I would nevertheless like to respond. I have spent many hours studying and writing in response to your objections–and I have not yet finished. Since I have correctly stated your position, I will post my response sometime within the next week, God willing.
I do hear that you want to move on, and I respect that. If you are weary of the subject, feel free to ignore my response when I post it.
Peace and blessings,
Dina
Dina, no problem if you want to still work on it, I don’t mind to read it, I just already know all the jewish answers to these points because there were discussed already many times here
Dina, Also I forgot to mention, You wrote all the objections and many were written in response to the message in everybody’;s emails so they might seem unclear without seeing the email they were relating to . Would you like me to go though and kind of ‘simplify’ it? If that would work…
Eric, is there anything in the way I presented your objections that makes you think I don’t understand them? Please let me know so we can clarify.
Thanks,
Dina
Dina, Go ahead , if I see you misunderstood me , I will point to out later. after your message.
Eric, I should also add that I took those objections mostly from comments that you wrote in response to my comments, so I do understand the context of the conversation. But thanks for offering :).
Eric,
Thank you for admitting that jesus did not fulfill Psalms 110!
Let the record show that jesus has not fulfilled Psalms 110 in any tangible capacity!
Thank you Eric for demonstrating to us how jesus failed to fulfill yet another Messianic prophesy from the Tanach!
Shalom
YY, you are talking nonsense Thank yourself for it! You completely didn’t read the message and the verses I gave you.
I don’t see how are you refuting my standards , but they are not refuted to me, you said;
1. Isaiah 49:3-6 says that the righteous of Israel will gather back in the rest of Israel and then the nation will serve as a light unto the nations. We are in the process of this happening as we speak.
My answer to your points . Nr 1. You are right we are in that process thanks to Jewish message about the Messiah ( Jesus) recorded to us in NT. Milions of people are coming to know God because of jewish message of forgiveness recorded in NT.
2. More about the reason of suffering israel throughout millenia -read first 24 chapters of Ezekiel, you can find the answers there. That suffering is because of your own guilt, not to bring salvation , but God will being redemption anyways because of His name ( Ez 36; 32) and by giving you new hearts Ez 11;19 ,
” Not for your sake do I act- let this be known to you! Be embarassed and ashamed of your ways…”Ez 36;32
I am not sure what you mean by ” How will they be shocked by him if they’ve never heard his message?”Most Catholic Christians hardly believe in Jesus ‘return besides knowing about his death but they are not sure what that actually meant as they still are thought to go to priests to confess their sins for forgiveness. I grew up among those Christians and they hardly have any clue about the meaning and purpose of Jesus ‘return and ruling in th e future. They even have not much clue about Messianic kingdom and everlasting life.
4. You are not realising that before you can bring any healing, you have to be healed yourself ( lifted up by the righteous ones Is 49;3-6). Then you will be light to the coming nations in the future. The healing Jesus brought is that we can be called righteous by God’s righteousness, not by our own merits. He wiped off the dirt of our sin from us, not us who could do it. Do I still sin? We all will still sin but we repent and we know we are free from the consequences of sin which was everlasting death, ( not just temporary sleep, but death in Genesis 3 was meant death.) The healing we have in Jesus is we are brought back to relationship with God which was broken by our ignorant life. You can keep saying whatever you want to, your words won’t change the fact that all who come to God through Jesus and repent are given peace and know the ‘power ‘of his atoning blood.
5. Over and over the same story. It is not about suffering silently! Did the nation suffer silenlty, nobody ever said a word??? If you can say YES, then you are disqualified!!! What was meant by ‘ he didn’t open his mouth’ was about not protesting but willingness to submit himself to the suffering because he knew he had to go though it. Jesus didn’t beg for mercy, he didn’t beg for letting him go.
6. Yes I see Is 53 clearly literal as I don’t think God want you to look for metaphors and guesses in what was said. You are bringing up the ‘metaphorical offspring’ in our interpretation but you are not realising that seeing offspring relates to the future. The same way if your suffering remnant who passed away long ago is unable to see offspring now untill they are resurected at the Messiah’s coming.
7. You at least heard about that atonement is in the blood in levit Blood is blood, wheter of an animal or of a person. Sheding blood indicated always LOSS OF LIFE, that sin easily brought to us.
7. Placing the Ruach HaKodesh on the Messiah it doesn’t have to be exlusive. You read my message wrong. When I was talking about him having given Holy Spirit I was pointing to the fact that the scriptures say so, that he will have the spirit! According to Is 11;2 and Is 42;1, 61;1 And the verses I talked about aren’t talking about David or king Saul, so I don’t know what is your problem.
8.
Here are the answers to the more objections:
1. You say “The Branch/Sprout can be associated with the Messiah, but it can also be associated with Zerubabbel ” but we were talking about Branch / Sprout in the context of Is 53 , not Zerubabbel or Zeh12.
2. You said ” According to the NT, did jesus “come back” after his death and walk in Israel? I guess that must disqualify him from being the servant because he was not completely “cut off from the land of the living.”
Me;That is the most nonsensial conclusion I heard. First of all you are admiting that God rose him back to life so he could walk again in Israel , that testifies for him being righteous, as God has no reason to raise to life a liar and deceiver. Second ; if he was ‘cut off from the land of the living, he was ‘cut off’ by people’s sin v.9 .!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! His later ‘ walking again after resurection was because of act of God to testify to others, not a punishment.
Sorry but Isaiah 51:17. doesn’t talk about you being drunk. And the expressions of ‘drinking a cup of God’s wrath’ are common throughout the whole OT and we know that God describes that way pouring His wrath, not a nation having a literal drink. I already explained that seeing offspring relates to the future.
4. I mentioned the innocent of Israel suffering as being a ridiculous idea whaen it comes to expecting the healing ‘by your wonds” by your suffering, ( tell me how the Cricaders and Nazi benefited from that????Second Israel is not described as innocent Ezekiel 1-24, and Is 1-5
5. When God says He desired to oppress him ( his servant) , or chose to crush him ( JPS translation) it doesn’t mean He was pleased in a sense of enjoying his servant’s suffering . So He wasn’t simply happy for Jesus being killed . ( neither He would be happy cousing israel to suffer) If it was just about having to kill Jesus that would bring Him satisfaction , God wouldn’t need Romans and you. Didn’t you think about that???? He would do it Himself !! But that was not a point!!!!! He didn’t need his blood for Himself! The point was for an innocent to be killed ‘by sin’ by sinful actions’ , not by righteous God. So of course there is condemns in NT for that sinful action! If you knew God you would know He is not having satisfaction from innocent being killed. But by Him ‘desiring to oppress him” or ‘chosing to crush him’ is meant HIS servant was the ONLY solution to dealing with sin, he was the only choice ,when an innocent ( who is free from his own guilt) is killed from the hands of the sinners and that way can take all our iniquituy on himself ( as if he was really quilty of all iniquity). And God knew the sinners will do it, He knew it ahead and he used the evil for acomplish His purpose.
YY, the last thing. How did God fulfill the words given to Abraham ? Are they already fulfilled now??? You don’t have a problem with that, yet still believe, so your judgement of Jesus not fulfilling Ps 110 is completely biased nonsense to me.
Eric, you keep bringing up Ps 110. There was a Xtian once who up a reference in Matthew whereby Jsus used this verse to silence his critics. The man said “SEE, no one could answer him”. My reply was they probably didn’t respond because as it says; don’t answer a fool according to his folly. No doubt they though he was a complete ignoramus. Why do I say that. If you could read Hebrew you would realize the very first word in that chapter. It says TO David. Evidently this god of the Gentles could not understand basic Hebrew.
Sharbano, It is interesting that the ancient Jews didn’t make a big deal out of it and still understood it as messianic. And even the whole context tells you that , that it talks about the future righteous king, and no other king in the past fits that description!
As far as your example you brought about NT about the people not answering to Jesus question regarding ps 110; there is also the other side of the story; you might not give your answer to the fool or be simply himself a fool who doesn’t know the answer.
Oh, by the way I forgot to add; The text in Matthew says, The Lord said to my Lord. The Hebrew does NOT say this. Another reason Jsus was an ignoramus.
Sharbano, sorry but everybody knows that the first ‘Lord’ relates to God Himself and the other ‘ Lord’ to a master ( adoni) . Why would the ancient Jews got is so wrong?
ok, here what yours says in stone edition;” Regarding David, a psalm. T e word of Hashem to my master. That doesn’t change the concept of God talking to the kings’ master.
According to Talmud ( in your stone edition- commentary) it is believed this psalm talks about Abraham. But he doesn’t match the description given to the king in that psalm.
Eric, most of what you write is so incoherent it’s difficult to follow. Regarding Talmud: I suspect you don’t understand, or unable to follow the flow. You’re making false assumptions which is the reason for so many errors in the lengthy posts regarding what the Sages actually believed.
Sharbano, If it is difficult to follwow for you don’t read it, I am sure you can find a better things to do. And if you see false assumptions- I prefer an example and how do you defend them to say you are right instead of just talking about it.
Eric, I must begin by stating that I have no problem with Psalms 110 being “Messianic.” There are various Rabbinic commentaries which see Messianic implications in this Psalm. However, this Psalm is not exclusive to the Messiah. As you mentioned, Rashi understands this Psalm to be primarily referring to Abraham…
You seem to be troubled by the interpretation that this refers to Abraham. Quite frankly, I feel that Abraham being the subject of this Psalm is the easiest reading of the three…It has the most scriptural support. Allow me to demonstrate. Psalms 110 opens up with this verse:
Psalms 110:1. Of David a psalm. The word of the Lord to my master; “Wait for My right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool at your feet.”
This verse highlights the fact that the subject of this Psalm has enemies that he needs G-d’s assistance in defeating them. Interestingly enough, Genesis 14 describes an event in which Abram rescues his nephew Lot from the four kings who had previously defeated the five kings. In this passage, Abram is victorious in battle against the four kings.
Genesis 14:14. And Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, and he armed his trained men, those born in his house, three hundred and eighteen, and he pursued [them] until Dan.
Genesis 14:15. And he divided himself against them at night, he and his servants, and smote them, and pursued them until Hobah, which is to the left of Damascus.
So we can see clearly that Abram is certainly a legitimate candidate for this Psalm based off of the first verse. Moving on…
Psalms 110:2. The staff of your might the Lord will send from Zion; rule in the midst of your enemies.
Once again, this verse fits Abram’s narrative in Genesis 14. He was able to conquer ruling kings. G-d also sent Abram Melchizedek, King of Salem, (aka Jerusalem/Zion) but we’ll get to that in a moment…Moving on.
Psalms 110:3. Your people will volunteer on the day of your host, because of the beauty of holiness when you fell from the womb; for you, your youth is like dew.
Compare this verse with Genesis 14:14, posted above. Men from Abram’s household willingly went with him to do battle against the four kings. Abram even makes direct reference to some of these men in Genesis 14:24
Genesis 14:24. Exclusive of what the lads ate, and the share of the men who went with me; Aner, Eshkol, and Mamrethey shall take their share.”
This gives even more specificity to Abram being the subject of this Psalm, as Abram makes a point to recognize the individuals who went with him during his battle with the four kings. Moving on…
Psalms 110:4. The Lord swore and will not repent; you are a priest forever because of the speech of Malchizedek.
It is important to note that Abram was the only person in the entire Tanach to have directly encountered Melchizedek. This fact alone tips the scales in Abram’s favor as being a prime candidate for being the subject of Psalms 110. Also worth noting, Abram encounters Melchizedek immediately after he had finished defeating the four kings.
Genesis 14:18. And Malchizedek the king of Salem brought out bread and wine, and he was a priest to the Most High God.
Genesis 14:19. And he blessed him, and he said, “Blessed be Abram to the Most High God, Who possesses heaven and earth.
Genesis 14:20. And blessed be the Most High God, Who has delivered your adversaries into your hand,” and he gave him a tithe from all.
And now we come full circle…Remember the first line of the Psalm? G-d says to the subject of the Psalm, “Wait for My right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool at your feet.” This fits perfectly with Abram, not only concerning the narrative of his victory over the four kings, but also in the blessing that Melchizedek gave to Abram. Melchizedek’s blessing to Abram exemplifies exactly what Psalms 110 describes concerning G-d making Abram’s enemies “a footstool at his feet.” Moving on…
Psalms 110:5. The Lord, on your right hand, has crushed kings on the day of His wrath.
Need I say more? There is ample evidence to support the fact that the subject of this Psalm is Abram, as demonstrated above. I have no problem with this Psalm also referring to King David and even the Messiah. However, I know your position is that this prophesy refers exclusively to the Messiah. However, this is clearly not the case.
And since you already admitted that jesus did not fulfill this Psalm in the slightest during his time here on earth and up to the present time, the best you can do is hope for a “second coming.”
You will be sorely disappointed…
Shalom
yehuda Yisrael
You said you have no problem with Psalms 110 being “Messianic.” If you think so ,would you have also no problem to see the connection of the Messiah and everlasting priesthood?
You think that this psalm is not exclusive to the Messiah because of the similarities . I read them all before online in Jewish commentaries and I am not troubled by their interpretation referring to Abraham. I just don’t believe it for the following reasons; unresolved issues where Abraham doesn’t fit. So here I will say more.
Considering similarities; Abraham is not the only one who had enemies, conquering ruling kings.
Psalms 110:2. “The staff of your might the Lord will send from Zion; rule in the midst of your enemies.”
my observation; help from Zion comes when God will rule in Zion. That is messianic future.
Or another translation;“The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion”. “The rod of thy strength,” or “thy strong scepter,” is the same thing as “thy ruling power” (see Jeremiah 48:17; Ezekiel 19:11). The ruling power of Messiah was to go forth from Jerusalem .
About volunteering ; kings were never fighting alone, does it exclude the future king having people fighting with him? What does the encountering Malchizedek have to do with being called a priest forever by the subject of Ps 110??
Psalms 110:4. The Lord swore and will not repent; you are a priest forever because of the speech of Malchizedek.
( my observation; the person that is called a priest forever is also a king of righteousness in Ps 110;4 . Abraham wasn’t a king,
Genesis 14:19. And he blessed him, and he said, “Blessed be Abram to the Most High God, Who possesses heaven and earth.
My note; God is possessing heaven and earth not Abraham.
Genesis 14:20. Abraham has adversaries delivered into his hand,
( my observation; but he is not a king, psalm talks about a king! Th e Lord is at the right of the king- He is his help – also while judging nations.)
Psalms 110:5. “The Lord, on your right hand, has crushed kings on the day of His wrath. Need I say more? “
Yes, you should have said more about v.5 . The day of God’s wrath is the Day of the Lord , it is time of the Messiah’s coming ( time of redemption of his people ) but also time of judgment to all unbelievers. ( Joel 3;4-5 , Zeph 1;14)
So you can see how easily it can refer to the Messiah .
You have problem with understanding while all things can’t be fulfilled at once about the messiah? But you would not have a problem with Is 53 viewing in Jewish interpretation. Was then it all already fulfilled there? What about v.12? You would have no problem as seeing it as the future? You have presence and future spoken about in one chapter wheter there is a Jewish or christian interpretation. So why you expect it all to happen at once in Ps 110?
Another example; In Is 61;1 you have time of a ‘year’ God”s favor mentioned and time of God vengeance. And these two facts are not coming at the same time. There is a huge time space between them.
Ps 110 v1 talks about waiting at God”s hand. Psalm 2 ;9 that also is messianic talks about Messiah’ ruling. more time space between the events.
Rabbi, according to scripture, the Samaritans are in error, but they have survived into the present day. What does this mean for the punishment of being cut off?
Eric
You have demonstrated that you have no clue about the spirit of Scripture. Throughout the five books the harshest punishment is being cut off from the chosen community – In Ezekiel this punishment is spelled out with greater force for the false prophets. The followers of Jesus had this curse fulfilled against them. The fact that a new community arose out of the Gentile church means nothing – God allowed the false prophets to flourish for a few hundred years in Ezekiel’s time until he caused them to die down from the Council of His nation.
Your quotation from Driver and Neubauer utterly discredits you. That book distorts the original sources – The Di Vidas quote actually says almost the opposite of what D&N claim he says. If you need forgeries to bolster your belief system – you are in deep trouble.
In any case – I have no problem with a suffering messiah – I have a problem with a self-proclaimed messiah who moves in the opposite direction of David.
Concerned Reader
They didn’t survive within the Council of God’s nation – but the fact that they did survive tells me that they are not as wrong as the followers of Jesus.
ypfriend,…. not as bad as followers of Jesus, so what about Buddism? The followers of Siddhartha Gautama, who is commonly known as the Buddha, has survived till today. Just because being not too bad either?
Rabbi wouldn’t they be guilty of the sin of idolatry (according to your standard) by sacrificing in an undesignated place? Moreover, they don’t just sacrifice in a manner unspecified, but they view their alter as necessary, and the only true one. Pardon my asking, I’d just like to know the reasoning behind your statement.
Concerned Reader
Idolatry is the sin of giving to anther the type of devotion that is appropriate only to your Creator. The Samaritans do not engage in that sin – the Jewish followers of Jesus were certainly moving in that direction
ypfriend, You don’t have to go to Driver and Neubauer. History is filled with facts of jewish’ quotations from Midrash and Targum , and messianic movements over the centuries before the D- and Neubauer were written supporting the same messianic belief with Christans.
You can keep insisting by your idea of a curse it doesn’t effect me and you can’t prove all jewish Christains simply ‘died out’. Not having a source of evidence is not proving the falsehood of the fact. The same way like you claim falsehood about resurrection of Jesus but you have no evidence to disprove the fact that it never happened.
And what about Jewish Jesus followers being allowed nowadays to enter the soil of israel? According to ‘the curse’ in Ezekiel they shouldn’t be allowed. And what about the blessing they have and Christains too?
And what about most Jewish cominuties destroyed in 70 AD? Most Jewish comunities ( who weren’t even Christians and stayed in Jerusalem) were killed or despersed all over . They became an outcast. If they were to fulfill the curse against them of being ‘cut off’ – it looks like they surelly fulfilled it.
You say you have no problem with the suffering messiah, that’s interesting but you can’t accept the idea that he Isaiah might be talking about his suffereings literaly in ( 50;4-6, 53).
Can you clarify what you mean by him going opposite direction of David?
Eric
I have no problem with a suffering Messiah interpretation of those passages in Isaiah – I do have a problem with the Christian Jesus – this is what I mean by the opposite direction of David
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/the-polar-opposite/
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/the-kings-musician-tactics-of-persuasion/
Thank you for the clarification.
Eric
God allows idolaters to flourish in Gentile societies – the curse is against them when they try to survive as a Jewish community. They cannot stand in the Council of God’s chosen nation
Hi Eric,
I’ve been working on a response to some of your objections to the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53, but before I post it I would like to make sure I understand them.
Here are your major objections as I understand them (wherever you see quotation marks I have quoted your own words directly:
1. Throughout Isaiah there is a contrast between guilty Israel and one righteous servant; therefore, the righteous servant cannot be corporate Israel. “The righteous servant is not identified as a group at all.” The righteous servant will be a covenant for the people (Isaiah 42:6).
2. It makes no sense that the speaker in the first ten verses is the kings and nations of the world rather than the Jewish people. You wrote: “How can the nations be shocked by the message they are already proclaiming? How can they be at the same time as those who HAVE NEVER HEARD ABOUT that message etc.?” (your emphasis). How does it make sense for the nations to talk about something in the future as if it has already happened? And why would they be telling this to the Jews? Furthermore, it is not a secret to the gentiles that Israel will be redeemed and restored. Therefore, if the speaker is the nations of the world, that cannot be what they would be so shocked about. The speaker must be the Jewish people who will be shocked by Jesus’s exaltation.
3. Isaiah says that the servant will restore the tribes of Jacob. If the servant is Israel, how can the servant restore the servant? How has Israel been a light to the nations?
4. The idea that the Jewish nation is suffering for the sins of the rest of the world makes no sense. What healing does Jewish suffering bring to other nations, especially when we see other nations suffering as well? How can the suffering of the righteous heal the guilty when we know that only repentance brings about God’s mercy and grace? How is Jewish suffering making the world better? Tanach does not support these notions. Besides, if you think the suffering of sinful people brings atonement to others, doesn’t it make sense to say that the suffering of a sinless being is so much more powerful?
5. Isaiah 53 is not talking about the righteous remnant because it did not suffer silently, did not die out completely, “never was in his death with the wealthy,” did not suffer for his own sins.
6. The Passover lamb is a foreshadowing of the atoning power of Jesus’s sacrifice. We Jews “reject God’s atoning that is in the blood.”
7. Isaiah talks about God placing His spirit on His servant. How can this be talking about anyone but the Messiah?
Here are more objections:
1. The imagery of a branch or sprout is associated with King David/the Messiah.
2. Being cut off from the land of the living—there are Jews in Israel today.
3. It’s clear the righteous servant dies, is buried, and comes back to life. This passage speaks of total death, not partial death. How can the servant teach wisdom if he is already dead?
4. “God didn’t desire you to suffer in the Holocaust and being oppressed. Ever! He is not God who rejoices over people’s suffering that comes on them due to their disobedience and sin.”
5. The offspring the servant is rewarded with is all those who trust in and follow God; it doesn’t mean that the servant will die, be resurrected, and have actual biological offspring.
6. Jesus prayed for his persecutors, just as the servant in Isaiah 53 prays for the transgressors.
Eric, do I have that right? Please don’t add more objections, just clarify wherever you think I have misunderstood your position.
Thanks!
All the best,
Dina
If those are intact, Eric’s objections, then they can be easily refuted by his own silly standards for jesus.
I will answer them in order.
1. Isaiah 49:3-6 says that the righteous of Israel will gather back in the rest of Israel and then the nation will serve as a light unto the nations. We are in the process of this happening as we speak.
2. This is a double standard. There are plenty of people who have never heard of jesus. How will they be shocked by him if they’ve never heard his message? Also, you are misrepresenting us. This is a future prophesy about Israel, but Israel’s suffering has been an ongoing process throughout the millennia.
3. See answer #1.
4. Once again, this is a double standard. What healing has jesus brought to the world? Do you still sin? If you still sin, then why do you insist that jesus is the only possible remedy for sin? Clearly, your jesus does not atone for sin. Thus, jesus does not heal you. Once again, the healing that the nations will receive from Israel will be in the future. Right now, Israel is suffering, but the healing will be felt by the nations at the end of days. Isaiah 2:2-4, Zechariah 8:20-23, and Jeremiah 16:19 all attest to this.
5. This is another double standard as jesus did not suffer silently. Was he not the one who asked “My G-d my G-d! Why have you forsaken me?” before his death according to your NT? Also, why do you assume that the remnant needed to die out completely? You’re holding the text to a hyper-literal standard. If I held the text to the same hyper-literal standard that you do concerning Isaiah 53, then the servant can definitely not be jesus because the servant will see his offspring according to Isaiah 53:10…Of course, you see this a “metaphorical offspring” so that your biased, forced interpretation of jesus flows nicely…But this is a double standard.
6. jesus was a human being, not a lamb…Nowhere in the Tanach does it state that the blood of a man will provide ultimate atonement for all who believe in him.
7. G-d placed the Ruach HaKodesh on many individuals, including Yehoshua ben Nun, King Saul, and King David, just to name a few…Why must this be exclusive to the Messiah?
Here are the answers to the more objections:
1. The Branch/Sprout can be associated with the Messiah, but it can also be associated with Zerubabbel (Zechariah 3:8 and Zechariah 6:12-13)
2. According to the NT, did jesus “come back” after his death and walk in Israel? I guess that must disqualify him from being the servant because he was not completely “cut off from the land of the living.” Double standard.
3.This is not clear because of the metaphorical imagery in the surrounding context of the chapters of Isaiah. If this must be a literal death, then Israel must have literally “drunk from the Hand of the Lord, the cup of His wrath.” (Isaiah 51:17.) Also, if you insist that the servant must “completely die,” then the servant must also literally see his own children, not figurative offspring.
4. You attack the notion that G-d wanted to make the innocent of Israel suffer as being a ridiculous idea, but when it comes to jesus, you don’t have a problem. This is…A DOUBLE STANDARD. You seem to be full of double standards, Eric. Also, your NT condemns the Jews for having a role in the death of jesus. (I Thessalonians 2:14-15) If it truly “pleased” Hashem to kill jesus, then why does the NT condemn his killers? You should be thanking the Romans and the Jews for giving you atonement by killing jesus! But that’s not what the NT says…
5. It says that the servant will have offspring. Double standard…
6. Who says Israel doesn’t pray for its persecutors? Double standard.
Eric is going around in circles…
Yehuda Yisrael, I’ve already written much of my response, and I see you present similar arguments much more concisely! To Eric, before you respond to Yehuda Yisrael, may I ask you to first see if I’ve restated your arguments correctly? If I have, then I will post my response.
Thanks,
Dina
D, I will go back to you tomorrow ( hopefully) . I will have more time to go over the points to see what you wrote. I haven’t had time to get to it today.
To Eric on September 2, 2014 at 11:24 pm about Psalm 110
You didn’t answer my question about who wrote the NT book of “Hebrews” and what other NT author also makes the same claims. The NT was originally Greek, not Hebrew. And you may be correct that one does not have to go to the NT to read about the everlasting priesthood and I see that the NT only confuses and does not clarify anything by taking the Psalm out of its context (and mistranslates portion of text that already difficult) and reads a gentile, non-Hebrew or non-Israelite king into the text about an Israelite King.
I don’t understand what you meant by “If you want to argue about evidence I would have to raise so many of facts to be proven from the OT”. The simple, literal text is all that is needed. In fact, “midrash”, allegory, etc. should override the simple literal meaning of the words in context. But there are several interpretations of who the master or king is, including Abraham, David (obviously), or the idea of a future messiah or king. Radak is one, among several others, who went at length to argue against a Christian interpretation of the Psalm. Someone else can speak about the concept of Messiah in the Talmud. As far as I’ve seen, none of the sages seen or would see Jesus in Psalm 110 and I would assume many would argue that their idea of a messiah and your ideas are 2 different concepts. Unless you agree with them and you are just being argumentative for the fun of it.
A Messiah, may or may not be a king, plus “a messiah” is a concept, a hope, and not a biblical guarantee. The Psalm is not pointless as you state, because it speaks about a king. That was why it was written. It wasn’t written for others to use hundreds of years later to select and try to use to promote ideas not found in the simple text. The Psalm is called a royal Psalm, and the imagery is present in other text about Israelite kings (similar to the usage in other kingdoms surrounding Israel). David, Solomon, and “David’s sons” were priests (2 Sam. 6.14; 1 Kings 8), and 2 Sam. 8.18, etc). If you interpret “everlasting” as a human who has not yet died and never will, then no one fits your “bill”, especially not Jesus. Jesus was not a priest, not within the Aaronic priesthood, not a Levite, and not qualified if he were a priest outside of Judaism (not a part of a “gentile” priesthood; nor was he anointed as a king.
Your last “thing” (footstool( was done by Joshua, David, and others and promised to other Kings as well. And you are not explaining why The Lord (God) is crushing the king or “messiah’s” enemies. This seems the case for a “human king”, not for Jesus as he is imagined. You are making the king or “messiah” pretty much irrelevant in your scenario. Why are you trying to contradict some NT teachings anyhow and trying to constrain Jesus to fit into some Tanach or Talmud model? Should we discard the NT gospel of grace?
Yedidiah, I have no time to go back to all your questions , I will address just a few;
What are you talking about by ” NT … reads a gentile, non-Hebrew or non-Israelite king into the text about an Israelite King”???? Who are you talking about??? Jesus was jewish , the Messiah will be Jewish, where do you see a non-isrealite King I talked about????
Your words are;” If you interpret “everlasting” as a human who has not yet died and never will, then no one fits your “bill” . Everlasting doesn’t mean someone never died before. He can be back to life and live forever on. That could be anybody who will be resurrected in the future but Ps 110 talks about the king of righteousness and we know that in the Messianic kingdom there will be only one righteous king. Is 11.
You asked ; why The Lord (God) is crushing the king or “messiah’s” enemies?????
Read ; Ps 2, 9 . Read all Ps 2 for the best . Could be an answer to you. I just mention th main points;
v.1 why do nations gather ……the kings of earth take their stand and the princes conspire secretly against Hashem and against His anointed. Let us cut their cords(…) v.6 ” I myself have anointed my king over Zion(…)
v.9 ask Me and I will make nations your inheritance and the ends of the earth your possession. You will smash them with an iron rod, …..”
Who is to rule with iron rod, what king over all nations in th e future? It is th e Messiah ( according to Is 11.
You said ;” This seems the case for a “human king”, not for Jesus .”
Is Jesus not a human king????? He will come to rule as a human not a ghost!
The author of “Hebrews” makes Jesus a priest in a gentile priesthood.
We see one “Righteous Lord” and King in the story of the 5 Amorite Kings in Joshua 10:3-4, “So King Adoni-zedek of Jerusalem sent this message to King Hoham of Hebron, King Piram of Jarmuth, King Japhia of Lachish, and King Debir of Eglon: “Come up and help me defeat Gibeon; for it has come to terms with Joshua and the Israelites.”
“Everlasting doesn’t mean someone never died before”. My point. So, why wouldn’t a member of the Israelite Priesthood or an Israelite King be chosen to be the Priest and/or King instead of one who was not a king nor a priest? In “the Messianic kingdom there will be only one righteous king.” So?
Using Psalm 2 doesn’t answer why in Psalm 110, that it is the Lord (God), not the King or messiah, who is crushing the king’s or “messiah’s” enemies”. Well, actually it adds to the strength of my case, since the king, the anointed one, must ask God for help. “Ask it of Me, and I will make the nations your domain….” But again, the literal sense, as understood by the author and his audience 2500-3000 years ago, was that their human King (like David, Solomon, or even Saul for a time) was the one who could ask God for help.
No, Jesus was not a king or a priest. In fact, the Jesus, as pictured in the NT, may have been less than a ghost and may have been largely fictional.
Yedidiah, “ You asked “why wouldn’t a member of the Israelite Priesthood or an Israelite King be chosen to be the Priest and/or King instead of one who was not a king nor a priest? In “the Messianic kingdom there will be only one righteous king.” So?
What is a point? David who was not a king before was chosen to be a king in the future. But answering your question; let’s say David could be the king chosen again to be a priest and king in that future in th e Messianic kingdom, but the description of the Messiah doesn’t fit him. The messiah is mentioned to be a king who ruled before in the past but a completly a new person who can approach God really close like High Priests used to do.
( Jer 30;21)
You say that Using Psalm 2 doesn’t answer for you ” why in Psalm 110, that it is the Lord (God), not the King or messiah, who is crushing the king’s or “messiah’s” enemies”. I am not sure if I understand what you mean here. So I might not answer what you wanted.
If you mean that is is the Lord ( God) who is crushing the kings, etc He is accomplishing things through people. Wasn’t it God who led the Israelities from Egypt? Did He walk Himself to lead people of did He use Moses?
Did God save Joseph and his family Himself or did He use Joseph? Did God kill Goliah Himself? Or did He use David? The whole scriptures are filled with such examples.
The same way whatever it is said God will do, He will do through His Messiah . The same way when it says that there will be only one righteous king to rule and that God will be the king also does it mean there will be two kings? No, but that God will rule through His righteous king.
You said the words ; “Ask it of Me, and I will make the nations your domain….” that is not asking for help but having a privilage to have all the nations given by God under his feet to rule.
Then you have been arguing for no purpose? Why use Psalm 2 or 110, to make a case that God could chose any man in the future?
Yedidiah, I said I don’t argue for the sake of arguing. Psalm 2 and 110 were brought up in the context of discussing the elevated position of the Messiah , to show you that the nation is not t e only ones the exaltation is coming to.
Eric, There is one problem with your assumptions regarding messiah. The Mashiach, who by definition, will be a king, would Not be a priest. That is, a priest to serves in the Temple. For example, he will not be a King and also a High Priest, which is how you seem to be defining him.
JSharbano, Jesus was never a high priest to work in the man- made built temple Or else the Messiah would have to come from Levi. But he is our intercessor before God of the everlasting priesthood. For your more interest read Hebrew 5, 8 and 9 they explain it well.
Do you think that people who died and will be risen to everlasting life ( Daniel 12;2) will need animal offerings being offered forever every year???
Eric,
Your comment is self-contradictory. Jsus is not a high priest, but he is an intercessor OF the priesthood. I realize there are Xtians who say he will be a king and a priest, which is what Paul is trying to prove. Paul is going through many contortions in order to define an intercessor. Israel needs no intercessor to Hashem. Yaakov’s name was changed to Yisrael. The etymology of “Israel” is “Straight to G-d”.
It’s not what I think that animal offerings will be brought, but what Yechezkel says about the Third Temple. There will be all manner of sacrifices, including those for sin.
Sharbano, you are forgetting that in messianic kingdom there will be people who are resurrected to everlasting life ( acc to Daniel 12;2) immortal ones , never to die anymore and there will be still new people being born who will be dying. Those who will be ‘everlasting’ won’t need practice of symbolic sin offering.
The thing I said about Jesus is that he in not a high priest when it comes to perform in the earthly temple that is just reflection of the spiritual one. He is not to come with animal blood before the Holy of Holies in the earthly temple built by man ( repeat the same routine what the Levits) but he went into the presence of God IN HEAVEN ( as a high priest with his own blood that was shed for us). You are not realizing that earthly temple is symbolic of what is spiritual. God didn’t just brought the idea of killing animals for no reason. That was as a reminder what sin brings- which is death, loss of life. In order to clean anything in the temple with blood , it required first blood shed , something had to lose it’s life. And that is all a picture of something more important, spiritual.
In Jer 30;21 you can read that the messiah will be able to approach God more than anybody else . If he was to be equal with other Levies- high priests approaching God in the temple, God would have mentioned them in Jer 30;21 along with him. Unlike any other man, God is mentioning only the Messiah of having a special closes approach to HIm.
You mentioned Israel doesn’t need an intercessor. Ok, but don’t tell me you never profited of an intercession of somebody really close to God; If not Moses’ intercession God was ready to wipe all rebelling nation off.
“The Lord spoke further to me, saying, ‘I have seen this people, and indeed, it is a stubborn people. 14‘Let Me alone, that I may destroy them and blot out their name from under heaven; and I will make of you a nation mightier and greater than they.'” (Deuteronomy 9:13-14).
Your profit;
(….) So the Lord changed His mind about the harm which He said He would do to His people.” (Exodus 32:12-14,
Eric,
You are trying to weave a thread with yarn that does not exist. You’re trying to make sense of Paul’s nonsense. You and him bring up Malki-Tzedek as if that has some relevance to the argument, but it does not. It is sheer invention. In order to come up with the argument you have to take a phrase here, a phrase from something unrelated and use THAT for the supposition. So, if the argument isn’t rational you change the relationship to the spiritual. Why on earth would G-d go through such a convoluted mess to saying something that could be expressed clearly and concisely. But this is the rationale behind all of Xtian teachings, that is, a god who is convoluted. The G-d of Israel, on the other hand, speaks clearly and concisely.
You also have a limited view in the “killing of animals for no reason”. Torah states was animals could be used for, namely Food. By making it a sacrifice one elevates the killing of an animal for that food. To hunt an animal and gut it and carve it up with no thought of where it came from is even lower than paganism.
You want to assume the animal sacrifice was only for sin. You should re-read Torah regarding sacrifices. The sin sacrifice was a very small part of the picture. This unequivocally proves the Xtian perceptions of animal sacrifice is fallacy. You cannot come up with a doctrine that takes a sliver here and a sliver there to create that doctrine. If that sliver in its context refutes the doctrine then the entire premise is faulty and should be discarded. That is why the entire premise of blood is entirely against any teaching of Torah, as your statement of “acting as a high priest with his own blood that was shed” shows. Did he take “his” blood and put it upon the altar. That is the manner in which it is done. Otherwise the altar at mount Gerizim would have been allowed.
Sharbano,You asked ” Did he take “his” blood and put it upon the altar. That is the manner in which it is done. ” So I will ask you a question; why was the altar sprinkled with blood? Do you see there literal meaning? Can you cleanse anything with blood, like the altar was??? Was there literal ‘cleaning’ done??? Try to cleanse a table at your home like that and tell me how clean it looks. It is all symbolic. And Jesus didn’t come to repeat the symbols. He fulfilled the meaning of blood being shed for our complete atonement.
And there is no confusion. as long as you keep seeing the nation of fulfillment of Is 53, you will see it all confused to you. It is clear as it says. We are justified by a servant who shed his blood for us.
Just another twisted effort. Blood is for “Cleaning”??? Where did you come up with that. Once again this shows the faulty logic of Xtianity. You claim the blood of your messiah is for the cleansing of sin. Well, the blood is NOT for any kind of cleaning. If you want cleaning go get some Mr. Clean. Maybe we should just call Jsus Mr. Clean from now on. Your entire premise is nothing short of silly.
This reminds me of an old Abbott and Costello show where Costello literally PROVES that 7 X 13 = 28. His proof involves all angles, multiplying, dividing etc. To a young child who isn’t skilled in basic math he would easily be convinced. But it doesn’t take long before he learns enough to realize it is just plain silly, which is the point. This is where Xtianity is when it comes to understanding Jewish texts. They are literally children with no education and are duped into the silliness of a faulty argument. It’s on youtube for you to see.
Also, your reference, once again, of Is 53 is wrong. It doesn’t say the way YOU wrote it. This is why YOU are confused. You change the actual wording in order to fit your OWN narrative. The text definitely is speaking in the plural. It uses the word “THEY” in one reference. Is Jsus a “They”. What it amounts to is Xtians simply cannot handle the truth.
As it says “Formerly he grew like a sapling”. The key word is Formerly. “He was despised and isolated from men”. Was Jsus isolated from men. I thought he had many followers. “A man of pains and accustomed to illness” Where does it say Jsus was had pains and illnesses. “We regarded him diseased, stricken by G-d, and afflicted”. Where does the Xtian text say this. “Oppressed through our iniquities”. How was Jsus oppressed. If this was supposed to be ALL about Jsus then the Xtian text should have stated so as Jsus himself said about a donkey being a fulfillment. It that is a clear prophecy why is this one so utterly vague in the extreme. Now, before you go and try and twist the facts from your text to support your argument realize this. Words means things and it doesn’t work to change how a meaning is applied. This is the typical response when confronted with contradictory evidence, much like the symbolic argument. It’s all a ruse for those who are gullible and ignorant of language.
Sharbano, Paul is proving in ( Hebrews ) that Jesus is is a high priest of spiritual temple. He is not proving whether he is a priest or high priest in relation to performing symbolic duties in the man made temple.
“For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled, sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? (Hebrews 9:13-14).
The third temple doesn’t look like a reinstitutio of Mosaic Judaism. Ark of the covenant is not mentioned, neither tables of the law, no mercy seat, no veil, no golden lampstand. Instead of a high priest, a prince who has some royal or priestly powers will be on duty, but he will actually be neither king nor high priest. The levite’s will have fewer Temple privileges, except for the sons of Zadok, who will serve as priests. The feast of Pentecost is omitted, as well as the Great Day of Atonement and the daily evening sacrifice.
Paul doesn’t prove Anything. He’s attempting the same convoluted mess I mentioned earlier. Read, read for yourself, the details of the Third Temple in Yechezkel. This is certainly not some spiritual temple. It is instead a return to the ways of Torah. Paul shows his complete and total ignorance of anything Tahor. Was Jsus “unblemished”. Obviously Not. If you want to assert another spiritual definition that doesn’t work here. Sin is done “in the flesh” therefore the unblemished has to be physical.
Why would there be a need to mention the vessels in the Temple. The Torah already gives that information. As a matter of fact, if it was mentioned, there would be countless questions of Why it had to be repeated when it is unnecessary. I have NO idea what you mean by “mercy seat”. There is no mercy seat in any Temple, past or future. The Kohanim will still be the ones who perform the duties in the Temple, as always.
But you are taking Psalm 2 out of context, in order to use it in a way it was not meant.
Yedidiah, there is nothing our of context , the whole psalm is about the future. Even Rashi noticed it’s messianic meaning.
Let the words you quote (and those you might ignore if they are not compatible with your hypotheses) speak for themselves. Why add meanings to them that weren’t what God meant them to say?
Yedidiah, you mean like yours ; the messiah is just a concept not biblical guarantee…??
Eric, what basis do you have for jesus being a “high priest in heaven.” You already admitted that jesus did not fulfill Psalms 110 and that you expect he will do so in the “second coming.” This means that you have no reason to believe that jesus is a priest of the order of Melchizedek. Moreover, Melchizedek was not a “heavenly priest.” His priesthood was ON EARTH. So what gives jesus exclusive rights to be a “heavenly priest” if Melchizedek wasn’t a “heavenly priest” himself?
jesus never was, is not, and never will be, a “high priest” of the order of Melchizedek…
yehuda yisrael, Jesus doesn’t have to be a priest for you, I am glad it is for us.
Melchizedek didn’t have to be ‘heavenly priest’. Being after him meant
sharing his qualities, like Melchizedek who was a “king of ·goodness [righteousness} , “king of peace.” King of Salem. Melchizedek was also before the Levits duties were introduced. The Law, with its priestly regulations wasn’t introduced for another 430 years during the time of Moses and yet from the beginning there existed a priest of God Most High. You were asking what are Jesus’ rights to being a priest in heaven. The same rights like you read in Psalm 110;4. The same rights a person has being able to approach God close unlike any other person can do ( in Jer 30;21). And being priest ‘in heaven’ simply means being able to go into the very presence of God to intercede for people.
Yedidiah, I meant ” The messiah is NOT mentioned to be a king who ruled before ( to be from among the known previous kings on earth)
Then he could be anyone. Moses, Joseph, David, etc. A new person. So why guess and assume he would be a unrighteous man who may not even have existed or who life or story was corrupted by man?
Yedidiah
We mentioned psalm 110 in relationship to Hebrews in NT where the words of the everlasting priesthood are mentioned.
You wanted the answer who wrote the NT book of “Hebrews” and what other NT author also makes the same claims. What does it change to you? If it was Paul , you would question Paul’s words in the other NT letters as well. If it was Peter, you would question Peter. But the same claims you were asking about are in Romans 8;34, about Jesus being at right hand of God interceding for people, in 1 John 2;1, in 1 Peter 1;18-19, in 1 Cor 15;45, Galatians 4;4-5.
You said in regarding to Ps 110 that “The simple, literal text is all that is needed.” Are you sure you would consider that? So why t can’t you read Is 53 that way?? Besides – to your statement – Psalm 110 is interpreted literally, the words mean what they mean and say.
You mentioned that psalm wasn’t written for others to use hundreds of years later to select and try to use to promote ideas not found in the simple text. I wonder what type of ideas you mean. Despite of similarities to Abraham’s story there are the following reasons for which you can say the psalm wasn’t talking about any kings of old times;;
1) the psalm mentions Zion (v.2). which wasn’t mentioned in the time of Abraham.
2)Abraham was never called a priest. Psalm 110 mentions that the person would be a “priest forever.” here you worried about loosing literal text and meaning. So why are you looking for other ideas to replace that person of everlasting duties?
3) Abraham was not a royal leader. While Abraham was the father of the Jews, he was never considered a king or royal leader, which this psalm explicitly describes.
David doesn’t fit either ; Psalm is not written about David; it was written by him.
-David was never called a priest by the Lord. While David was a priestly king, he was never specifically called a priest by God.
-David never sat at God’s right hand, and he never had a worldwide reign. The right hand of a king was a position of authority and supreme honor Ps. 45:9
-this prophecy is greater than David. David’s enemies were defeated during his lifetime, but this psalm refers to conquest after his death, which was never fulfilled. Therefore, if David didn’t fulfill this, then we should expect one of his descendants to fulfill it, as with most prophecies mentioning David’s reign (2 Sam. 7:11-16).
And the words you wrote that “A Messiah, may or may not be a king, plus “a messiah” is a concept, a hope, and not a biblical guarantee.” tells me you don’t have much information about your own sources, because Is 11 and Is 9, Jer 33;15-17 , Jer 23;5 are stating about clear guarantee, not a concept.
You say that “The author of “Hebrews” makes Jesus a priest in a gentile priesthood. “ Read more for yourself; all chapters 5, 8 and 9. I will just say it shortly;
the Messiah’s priesthood is not based on the Levi’ system for earthly duties in the temple.
Hebrews 8;5 explains the earthly temple is the reflection of the heavenly one , made according to the pattern given from above. ( also Hebr 9;5 a shadow of heavenly one)
Hebr 8;1-2 explains the Messiah is the servant of the temple built by God not man and Hebr 5;.5 that the Messiah didn’t glorify himself to become a priest but God who who gave him that position. ( ps 110;4) and allows him to approach God very close ( Jer 30;21)
The way the earthly things were purified by blood , the same way heavenly things ; The Messiah has entered a Holiest Place which is not man -made place but he entered into heaven itself ( with his own blood shed for us) , in order to appear now on our behalf in the every presence of God. (9;23-24)
Hebrew 10;2 explains that sacrifices couldn’t ever make anybody perfect. They were to bring memory of sin and its result. If they could cleanse a person forever , they would NOT need to be ever repeated.
The question about who wrote the “book of Hebrews” (the real author, not the commonly assumed author who is only a guess) is important, since people accept it as valid although it disagrees with the OT in numerous places and promote some ideas that even contradict many passages in the NT. Of course, a lot of claims made in the NT are addressed in more than one place. Obviously, so that was not my point. And “Hebrews” agrees with many parts of the NT as well, since it is part of the NT (but they are not part of the Tanach). So my question was mainly on your use of Hebrews Chap 7 as support for a new kind of “priesthood”. Melchizedek was a “gentile priest” and he as a person is barely mentioned in the Tanach, since he played a very insignificant part of the history of the “Hebrews” or Israel. Romans 8.3, 1 John 2.1, 1 Peter 1:18-19, and the other verses you cited there had little or absolutely nothing to do with any sort of priesthood.
Psalm 110 was concerning David. This is one of the royal Psalms, similar to that used in the coronation of Kings not only in Israel, but it many other kingdoms in the Middle East at that time. The King was “The Servant of God”, but also the “begotten Son of God”, the “2nd in command below God”, his “right hand man for His Kingdom on earth”. But, since he was a man, he had to ask for God’s help; God needed to give him power: Unless you believe David had gods other than God (and David was privy to this conversation in heaven between the 2 gods) or unless you are a pagan polytheist and believe that there is a god beside God. Some Israelites did follow other gods, the ba’alim, etc., so you may be advocating more than one god as well as a pagan priesthood. So David was called a priest and he commanded priests (he was the “commander-in-chief” of the priests, like the US President is commander of the US military (The king also commanded the kingdom’s army for God). He set up the division of the priests for their duties and the Levites for their watches. He was the one who “assigned the priests & Levites over the House of The Lord”.
So, I see no reason not to read Psalm 2, Ps 110, and others as prayers, Psalms, songs, poetic, yet simple text. I would read Isa 53 that way too. Although as an experiment I showed that the NT Judas fit more of the verses than Jesus did.
I wasn’t trying to show that Abraham was the one in Ps 2 or 110. However, some sages did. But Jesus doesn’t “fit the bill either”; he was no priest on earth, he was no King in his lifetime, and the Jesus of the NT might not even have existed as a man. So, just because some unknown writers wrote a lot of stuff about Jesus and made all sorts of claims about him “after his death” doesn’t mean anything. Those “prophecies” haven’t come true. Once you interpret the text to mean something other than what the original text was intended to say to the original audience, you could wind up “proving” all sorts of things, but that doesn’t make those things real. I think he should have serious concerns about the type of god-man or god or gods we see in the NT. Blood of a “sacrificed human” is not pagan, but somehow “Godly”?? Although God said he was not a man, that he would lie, those who make Jesus God, may be saying Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of God lying to us to “punish us”, to mislead us (the NT agrees that many people will be deceived by false prophets, false messiahs).
Back to the sages reading Abraham into the Psalm, there is a concept of the “prophetic past” (which is something that you are using). Since God sees all time, events that have occurred in the past, can also be seen as prophecies of events in the future. In Isaiah 9, the verbs are in the past tense, so the events already happened. Isa 11 is preceded by Isa 10, where a remnant is already spoken of. In Isa 11, the “tree imagery” continues. If the “stump” translation is correct, we could say that the Davidic dynasty came to an end. But the word geza also refers to the trunk of a living tree, which presupposes that the dynasty did not come to an end, Jer 33 is about the coming restoration of the House of David and the Levitical Priesthood, both which were part of the everlasting covenant. But Jeremiah 23, 28, 29, and 43 and Ezekiel 13 also speaks of prophets who God did not send to the exiles and who prophesied falsehoods and “lying divinations”. “Everlasting” covenants do not have to be guaranteed (unless you did not believe them), but false prophets will try to guarantee their prophecies, their new words, their new covenants.
yedidiah, if you want to prove falsehood of Jesus, start with proving his resurrection that it never happened.
Eric, YOU’RE the one who claims the resurrection happened, so the burden of proof falls upon YOUR shoulders.
I in no way was trying “to prove falsehood of Jesus”. Nor did I say Jesus did not exist (depends on how some people define “who or what Jesus was). Their were/are many historians and authors of books, who have made a good case that there are very severe problems with the concept of a resurrection of someone called Jesus. They made a much stronger case that there was “no resurrection” than other historians have made the case that there was a “resurrection”. You can go to the Barnes & Noble, Amazon, or other book seller websites or stores to find books about “the resurrection” or go to a well stocked library. The resurrection is a very, very unusual thing to have occurred and yet there is little or no evidence anything unusual at all happened when a very few people said something unusual thing happened.
So, if you expect others to believe that some miracle occurred, you need to show better evidence to those people than the few contradictory sentences in the gospels about a few people who believed in a resurrection.
Early Christians beloved many different things about Jesus. Don’t criticize me because the textual evidence for a resurrection is so scanty. Don’t blame me that some early Christians did not believe in a “flesh and blood Jesus”. I can’t help it that within less than 100 years of Jesus that some followers of Jesus did not believe in the concept of a resurrection of Jesus. While some believed in a resurrection, some followers of Jesus denied that their Jesus was either a man or that was he resurrected. I merely stated that “if the Jesus of the NT existed” (which was not a denial that he could have existed, but it might have suggested that if there “was a Jesus” that he might have been somewhat different from the way that the gospels or some other early Christian writers portrayed him).
A Messiah, may or may not be a king, plus “a messiah” is a concept, a hope, and not a biblical guarantee.
In regards to the last point you made “messiah not a guarantee” I think your flying against Talmud there.
So? I’m not a Orthodox Jew and the Talmud is not part of my tradition or my belief system. So others can explain the various messianic ideas in or not in the Talmud and what aggadah is or isn’t compared to written Torah.
So you aren’t a Christian, your not Jewish, and you don’t seem like a noachide (otherwise you might be impelled to be more careful about discussing these concepts,) what is it that you believe or subscribe to?
There are about 40,000 different Christianities. Why should one define oneself, if that is irrelevant or does not pertain to the matter being discussed? And one need not “fit into one box” at all times in a lifetime. And one need not agree with their current pastor or “spiritual leader” or Rabbi, 100% or even a majority of the time. But, I have said this before recently, I am an active member of a Christian Church (evangelical, “Hebrew roots church”, etc) well known internationally and well respected by most Christian leaders in our big city, and even by Orthodox rabbis and Jewish leaders in the US and in Israel.
And with my diverse background, I can bring up points that others do not want to bring up, or do not want to consider, or that they are ignorant of even though it is a part of the theology that they ascribe to.
“There are about 40,000 different christianities.” Indeed all religions are diverse, even Judaism is diverse, but diverse doesn’t prevent unified perspectives, even accounting forbthe diversity. I would say that Orthodoxy, Catholicism, classical Protestantism, (Anglican, Lutheran, Calvinist) can reach agreement pretty easily on issues of fundamental Christolgy and ethics. Even you have noted in previous posts that the once saved always saved perspective of some evangelical Protestants is more nuanced, then I have described it, and not necessarily incapable of presenting a necessity for justice.
I was once a member of a church that was at one time 4 separate and different denominations. I have seen several “interfaith” meetings and seen willingness to work toward common goals. I have seen Catholic Church leaders even meet monthly with Orthodox Rabbis and Jewish leaders. But, I have seen several major churches split up irreconcibly in the last few decades. A hypothesis of unity may be commendable, but the history, the reality is a totally different thing. Plus, this blog is the wrong forum for any discussion of the unification of Christian beliefs that are part of a 2000 year history of division within the church. Hypothetically, the “Jesus way” was only one way. But within the very seed of the Church, the teachings of Jesus, there were beliefs that are flawed and that promoted division. The NT writers themselves couldn’t agree about some key elements of belief. The NT was forced to deal with “heresy” in its very earliest days. Ask why Irenaeus & other early Church spent so much effort discussing and refuting heresies. The movement split into 7 different “paths” very soon after the “death of Jesus”.
And today, few churches will talk seriously of unity if it would their basics beliefs and doctrines must be abandoned. Will you give up Sunday services to worship on the “7th day” (the Catholic Church once knew that Luther would not go that far in the protest to becoming “biblically correct”)? Would Catholics agree to pretty much give up Mary (or dozens of other doctrines) to appease Protestants? How many Protestants will agree that the whole protestant movement was only want a “temporary” plan to bring about reform in the RCC and their developed over the last several hundred years, can soon be abandoned? Some beliefs and practices in the set of doctrines in some denominations are diametrically opposed to those of other denomination. How many Christians will abandon belief in a trinity in favor of some “vague” idea about a unity of God? How many will give up believing Jesus was God and will consent to see him only as a man and only a prophet, a teacher, or a metaphor? If they are willing to see him as a man (and only later he became a divine being), are they willing to give up Christmas and a “magical birth” story? Are they prepared not only to give up “Easter egg hunts” and sunrise services (of their son-god), but give up “Resurrection” Day as well? Will they be asked to accept Mohammed as a prophet next? Might as well, since you objects to the idea of prophets & prophecies?
You seem still unable to intellectually deal with differences and with people’s deep convictions about their beliefs. Some would prefer to die with “a gun in the hand” rather than switch?
You seem still unable to intellectually deal with differences and with people’s deep convictions about their beliefs.
Not so at all, at least no more or less than any other religious individual or group Yedidiah. Just think about what you said for a moment. Convictions! You are saying that religious faith is most often based on, or at least driven by, convictions. A person can point out all the great rational reasons for people to act in unison, all the other reasons to realize the existence of diverse perspectives, but people will walk out on these facts in favor of what they already believe.
I can totally deal with the differences between religions, because I am aware that Just because absolute truth exists, I may not have access to in its entirety, or a patent on it. I am not G-d after all.
Convictions say “we are right, and no other view is possible for us.” I do not say this at all, if you read my comments carefully. You are right, reality is screwed up. Where do you think the church got its emphasis on Sin from? Observation. Even in Judaism, I see perspectives that diametrically oppose each other within an equally strong halachic context. Just look at the questions and arguments surrounding the place of the Zohar, the Tanya, and other mystical, or piety driven sources, against some rationalist ones. Sectarianism, strife, etc. is not good, why not be a voice for unity?
I actually find it quite ironic that I am said to be holding an idolatrous perspective, yet I am a voice for unity (whilst respecting our differences and multiform views.)
I am fully aware that G-d chose to speak to fallible people, and that these people, myself included, may not have every last detail right. Far be it from the truth that I cant handle the differences! I am aware that Christian thought has its flaws, but who doesn’t? Also, just because I don’t agree with a perspective does not mean I don’t understand it.
So it would seem then that you don’t fit a strictly definable mold. Good for you. I was just curious, because it seems like some perspectives you hold are 100% polar opposite of other views that you have also expressed! thanks for clarifying.
Be well.
Did I say that I “held those perspectives” or that I was expressing my personal opinion? Often, I may be arguing against irrational arguments to get an individual to see the flaws in THEIR argument. And I often state disqualifiers (such as “I am not a Jew”, so that it might be clearer that the argument should not be taken as my personal opinion. Too many people often will express their “opinion” as if it were fact and “the Truth”.
The “whole Psalm” was and is about David. Rashi (who you may misunderstand?) was a commentator on the text. Neither his commentary, or your’s or anyone else’s changes who the original authors were or the reason that he or they wrote Psalm or any other text and it does not erase from history who their audience was and what they believed and how they worshipped. Unless you believe King David and Israel were a fiction?
Yedidiah, you seem kind of confused. Even stone edition gives its commentary about Ps 2 being messianic. Besides I wrote you arguments that speak for the Messiah and exclude David.
Is David to ” have the ends of earth as his possession and smash the nations with iron rod? You didn’t address the points but keep saying what you ‘re saying.
Didn’t you mention once you belong to some christian church? Just making sure.
I am not the one confusing Biblical text with commentary about that text. So of course I will keep saying what the English text says in Psalm 2 or in 110. If you can say Jesus spiritually was a priest or spiritually was a king, and he did not have to do anything promised in those Psalms, then those Psalms apply to anyone and even more so if Jesus was a false prophet and the anti-messiah (Matthew shows that somehow “satan’s power” was transferred to Jesus after his temptation.
In Psalm 2, you are forgetting the word “ask” in the text again. By the way, who was Jesus speaking to when it was written that he said “Ask and you will receive”? Or, “if you have faith and do not doubt, …even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ it will be done.” So, NO one in almost 2000 years had faith, or did not doubt, or else did not ask? Was Jesus talking to the messiah? Or to David? Or his lord and not to his disciples or his followers? Or is these only to be fulfilled in the “end times”?
I wonder if Rashi considered that the mountain being thrown into the sea in Matthew 21: 21 as “messianic”? What does the Stone Edition say about that verse or Matthew 1:1?
yedidiah, stone edition it is Jewish old testament translation. I don’t think they would have NT in stone edition as they reject it . But you can find Jewish New Testament Publications used by messianic Jews.
There is No such thing as a “Jewish old testament translation”.
Sharbano, that’s how I simply called Artscroll Tanach !
yedidiah, read all about messianic future and the promise that all these things will be fulfilled, when that time comes of messiah’s reign on earth. But there is still lots of to go before it happens, lots of tribulation and hard times, etc. Read about the Day of Lord that might help you understand more why all these great future things are not happening yet.
I read “all about messianic prophecies” and understand them. You are just not making a very good argument from the Tanach for why Jesus has any more part of it than I or you do. You are leaving out many “messianic promises”, many that are very important, that are in the Tanach. It appears you are not a pre-millennialist, like perhaps most Christians, but I’m not too sure that you also might believe that “the end of the world” could come at any moment and so tend to focus on the present life.
You are confusing what the Rabbis are actually pursuing in such examples. Rashi isn’t saying that this Psalm was written as identifying Mashiach. This is what Xtianity tries to accomplish. What the Rabbis are engaged in is nothing less than a mental exercise of sorts a type of philosophical approach. If it were the case that Rashi, among others, were applying messianism as Xtians do, their words would be more explicit, and an explanation of the difficulties the text generates would also be brought down. What they Do say is if a passage says a King will do such and such and this will also be the case during the time of the Messianic Kingdom the verse can be attributed by saying, like this too, will be in his reign. It is not meant that the passage was written as Being Mashiach only that it will be “like”. There is a considerable difference in what the Rabbis are doing and what Xtianity is trying to do. This is why Xtian proofs are so far out of line.
Sharbano, you said the psalm is about a king and it is about messianic times. Who is suppose to be a king in that time? Read Is 11. And Is 9 about who will be a king. When it comes to man it is is the Messiah. Now finishing my response to your old email. I am just to busy at work this week;
I have no time for youtube. Thanks for suggesting. Maybe I used a wrong word for you, so let say ‘blood was sprinkled for sanctifying purposes; So if you still don’t see a symbolic meaning in it, I can’t help. Levit 16;15 ( sprinkling blood upon the Ark- Cover) , Levit 16;18-19
( he shall sprinkle upon it ( horns of the Altar) from the blood…thus shall he cleanse it ( sorry I had to mention that word ) and sanctify it from the contamination of the Children of israel ) similar ‘ blood cleansing’ duties you have ; Ez 43;20-23. If you see it literally the purpose how blood is used , then it will be hard to explain farther things.
You said Is 53 doesn’t say the way I wrote it. Oh really? What about your way???’ ‘Christian ‘ way it is literal way because fulfilled laterally by Jesus but putting the nation in it’s place (of Is 53 ) requires lots of paraphrasing and it doesn’t fulfill all the words . We already talked about it is 53 goes along with the words in so called ‘servant songs’ and starting with chapter 42 it even starts with reference to the messiah and the same facts spoken about the Messiah are repeated in the other chapters about ‘righteous servant ‘ including Is 53. But by Jewish interpretation the Messiah is’ ‘cut off’ and continues as th e righteous remnant…You take the nation, then you have to also apply all the words to it in chapter 53 . If th e righteous remnant died and was in the grave ( with the reach and wealthy) they it is already dead. And if you have individuals fulfilling words in Is 53 each one different verse, that makes it even more nonsense, not even mentioning that your suffering can’t justify others , not even by anybody’s knowledge. You guys keep mixing events applying Is 53;10 to messianic kingdom in which the Messiah will reign and all people will be coming to his knowledge ( Is 11;11 ) reigning in Israel and people justified have nothing to do with you suffering for your own sin.
You said I change the actual wording in order to fit my own narrative. I don’t have to change any words I rather see you changing the interpretation of is 53 from literal to your speculations . The text definitely is speaking in the singular. One verse in plural is used by Stone Edition, and all other bibles use it as singular subject , even applying using plural word the translation doesn’t show plural subject. but “by affliction caused by them”. I once explained all your points of is 53 you listed first time so you should have addressed it there. I gave you explanation to all your points there.
You brought up some words that supposed to disqualify Jesus fitting as the subject. I checked so many editions and each one uses different words. Not even all Jewish OT scriptures are using the word he was ‘isolated’ to suggest he lived on some wilderness alone, but they say he was ‘ shunned’ or avoided no less than many other prophet whose preaching wasn’t appreciated. At his crucifixion you had crowds of people who wanted Jesus dead.
You mentioned ; being “accustomed to illness” or ‘familiar with disease” Does it mean the servant had to be ill or sick. ( or groups of people were dying from sickness)??? You mean the nation during suffering was familiar with sickness. That’s possible but let see if Isaiah is talking about it that way;
V 4 tells you more;” it was our diseases he bore and our pains that he carried.” So if you want to interpret “ that the nation was ‘accustomed to illness’ by simply getting sick and ill , you see the sickness refers to ‘ other people’s pains. Mine idea????? That’s Isaiah’s idea. The whole life of Jesus was dealing with people’s sickness and pains and healing them. And then finally bearing even our sin for us and dying for it.
“ We regarded him diseased, stricken by G-d, and afflicted”. So we just thought so ( we nations about you ) but it turned out that the truth is different. That is what Isaiah is explaining here about the servant. But the whole scriptures are testifying that israel was INDEED stricken and afflicted by God for their own sins. It is not just ‘ our thinking and supposing’ But the verses Is 53; 4-5 continue explaining; that the servant was stricken NOT by GOD but by peoples rebellious sins, . That means the servant in Is 53 is not afflicted because of his own sin!
How was Jesus oppressed? v.5 explains you how the servant was oppressed; through our sins/ iniquities – and that chastisement was to our benefit. If not our sins he had no reason to be tortured and then die on the cross . Read about the crucifixion and then you will know how it all looked like. And benefit we have ; he paid for our sins . How did the former oppressors benefit from the nation harming it? How did anybody benefit who already died???
What do you mean by “ If this was supposed to be ALL about Jsus then the Xtian text should have stated so as Jsus himself said about a donkey being a fulfillment.” You have to clarify what you mean here. Jeus said many times about different events as being fulfilled what was spoken.
You said; “ Words means things and it doesn’t work to change how a meaning is applied” But who is doing that? How are you then healing and justifying us by your wounds??? How do you carry our iniquities??? v11. I am really curious.. How about being in the grave like the wicked man and the wealthy??? If words mean what they really mean then apply them according to their meaning how did the righteous remnant fulfilled them.
Eric, WHEN will you actually read the responses to your post. It is quite obvious you haven’t absorbed the content. You once again changed the subject. My response to you was regarding the distortion you created regarding Rashi. Read again and maybe once again to see and understand what Rashi and the rest of the Sages are doing with texts such as this Psalms and other texts. You distort their purpose And intent. It nothing less than an attack on their credibility. You then inject Isaiah 1 & 9. This is simply a diversionary tactic to give the impression of some weight. It does nothing to support the argument whatsoever.
Quoting from Leviticus, once again, is a diversion And distortion. This blood of Jsus sanctified No one. As it says in that chapter, “Aaron shall lean his two hands upon the head of the living he-goat and confess upon it all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and all their rebellious sins among all their sins, and place them upon the head of the he-goat, and send it with a designated man to the desert.” The sins of the people were not put upon the altar by blood. No symbolic Jsus here. Your method of symbolism is to take a couple words here and a couple words there to fabricate a symbolism This goes back to Costello and 7 X 13 = 28. It simply doesn’t work. The math is inaccurate and so is your symbolism.
Unfortunately Xtians are SO fixated on “Chapters” they are unable to grasp a narrative beginning and ending. Take a look at the Isaiah scroll and view how it is broken down. There are NO chapters or Page breaks, indicating a chapter. No matter how hard you try there simply is Not any way to dispute this: “so will the many nations exclaim about him, and kings will shut their mouths in amazement, for they will see that which had never been told to them, and will perceive things they had never heard”. It is clear this is speaking at a time of redemption. Look at the world today and its leaders. Do they have any respect for Israel. It’s a crime against humanity that a Jew builds a house in his G-d given land. How do you think these people will feel when they Finally realize their mistakes in what they have done to Israel. If you want a greater understanding read books as “The war against the Jews”. There are others of a similar nature. When one sees what has been done behind the scenes the above verse will stand for its being as a new revelation to those leaders. I seriously doubt you have read any Jewish history. My mother’s family came from the Ukraine area around the time of the Russian pogroms. If you knew what all went down during that time you would be able to see the parallel to much of what Isaiah 53 speaks of, and this is only one point in time. It has been repeated in virtually every generation since Roman exile. Why do you think it is So Very Easy for a Jew to see this chapter in Isaiah speaking of that very history. Every single individual, and I DO mean every person, when they hear about some of this history are literally astonished at what they hear. When one mentions 1492 to an American what is the first thing that comes to mind. For a Jew it is NOT the same answer. That is why a Jew KNOWS, what Isaiah speaks of.
The following is excerpted from Me’Am Lo’Ez. which I have cited before. It’s about time you take a careful read, one with comprehension.
Let’s go back a little ways to see the groundwork that is laid. If we start in Is 52:3
“For thus says G-d. You have been sold for nothing and shall be redeemed for free”.
The Jewish people were Not “sold ” into captivity but were sent there because of their sins. Thus, ransom is not needed to buy them back -only repentance can set them free.
52:4) For thus says the L-rd G-d: Originally, My people went down to Egypt to sojourn there and Assyria oppressed them for no reason.
The Egyptians had no justified cause to enslave the Jewish people, who had only come to sojourn in the land. But even if their very presence as foreigners sparked prejudice, what excuse did the Assyrians have. They came from far away to oppress the Jews, simply out of maliciousness.
52:9-12) Break out in song, together, ruins of Jerusalem! For G-d has consoled His people and redeemed Jerusalem! G-d shall reveal His holy arm before All The Nations and All Ends of the Earth shall see the salvation of our G-d. Get away, Get away Get out of there! They are defiled – do not touch them! Get out of their company, purify yourselves, you who bear G-d’s vessels! But you shall not leave in haste, nor go in flight, for G-d is going before you and the G-d of Israel is your rear guard.
We are seeing the final stage for what is being brought down in ch 53. All will then see that Jewish salvation was only a supernatural “holy ” act of G-d. Those nations remaining, the “ends of the earth “, having endured the pre-Messianic era, will take part in the Jewish salvation. They are told to move on quickly, leaving the exile, to get away from the “defiled nations “, to purify themselves of the gentile culture and values, for the “vessels ” are G-d Teachings and prayer. To purify the hearts of all foreign beliefs as to prepare to approach G-d. Even though they go out quickly they will not leave as escapees, as when leaving Egypt. Then it was the Egyptians who pursued them. But when the nations left accept G-d, they will, instead bring them to Him as their “tribute “. There will be no need for haste, as in Egypt, for His Presence will be evident in your “fore and your rear “. It will be manifest throughout the world.
52:15) so shall many nations talk about you and kings will open their mouths, for they shall see more than what was told to them and witness what they never heard.
And as the nations were once stunned by the Jewish people’s degradation, some even questioning their humanness, shall they all be stunned by the Jewish people’s ascension and will all be talking about it. Even kings will open their mouths in amazement, not believing what they see with their eyes, for they shall witness that Israel’s greatness is even more than what the prophets foretold. The Groundwork has been laid, and NOW we have a speaker who is Now talking.
53:1) Who would have believed what we heard and for whom G-d’s arm was revealed?
The nations shall witness “things not told to them ” 52:15, for who among them would have believed it anyway, even what they were told, they disbelieved. And who would have believed that G-d would “reveal His arm ” (as done in Egypt) to bring down the mightiest nations in favor of such an insignificant people?
Who would have believed that the Jewish people, so downtrodden in this world, would merit the redemption of G-d’s arm? But who would have believed that they would have ever left Egypt, when they were in a similar situation.
53:2) He sprouted before himself like a shoot, like a root in arid land, having no form or beauty. When we beheld him without appearance, how could we have found him pleasing?
Who would have believed that the Jewish people would sprout so instantaneously, “before themselves “, before they themselves were ready – like a shoot taking root in the desert. It is as if one minute they are in exile’s desert and the next, flourishing.
Who would have believed that the Jewish people, who had been so uprooted from their Land and cut off from their source of sustenance, would suddenly begin to grow once again. Their existence in exile has Not been in G-d’s grace, say the nations, but out of their (the nations) own good will. They were as vulnerable as a shoot in the desert.
53:3) Despised and shunned by men, a man of suffering, and plague-stricken. We hid our faces from him; contemptible, we did not regard him.
The Jewish people were so despised by the nations that no one wanted to be near them. Their company was shunned by all. They were chased in exile from one place to another because no one wanted them near. They were looked upon as less than human and no one even wanted to behold them. They were avoided as if they were plague-stricken. The Jewish people, indeed, became ill from maltreatment, but received no mercy from their beholders, because they were so despised. All a person needs to do is read the history of anti-Semitism throughout the centuries and this is evident.
53:4) But, indeed, it was our illness which he bore and our pains that he suffered, yet we considered him afflicted, G-d stricken and tortured.
(The nations and their Kings are Still speaking here) But when the nations will come to realize what falsehoods they believed in, they will attribute Jewish suffering to gentile sins and not to those of the Jewish people. They sinned in their treatment, as did the Assyrians. Instead of seeing the Jewish people as G-d stricken, (which is how the church saw Jews until Israel came into existence), they will see them as their scapegoat.
Whereas they once saw them as lacking in human qualities, in wisdom and ethics, they will now see that this character “illness ” was not inherent (as Germany thought) but imposed by circumstances, the circumstances which they, the nations, imposed upon them. And whereas once they tortured them “in G-d’s Name “, claiming they are G-d stricken, now they will admit that the torture was, indeed, all gentile imposed.
53:5,6) He is afflicted by our transgressions, oppressed by our sins. He was chastised so that we should have peace and with his wound we shall be healed. We all went astray like sheep, each one going his own way. But G-d met the sins of us, all upon him.
All of the earth’s nations (who are left) will then admit how they have strayed from the truth. Each of them may have gone his own way – Western civilization, Eastern civilization, and within them, each nation unique, but on persecuting the Jewish people they all agreed. Each of them claimed their religion was “The Truth “, as did each of each religion’s countless sects. But whereas once they all invalidated the Jewish faith, they will all now proclaim the falsehood of their former beliefs. They will proclaim how they all persecuted the Jewish people, following the dictates of their leaders like sheep. Yet, this will not absolve them of responsibility, for “each one went his ‘own’ way “, acting for his own benefit.
53:7) Oppressed and afflicted, he does not open his mouth; Like a lamb brought to the slaughter does not open his mouth, like a ewe is dumb before her fleecers.
The Jewish people were oppressed bodily, like a lamb being taken to the slaughter. One doesn’t have to stretch the imagination but only look at the images of the Holocaust to see it clearly. They were afflicted and fleeced like a ewe by the confiscation of their belongings. But both things they endured silently, as do the sheep and the ewe.
They also endured the gentiles’ religious torments, the “debates ” sponsored in the ‘name of truth “. But whereas the gentiles were backed by authority and power, the Jew was silenced even when he proved himself right. Who can argue with authority. This, too, they accepted with silent endurance and went to the stake with the faith on their lips.
53:8,9) He was taken from confinement and from judgment – who can speak about this generation? He was cut off from the land of the living, the sins of my people have brought a plague upon them. He accepted burial among the wicked and in his death among the rich, although he had done no violence nor spoken any deceit.
Who can speak about what each generation went through in the confinement and judgment of exile. The Jewish people had always been ready to give up their lives for G-d, to accept whatever devilish “deaths ” the powerful “rich and wicked ” decreed upon them and to buried wherever they would be thrown. Accused of being wicked themselves and of amassing wealth unscrupulously, they were slaughtered mercilessly as the wicked would be slaughtered and their riches looted in their deaths. Even in death, their graves were desecrated and dug up in search of buried treasures. But they had done no violence to deserve such fate, their only ‘sin’ was that they refused to apostatize and speak a faith of deceit.
53:10) But G-d chose to crush him and make him ill. If he considers himself culpable, he shall see offspring and live long. G-d’s cause will prosper through him
Although the Jewish people in exile maintained their faith, they were not free of sin. So they suffered and were “crushed ” to atone for their sins. It was G-d who made them ill. Yet, G-d’s intention was not to destroy them only to make them ill. His intention was that they seek Him from their pain and merit to hasten Redemption. But to do this they must confront their sins, to “consider themselves culpable “. They will then “see their offspring ” return to the Land and remain there for a “long time “. They will never be exiled again. All nations, then, will also serve G-d, when the Jewish people’s mission, G-d’s purpose, will end in success. The mission to proclaim G-don earth.
53:11) He will see the fruits of his misery and be satisfied. My righteous servant, with his wisdom, will make many righteous and will bear their sins.
In the End, the Jewish people will see the meaning of all that they went through, the “fruits of their misery “. They will see how it all was for their refinement and this knowledge will satisfy them. And with this knowledge, this wisdom, they will teach many nations and bring them all back to G-d.
And the truly righteous among them will see fruit in their misery even while still in exile: Their faith in the Future allays all pain in the present and satisfies them even now.
But the greatest misery that they suffer in exile is the burden of their own sins. This they see and realize themselves. But despite their own sins, they remained faithful to G-d and that very faith brought deep satisfaction, even though they were materially wanting. It helped them remain righteous to G-d even when they were burdened with the nations’ “sins “, their torture.
53:12) Therefore I shall give him a portion with many and he shall split booty with mighty ones. For he exposed himself to death and let himself be counted among transgressors, whereas he bore the sins of many and prayed for the transgressors.
Because the Jewish people were always ready for martyrdom, to “expose themselves to death ” because they bore the nations’ branding of them as “transgressors ” when, in truth, they bore their sins and prayed for them. G-d will return their Land to them, giving them rule over “many ” and the booty of “mighty ” nations.
There’s a story about when the Jews were under a terrible dictator and suffered greatly They poured out their soul and prayed to G-d to rid them of this dictator. Their prayers were answered and they rejoiced. The person who replaced him was much much worse of a dictator then the previous was. This time their prayer was that this man live a very long time.
Isaiah then continues on with ch 54 when the Redemption is taking place.
Good stuff, Sharbano!
Don’t despair. There are many who read Isaiah and other books from beginning to end honestly, without prejudice. To do otherwise is really to deny the words and the true message of the prophet or author. The meaning that you found in the text is the meaning that we have also seen in the text. Isaiah did not only write 1 “chapter” and a few extra worthy or true sentences scattered between a “lot of other “empty” or “meaningless” verses. Isaiah did not write a fantasy; he wrote what was happening to him and to those around him. He was writing to give the people hope, that God was God, that God did not abandon the eternal covenant and “His nation” and the people, that eternal God did not die like a god of some other people might. Isaiah did not appease them with “sweet-nothings” and false promises like the false prophets did as we see in the book of Jeremiah.
There is a reason why Isaiah’s world reminds one of his history (oppression in Egypt followed by a freedom that “surprised the kings, the nations). He knew of oppression by enemies in Assyria and Babylon; an exile and a return that surprised the kings, the nations. The Temple was destroyed and that should have meant the end of Israel/Judea forever. Who would have guessed (beside Isaiah and the righteous) that the nation would return and that the Temple would be rebuilt? A Greek empire desecrated the Temple and Israel/Judea should have assimilated into extinction. Who would not be surprised that Israel would “arise again from the dead”? Rome oppressed Israel & destroyed their Temple again. The Emperor Titus thought “Israel and it’s God were dead & gone forevermore”. The righteous Jews refused to remain dead. Who would have thought after hundreds of years of harassment and oppression even unto the death of many that the Jews would arise? So eventually someone came up with a plan for “a final solution”; death of the Jews/Israel once and for all forevermore. Who was surprised, who would have guessed what arose from so much ashes? A new enemy arose and “like lions gnashingly” surrounding Israel about 40 years ago, thought the “end was near” for Israel, the Jews once and for all time. “Boy”, were nations surprised when Israel arose stronger than ever. There still are many who plot and plan for a “final solution” rather than working for a peace that we all can live with. I know of others who are friends of Israel (so they imagine themselves), but I know that they have a different plan that does not fit at all well with the literal reading of the Jewish prophets. But I still say, be vigilant, but do not despair and shine your light.
sarbano, It looks to me that you didn’t read my comment carefully or you have a short memory. There was no change of subject but I clearly said I was responding to your old PREVIOUS email I had no time before. I will be behind as this month and next I am too busy with work, so I am responding when I have time.
Sahrbano, chaper 42 would give you a better ‘background’ to understand who the servant fulfilling words in Is 53 will be.
I see you sent the same explanation you once already did . Believe me I know your Jewish perspective about Is 53, I already once went through all your points responding to them. I will pick just a few points this time;
You admitted “Although the Jewish people in exile maintained their faith, they were not free of sin. So they suffered and were “crushed ” to atone for their sins. “
So you don’t mind the nation to be crushed to atone for sins, but you would have a problem with accepting one person among your people ‘crushed’ to atone for sins.
If you only could open your eyes and add also Israel ( Is 42; 18-24) to the words ‘ all who went astray” like Western civilization, Eastern civilization etc you mentioned , you would see that somebody suffered also for you. You said the nation is familiar with suffering – that mainly suggests your Jewish perspective of that chapter as referring to you but so was one of your people (Jesus) familiar with suffering.
You said “ And who would have believed that G-d would “reveal His arm ” (as done in Egypt) to bring down the mightiest nations in favor of such an insignificant people?” Are you realizing that God’s arm was usually referring to providing His HELP? And Is 53 starts with the words ‘ to whom has God’s arm been revealed? Then you have simply description of God’s arm ( His help) throughout the chapter ( how God brought salvation to people) . Interpreting Is 53 as referring to the nation means God’s arm is the suffering nation. But when God is talking about redemption time; He says it was His ARM that came to help YOU. ( Is 59;16 and 63;4-5 ) So you are helping yourself? Or it is God’s Arm that is helping? The same Arm revealed is mentioned in Is 53.
When it comes to the words; what will the nations be astonished about? You have more answer in the following verses than only one conclusion based on Is 52;13; It is all about seeing glory of God. I don’t doubt redemption of Israel but it is not the only thing, but knowing who God is and His REVELATION and His judgment;
Ez 38;23 at the time of redemption taking place ; “I will MAGNIFY Myself, sanctify Myself, and MAKE Myself KNOWN in the sight of many nations; and they will know that I am the LORD.”‘
Ez 39;21 : I will manifest MY GLORY among the nations , and all the nations will see my judgment that I have executed and my hand that I have placed upon them.
Is 40;5 “ The GLORY of Hashem will be revealed and all flesh will see that…”
Ps 98’2 “ O sing to the LORD a new song, For He has done wonderful things, His own RIGH HAND and HIS HOLY ARM have helped Him. 2 The LORD has made known His salvation; He has revealed His RIGHTEOUSNESS in the sight of the nations.
And we know that God will be working through His messiah to make all these things happen. All Zechariah talks about it.
Eric, All you’ve done in all your responses is to show how Jsus is NOT part of Isaiah 53. You keep going back and forth but at no time here or in the past has there been any evidence of Jsus. All you can do is quote something that can be messianic and assume Jsus to be that messiah and then say it is about Jsus. This is about as weak as one can get.
Sharbano, I am trying to show you that what you consider as fulfillment by the nation , words in Is 42-53, is fulfilled by the Messiah. And now the question how I am sure Jesus is the messiah comes from the fact of seeing these words fulfilled both in NT and in my life and believing God his testimony is true.
Eric, you further prove my point. The evidence is Not from Tanach but from a personal experience. Where does the Artscroll Tanach, which is Not called “the Jewish OT” say that the revelation of Messiah will be known by some personal experience. If it’s because you feel better about yourself there are other religions that have the same result. Therefore, according to you it doesn’t rely on evidence but merely a belief and suppositions.
Sharbano, Personal experience is not the main thing. You have a support of ” messianic message ” in your scriptures. But pointless of me to talk about it as you won’t see it as long you will keep replacing the Messiah with your ” righteous remnant.”
sarbano, Definitelly I am not relying on Rashi about my conclusion about psalm 2 and 110 being messianic or not. I won’t even have to look at the ancient interpretations to see it was referred to Messiah. Just reading the text carefully tells you enough while also studying the messianic future in all the OT scriptures. It is as clear as possible, and the other possibilities the ancient interpretations were suggesting were either David or Abraham based on same similarities but I already presented enough explanation why these two are not fitting entire message included in these psalms. You can keep interpreting them as you want to for yourself but as far as me I don’t have doubts about its’ messianic relation.
The “whole Psalm” was and is about David. Rashi (who you may misunderstand?) was a commentator on the text. Neither his commentary, or your’s or anyone else’s changes who the original authors were or the reason that he or they wrote Psalm or any other text and it does not erase from history who their audience was and what they believed and how they worshipped. Unless you believe King David and Israel were a fiction? By the way, do you always agree with Rashi? And if you don’t always agree with Rashi, why was he wrong in your opinion or why are you wrong?
Yedidiah to go with what you said, indeed a person should check their assumptions. I was raised non Trinitarian, non denominational, half of my family is Catholic, and I have eastern orthodox friends. For starters, I questioned a lot of things. I didn’t initially see the Trinitarian perspective as coherent at all, until I realized through studying history and polytheism, just how much that doctrine sought to frame a biblical view in a way that could teach to polytheists the ideas of an actively involved deity, that they didn’t necessarily posses or understand.
Take for instance Arian Christology and Docetism. The views that Jesus was a mortal metaphorically adopted by G-d because of his righteous conduct, or the idea that he joined the ranks of incorporeal angels after dying. In a halachic worldview, these perspectives would work fine, as it would be defined properly through the Torah (the notion of the Shaliach for instance, or Enoch’s translation to heaven.)
If you take those same views and place them in a Roman context, with only minimal halacha, Jesus could become a carbon copy of Caesar! (also a mortal king adopted by the previous mortal emperor who both join the celestial bodies & lose materiality) after death. All the biblical assumptions that G-d is active in creation, dwells with us, has a will, is interested in human affairs, etc. gets misunderstood by Greek philosophical culture if these ideas aren’t explained in detail. For example, incarnation explains to Greeks the idea of how G-d is not consigned to pure abstraction by virtue of his unity. Incarnation not only makes G-d active, but dispels the notion of transmigration of souls by positing a unique “image of G-d in every person.” This is part of what I mean by the importance of difference, in identity formation. If you try and plug Christian theology into the pshat of the Torah as practiced by Judaism, it doesn’t make sense to that context directly, but if you see it in the context of its own development and rationale, purpose, etc. it makes much better sense, and is more biblical than we may assume when compared with the alternatives.
I understand the biblical emphasis on divine unity, the mitzvot, etc. but I also realize that every tradition has its extremely diverse perspectives, and all of these diverse perspectives influence each other, even without intention. This is how communities become so complex over time. Because I am not holding a conventional view vis the knowledge of G-d, (IE that G-d can tell us things, but it doesn’t mean we posses Absolute knowledge,) I am more readily able to see connections where there may not be any that are direct, or even similarities where such wasn’t intentional.
To me, these diverse perspectives are part and parcel of tradition, identity formation, faith, etc. even when its hard to see. When I defend my views, I am aware that people don’t share them, that they have their views, but I am putting them out there.
I hope that you are not trying to distance the NT text itself or much of the early Christian commentary from the “Greek”. At one time that would have been considered a heresy in the early church. “Hellenism” or Stoicism or Gnosticism (with its many varieties of beliefs) were strong influences within the Church,especially at a time when Christian thought was moving radically far from “traditional Jewish belief” about the bible. I’m not too sure that much of the early “doctrine sought to frame a biblical view in a way that could teach to polytheists the ideas of an actively involved deity, that they didn’t necessarily posses or understand”. That would depend upon the commentator or “church father” and upon whom you believe the audience was for the commentary. Who was being taught (outside of writings that were primarily sermons)? How much of this was actually debate between various church leaders (as with the “Marcionites” or as you wrote, “Take for instance Arian Christology and Docetism.”). How many of those Church fathers were looking at or with a “halachic worldview”? How much of the Mishnah developing at about the same time played any part in the development of Christian doctrine, or vice versa?
I would agree that “If you take those same views and place them in a Roman context, with only minimal halacha, Jesus could become a carbon copy of Caesar”. I don’t see that just “in a Roman context”, unless you are also including north Africa and Alexandria, Caesarea and Syria, and Antioch and “Asia Minor”. Off-hand, I don’t know who you specifically might exclude from those who might misunderstand because of “Greek philosophical culture” if those “ideas aren’t explained in detail.” Yes, incarnation may explain “to Greeks the idea of how G-d is not consigned to pure abstraction”, but it also suggests to others that God is no longer “spiritual or abstract” and has become material and an idol. It suggests that incarnation would make God no different from Man; that God is made in the image of humans, rather every human having the “image” or spirit of God within them. “If you try and plug Christian theology into the pshat of the Torah as practiced by Judaism, it doesn’t make sense to that context directly….” So, the point becomes how much of the stories of “historical deeds” of humans and the “commanding word of God” becomes only allegory and stories meant mainly to teach some lesson or moral?
To minimize differences is to deny traditions that have real meanings to those people with those different traditions. Almost everyone everyday is influenced by a myriad of influences. What is the end result of that homogenization (or sterilization or robotization)? Who is this “one new man”; a “rap artist”, a ninja, a Buddhist monk? There are many connections in a network or a system, with various or different principles defining the different “communities in the ecosystem”. So, if one sees those connections “where there may not be any that are direct, or even similarities where such wasn’t”, then one might not see that polytheism is not that different from monotheism, for instance. One might not object so much that one’s belief comes out of so-called paganism (since it can be a rather benign belief system about living in harmony with nature and your fellow humans). Just because I might have a low tolerance level and might have problems with some “evangelicals” and “Protestant” Christians, doesn’t mean that I must disagree with their “unorthodox” ways, etc. After all, they all come out of one source. I am still trying to understand that part of a simple country song, “What’s the difference being different? When it’s difference now that looks alike…”
Hi Eric,
I am finally posting a reply to your comments on Isaiah 53. Instead of publishing it online, I am posting it here, although it is dreadfully long; and I apologize to everyone who is following this conversation for cluttering up the page.
You spent a lot of time and effort combing through the Book of Isaiah to show why the Jewish interpretation does not stand up to scrutiny. From a Christian perspective, you raised some good objections. I will attempt to clarify the Jewish interpretation as best as I can. So far, you seem to have read my comments and the explanations of Rabbi Blumenthal and others in a defensive way. What I mean to say is, rather than reading our words to try to understand the Jewish perspective, you are reading our words to see how you can refute them.
There is nothing wrong with trying to refute our arguments. But in your haste, you are completely misunderstanding what we say. I say this because, frequently, when you repeat back an argument, you misrepresent it.
So my plea to you is to remove your armor for a little while, lay down your sword, and try to go back and read our explanations again, along with the one I am presenting here, with an open mind and a spirit of understanding.
I’m going to try to break down your arguments into several points. I see your objections as follows (quotation marks indicate quotes I’ve taken from your own comments):
1. Throughout Isaiah there is a contrast between guilty Israel and one righteous servant; therefore, the righteous servant cannot be corporate Israel. “The righteous servant is not identified as a group at all.” The righteous servant will be a covenant for the people (Isaiah 42:6).
2. It makes no sense that the speaker in the first ten verses is the kings and nations of the world rather than the Jewish people. You wrote: “How can the nations be shocked by the message they are already proclaiming? How can they be at the same time as those who HAVE NEVER HEARD ABOUT that message etc.?” (your emphasis). How does it make sense for the nations to talk about something in the future as if it has already happened? And why would they be telling this to the Jews? Furthermore, it is not a secret to the gentiles that Israel will be redeemed and restored. Therefore, if the speaker is the nations of the world, that cannot be what they would be so shocked about. The speaker must be the Jewish people who will be shocked by Jesus’s exaltation.
3. Isaiah says that the servant will restore the tribes of Jacob. If the servant is Israel, how can the servant restore the servant? How has Israel been a light to the nations?
4. The idea that the Jewish nation is suffering for the sins of the rest of the world makes no sense. What healing does Jewish suffering bring to other nations, especially when we see other nations suffering as well? How can the suffering of the righteous heal the guilty when we know that only repentance brings about God’s mercy and grace? How is Jewish suffering making the world better? Tanach does not support these notions. Besides, if you think the suffering of sinful people brings atonement to others, doesn’t it make sense to say that the suffering of a sinless being is so much more powerful?
5. Isaiah 53 is not talking about the righteous remnant because it did not suffer silently, did not die out completely, “never was in his death with the wealthy,” did not suffer for his own sins.
6. The Passover lamb is a foreshadowing of the atoning power of Jesus’s sacrifice. We Jews “reject God’s atoning that is in the blood.”
7. Isaiah talks about God placing His spirit on His servant. How can this be talking about anyone but the Messiah?
Here are more objections:
1. The imagery of a branch or sprout is associated with King David/the Messiah.
2. Being cut off from the land of the living—there are Jews in Israel today.
3. It’s clear the righteous servant dies, is buried, and comes back to life. This passage speaks of total death, not partial death. How can the servant teach wisdom if he is already dead?
4. “God didn’t desire you to suffer in the Holocaust and being oppressed. Ever! He is not God who rejoices over people’s suffering that comes on them due to their disobedience and sin.”
5. The offspring the servant is rewarded with is all those who trust in and follow God.
6. Jesus prayed for his persecutors, just as the servant in Isaiah 53 prays for the transgressors.
Let’s take a look at these points one by one.
Isaiah does indeed identify a righteous remnant. In Isaiah 43:6 we are told that those who remained loyal are the ones who will teach the rest of the nation: “Bring My sons [plural]…and My daughters [plural] to liberate the blind etc.” Isaiah addresses a righteous remnant in 51:1: “Listen to me, O pursuers of righteousness, O seekers of Hashem.” He offers them comfort in verse 7: Listen to Me, you [plural form in Hebrew] who know righteousness, the nation with My Torah in its heart: Do not fear from the disparagement of man etc.” In the first 7 verses of Chapter 56 Isaiah encourages the foreigners and barren ones who keep the Sabbaths and observe justice and righteousness.
You have pointed to the blindness that Isaiah accuses the Jewish people of having, but do you realize that he describes this blindness in the servant also? See 42:19.
Now that we have established an entity within Israel that is indeed righteous, can we say that the servant in Isaiah is this corporate entity?
As I have argued previously—and have cited the Scriptural verses to support it—Isaiah explicitly identifies the servant as Israel/Jacob. But how do you know this is the righteous remnant? Maybe this servant is one single righteous man who is called Israel/Jacob simply because he represents Israel? Here is where a working knowledge of Hebrew is extremely helpful. Isaiah switches from singular to plural when addressing or speaking about the servant.
Isaiah 43:10 is easier to see in English: “You are My witnesses [plural]…and My servant [singular].” In verse 22, Israel/Jacob in the singular form has sinned—so we know this servant is not sinless. Isaiah tells us that God and only God will wipe away his sins. Another indication that the servant is not sinless: Isaiah 42:19: “Who is blind but My servant and deaf as My messenger whom I send? Blind like the servant of the Lord?”
In Isaiah 44, the servant is identified as Jacob/Israel, and there is quite a lot of switching back and forth. For example, in verse 26, the servant (singular) is God’s messengers (plural)—yet another instance where the servant is identified as a righteous remnant. (Remember, righteous does not mean sinless.)
(As a point of interest, you might like to know that Cyrus is called God’s shepherd in 44:28 and God’s messiah in 45:1.)
There are many other examples of the servant identified and the servant referred to in singular and plural. It will take too much time and space to list them all.
Before I move on to the next point, a word about context. The context overwhelmingly identifies the servant as Israel or the prophet himself. You have argued that this cannot be the case because the description of the servant does not match what you know about Israel yet it matches perfectly what you know about Jesus. This is faulty logic.
When the context overwhelmingly points in one direction, yet you can’t accept the conclusion because it doesn’t fit with your preconceived notions, then the fair question to ask is, “Are my preconceived notions accurate?” Instead of trying to force the context to fit your concept, you need to try to figure out why the context does not fit your concept.
I assert this because you would never accept my doing the same thing to your Christian scripture. When I say that John in 8:44 says Jews are the children of the devil, Christians tell me I am quoting out of context.
What I’d like you to try to do is see if you can understand why the Jewish interpretation cannot ignore the context.
Speaking of context brings me to the question of who is speaking in the first ten verses. You contend that it cannot be the nations of the world, although the prophet immediately identifies them as the speaker at the end of the previous chapter. This is highly significant, yet you too easily dismiss it. I do not know how you can do this! In response to your challenges listed above in number two, I would say this:
Isaiah is telling his Jewish audience that a long time into the future, after enduring a harsh exile during which they will be despised by just about everyone, God will redeem them and exalt them. The nations of the world will be shocked by this event. After witnessing this event, the nations of the world will exclaim (to each other, that is, among themselves), “Who would believe what we have heard?” And so on.
What will the nations be so shocked about? After all, two billion of them are Christians who read the Bible and expect that God will save the Jews and exalt them, according to the prophesies they read about. So it’s not secret! Therefore, you argue, the Jews will be shocked. They will be stunned by the news that they were wrong about Jesus.
It’s the other way around, though. The gentiles will indeed be shocked. They will be shocked by the vindication of the Jews’ loyalty to Hashem and His Torah. You see, Eric, you and all your fellow Christians, along with another billion Muslims, and along with all the other world religions—all of you believe that we are wrong to follow our faith. Christians say we are wrong for rejecting Jesus. Muslims say we are wrong for rejecting Mohammed. So it will be a great surprise when the Messiah comes and it isn’t Jesus or the Mahdi. It will be a great shock to all the nations of the world to see that we were right to reject their false prophets and that we are now rewarded for that and exalted for that.
You also objected that the servant cannot be Israel, because Isaiah said the servant’s job is to restore Jacob. How can the servant restore Jacob? How has that been accomplished? How was he supposed to be a light to the gentiles?
You are simply misunderstanding the verse. When Isaiah says that God called him to return Jacob to God, he is simply describing the typical task of every prophet. The job of the prophet is to call Israel to repentance, and through repentance they return to God. It really is that simple!
Isaiah complains of the difficulty of this task and his failure to fulfill it (49:4).
I cannot believe you asked how we are a light to the gentiles with a straight face. Really, Eric! The Jews introduced the concepts of monotheism, sexual morality, and the sanctity of human life into the world. What is that if not bringing light to the gentiles? God has called us to be His kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exodus 19:6), and it is in this capacity that we serve as a light to the world. Have we finished our task? No indeed. The greatest clarity, the greatest light of all, will be revealed when the Jewish nation is redeemed and the might of the arm of the Lord is bared to the eyes of the whole world.
You questioned how it can be that righteous Israel suffers for the rest of the world. You are asking this question because you are trying to understand this concept in the Christian sense of Jesus dying to save you from your sins, but that is not what we are saying at all. Rabbi Blumenthal explains this point clearly in his article “Armor Bearers” https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/armor-bearers-isaiah-5211/. The whole article is worth a careful read, but the section that is relevant to our discussion is “5. The Servant of Chapter 52:13 – 53:12.” That should clarify for you what we mean when we say that Israel suffers because of the sins of the nations of the world.
You asked how the servant can be Israel, which did not suffer silently, did not die out completely, “never was in his death with the wealthy,” and did not suffer for his own sins.
Throughout history, Jews have willingly gone to their deaths in order to maintain their loyalty to God and Torah; in other words, they chose death over conversion. Psalms 44:23 (I think 22 in the Christian bible) poignantly expresses this: “Because for Your sake we are killed all day long; we are considered as sheep for slaughter.”
Roald Dahl, a self-confessed and unapologetic anti-Semite most famous for his children’s books (“Charlie and the Chocolate Factory”) criticized Jewish passivity in face of the Holocaust. He said that “if you and I were in a line moving towards what we knew were gas chambers, I’d rather have a go at taking one of the guards with me; but they [the Jews] were always submissive.”
Speaking of the Holocaust, you asked how the world was made better by Jewish suffering. Although, as “Armor Bearer” explains, the very way you ask the question betrays your different understanding of suffering and atonement, in this case it’s actually obvious to see how Jewish suffering has made the world better even according to your understanding. You argued that not only Jews suffered in the Holocaust. That is true. Many millions of gentiles suffered and died as well. But the Holocaust was most particularly Hitler’s war against the Jews. Even when it was clear that he needed every bit of his resources to win World War II, Hitler diverted those precious resources to continuing to implement his Final Solution to the Jewish Problem. Ironically, it was his obsessive hatred of the Jews and his determination to stamp them out that cost him the war.
It was this war against the Jews and the complicity of Europe that brought much of the world to its senses regarding the evils and follies of anti-Semitism in particular and racism in general. The Holocaust made the Western world more civilized and more civil.
I’m not sure how the Passover lamb came into all of this, but if you read the account in the Bible, you will see that it has nothing to do with atoning for sin or being saved from sin. Comparing Jesus to the Passover lamb is quite a stretch. Strangely, the gospels seize on one literal (not symbolic) detail to compare Jesus to the Paschal lamb—the fact that his legs were not broken, just as the lamb could not have any broken bones. But all the other details, like the blood being burned on the altar, the meat being eaten with matzo and bitter herbs, the age of the animal—none of those match (thank goodness!). I’ve discussed this in other threads.
You argued that Jesus was oppressed and afflicted. The Scriptures talk quite a bit about Jewish suffering. For the word “afflicted,” see 54:11.
Another main contention of yours is that God placed His spirit on this servant. So how can this refer to the Jewish people? Isaiah mentions in several places that God infused His spirit within the Jewish people. See 59:21 and 63:11. It is your own idea, unsupported by Scripture, that only the Messiah will be infused with God’s spirit.
Now for the rest of your objections.
You argued that the imagery of a branch or a sprout is associated with the Messiah. This is true. But plant imagery is not exclusively associated with the Messiah. It is used quite a lot in Tanach to refer to different things. In the Book of Isaiah alone, the people of Zion are compared to “a shoot of My planting” (60:21) and righteousness and praise are compared to a garden sprouting forth its seedlings (61:11).
You cannot therefore argue that the servant in Isaiah 53 must be the Messiah because he is compared to a sapling. That would be cherry picking, and that’s just wrong.
You disagree that “cut off from the land of the living” means exiled from the Land because there are Jews in Israel today. Isaiah is predicting our exile from the Land. This event happened as predicted. Nevertheless, Jews have maintained a continuous presence in the Land; there has never been a moment in history that there have not been Jews in Israel. This does not mean that we were not twice exiled from that place.
And we are awaiting the fulfillment of the prophecies that promised us that we would dwell in the Land in peace and security. Since the creation of the State of Israel, the people have lived in fear and terror with the constant threat of annihilation hanging over their heads. That is not what I would
call redemption.
But I digress.
Back to your points.
You contend that the servant in Isaiah dies completely and is raised back to life. This ignores the fact that the servant dies deaths—the passage talks about corporate Israel. Many Jews throughout the centuries died for their faith, but they never completely died out. The passage nowhere talks about total or partial death because when it’s read in context, it’s understood that this is talking about the deaths that the nation of Israel endured as part of its suffering in exile. If you want to be so hyperliteral, you would have to argue that “for Your sake we are killed all day long” in Psalms 44:23 (22 in Christian bible)—a much more explicit and clear statement than the one in Isaiah—means that we are all killed every minute of every day. You would never say that about the verse in Psalms, so why say it about the verse in Isaiah?
A second problem here is that you would have the servant raised back to life to acknowledge his guilt (or according to your interpretation, offer himself as a guilt offering) and rewarded with long life, not eternal life. I won’t quibble with you about the order of events, but let’s talk about the long life bit.
Isaiah 53:10 says that God will reward His servant with a long life. Not with eternal life. A long life. That’s what it says in Hebrew. Orech yamin means a long life. Chayei olam means eternal life. This term is not used here. So what do you say to that? The servant is not expected to be rewarded with anything more than a nice, long physical life.
You asked how the servant can teach wisdom if he died. Funny you should ask that, seeing as how Jesus certainly died. As I have explained, since the servant is the righteous remnant, the servant doesn’t die out completely.
You wrote that God did not rejoice in the Holocaust or in the Jews’ suffering. Did we ever say such a thing? Isaiah 53:10 says that “God desired to oppress him.” You say this can’t refer to the Jews because God didn’t rejoice in their suffering. Did God then rejoice in Jesus’s suffering? What are you trying to say?
Jews understand this to mean that it was God’s will for the oppression to occur, in order for us to repent of our sins and then be redeemed from our oppressors.
In verse 10, the servant is rewarded with offspring, which you say is all those who follow Jesus and trust in God. This is the most ironic argument you have made. In the rest of the passage, you insist on hyperliteral interpretation, yet you switch to a metaphorical interpretation in just the verse where that is impossible.
The verse uses the Hebrew word for biological offspring, zerah. The word for metaphorical children is ben (singular) or banim (plural) or b’ni (my son), such as “B’ni b’chori Yisrael” (“Israel is My firstborn son”) (Exodus 4:22). Another example that illustrates this is Abraham’s complaint to God: “I am going childless, and the son [ben[ of my house is Eliezer.” And God answers: “That one will not inherit you. Only he that shall come forth from within you shall inherit you…Count the stars…so shall your offspring [root word, zerah] be” (Genesis 15:2-5).
Never in all of Hebrew scripture are God’s children called zerah—never. Zerah literally means “seed” or “semen” and is therefore used only for physical, biological offspring, not metaphorical children. The offspring in verse 10 is literal, physical offspring—you who wish to translate everything hyperliterally cannot now hide behind a metaphorical translation when the Hebrew grammar of the verse constrains you so.
So, Eric, I ask you, how can verse 10 apply to Jesus who neither lived a long life nor had biological children?
One of your proofs that Isaiah 53 applies to Jesus is that Jesus prayed for his persecutors, just as the servant prays for the transgressors.
Can you provide a citation from Christian scripture where Jesus specifically prayed for the Pharisees, his most hated opponents? I have seen where he does the opposite: Matthew 23, Luke 19:27; Matthew 10:34-36; Matthew 18:17. Yet the Jews have prayed for their persecutors throughout history, in compliance with Jeremiah 29:7.
In conclusion, I would like to focus on Isaiah 56:6-7, 59:1, and 61:3.
56:6-7: All who guard the Sabbath against desecration and who grasp My covenant tightly, I will bring them to My holy mountain…
Redemption will come to those Jews who guard the Sabbath. Only one community has observed the Sabbath as God commanded on the seventh day continuously throughout history—religious Jews.
59:1: And as for Me, this is My covenant with them, said the Lord, My spirit which is upon you and My words that I have placed in your mouth will not be withdrawn from your mouth nor from the mouth of your offspring nor from the mouth of your offspring’s offspring, said Hashem, from this moment and forever.
This is a powerful statement. The word for offspring here is the root word zerah—physical, biological descendants. Hashem promises in this verse that His spirit and His words will not be removed from the Jewish people, including their physical descendants, forever. That means me, Eric! And Rabbi B., and every Jew who is a physical descendant of those Jews from whom Hashem has not removed the Torah.
There isn’t much more to be said about this verse: its truth is staring you in the face. Only Jews who are loyal to the Torah have God’s spirit and truth.
Isaiah 61:3 talks about bringing comfort to the mourners of Zion. Who mourns Zion but the religious Jews?
Dina, your email looks long and takes time to go thorough it , but I am too busy at work , so I will try next week,
Take your time, Eric! It is indeed very long.
Dina, I will answer your objections email step by step . It takes forever to read your 5 pages. For now I will just focus on your last points;I have to disappoint you, I don’t feel any sting in my face with what you wrote. You are quick to make your conclusions saying; Only Jews who are loyal to the Torah have God’s spirit and truth. If you read the entire chapter from which you brought the verse 59;21 you will see it talks about future restoration, events followed by coming of the Redeemer and coming to those who repented v. 20 and a change brought up by the new covenant.
Why God’s spirit and God’s words that He places in your mouth won’t be withdrawn from this moment and forever? Because of a new covenant that promises that and the promise is followed by a change that will take place;
Ez 36;26-27 “ I will give you a NEW heart and put a NEW SPIRIT within you. I will REMOVE the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. I WILL put MY SPIRIT within you and I WILL MAKE IT SO that you will follow my decrees and guard my ordinances and fulfill them. “
If you are already having God’s Spirit and God’s words in your mouth, you would not need God’s new covenant with you in which God is promising the following that is quoted above; Ez 36;26-27 and Jer 31;31-33.
Also before that v 25 says; “ I will sprinkle pure water upon you that you may become cleansed, etc”
If it was just about forgiveness, you can be forgiven any time you repent, every day. But this is a future event of people’s purification, where sin simply is ‘covered’ unless you want to interpret that verse as a physical shower or a bath.
Then we have Jer 31; 31-33 that says; ” Behold days are coming…. when I will seal a NEW covenant with House of israel and with the House of Judah. (…) for this is the covenant..I WILL PLACE MY TORAH WITHIN THEM and I WILL WRITE IT ONTO THEIR HEART (..) and they will no longer teach each man his fellow…for all of them will know me from their smallest to their greatest…”
So what is the difference between you now and having the Torah placed within you and written on your heart after the change will take place?
I am not sure what you wanted to prove with that verse Is 59;21 in relation to you? That you all know the truth? It is not about how much a person knows but whether you trust God also; Was God pleased with all Jews because they are Jews and have a spirit( according to you)? No matter what whether you have a spirit or not, God dealt with those who didn’t trust Him( the best example Israeliies on the way to the Promised Land where many were killed).
The last point you mentioned is about Isaiah 61:3 talking about bringing comfort to the mourners of Zion. You see there religious Jews , I see there their Messiah when the redemption will take place. Everybody can take that message in Is 61 ;1 and start encouraging others with the message of redemption, but definitely the comfort will be brought when these words will be fulfilled and that will start being fulfilled with the Messiah’s coming.
Eric, thanks for taking the time, I really appreciate it. What I’m seeing here is that you are ignoring parts of Scripture while highlighting others to suit your purpose. This is called cherry picking.
Be well,
Dina
Dina, you call it the way you want to. If it was all scriptural to me I would not have to fefute anything. But one verse is supporting another. I don’t make conclussions based on one sentence. So here is more points . There are still 2 more pages left , I will see when I will have time to go back to them.
Answers to your objections;
1)You say that Isaiah 53:10 says that God will reward His servant with a long life. Not with eternal life.
But don’t you know that eternal life is the final reward and we will have it if we walked with God? Read ;Daniel 12;2 Long life doesn’t disqualify the fact of having eternal life.
You say “ The servant is not expected to be rewarded with anything more than a nice, long physical life”
If that’s your only hope it is miserable because you are excluding the hope in Ezekiel’s words in chapter 37 and in Daniel12;2.
Besides most people who died in Holocaust or suffered in the past and were killed , so how were they rewarded with long life? if they are to be brought back to life they can expect only eternal life as reward ( according to Daniel 12;2, no such a thing like only long long life after resurrection) .
If you want the servant who is just rewarded with long life , not eternal, it would have to be the servant who never yet experienced death, because after death there is everlasting life. And how many suffering survives really lived long life?
2) You say; Jesus didn’t live a long life. You are forgetting his resurrection and his life after resurrection and going to heaven ( not dying). If you want to consider his life, all these things I mentioned happened and are recorded in NT.
3) You are asking me if I can provide a citation from Christian scripture where Jesus specifically prayed for the Pharisees? Are these requirements for being the servant in Is 53? That is your idea. Praying either for pharisees or other certain group doesn’t identify the servant. The text simply says; he prayed for the wicked, ( or JPS translation- he prayed for the sinners. NT doesn’t list you every single person Jesus prayed for, but it is mentioned clearly he prayed for those who were killing him. “ Father forgive them because they don’t know what they are doing.”
You say he hated their opponents and you say; pharisees. He opposed their false apparent religious life , not the people just for being pharisees. He didn’t approach Nicodemus with hate because he was a pharisee. The other verses you brought against Jesus have nothing to do with what Isaiah says;
You brought up a verse against Jesus ; Luke 19:27; but you are not realizing it is a prophetic message about what will happen in the future when the Messiah will come and many of the wicked rebelling people against God will be killed. Zeh 14;12, Ez 38; 21-22, Ez 39 17-21.
Matthew 18:17. you brought an example of a person who is confronted with sin and doesn’t want to repent despite even being confronted by the whole congregation. Was God ever approving of such a thing? You used to have ‘harsher’ discipline against described in Leviticus.
4) You say; Redemption will come to those Jews who guard the Sabbath. And that should only relate to religious Jews. But what is the Sabbath about? Time committed to worship God. And you can’t say Christians are not doing that only because they have that day on Sunday not Saturday.
5) The words in v 9 about ‘ the servant dying deaths ‘ are not just about ‘deaths’ as focus on plural. but the whole verse says; he submitted himself like WEALTHY to his executions ( deaths) . Besides even JPS translation is using singular; for death. We can now argue what made the other Jewish interpreters use singular for ‘death’? And how the ‘wealthy’ fits here with the whole of the Jewish conclusion?
6) Even if “cut off from the land of the living” means exiled from the Land you admitted Jews have maintained a continuous presence in the Land; there has never been a moment in history that there have not been Jews in Israel. So you want to interpret it as the fact that you all are not living there peacefully yet. That is your interpretation but it doesn’t change much.
7) You say ;” the people of Zion are compared to “a shoot of My planting” (60:21) and righteousness and praise are compared to a garden sprouting forth its seedlings (61:11). Therefore we cannot argue that the servant in Isaiah 53 must be the Messiah because he is compared to a sapling. But we know about all the same references also used in relation to the messiah “ as shoot, sprout, root etc, so there is no basis to exclude the Messiah either.
8) You wondered why is Jesus called Passover Lamb? Because of him death passes over, by his shed blood. Passover Lamb was a symbol of being set free of slavery, his blood shed ( marked on doors) was a sign to save people from death. So does Jesus’ blood that sets you free from bondage of sin. Was Passover just about having meat to eat? No. Would it work without applying the blood on the door ? No, people would still die. Marked on the door meant that blood was shed for your house. But we don’t have to ‘apply’ Jesus blood on our doors or anywhere else. We ;apply ‘ it by trusting God that Jesus death was for our freedom/atonement. You have to understand why the blood was poured on the altar – I let you think about it and let me know- maybe then you will understand what it was all about. Altar means a place on which you put your offering. But when your offering is a praise, thanksgiving and a prayer do you put it literally on a wooden altar??? So is our coming with Jesus’ blood when we come to God and trust Him that it was offered for us ( like an offered on the altar before God).
11) You said that Throughout history, Jews have willingly gone to their deaths ???? really??? You really think people were just willing to die? Psalms 44:23 doesn’t express willingness to die . “Because for Your sake we are killed all day long; we are considered as sheep for slaughter.”
12) That example about gas -chambers is a bit impropriety. You know what was led there??
Exhausted, poor old, weak or sick people, who couldn’t defend themselves and their lack of opposition didn’t mean they were going willingly to death! They were submissive as they couldn’t fight armed solders around or run away anywhere as all around were electric wires.
13) You say that “ The Holocaust made the Western world more civilized and more civil. “ Apparently only. That what you would call the healing despite the corruption and crimes among the people? It is more unsafe than in Europa where kids simply can walk home alone without any fear that they can be kidnapped. And then still you are making your assumptions based on Holocaust as if ‘the servant in Is 53 were people only of 2 world war.
Eric, I’m selecting some points to respond to. I will use your numbering so you will know which points I’m discussing.
1. You can’t just ignore the plain meaning because it doesn’t make sense to you. The verse says long life, not eternal life–which are not mutually exclusive. Also, we never said that every single one of the Jewish people will get these rewards.
If I say “Americans are friendly,” I don’t mean every single American. This is a generalization.
2. You say this could apply to Jesus although he died young because he was resurrected to eternal life. However, this verse is NOT talking about eternal life. It’s talking about long life.
3. “You are asking me if I can provide a citation from Christian scripture where Jesus specifically prayed for the Pharisees? Are these requirements for being the servant in Is 53?” You were the one who said Jesus prayed for his enemies. He didn’t.
4. “You say; Redemption will come to those Jews who guard the Sabbath. And that should only relate to religious Jews. But what is the Sabbath about? Time committed to worship God. And you can’t say Christians are not doing that only because they have that day on Sunday not Saturday.”
It is beyond astonishing that you are hyperliteral when it suits your purpose and metaphorical when it doesn’t. The Bible describes how to observe the Sabbath. For example: it must be on the seventh day, you may not kindle a fire, you may not carry outside. So yes, I can indeed say Christians are not observing the Sabbath AT ALL. Redemption will come to the community of Sabbath observers. This contradicts your position.
Also, Christians CAN’T observe the Sabbath even if they wanted to because God gave it as a sign between Him and Israel FOREVER: “The Children of Israel shall observe the Sabbath, to make the Sabbath an ETERNAL COVENANT for their generations. Between ME AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL it is a sign FOREVER that in a six-day period Hashem made heaven and earth, and the SEVENTH DAY he rested and was refreshed” (Exodus 31:16-17). Please note the words that I emphasized.
5. You’ve been answered on this many times. In Hebrew, it’s a subtle nuance, easy for a translator to miss. If I were translating I also might automatically make it singular for the sake of consistency. Only upon delving deeper would I realize that the fact that it’s plural in Hebrew is significant.
6. Again, exiled from the Land didn’t mean every single last Jew. Since Jews have maintained a continuous presence on the Land, you would have to argue that the Torah lied when it said the Jewish people would be exiled. It didn’t lie. We were exiled, indeed. But always a tiny handful of Jews remained there.
7. Right, I agree. The fact that it’s compared to a sapling does not exclude the Messiah. I brought the other references because YOU were the one who argued that it must be the Messiah because of plant imagery associated with the Messiah. Do you retract that argument?
8. We’ve argued about the Passover lamb so many times, I don’t see the point in repeating the arguments. I will leave it to the audience to decide whether Christians have picked bits and pieces and ignored others in piecing together their theology.
11. (You misnumbered your points, so I’m not skipping.) Yes, Jews have willingly chosen to die rather than convert, that is why “for Your sake we are killed all day long.” You don’t believe this? Read some Jewish history. This is a verifiable historical fact.
12. I didn’t make the point about the gas chambers, the anti-Semite Raold Dahl did. Long before the gas chambers, the Jews were rounded up from their home towns for deportations. They did not resist, for the most part.
13. You do not think the Western world is a better place for Jews and other minorities to live in today, as opposed to before the Holocaust? You do not think there is more tolerance for other races and religions today?
Dina, I will just answer a few points ;
1. Arguing about long or eternal life doesn’t make sense. It will still end up with eternal life for those who trust God. But you didn’t answer how the ‘suffering remnant’ ended up with that long life…
2. Concerning Is 53 there is a verse that says that the servant prayed for the wicked. And you are saying Jesus didn’t pray for his enemies because you don’t have his prayer for pharisees. You make focus on Pharisees but you are ignoring his prayer for those who were killing him that I already brought up earlier. We don’t have every prayed recorded Jesus prayed.
You also made here a focus on Sabbath for the redemption. But I quoted “ Redeemer will come to those in Judah who repented” Is 59;20. You are forgetting that the most important is the right heart before God not just religious life and the fact that somebody keeps the Sabbath.; read Is 1;12-14 . ( also to be more clear ; I don’t tell you to give it up or to any other person . Many messianic Jews keep the Sabbath, it doesn’t interfere with their trust that Jesus is God’s Son. Sabbath will be also kept in the messianic kingdom. What I was saying ;keeping the Sabbath is not indicating somebody’s position of being right and justified by God , if your heart is not trusting Him. Is that more clear?
If you think Christians can’t observe Sabbath, then don’t also expect it from us. And is that the reason to say gentiles can’t be right with God and know the truth because they are not keeping the Sabbath?
You said ” Again, exiled from the Land didn’t mean every single last Jew. You would have to argue that the Torah lied when it said the Jewish people would be exiled.”
If you relate it to one person you won’t have a problem with interpretation how ‘ being cut off from the land of living” relates to the servant.
.If you find time to go through the references I gave you comparing the servant ( in chapters 42, 49, 50;4-10, 52,61;1-3) with the Messiah in Is 11, you won’t claim my imagery associated with the Messiah.
I am skipping the subject of your willingness of dying. The verse in Psalm you quoted doesn’t justify it. In Holocaust people had not much to say, there was no willingness, there was just no choice.
I don’t doubt that the Western world is a better place for Jews and other minorities to live in today, as opposed to before the Holocaust, especially noways when there is so much tension in Middle East. But what does it have to do with is 53? The chapter doesn’t talk about the world getting better, or anything like that, but about ‘ the healing ‘ of those for whom the servant suffered and died. Only those who realize the servant suffered for them – say they are healed.
I will finish with the point I didn’t finish before;
You said that Jesus didn’t have children so how the offspring can relate to him in Is 53?. And that I am switching now to non- literal meaning to suit my interpretation.
So lets look at Jewish interpretation;
Many people who suffered , they didn’t live long life and couldn’t see their offspring because they were killed. Many of those who survived war were children themselves who were hidden within christian families , while their parents( the children parents were killed.) There was also many older people whose families didn’t survive. So what group do we have left here to fulfill the words of the offspring ? Only those who survived and could start their families later. So why would Isaiah mention only that group ? Not even mentioning that he also says the servant didn’t ‘survive the suffering ‘ but died… But of course according to you not everybody had to fulfill all the words, it is just together ( mixture) where the facts in verses are getting added to make the group servant . .which is really not speaking to me.
Another thing ; you said that while we take Isaiah 53 literal. we don’t use literal meaning of the offspring because I how could it refer to Jesus. But the scriptures tell you that people are becoming sons of God through faith. And it is not about literal meaning or not , it is a fact; God declares that He is the Father of the nation Israel, whom he loves as His child ( Isa 1:2 ; Hosea 11:1 ) The same He says about David’s descendant, “I will be his father, and he will be my son” ( 2 Sa 7:14 ) and there are many more examples, I have no time for today.
Lats thing about that new covenant, we don’t expect the whole prophecy to be fulfilled right away with all the details. The same like with the promise to Abraham. Has it all happened yet although it already started? If God says that one thing will happen and then he lists many other things, there is always time space between them being fulfilled. Circumcision of a heart is not one day event that will ;”magically” befall the whole nation and the hearts will change.
Hi Eric,
Just picking out a couple of points here, due to being busy:
You wrote: “You also made here a focus on Sabbath for the redemption. But I quoted “ Redeemer will come to those in Judah who repented” Is 59;20. You are forgetting that the most important is the right heart before God not just religious life and the fact that somebody keeps the Sabbath.”
Eric, how can someone be right with God if he disobeys God’s commandments? What does it mean to be right with God? God tells us exactly how: by obeying his laws. Exodus and Deuteronomy stress the importance of listening to God’s voice by keeping His laws, statutes, ordinances, and decrees.
Does this mean that you can keep the Sabbath and not be right with God? Yes, of course. If you keep the Sabbath but ignore the widow and orphan and disobey other laws, you are not right with God. It stands to reason that if you are as scrupulous as you know how about observing all of God’s laws (which include “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your might” and “Love your fellow as yourself”) then your heart is right with God. But one thing is for sure: if you do not keep the Sabbath, then you are not right with God.
The scriptures I quoted are very significant. Redemption will come to the Sabbath observers. Isaiah 56:6-7: “All who guard the Sabbath against desecration and who grasp My covenant tightly, I will bring them to My holy mountain.” Sabbath observance was given to the Jewish people only. Exodus 31:16-17: “The Children of Israel shall observe the Sabbath, to make the Sabbath an ETERNAL COVENANT for their generations. Between ME AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL it is a sign FOREVER that in a six-day period Hashem made heaven and earth, and the SEVENTH DAY he rested and was refreshed.”
You wrote: “If you think Christians can’t observe Sabbath, then don’t also expect it from us. And is that the reason to say gentiles can’t be right with God and know the truth because they are not keeping the Sabbath?”
Obviously, what I write about the Sabbath applies to Jews only. The redemption promised to the Sabbath observers is unique to the Jewish people: deliverance from oppression, ingathering of their exiles, return to the land, and rebuilding of the Third Temple. At the same time, the gentiles will experience the bliss of universal peace and universal knowledge of God. They don’t have to observe the Sabbath in order for this to happen. The prophets don’t exclude the gentiles from the universal redemption, but they don’t impose upon them extra observances either. This is clear in Tanach. I’m not saying anything controversial.
It is strange for gentiles to want to claim for themselves the redemption promises to the Sabbath observers.
I will address the issue of the “Sabbath observance” of messianic Jews and the lack of protection of Christian Jews another time, God willing.
Hi Eric,
It’s been a while! I hope you’ve been well. Please accept my apologies for taking so long to respond.
I won’t answer all your points in this comment because I don’t understand all of them, so if I missed something important feel free to raise it again.
In your first point, you asked how the suffering remnant ended up with long life. We do not hold that this prophecy has been fulfilled. It will be fulfilled at the time that all the nations of the world will be shocked at the exaltation of God’s suffering servant, Israel (see end of Isaiah 52). Arguing about long versus eternal life makes perfect sense. The servant is promised long life in this chapter. That doesn’t negate eternal life; it simply has nothing to do with it. If God promises you a reward that you will live to a ripe old age, that doesn’t mean you can’t also be rewarded with eternal life.
For example, the reward for honoring your parents is a nice long life on this earthly realm (“Honor your father and your mother so that you may live long in the land etc.”).
The reason the distinction is important is that you claim Jesus is the subject of Isaiah 53, but Jesus did not have a long life. You claim Isaiah 53 was fulfilled in Jesus, but he died young and so did not receive God’s promise of a long life. So how can this be talking about Jesus?
Whether you like it or not, the Hebrew uses specifically the same word for long earthly life such as in Exodus 20:12 that I quoted above. There is no way to translate this as eternal life.
You pooh-pooh our argument that this can’t be talking about Jesus because he Jesus didn’t have children, although the servant is promised progeny, because Christians are his spiritual children. As proof, you show me examples where people are called God’s children. Again, you fail to understand the distinction between biological offspring and metaphorical sons in the Hebrew language. In the examples you cited, some form of the Hebrew word “ben” is used. This word can refer either to physical or metaphorical offspring. However, the word in Isaiah comes from the root “zerah,” which literally means “seed” or “semen.” It is a very specific word that means only physical offspring. So this chapter can’t be talking about Jesus because he didn’t have physical children.
Them’s the facts, sir. You can’t argue with the plain meaning of the Hebrew words.
You disagree that the redeemer will come to those who observe the Sabbath (although the text plainly says so), pointing to another passage that says he will come to those who repent. This is not a contradiction, my friend. You believe the Messiah already came and saved you from sin, hence the confusion for you.
I agree that observing the Sabbath is not enough; we must have faith in God as well. But if we disobey God by not observing His commandments, then that faith is meaningless. If your wife loves you in her heart but disregards your wishes, I don’t think you’ll have a very good marriage, you know what I mean?
I do not expect non-Jews to observe the Sabbath; it was an ordinance given only to the Jews. The Messiah will come to redeem the Jews from oppression, but at the same time universal peace will reign on earth and everyone will be united in the worship of the one true God of Israel. So according to Tanach the gentiles also get a fair deal :).
As for the messianic prophecies gradually being fulfilled over the last two thousand years: the only people who make that claim are people whose candidate for Messiah failed to bring about this utopia the first time around (thanks to Rabbi Blumenthal for pointing this out). Nothing in Scripture supports this view. Ezekiel 34:23-31 and 37:24-28 describe a Davidic king reigning over Israel during the time of her vindication in the eyes of her enemies, universal peace, the establishment of the Third Temple, ingathering of the exiles and their restoration to the land, and national resurgence of Torah observance. The picture Ezekiel paints is detailed and clear and leaves no room for gradual fulfillment or second comings. Read it and you’ll see what I mean.
Eric, you claim this:
“Then we have Jer 31; 31-33 that says; ” Behold days are coming…. when I will seal a NEW covenant with House of israel and with the House of Judah. (…) for this is the covenant..I WILL PLACE MY TORAH WITHIN THEM and I WILL WRITE IT ONTO THEIR HEART (..) and they will no longer teach each man his fellow…for all of them will know me from their smallest to their greatest…”
So what is the difference between you now and having the Torah placed within you and written on your heart after the change will take place?”
Eric, the answer to your question is right in front of your face. You posted it. I’ll repost you you said with a different emphasis:
Then we have Jer 31; 31-33 that says; ” Behold days are coming…. when I will seal a NEW covenant with House of ISRAEL and with the House of JUDAH. (…) for this is the covenant..I will place my Torah within them and I will write it on their heart (..) AND THEY WILL NO LONGER TEACH EACH MAN HIS FELLOW…FOR ALL OF THEM WILL KNOW ME FROM THEIR SMALLEST TO THEIR GREATEST!
So what is the difference between you now and having the Torah placed within you and written on your heart after the change will take place?”
Here is the answer to to your question: Under the New Covenant, we will no longer have to teach the Torah to our neighbor. For ALL OF US (Judah and Israel, NOT the gentiles…) will KNOW HASHEM. Under the Mosaic covenant, we are required to teach out children to know Hashem
Deut 6:7. And *you shall teach them to your sons* and speak of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk on the way, and when you lie down and when you rise up.
But under the New Covenant, Jeremiah tells we will NOT have to TEACH our children to know Hashem because WE WILL ALL KNOW HIM! This is sourced in Deuteronomy 30:5-6. (This week’s Parsha, Nitzavim!)
Deut 30:5. And the Lord, your God, will bring you to the land which your forefathers possessed, and you [too] will take possession of it, and He will do good to you, and He will make you more numerous than your forefathers.
Deut 30:6. And the Lord, your God, WILL CIRCUMCISE YOUR HEART AND THE HEART OF YOUR OFFSPRING, [so that you may] love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, for the sake of your life.
Has this happened yet Eric? Do all of Israel and Judah know Hashem? Has G-d Himself circumcised our hearts AND the hearts of our offspring? Have the exiles of Israel been gathered to the land in peace yet? No! Thus, the New Covenant has not been made yet.
Thus, jesus did not fulfill this prophesy.
Shalom
Yehuda Yisrael, You completely misunderstood what I was writing about. I was not asking question about the new covenant so that somebody would clarify it to me ( I am aware of all things that will happen in it) . The reason I was bringing up these verses was to point to the fact of a promised change that will take place and the NEED FOR IT. ( BECAUSE OUR CONDITION IS NOT PERFECT NOW) That barging about “Only Jews who are loyal to the Torah have God’s spirit and truth.” doesn’t change your condition that you are in a need of a ‘new heart’ and new spirit that Ez 36;26-27 talks about. You tried to make the most focus on the fact of people not having to teach each other because they all will know God. I don’t doubt that , but that was not a point I was talking about.
Eric, that is the point you were talking about because that explains what is meant by a new covenant and new heart.
Eric,
It’s too bad that you don’t like what Isaiah 59:21 plainly says. It doesn’t fit your notion that Jews don’t have the truth and are not loyal to God, so you have to bring other Scriptures that are irrelevant to this one (as Yehuda Yisrael excellently explained).
This verse plainly says that God’s spirit and God’s words will not depart from the Jewish people from now until forever. From now means from now. It doesn’t mean from when Jesus comes a second time. Your biological offspring means your biological offspring. It’s as plain as day.
Hi Eric,
You wrote: “I have to disappoint you, I don’t feel any sting in my face with what you wrote.”
I am not disappointed because I am not trying to “sting” your face at all. I’m not trying to make you uncomfortable. I’m not trying to win a debate.
I’m interested in seeking the truth, and these discussions help us gain clarity.
I would like to focus again on Isaiah 59:21.
The 59th chapter of Isaiah recounts Israel’s sins and suffering and ends with a promise of redemption and words of comfort. Even in English, it is easy to see which is the promise of future redemption and which are the present words of comfort–because the tenses change.
The preceding verse is in the future tense: “A redeemer WILL come to Zion etc.” The following verse is in the present tense: “And as for Me, this IS [present tense] my covenant with them, said Hashem. My spirit which IS upon you [today, now, present tense] and My words that I have placed in your mouth [past tense, the Torah, not the New Testament!] will not be withdrawn [future tense, meaning what you have now you will keep in the future] from your mouth nor from the mouth of your offspring nor from the mouth of your offspring’s offspring, said Hashem, from THIS MOMENT AND FOREVER [from the time period in which Isaiah speaks until, well forever].”
Isaiah is comforting the Jewish people and letting them know that no matter how bad their exile is, they will never forget the Torah and Hashem’s spirit will never leave them.
Does this mean every single Jew? Of course not! History shows exactly which Jews never forget the Torah–the ones whose offspring carry on the torch.
The first Christians were Jews. But where are their offspring and their offspring’s offspring, teaching Torah and keeping it? They died out or assimilated. They lost the protection that Hashem promised in 59:21 because they were not the true bearers of Hashem’s Torah. That’s why your claim that the righteous remnant refers to messianic Jews fails.
As for the new covenant, Yehuda Yisrael showed you, based on context, what that means.
Dina, Here is all about the context.
You think I am trying to fit the context to the concept( to the message) of the servant that I believe is Jesus/the Messiah. But I can show you that the context doesn’t exclude the Messiah; Lets’ look at the following points ;
I am not doubting that Isaiah does identify a righteous remnant. Only the question is who exactly is that remnant and does it fulfill the words in Is 53? You mentioned the following verses;
Is 51;1 identifies people who are pursuing righteousness and that they are after it.
Is 43;6 talks about the remnant being gathered at the Messiah’s coming.
Is 56 v.4 & 6 mentions those who “grasp God’s covenant tightly” that God will give them a place of honor that is better than sons and daughters, eternal renown.
So we have an account of those who peruse righteousness. We can call them a righteous remnant but in Is 56 we also have foreigners included. ( also in Zeh 2;14-15)
Then we have a servant identified;
The question is; does Isaiah identify only Jacob – the servant ( as a nation) to fulfill every single thing spoken by this prophet?
We can see that the fact of being called a servant doesn’t mean it is always the entire nation; examples
Is 42 identifies the Messiah without even saying ‘this is my servant messiah..”
Then Is 49 ( according to you identifies the prophet Isaiah- an individual who is a servant. ( although I don’t see how Isaiah could have ended up as ‘despised soul ‘ by all nations while he is an encouragement and even UN use his words on their building…)
Then you have the nation 42;19 but identified clearly with sin.
And then the nation in Is 43:10 “You are My witnesses .” In verse 22 we see the servant is again identified with sin. So we know although the nation is called a servant it is not without a sin.
( conclusion it is not made only about singular or plural back and forth but how the servant is described.)
Concerning Is 49 it is not impossible that one single righteous man could represent Israel. You asked that so I checked it; We can either insist on Isaiah a prophet being spoken in Is 49 or the same individual spoken in Is 42 ( which was the Messiah). or the nation ( but based on the message/ concept it doesn’t fit )
So what else is supporting an individual in Is 49? examples;
Is 44 2-5 talks about pouring God’s spirit in the future upon the offspring of Jacob. v.3 ; “ This one will say; “I am Hashem’s and the other ONE WILL CALL HIMSELF by the name of Jacob And very interesting observation is in v.5 “ “This ONE will sign his allegiance to Hashem , and ADOPT the name of Israel. “ So does it tell you that it is not possible for an individual to be called so to represent God’s people???
You mentioned Cyrus in chapter 44;28, and 45;1. Here God’s servant is clearly identified because he is called by name and we know who was Cyrus. ( that there was no group called so). We know it was an individual.
So, so far, the context doesn’t impose the nation to be spoken about in Is 53. Neither chapter 52 ( I will explain at the end)
So now after explaining why I have no problem with chapter 49. how do I finally identify the servant in Is 53? I see his description goes along with the description in the following chapters; 42, 49, 50;4-10 , 61, that indentify him with complete righteousness and no sin mentioned. These chapters don’t mention any sin but show a servant really pleasing God .
So nr 1. is ; no sin mentioned.
2) Do I make my conclusion because the Is 53 is only matching Jesus? no,
because also other chapters go along with Is 53 ( 42, 49, 50;4-10, 52;13-15,) and one clearly identifies the Messiah ( 42) ,
3) Also because they are matching the words about the messiah spoken in Is 11;1-10 ..
And then it already speaks for itself; If you find time you may look at these observation;
1) Is 11;1 describes him “with the spirit of God resting upon him” ‘ anointed one” so does Is 61; 1 and 42;1
2) Is 11;11 says the nation will inquire of him ( root of Jesse) Is 42;1, 4 islands longing for his teaching!!
3) Is 11; 10 standing as a banner for the peoples Is 49 , Is 42;6 ( light to the gentiles)
4) Is 11;1-5 ( ruling with justice) and Is 42;4 setting justice in the land
5) Is 11;5 and Is 53 his properties of righteousness mentioned.
6) Is 11;11 on that day ( of his reign) the remnant is recovered from many places. Is 49;5 he is to bring back Jacob, restoring the survivors of Israel.
7) Is 11; 4 he will strike the wicked of the world with the rod of his mouth, Is 49;2 His mouth is like a sharp sword,
8) Is 53;12 given the many as his portion, receiving the multitude as his spoil.. Ps 2; 7-8 ” ask of Me and I will make nations as your inheritance and the end of earth your possession.”
As far as Is 52;13-15 you make your final conclusion who is the servant in the next chapter based on the “shocking event”.
Nations may be shocked as at the end of days it is spoken there will be many left who will hate Israel , ( daniel chapters 9-11) very few true followers of God, world under the rules of evil. Don’t you think they could be surprised by appearance of a redeemer too???? Exaltation of the nation is not an overnight event, it takes years to rebuilt etc. The glorious future is not established till the messiah comes, so can’t they be shocked by his coming by what he will do and his ruling??? ( Zeh 14)
You say how they can be shocked, because two billion of people are Christians- you are seeing it from a present time perspective. You don’t know how many will be left in 100 years or later . Jesus himself said; when he comes there will be barely anybody who has faith. He didn’t say these words in justification of words in Is 52;13, but in the reference to the true future that will be very corrupted and evil ( if not we would not have to expect the Day of the Lord Joel 2 and Zeph 1;12- 18 is talking about.
So to me it is not about whether Jews will be shocked or gentiles; it is not about one group or the other but about , unbelieving people who will be shocked by God’s intervention that they didn’t expect.
I s 40;5, Ez 38;23, Ez 39;21, Ps 98;2 that speak about revealing of God’s glory, ( Ez 38;23) God will make himself known before the eyes of many nations,( Ez 39;21) they will see God’s judgment, He will have made known His salvation( Ps 98;2)
The last thing I would say about relation chapters 52 and 53. Is 53 doesn’t look like a report spoken in the future.
Many of those who will be oppressing Israel in the future will be killed ( Zeh 12-14) at the time of redemption. How can they say they are healed by your wounds? Also continuation of words in verse 11-12 doesn’t suggest the future report of the previous verses 1-10 . As the future report the words in v11-12 would be spoken as a finished action.
Eric,
You wrote, “I am not doubting that Isaiah does identify a righteous remnant.” For a long time you were arguing that all of Israel was wicked and rebellious and you brought Scriptural verse after verse to prove it. Are you retracting that argument?
I don’t have time to check all your references right now, but I confess I didn’t follow your argument very well. I shall have to reread and check references, then get back to you. It might be weeks, because I’m busy with holiday preparations. We have a huge holiday month coming up.
I will say, though, that the context clearly indicates that this is a future event that has not yet taken place.
Dina, you have to read again about what I wrote about” a righteous remnant.” . Maybe I didn’t express my point clearly. When I said; scriptures identify a righteous remnant I mean the existence of those whom God will justify , those whom God will clean from their sin. Jer 33;8
Is 43;25, Those who will be resurrected into messianic kingdom.
But existence of justified people ‘ doesn’t mean they fulfilled the Is 53 message. I already explained that in the last email.
Eric, I showed you scriptures that show Isaiah addressing people who are righteous. Do you dispute these scriptures?
Hi Eric.
To summarize the first part of this comment, you say that the servant mentioned throughout Isaiah can be 1) Israel/Jacob, 2) the Messiah, or 3) the prophet himself.
That is correct. We know which meaning is intended through context. I have already demonstrated numerous times how the context identifies the servant in Chapter 53 as Israel. I have also presented a high level of corroboration throughout Tanach for all the themes of this chapter according to the Jewish interpretation.
You have not been able to even begin to match that type of corroboration.
You assert that the righteous remnant is identified in the future when the Messiah will come, and it will be messianic Jews. This ignores the verses I showed you where Isaiah is directly addressing a righteous remnant in his days. Remember, this is only in the book of Isaiah. We have other examples, for instance, the faction that was loyal to Jeremiah.
As for the shocking event, you are engaging in speculation. I have no comment, therefore.
You seem not to understand what we mean by “heal.” I suggest you read section 5 in Rabbi Blumenthal’s article “Armor Bearers” again. Let me know if you still do not understand it.
Peace and blessings,
Dina
Dina, You said you demonstrated numerous times how the context identifies the servant in Chapter 53 as Israel. But that is a demonstration according to you. The same way I showed you why I believe it isn’t but it fits the Messiah. I also showed you based on Is 11 how it’s messianic message is repeated in the servants ‘songs’ going through chapters 42, 49, 50;4-10, 53 and that is how I have a reason to exclude the nation in fulfillment of Is 53. Of course the context is not everything, we discussed also the details about how the fulfillment of the words in that chapter speaks for a specific servant. But if you wanted to underline the context to me it still speaks for the Messiah who is introduced way before chapter 53 ( in chapters , 9, 11 and 42 ) whom God identifies as His righteous servant COMING to fulfill a specific mission of restoration- a message which is consistent with other ‘righteous servant’ chapters . I don’t think you had a chance to look at the references I listed you before, compares with Is 11?
You understood me wrong with my identifying the righteous Jews. Scriptures talk about many individuals long before the nation; Abraham, Noah and others so was Jeremiah , Isaiah. I don’t doubt there were ‘ righteous ones’ among the unrighteous in every time of the history. The fact that the are ‘righteous ones ‘ identified doesn’t simply mean they have to fulfill the chapter 53. I already showed you before plenty of arguments why. No group of people matched the criteria in fitting there. Taking a nation is generalizing because not every individual fulfilled every word but you believe they fulfilled it as a group. A “group servant’ doesn’t match here, as it can’t be that one admitted his guilt and the other didn’t but died with the wealthy, one prayed , the other didn’t but fulfilled something else.
As for the shocking event- speculation or not- there are plenty of events on the way before it all happens. It is enough to read all that relates to the Day of the Lord and how the situation on earth will change. Lots of wars and one big mess. ( book of Daniel)
I read about your interpretation of ‘ healing ‘ and once I already wrote to rabbi B why I see it differently. Healing can’t come to a person unless a person is willing to know God. How many situations we have today that people can hear and learn about God but they don’t want to ? Unless a person is willing to repent , he is not healed. And seeing it as a temporary or future ‘protection’ doesn’t fit. You have plenty of examples in the scriptures that at the Messiah’s coming there will be many among the nations who will still rebel against God and they won’t be healed. They will be defeated. Who will be able to say ‘they are healed’? Those who will want to trust God.
……………………
As far as Is 59;21.
We both agree on the future tense: “A redeemer WILL come to Zion etc.” Then you say the following verse is in the present tense: “And as for Me, this IS [present tense] my covenant with them… “
Looking at the previous verse you see these words are relating to people that are spoken about in v 20. -to whom redeemer comes ( who turned away from sin). Why I believe God is speaking about the second covenant? He relates the events to that time of renewed Jacob/redeemed. Present tense spoken in v 21 doesn’t exclude the future. How many times God says something in the present tense and the events are still to come? Also the words He says relate already to the second covenant. His words staying with your offspring forever is a promise of a new covenant in which you won’t have to teach each other as everyone will know God.
Interpreted differently; there would be no need for the new covenant’ in which Torah will be put into your hearts.
It is your interpretation that Jews who believed in Messiah Jesus lost their protection . There are still Jews who believe God about Jesus nowadays and will be till Messiah coming. I don’t see any lost protection. You have no evidence how many Messianic Jews lived throughout centuries because there are no available documents. Most documents were kept by corrupted Catholic churches who ( especially in the time of dominating power and persecution) were to wipe out any Jews. Also Jews who believed in Jesus were simply called Christians. Because of so much persecution lots of Jewish communities gathered ‘undercover’ wherever they could that means not in officially registered places for a church including. Seeing corruption and persecution most true believers were simply hiding with their worship places and even identity. Even minorities of Jews who believed in Jesus the Messiah were doing the same, and not wiped out like you think. Plenty of historical accounts of that.
Eric, I see that you still don’t understand what we mean by “healing” because of the way you misrepresent our argument. I also see that it’s not clear to you what Tanach means when it talks about a continuous, unbroken transmission from one generation to the next. I do not have the time right now with all the holidays this month to clarify these issues. Before responding, I would also like to check your references from the first half of the Book of Isaiah. Yet again, I ask for your patience. It might be a good month before I respond.
Be well,
Dina
Eric, you may “believe” no one has demonstrated 53 is the servant but that is only a belief on your part. Yours is based upon a text that has difficulty with truth and accuracy. In every instance of Xtian interpretation there are truths within, that contradict the Xtian message. This example is no different. Isaiah uses the plural, “they”, in that reference. Jsus surely is not a “they”. Xtianity is predicated upon this reference of Isaiah 53 and literally falls short of its intention.
You only “believe” you have shown your proofs but your only basis is the attempt to “fit” Xtian thinking INTO the text where it is not there. Therefore, you have Not shown any proof. All you have done is cite a completely different chapter and then say, here is the proof. In typical fashion of circular reasoning you refer to Isaiah 11, a clear Mashiach reference, and use that to define the subject in 53. You have to assume a belief in 53 and only Imagine the correlation. Does 53 speak of a root of Jesse. The two chapters are as far apart as can be. Such utter nonsense.
If Isaiah 53 is about Jsus then more of what is written in that chapter should be expounded upon in the Xtian text. All you have to start with is the vagueness of one reference in Isaiah. Even this is suspect since it changes what the Hebrew conveys.
Until the reader has the understanding and knowledge of Jewish history he will be easily confused regarding this chapter. Apparently you see it in context of a singular event whereas it is historical over many generations. It is a synopsis of Jewish history therefore your argument applying to a single individual of a single time has No meaning or application. When you cut out a couple of verses, as the Xtian text does, to support your theory you loose the theme of the narrative. Instead of using an unrelated chapter read what’s next for the continuing narrative. Jewish history is culminated within the next chapter, the redemption of Israel. You fall prey to the Xtian technique of starting in the middle, with an assumption, instead of starting from the beginning and reading to the end.
You are resorting to excuses regarding the “messianic Jews” of history. As has been mentioned numerous times, those Jews who kept Torah do have descendants of today, as was predicted. Those Jews who left Torah and became Xtian are lost to history, as predicted. The excuse of “documents” is without merit. Why would the church be entrusted with registration of individuals and their descendants. The reason it doesn’t work is Xtianity teaches there’s no difference between Jew and Greek. Therefore there is no reason for a converted Jew to maintain that heritage. Thus, the end of that Jew’s descendants. He is literally cut-off. The Torah specifically tells us this would happen. Even today we see this with Jews who become Xtian and then intermarry with Gentiles, thus the inheritance is lost, and are too cut-off.
Eric, I hope to get to this soon.
Dina, no rush. Just shortly about the Sabbath issue.
Reading Genesis we learn that on the seventh day God’ rested “ after the creation.. However, since God is all-powerful, He doesn’t get tired. He doesn’t need to take a break and rest. So, why did/does it say that He rested? The reason is simple: The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. In other words, God established the Sabbath as a rest for His people–not because He needed a break but because we are mortal and WE need a time of rest–a time to focus on God. In this, our spirits and bodies are both renewed. I have nothing against jews keeping the Sabbath. As far as Sabbath and Christians and including Jews who become Christians ( called messianic Jews) ; as for us ; Jesus said that He is the Lord of the Sabbath (Matt. 12:8). For us the Sabbath is fulfilled in Jesus. He is our rest because he is our forgiveness of God, and God made him our Lord.
“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.” Matthew 11;28
What type of rest he means. Not a rest in our imaginary of sitting down all day and doing nothing. It is a spiritual rest in God that we know we no longer struggle with our imperfections but come to God as we are, confessing to God what is deep in our hearts and accept His forgiveness so we can have fellowship with Him.
Eric, the Hebrew Bible says nothing about the reason you put forth for keeping the Sabbath or what the Sabbath means. The Torah gives us two reasons for keeping the Sabbath. See Exodus 20:8-11 and Deuteronomy 5:12-15.
Furthermore, you assumption that “What type of rest he means. Not a rest in our imaginary of sitting down all day and doing nothing” shows that you know nothing–you haven’t a clue–about Jewish Sabbath observance. Not to mention that God explains exactly what He means by rest–He doesn’t leave it up to our imagination.
If only these people would learn Hebrew there wouldn’t be so many misconceptions.
Being part of Shabbat Kiddush it certainly isn’t a difficulty for a Jew to understand its meaning.
If it were a physical rest would a Jew be able to walk any distance to a Shul on Shabbat.
If Xtian writings are teaching this type of rest, that Eric describes, then it is even more conclusive evidence of doubting the writers were Jewish. Surely every Jew would know of the 39 Melachot.
Hi Eric.
I’m responding to your comment here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/isaiah-53-micah-7-and-isaiah-62#comment-15015
I will respond in a series of comments.
I’d like to address Isaiah 11. You believe the subject of Isaiah 11 is Jesus. That is very interesting! Can you tell me how Jesus fulfilled Isaiah 11? Perhaps it was symbolic, eh?
You said that Isaiah 11 is talking about the Messiah and is consistent with other messianic passages in Isaiah, such as Isaiah 49. This passage, unlike Isaiah 11, is talking about a despised servant. In this passage, Hashem says to the “despised soul, to the one loathed by nations, to the servant of rulers [Jesus was a servant of rulers? In his lifetime, he was loathed by nations?]” (verse 7) that He will make them the people of the covenant (verse 8).
Can you explain why it makes sense to you that Jesus is the one being addressed in this passage and told he will be made into the people of the covenant? Our explanation that the servant in this chapter is corporate Israel makes a lot more sense!
Another passage you cited as consistent with Isaiah 11 is 50:4-10. It bears no resemblance to Chapter 11, however. It describes precisely Isaiah’s predicament as an unpopular prophet. Why should I accept your explanation that this passage describes the Messiah when the plain meaning points to Isaiah?
You are wrong to exclude the people of Israel as being the subject of Isaiah 53. The suffering of the Jewish people continues; the loathing of the Jewish people by the nations of the world continues. This prophecy is indeed messianic, but not in the sense that you think. It is messianic in the sense that it talks of a time when the nation of Israel will be vindicated in the eyes of the nations and will be rewarded for her loyalty.
Hi Eric, here is my next comment regarding yours (https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/isaiah-53-micah-7-and-isaiah-62/#comment-15015).
You clarified your position on the righteous remnant. You explained that there is no group that can be identified as righteous, only individuals, if I have understood you correctly. Yet I have brought you passages from Isaiah that identify a group of righteous people.
You say that Chapter 53 can’t be generalized to a group. Why not? Why can’t you have a group of righteous people who are persecuted and who are innocent of the crimes for which they are persecuted? You believe this is true of the early Christians; why can’t it be true of oppressed Jews?
Dina, yes it ‘s been a while. I will have to refresh on what
we talked about -refresh on all info and then when I find more time I will go back to your points. I haven’t yet time to read all of it, but saved it for later to go through it. Hope you have a blessed new year,
eric
Take your time, Eric, and happy New Year to you too!
Dina, It is hard to focus on so many points at once so shortly about each one…
Answering my previous email you mentioned the suffering remnant ( based on Is 53 ) will end up with long life and that you do not hold that this prophecy has been fulfilled. You also said that Jesus did not have a long life in order to fulfill the prophecy.
Ok, so here is a problem . The argument of Jesus not living long life can’t be an argument for him not- fulfilling Is 53 , the same way like Jewish remnant ( considered righteous ) didn’t fulfill these words in this life. Many died early because of persecution and had no chance to live long life at all.
Back to Jesus I also put aside the fact that there was a difference with Jesus’ death. He was risen to life just back after 3 days, which you neither consider nor believe so no point for me to focus on it right now.
Another problem you considering that this prophecy ( long life promised) hasn’t been yet fulfilled – you said that it will happen at the exaltation of God’s suffering servant. First thing I would say; the same way your nation is believed to receive long life, the same way is Jesus . Second -you surely know that the exaltation is the time of the Messiah already coming and ruling from Jerusalem. Based on other scripture we know that at his coming ‘the righteous ones’ who died before will be resurrected to ETERNAL life. So they don’t need a promise of a long life as they have already promised eternal life. You know these verses from book of Daniel chapter 12′;2 . Of course there will be still new people being born and having a chance to live longer in the messianic times ( not dying of sickness as quickly as people do now) so you may say they are the ones fulfilling the ‘long life promises” from Is 53, but notice that these people will be living in a blessed time without persecution and need to be afflicted for others like the servant in Is 53 is described. They are not resembling the afflicted servant described there in Is 53 at all. They actually all will be born in a great future time free from affliction.
I am not focusing on whether there is a sense to argue about eternal life or long life here i, because -like you mentioned -those with long life don’t have to be excluded from having eternal life later which is actually a better promise But I am showing you that these arguments you brought about Jesus are not contradicting anything I believe.
……………
You brought the offspring issue from Is 53. Ok, I ask you the question. When those who died
( righteous who were afflicted for others and killed) had a chance to see their offspring? The only way they can , is after their own resurrection. So however you consider that verse it talks about the future and definitely after resurrection.
….
I don’t get what you meant here by saying “ As for the messianic prophecies gradually being fulfilled over the last two thousand years:” What things – do you mean- are gradually being fulfilled- that we believe? Forgiveness of God is not a secret to be gradually revealed. Also the way God would bring about restoration is revealed in Is 42- 53 .
….
About the Sabbath – I never considered it as a rest as sitting down all day and doing nothing.
I don’t know where you took that from thinking that is what I imagined???? help..
I have no time to look at your links I will shortly try to answer your questions you raised about Is 11 via Jesus .
You asked me how did Jesus fulfill Is 11.? The chapter is not yet fulfilled, neither is anything symbolic in it. I t is clearly describing the future of Messiah’s ruling. How do we know it is talking about Jesus? Based on many other scriptures that explain who the Messiah will be and why he is not excluded from suffering like the nation. To explain detail by detail I would have to go again over the same we talked for so long – all verses starting chapter 42 -53 and going over and explaining why we see fulfillment of these chapters by the Messiah. But we both disagree on interpretation on verses 42-53 for so many reasons. .
Yes we say that Isaiah 11 is talking about the Messiah and is consistent with other messianic passages in Isaiah, such as Isaiah 49. Your argument is that “ This passage, unlike Isaiah 11, is talking about a despised servant. “
The question is why the despised servant can’t be the exalted ruling person described in the future in Is 11?
V 6 chapter 49 says that the servant is returning Jacob to God , he is raising up the tribes of Jacob . HE IS NOT MENTIONED TO BE RESTORING HIMSELF! Chapter 11 tells you that the Messiah will have his HUGE part in bringing about the future restoration.
The only way you see it is as fulfillment of the nation because of suffering and persecution. That doesn’t exclude the Messiah going the same path.
You are asking ‘ was Jesus loathed by nations? You will find in every nation the same hate toward him as you experience among many nation.. In every nation you find people who don’t want to have anything to do with God , same way no need for Jesus.
Back to verses 1-6 chapter 49 you have description of restoration that will take place because of the servant restoring Jacob. Verse 7 is simply telling you what hope is God bringing that way. So – either way- if you take the verse 7 – as relating to you- God still talks about the hope of the future that is brought by His servant who will lift up Jacob ( the nation). ( not the nation lifting up themselves) Even talking about the nation in v7 doesn’t exclude one righteous servant who is restoring the nation. Also the next words; Kings will see and arise…” is simply talking about God’s glory that will be revealed in all that process. God’s hand present in the restoration of the nation. Does is exclude the exaltation of the one by whom God will accomplish His purposes?
The same way like v 7 , v 8 doesn’t exclude one righteous servant restoring the nation. I am not saying that Jesus is made into : “the people of the covenant “ It refers to the nation. The verse starts with explanation that God will answer you ( the nation) in a time of FAVOR , on a day of SALVATION the same favor that will be proclaimed by His servant you read in Is 61;2. Verse 8 continues the message of hope to the nation described in verses 1-6.
You mentioned that Is 50;4-10 is about Isaiah’s predicament as an unpopular prophet . Why would you exclude here any other servant of God who is suffering v.6? Nothing suggests Isaiah over other.
You say that “The suffering of the Jewish people continues; the loathing of the Jewish people by the nations of the world continues” . I am aware of that but still don’t see why I would exclude Jesus from fulfilling words in Is 53. and other chapters.
As far as the righteous remnant. You asked “Why can’t I have a group of righteous people who are persecuted and who are innocent of the crimes for which they are persecuted? This is true of the early Christians; why can’t it be true of oppressed Jews? “ The answer is – the same way- why I know that Christians are not the subject of Is 53. Suffering is not the only thing that interprets and identifies the subject but the given reason for his suffering that is clearly shown in Isaiah and is more than the nation carried. For justifying others , to carry all peoples iniquities. v. 11. And I gave you before many other arguments that inflicting the nation is not needed to make the world better. It is a person’s will to return to God and repentance.
Hi Eric,
The basic points:
ETERNAL LIFE VERSUS LONG LIFE
You still fail to grasp the plain distinction in the Hebrew. Jesus in your belief was resurrected to eternal life. However, the promise given to the servant of Isaiah 53 is the promise of a long earthly life. Let us say you are correct that it cannot apply to Israel. That is beside the point. It certainly cannot apply to Jesus, who did not live a long earthly life. He simply did not. If you want to be true to the text there is no way to apply this to Jesus.
THE DESPISED SERVANT
Right, the servant is not restoring himself to himself. You can say that either Isaiah’s job is to return Jacob to God, or the righteous remnant has the job of returning the rest of the nation back to God. Certainly, Jesus did not fulfill this prophecy, since his gospel spread not to Jacob but to the gentiles.
Furthermore, you cannot say that Jesus was loathed by many nations and was the servant of rulers. Two billion Christians revere him, one billion Muslims see his role as prophet, and half a billion Hindus honor him as well–that’s not exactly the description of a despised person. That’s pretty popular! Even those who don’t believe in him don’t hate him, they’re just indifferent. And when was he ever the servant of many rulers?
In context, the prophet is addressing the servant who is despised by all and who will be made into the people of the covenant. Nothing in the text suggests that the target of the prophet’s words has changed. You forced that change where it does not exist.
You’re saying that Jesus hasn’t fulfilled Isaiah 11 yet. But there is no reason to assume that the Messiah will come, fail to fulfill the messianic promises, and then come back again to finish the job. This can be used to justify the claims of any failed messiah; that is why Jews are not impressed with the second coming argument.
As for Isaiah 53 talking about the suffering of the Jewish people, since this is a theme that is repeated throughout the Hebrew Bible, our interpretation is consistent.
Finally, I’m interested in your response to the Hebrew physical offspring argument.
Dina, I will go through this little by little as there is too much message to cover at one time.
First; LONG LIFE VERSUS ETERNAL
You didn’t try to explain how Israel is fitting in this description only excluding Jesus?
Your statement “ he text there is no way to apply this to Jesus” Really , but how does it apply to the servant who was killed ( lots of servants who had no chance to live for long life)?.
Jesus didn’t live long life , certainly he will have a VERY long life on earth at his coming back to earth. ( the same way you believe Israel will have long life in the Messiah’s kingdom. Besides no Christian considers Jesus dead. His death was just for 3 days! And life is life as long as you are alive no matter where.
Dina , you said ;” Certainly, Jesus did not fulfill this prophecy, since his gospel spread not to Jacob but to the gentiles.” You are forgetting that the message of Jesus talking about God’s kingdom coming and God’s forgiveness started with the Jews ( now NT recorded) and keeps spreading and will spread until Messiah’s coming.
The prophecy about God’s message being sheared to gentiles is found in Is 11;10 and Is 42;1, 42;3-4. and especially 49;6 “It is insufficient that you that you be a servant for Me ( only) to raise up the tribes of Jacob (…) I WILL MAKE YOU LIGHT FOR THE NATIONS so that my salvation may extend to the ends of the earth.”
dina, No point of debating how many hate Jesus how many love him. He didn’t describe ‘loving him’ as adoration of his own person. Loving him was to be expressed in having love for each other and listening to what God says; John 14;21, John 13;35. And I don’t have a problem with applying Is 49; 7 as a message of hope to Israel because of what God’s servant will accomplish ( gathering Jacob to God) . “ Thus said Hashem (..) to the despised soul because the earlier message in CHAPTER 49 ( 1-6) TALKS ABOUT THAT HOPE.
to that “In context, the prophet is addressing the servant who is despised by all and who will be made into the people of the covenant.”
Despised nation consists of people who are despised so it doesn’t have to exclude one of their servants who is Jesus. And I already said I don’t have a problem referring that verse to Israel .
Dina, Your understanding is really wrong about that “Messiah coming and , failing to fulfill the messianic promises, and then coming back again to finishing the job.”
First of all no Christian understands it like that. No Christian considers any failure. We all know that without peoples’ repentance and acceptance of God there is no future for hope and any restoration but only to death. So God’s way revealed of dealing with mankind’s sin ( before any restoration can take place ) is not interpreted by us as Messiah’s failure of not accomplishing prophecy. Even among Jewish people it was noticed that prophecy about Messiah was showing 2 different situations , so not having solution for that they believed in 2 Messiah’s coming.
Second there is no word in the prophecy of certain timing and of accomplishing all things at once. There is a purpose of Jesus’ going away and then coming to rule later in the future. By that you have more people being able to repent and participate in God’s future kingdom instead of facing His wrath. You surely know that that time of God’s favor that has been so far will finally end and turn into day of vengeance. ( Is 61;1)
God gives people time to repent before He will come to judge the earth and do away with all evil doers and your persecutors. The ‘year’ of God’s favor and the ‘day’ of God’s vengeance ( Is 61;1) were not to happen at the same time ( although you read it as a message written one after another. There are plenty examples in the bible like that when you have many events listed one after another to happen in the future but there is a time space between them that God is not telling you how long.
Dina, nobody fulfilled yet Is 11 as this is that glorious future described so I have not much to explain here. As far as offspring I once already wrote you about it. There is nothing unusual in the fact that children of God are becoming those who turned to God and listen to Him. And that of course doesn’t exclude Jewish people, there will be lots of Jewish people who will turn to God throughout the history. And how are you explaining my arguments of offspring and fulfillment of it by those who didn’t have any literal offspring and were killed? Where do they see their offspring?
Although there is a lot about the suffering of the Jewish people it doesn’t exclude one servant’s mission which was ” making himself an offering for sin” Is 53;10 that makes it different than the rest of the people. Also the word for offering is the same word used in the Law where the offering had to be perfect and without blemish.Can you say that Israel is without spot or blemish – perfect in every way? If not, you are included in those for whom the servant suffered in v. 6′ we all have strayed like sheep…”
Eric, about the Sabbath, I was responding to your comment here: https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/isaiah-53-micah-7-and-isaiah-62/#comment-15071
Particularly to this: “What type of rest he means. Not a rest in our imaginary of sitting down all day and doing nothing. It is a spiritual rest in God that we know we no longer struggle with our imperfections but come to God as we are etc.”
I know you don’t think that is what Sabbath is FOR CHRISTIANS. Your implication was that Jews don’t understand what Sabbath means, and there was a note of mockery here for Jewish Sabbath observance–the very observance for which those who keep it will be rewarded, as I’ve shown.
Dina, I am not sure what else is not clear to you what I wrote – in the link you pasted was my email from long time ago where I said what type of ‘rest ‘ I mean’ – not sitting and doing nothing but ‘ a time of rest– which is a special time of focus on God. Second ; Sabbath wasn’t a regulation given to gentiles. You can follow all Sabbath regulations but if you have no God in your heart but regulations for the sake of regulations, such Sabbath means nothing. So saying only those who keep Sabbath will be rewarded is pointless.
hello Dina
quote :
3Despised and rejected by men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness, and as one who hides his face from us, despised and we held him of no account.
Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains-he carried them, yet we accounted him as plagued, smitten by God and oppressed.
But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed.
end quote
can you answer some questions please.
in judaism how can wrongdoing bring atonement?
in judaism killing an animal for atonement purposes isn’t a sinful act/isn’t wrongdoing
if the people are doing wrong , then which law in judaism says wrongdoing can bring atonement for sins?
i don’t see in the quoted passages anything about bleeding wounds, suffering, DEATH, atoning for anyone’s sins.
if i were to oppress somebody , then in a semitic language is it allowable to say that the oppressed “carried my oppression” ?
Hi Rambo,
These verses are not saying that the crimes that the nations committed against Israel will atone for the crimes they committed. In fact, we know from Scripture that God will deal harshly with those who oppress His people.
See for example Deuteronomy 30:7; Isaiah 17:12-14; Isaiah 30:28; Zephaniah 3:8-20.
Christians read this passage and see the servant suffering as atonement for the sins of others because of a tiny mistranslation. Instead of suffering FOR the sins of the other nations, the passage says that the servant suffers BECAUSE OF the sins of the nations. This means that the servant suffers because of the crimes committed against him.
Let us say that I beat you up. You now suffer because of a sin that I committed, the sin of beating up a fellow human being. Let us say, though, that as I see you lying on the ground, too badly hurt to move, I am so overcome by the horror of what I have done that I resolve to treat you better.
Although I still deserve to be punished for what I did, the fact that I caused you to suffer now has taught me a lesson, has made me a better person.
So although the nations of the world won’t escape punishment for the pain they inflicted on God’s servant, the fact of the servant’s suffering brought them to a higher moral plane.
We see this play out in history. You see, before the Holocaust, it was perfectly respectable to be an antisemite. You could belong to a political party called The Antisemitic Party (there was such a party in Germany long before WWII) and not only be admitted into polite society but also be a respected member of it.
It seems to me that the Holocaust finally brought a large segment of Christians (by no means all) to their senses. They finally realized what happens when you dehumanize another people and spread hateful doctrines about them. In a nice portion of American society today, you can no longer proudly call yourself an anti-Semite and be admitted to polite society. Instead, you will be shunned. The Holocaust brought at least some gentile nations to a higher moral plane, therefore.
Does this answer your question?
Beautiful work, Dina.
Jim
Thanks, Jim!
There is a difference between those who believe that a righteous person is one who “shines light” and those who believe that we are here to “absorb a light” from another one. There is a difference to God between those who believe that it is they or we who are “to be a “righteous servant” and those who feel we should mainly or only “believe in another as being a righteous servant”. We do for God vs. God does for us (or “once upon a time God did for us”). Servant vs “Customer” (or “fan” of the servant).
Hi Eric,
I am super busy this week, but I have a proposition to make to break down this topic into smaller, more chewable chunks. For argument’s sake, let’s go along with the assumption, for now, that Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah. I suggest limiting the discussion to the following question: Is Isaiah 53 definitely about Jesus to the exclusion of any other interpretations? I would like to explore this question with you verse by verse.
What do you think?
Dina, No problem, I will go back to it next week if I can’t earlier . I am busy too.
Hi Eric,
Sorry to take so long to get back to you. For the sake of argument let’s say I accept your argument that Isaiah 53 refers to the Messiah. Then the question becomes, is it referring specifically to Jesus?
Let’s look at this verse by verse, starting with the end of chapter 52:
Behold, My servant will succeed; he will be exalted and become high and exceedingly lofty. Just as multitudes were astonished over you, [saying,] “His appearance is too marred to be a man’s, and his visage to be human,” so will the many nations exclaim about him, and kings will shut their mouths [in amazement], for they will see that which had never been told to them, and will perceive things they had never heard.
This passage describes someone perceived to be so ugly as to be subhuman. This person, extraordinarily repulsive in the eyes of the nations, will then shock them to the very core of their being by his success, by his exaltation.
Here are my questions:
1. When in history was Jesus ever perceived as this bad-looking in the eyes of the nations? The answer is never. How then can this be talking about Jesus?
2. To repeat a question we’ve already debated: The prophet says that the kings and nations will be shocked and amazed by the servant’s exaltation–not SOME kings and some nations, not Jesus deniers–just kings and nations. Consider that one third of the world population worships Jesus, Muslims revere him as a prophet, Hindus respect him–that’s about half the people on this planet–how can you say that this is talking about Jesus? He’s the last person who will shock the kings and nations by his exaltation.
Looking forward to your response,
Dina
Dina, I will try to answer your question but first I have to address some of the points. So lets focus on that ‘ugliness’ issue or looking as a subhuman. You asked me a question when in the history Jesus was ever perceived by the nations as ugly looking. With this question you are suggesting that the verse 13 , chapt 52 has to talk about the servant’s physical appearance – so Jesus doesn’t seem to fit here as we have no record of him looking ; subhuman’ every day except after being beaten. .
But when it comes to interpreting that verse as referring to the Israel- nation you don’t take that verse literally, ‘physically’, ugliness spoken here or being as subhuman doesn’t refer to physical appearance of Israels’ people, either!! “ The marred appearance’ is DUE TO SUFFERING in both cases whether we look at that verse as speaking of the nation or speaking about Jesus. In both cases verse 13-14 doesn’t speak about how somebody looked like every day. So you have my answer to your question. Second ; interpreting a verse and focusing just on one verse without taking under account the whole description of the servant, won’t give you the only one answer. By itself ( looking only at v13-14) you can say that they may refer either to Jesus or Israel ( with both ‘disfigured’ by suffering).
Answering your second question about the nations being shocked by the servant’s exaltation.
Let’s say 1/3 knows about Jesus. Among those- non-christians considering him only as a prophet or a wise man. Buddists are not expecting him to come and reign as the promised messiah- king, so are many non-christians who just might have heard that there was such a man as Jesus. The other thing is; do we know how many Christians who truly serve God will be left at the time of the Messiah’ coming in the future? We judge the facts based on the current events, where apparently it seems that most people know Jesus and about his coming to rule. But the truth is many don’t. and also the future might be very different from what we see now. There may be such a moral corruption and unbelief and degradation in the next 100 years, that we can’t imagine now, where there will be barely place for God in peoples hearts. Corruption to the point that the bible talks about God’s judgment coming.
Focusing on the issue that they’ will perceive things they had never heard.’ You would say it can’t be talking about Jesus. But If 1/3 of the population knows about Jesus, they surely have an access to the OT scriptures where there is no ‘hidden message’ about future restoration of Israel. Most Christians all around the world know that information- if they at least have an interest to study the prophecy read isiaiah and Zech and we don’t deny the facts spoken about Israel. So how it can be a ‘surprise’ to us????
The words “ so will the many nations exclaim…” you interpret these words as speaking about the NUMBER of people who are to be shocked. But every nation consists both of believers and unbelievers.
So those who are believes and read OT ( from many nations) shouldn’t be surprised by Israel’s restoration because that event is connected with Messiah’s coming ( to us Jesus’ return to reign) and it is known to us. . Every christian understands that the nation will be restored at that time!
So it rather makes sense to look at these words “ many nations” as referring to the fact that IN EVERY nation people will be able to see God’s redemption of His people. It will be a worldly event. That it won’t be a secret to Chinese, it won’t be a secret to Pols or Africans, etc.
“ Kings will shut their mouth in amazement’. Try to ask nowdays any president of the country if they believe in God reigning on earth one day? Hardly any would believe, whether through Jesus or through Jews with any other messiah. For many leaders Jesus was just a historical figure who suffered and was killed and his words about the future were ridiculed. No different nowdays , and who knows that it will be any different in 50 or 100 years?
Hi Eric,
Thanks for taking the time. I really appreciate it. Before I respond to your arguments, I just have a quick question.
According to your interpretation, is Isaiah 53 a prophecy that the Messiah will come and suffer and die for the sins of all mankind? If the answer is yes, do you believe that this prophecy has been fulfilled in Jesus?
If one offers too many “if'”, “and’s”, “but’s”, and “maybe’s”, they are attempting to make any speculation, or rather their speculation, an acceptable, alternative option. When words are taken out of context (of that of speaker/writer and of their intended audience), those “literal” words become “metaphor” and not fact. When a later writer uses earlier writings, they are using those words to further their own story, their speculation. If one speculates, one is less likely to err if one speaks/writes in general terms (an unnamed Messiah), rather than in specific terms (the “messiah Steve” who will come on a Tuesday morning and who will be wearing a big letter S on his shirt – don’t confuse him with Clark). Even the NT warns that MANY (including many believers) will be deceive false prophets and false “Christs”. That is one reason why so many Christian preachers over the last almost 2000 years, have fooled themselves & so many other “believers”, when “based on the literal words”, they “prophesied” the “end of the world”. They think literally; they will look for specifics. And they will be deceived, by their version of Jesus (or by Jesus).
If the original words themselves are metaphors, taking them as literal will most likely results in error. What some people do is take a similarity in words between writings (the later writing using the earlier for its model; imitating it), and say “take this literally”. But when the words don’t quite match (and often they don’t), then take it metaphorically. Since, Jesus is portrayed as metaphor, he is only a metaphor and should not be taken seriously. Especially since “Jesus” is largely myth that grew over time and is still evolving today. If he represents God, why focus on the representation rather than the real deal, the One & Only, who said he was not a man?
Dina, I will respond to your emails in a week or so, I am really busy, today it is the first time in 2 weeks I opened this website. When I am done with the work project I am working on, I will be able to relax my mind and go back to focus on our conversation. I don’t want to just drop a quick unclear answer that needs some more explanation rather than saying yes or no to your question.
No problem, take your time, Eric.
Dina, you are asking me whether I believe that is Isaiah 53 a prophecy that the Messiah will come and suffer and die for the sins of all mankind?
He came to suffer for sins of all people but that doesn’t mean all people will accept God’s forgiveness. Forgiven are those who come to God and ask Him for forgiveness.
Do I believe that this prophecy has been fulfilled in Jesus?
Don’t we talk about Is 53 as Jesus versus the rest of Israel? Of course I believe that this part of prophecy of Jesus coming and suffering for people’s sins was fulfilled. It happened, it took place. I am not sure what answers you are looking for here?
Hi Eric,
While I await your response to my question, I’ll take a stab at responding to your comment.
Eric, yes, the physical appearance of the servant is literal–not marred by suffering. But I am not going to explain that yet. Remember, for now we agree that this passage refers to the Messiah. But is it referring to Jesus?
You admit that if you understand this passage literally it can’t be talking about Jesus, because we don’t know what Jesus looked like. We also don’t have any record, neither in Christian scripture nor in history, of anyone turning their faces away from him because they can’t bear to gaze upon his ugliness (“as one from whom we would hide our faces”).
Furthermore, the narrator in this passage describes the subject as being characterized by his ugliness (“his appearance is too marred to be a man’s, and his visage to be human,” further along “without such visage that we could desire him,” “as one from whom we would hide our faces”). A few hours’ suffering on the cross hardly fits this description. Besides, hundreds of thousands were crucified by the Romans, so there is nothing special, nothing unique, about Jesus’s brief suffering.
Because he only suffered at the very end of his life for a few hours, you cannot say that Jesus is characterized by his suffering and maintain your credibility.
Since this passage seems to be talking about literal, physical ugliness as perceived by the narrator, and since the narrator characterizes the servant by his ugliness, then even if the subject is the Messiah, the subject cannot be Jesus.
What about the shock of the nations at the exaltation of the servant? Here you wander deeply into conjecture. Maybe by the time of the Second Coming, no one will believe in Jesus anymore. You also force a meaning into the text that isn’t there: kings and nations doesn’t mean everyone; it means only the unbelievers. You ignore the fact that the huge numbers of kings and nations that do believe in Jesus renders 52:15 meaningless. (By the way, most Western rulers are Christian. Barack Obama is Christian; George Bush before him was a Christian. Likewise the European rulers.)
Most inconveniently for you, the prophet does not qualify the statement that “the many nations [will] exclaim about him, and kings will shut their mouths,” with “except for the huge numbers of believers in the Messiah among the nations.” When the prophet says “nations and kings,” I take him at his literal meaning. That’s everyone. Including you, my friend.
Dina,
So, as I understand you take the physical appearance of the servant as literal- not marred by suffering?
Ok, so how does it work with applying it to Israel??? I don’t think you really believe it can be about any other Messiah???
I am sure you still believe it is about the nation.
Considering all that ‘ugliness’ spoken about there- there is mine question-Was the nation itself any different looking to be called on its own like chapter 52 says?
Why would the narrator describe your nations’ appearance as ” so marred, or beyond human semblance’ ??? It can be said so if you see it through the eyes of others who saw the nation suffering, not because of a literal physical appearance.
I am talking about v14, chapter 52. Just looking at the previous verse” just as multitudes were astonished over you..”
Astonished because the servant’s appearance is ‘ too marred to be a man’s” That is definitely not suggesting literal-overall looking in general.
If you want to apply it to israel it would still make sense only if you applied it to the fact of undergoing of the nation through suffering.
And it is not about how long it lasted.
You focus on whether that ‘ugliness’ has a literal application or not, suggesting that I am not taking it literal,
but even taking mine Christian interpretation it is still literal-simply applying it to the fact of
Jesus going through suffering ( not physical appearance ) And definitely it wasn’t about a few hours on the cross. Much more to that you are not aware of that I am not discussing here right now.
You mentioned the fact that hundreds were suffering also on the cross like Jesus so what special his suffering?
The thing is the others were not suffering to justify others. The whole Is 53 focuses on that.
Still back to your saying’ hundreds were suffering like Jesus on the cross so what ‘s special about it’ well, the same question I my raise considering all other people who also suffered in Holocaust and died, and say ; what’s so special about one or the other person? Many suffered in history as bad as the Jews.
As far as the shock of the nations at the exaltation of the servant; if according to you all leaders are Christians ,
they also are familiar with the scriptures that talk about Israel’s restoration. How would they be surprised by that? Or me?
Do you know how many books are about that prophecy available to people?
Also , the fact that somebody calls himself a Christian doesn’t mean he listens to the words of Jesus.
That would mean love others as yourself and love God. Do you see that put into practice among the leaders of the nations?
The same way there are many Jews who would admit they are Jews but who don’t care about God. The name you call yourself means nothing. Actions have meaning.
Also can you tell for sure how the world will look like in the time of messiah’s coming? ( whether Jesus or some other?) We can’t tell , so we can not know for sure, what people will believe at his time , or what they will not. We can only know based on scriptures that the world’s situation will look pretty bad .
If you are willing to understand this portion of Isaiah you would have to understand Jewish history and its relationship with the nations. How do the people of the nations envision the Jews. Take a look at these links for a visual indication.
http://www.jcpa.org/phas/phas-050-uriely.htm
https://www.google.com/search?q=caricatures+of+Jews+in+history&sa=X&hl=en&tbm=isch&gbv=2&sei=G-3pVMyzHMinNqrIg-gE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caricatures_of_Jews
http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/sturm28.htm
Now, do you see these caricatures of Jews resemble pictures of Jsus throughout history. I daresay there is no comparison. Those caricatures of Jews show a hideous, ugly individual. The effect of these characterizations has had profound impacts on Jewish communities, past and present. It is simply much more logical Isaiah would be speaking of these things rather than what You imagine.
Sharbano, that’ ugliness’ you are talking about is only a result of antisemitism, another words it is seen like that when it is ‘ through the eyes of antisemitism, through the eyes of those who hate Jews.’.
Anyways your explanation doesn’t exclude Jesus. If he was one of the Jews despised less or more , he was still a servant ( a part of a big group). There might be lots of in common seeing the nation and Jesus as the servant when it comes to ‘being despised’ but there is significant difference in the purpose of suffering shown in Isaiah.
P.s. just a note that my address changed, probably by log in with my email address. So all answers from ‘ studyb’ were still from Eric.
Eric, I do take this passage literally. The passage talks about the servant’s literal suffering–stricken and afflicted, etc. It also talks about his physical appearance. The nations of the world are talking, and they are saying that this person is so ugly they couldn’t look at him. His visage was too marred to be a man’s. Let me ask you, if you take this passage literally, can it be talking about Jesus?
(I’ll explain the literal meaning according to the Jewish understanding later.)
Dina, yes very literal; his appearance is too marred to be a man’s – that means his appearance is impaired , disfigured- indicating a state of being gone through some suffering.
If you say you take it literal too- it talks about a parson not a group of people.
Just because you as the nation was considered ‘ugly’ doesn’t mean an individual, a certain servant who carries a certain mission from God won’t follow the steps of rejection and dislike , not having physical splendor to attract others with his appearance.
Second, Is 53 starts with the messages ‘ for whom has the arm of God been revealed?
God’s arm doesn’t relate to a group of people but was always supporting people. Look for references in the OT.
Isaiah 40:10
Behold, the Lord GOD will come with might, With His arm ruling for Him(…)
that means ruling with the Messiah being a king amid His people.
Eric, when I say I take this literally it doesn’t mean that I think the Torah never uses figurative language. You know very well that the Torah often refers to Israel as a singular entity; numerous examples abound in the Book of Isaiah alone. And bear in mind that in Chapter 53, the Hebrew swings from singular to plural two times, after all.
But the attention the kings and nations (the narrator) give to the servant is not “disfigured by suffering” unless you first believe that it’s talking about Jesus.
First, his appearance is too marred to be a man’s–you say he is impaired by suffering. Was Jesus in his lifetime characterized by such suffering that he looked disfigured? This passage describes the appearance of the servant as part of his character, not as a one-time episode in his life where he was badly beaten before being killed.
But let’s look at all the physical details:
“His appearance is too marred to be a man’s and his visage to be human.”
If you weren’t so invested in making this about suffering, you would see what is very obvious. This verse describes someone who is horrifyingly ugly, so repulsive that he doesn’t look human.
Important point to keep in mind: the prophet is not saying the servant is ugly. Rather, he is presenting the nations as PERCEIVING that that the servant is ugly, but that ultimately they will recognize their misperception. “As one from whom we would hide our faces…but…it was our ills he bore.”
The chapter is talking about two things: the physical appearance of the servant and the suffering of the servant.
I’m going to just jot down the physical details again (forgive the repetition):
1. His appearance is too marred to be a man’s and his visage to be human.
2. Like a sapling or like a root (i.e., small and weak)
3. He had neither form nor grandeur.
4. We saw him, but without such visage as we could desire him.
Okay, so if you take this literally, as I do, that the nations perceive this servant to be physically ugly, physically of no account, then can this apply to Jesus? This is a yes or no answer.
To your point about the arm of the Lord, what does it mean when the Lord reveals His arm? See Isaiah 52:9-10, 62:8, 63:12; Exodus 3:20, 14:31; Exodus 15:6,12; Deuteronomy 4:34, 7:19; Psalms 44:3, 98:1-3.
Dina, sorry I had no time to write during spring break.
Back to the words you wrote that the prophet is presenting the nations as PERCEIVING that the servant is ugly.
I understand what you mean here by perceiving,
but why to perceive somebody as ‘ugly’ or sub-human?
That way of perceiving a servant would result only out of the hate of others , then you may ‘perceive’ that person as ‘ugly’.
But when you look at the following words ; ‘Just as multitudes were ASTONISHED over you, saying his appearance
is to marred(…)”
these words don’t suggest ‘ perceiving’ the servant as ‘ugly’ in the sense of hating him, but they show ASTONISHMENT over the appearance that is marred., simply disfigured. Astonishment that doesn’t result from ‘ being ugly, ( born to look ugly) ‘ but rather from what he went through.
You say that the servant is not impaired by suffering. ( Neither Jesus ,
but what about the nation ?)
Well, I wonder why would you say’ the nation’ is impaired or disfigured?
Would you admit that it is because of hate of others? If there was no hate , there would be no problem.
So suffering still plays part in that ‘disfiguration’ however we would call it.
If you want to exclude it , then look at chapret 53 and it tells you more ; the servant is wounded and more details.
You focus so much on the ‘ugliness’ of the servant , but the words in v 13 doesn’t have to translate into ‘ an ugly appearance’ ( as referring to somebody who was perceived as having an ugly face) . If a person was sererly bitten up,
you could use the same words describing his condition of ‘ barely resembling a human’.
You wrote that this passage describes the appearance of the servant as part of his character,
not as a one-time episode in his life where he was badly beaten before being killed.
I am not sure which passage you mean,
definitelly not much is related to his character in chapter 52 v 13.
If we are looking for the description of his appearance, chapter 53 tells you simply
of a servant who didn’t attract others by his look,
that there was nothing sagnificant in his appearance to desire him.
Not a movie star to put the poster on the wall. And there is nothing about physical ugliness!
Being despised and of no regard doesn’t mean there was any
‘ugliness’ in the servant’s look, so these questions you put about Jesus, how that ‘ugliness’ relates to him simply doesn’t apply.
You said that the description can’t be about ‘one-time episode in the servant’s life’. Yes , it can if that ‘ one time episode had a significant meaning and purpose. And definitely there is the purposes of ‘his soul’s distress’ that you read more in chapter 53.
You put so many verses about the arm of the Lord but you didn’t write much what you wanted to say.
I am sure you know that the ‘Arm of the Lord’ is frequently used as a metaphor to show God’s power ,
typically in His active role as the deliverer of Israel. So you can read v 1 as ; ‘ For whom has the arm of Hashem (POWER OF GOD ) been revealed?
And what is that power of arm here, it follows in the next and the next verse .He… and he… and he … in all chapter 53. The power by which God will accomkplish His purposes for Israel and others, bringing salvation.
The arm of God was not refered to Israel m but was serving Israel.
Eric, you’re misreading the end of chapter 52. The astonishment of the nations isn’t over the ugliness (in your view, the suffering) of the servant; rather, the astonishment is over the fact that the one that they perceived to be so ugly is being exalted.
I agree with you 100% that the perception of ugliness comes from hate. But we’ll put that aside for a moment. You keep insisting that the physical appearance of the servant is due to his suffering. I see nothing in the text to support that interpretation. Because you believe this passage is talking about Jesus, therefore you believe that the ugliness must mean the suffering.
So I have to ask you again, if this is literal, can it be talking about Jesus? Is Jesus perceived as ugly by the nations of the world, until his exaltation (which I guess you would say will be his second coming)?
(Let us say, for a moment, that your interpretation is accurate and this is talking about the suffering of the servant. What specifically, in this description, points specifically to Jesus? His beating and death by crucifixion were no different from what hundreds of thousands suffered under Roman rule, including up to 100,000 Jews according to some estimates.)
You’re saying that chapter 53 says nothing about his appearance, just that he wasn’t a drop-dead gorgeous movie star.
Physical descriptions in this chapter: he grew like a sapling, he had neither form nor grandeur, we saw him but without such visage that we could desire him, he was despised and isolated from men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness.
Okay, the last two talk about physical suffering. So the servant in the previous chapter is perceived as subhuman, and in this chapter is perceived as nothing special. But not only that, everyone also hates him and isolates him (he was despised and isolated from men). Furthermore, he is “a man of pains and accustomed to illness”–this is a man who is ACCUSTOMED to suffering. He suffers a lot–not just a one-time event at the end of his life. You would have to say that Jesus was accustomed to being beaten and crucified if you want this to apply to Jesus. (“Hey, Jesus,” says the Roman soldier, “I’m here to administer your daily beating and crucifixion!”) It’s a real stretch to say that this description applies to the suffering of Jesus.
But was Jesus so hated and isolated? Your scripture claims that during his lifetime, he “grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52) and that “the child grew up healthy and strong. He was filled with wisdom, and God’s favor was on him” (Luke 2:40). A picture of health, strength, and popularity–a far cry from the descriptions I jotted down above from Isaiah.
Your scripture is also full of descriptions of Jesus preaching up and down the country in the synagogues followed by massive crowds. He draws huge crowds wherever he goes. That’s not exactly a description of a man “despised and isolated from men.”
And what about after his death? Jesus is still the most popular and respected human being on the planet with two billion followers who adore him and a couple of billion people who, while not Christian, respect him and his teachings. Again, a far cry from someone who is despised and isolated from men.
Eric, the last person that Isaiah 53 can possibly be talking about is Jesus and I’ve only just got started.
(By the way, you made my point about the arm of the Lord. It is used to describe the might of God when He brings about the salvation of Israel, as in all the instances I cited.)
Dina, You say that the astonishment is over the fact that the one that
they perceived to be so ugly is being exalted.
First of all what do we understand here by being perceived ‘ugly’?
The word doesn’t appear in the passage but you concluded it that was the meaning of the ‘marred vissage, ‘not like a human’.
So any ‘ugliness’ here in this passage interpreted means somply being hated, because people by themselves don’t look ugly.
They will look ‘ugly’ only in the eyes of those who hate them.
So is this passage really expressing hate???? ASTONISHMENT over the fact of hate?
I don’t think so.
Because you believe it is about the nation , then you interpret these words as expressing ‘ugliness ‘ of a servant in the eyes of the nations.
I will just add the reminder fact that the passage of Is 52;13-53;12 – was considered by the jewish communities Messianic prediction until Rashi ( 1040-1105) a rabbi who infuenced Jewish teaching by refering the passage to Israel as nation because of sharing one common thing; suffering.
You could definitelly fit it both Jesus and the nation if Isaiah was ONLY about suffering with no other message in it.
But there is more than this in Is 53 explaining the REASON and PURPOSE of the suffering that doesn’t find fulfilment in the nation’s suffering itself.
Back to the astonishment mentioned in is 52; it is shown OVER ONE FACT -in the PAST tense- over the servant’s look, ‘unhuman look’ ,not over the perception how others see you.
Lets say I hate somebody so he will be in my eyes as ‘ugly’. Would I be astonished because of that fact, because I call somebody an ‘ ugly monster’?
There are TWO attitudes mentioned over TWO facts. one relates to the astonishment over a look,appearance,and second it is ; the amazement on servant’s exaltation.
As far as the physical appearance of the servant;
Is 50; 4-6 and 53;4- 5 and more verses explain you more while it relates to suffering. “( ..our pains he carred, stricken by God , afflicted, pained, opressed, wounded..etc, and finally pouring his soul for death” )
There is nothing about being perceived ‘ugly’, to put others in astonisment.
You are asking what specifically, in this description,
points specifically to Jesus? His beating and death by crucifixion were no different from what hundreds of thousands
suffered under Roman rule, including up to 100,000 Jews according to some estimates.)
What points to Jesus is not only a fact of being beaten and crucified ( fulfilled in details in what Is 53 lists) but also in what he accomplished through putting his life for others.
That would be lots of to discuss going through all promisses of God in OT. But I will focus only on a few facts
about what the suffering was to bring (mentioned in Is 53);
Hundreds of thousands suffering under Roman rule and 100.000 but Jews didn’t suffer to HEAL the world by their wounds. Suffering was to bring spiritual healing!
The nation wasn’t to carry others iniquities in order to JUSTIFY others. Their suffering didn’t justify anybody. Jesus’ suffering did to those who believed God.
The world didn’t benefit or was to benefit from Jews being mordered. Is 53;5 We benefited from Jesus’, as he died in our place innocent for the quilty ones.
It is said the suffering servant is “a man of pains and accustomed to illness”– or other translations’ familiar with illness or acquainted with grief.
If you once broke a leg you can say you are familiar with a broken bone pain. It doesn’t mean you have to break it every day in order to say that.
Being familiar with something doesn’t have to mean you go over with ONE FACT on regular bases and you concluded beatings and crucifiction had to go on regular bases.
But was his suffering just beatings ? What about being ridiculed, put down, despised, being laughed off, criticised, accused of healing others with demon’s power,
, being hunted as a criminal, hated for healings and popularity, being chased to be put to death, finally being killed as a criminal? I guess that’s just not enough for one person.
You asked; but was Jesus so hated?
If he wasn’t he wouldn’t be put to death! His death wasn’t just running accidentally into Romans’ hands.
Luke 4;29-30 “They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff.”
Matth 12;14 “Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.”
John 5;18, John 11;45-53, John 19;12-15,
Mark 3;6 ; “Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.”
Luke 23;21 “Pilate, wanting to release Jesus, addressed them again, but they kept on calling out, saying, “Crucify, crucify Him!”
Luke 23;13-25
Mark 15;14 “But they shouted all the more, “Crucify Him!” Wishing to satisfy the CROWD, Pilate released Barabbas for them, and after having
Jesus scourged, he handed Him over to be crucified.”
Matthew 27;16-26
Growing in wisdom and in favor with God and man doesn’t mean you won’t find people who hate you. How many famous people in this world died by being mordered?
You asked about being “despised and isolated from men.” As you see Is 53 doesn’t cover all details of suffering servant about who respected him who didn’t
but focuses on the REASON and PURPOSE of his suffering. So you can’t look at ‘ being despised and isolated ‘
as a servant’s life in the wilderness in isolation and say it doesn’t fit popular Jesus. Jews also didn’t live in isolation on a desert islad but among the nations,
around other people, who were people like them, they worked together, they did businesses together. Of course I don’t deny Jews
experienced rejection and were despised by those who hated them, but
the PURPOSE and REASON of suffering shown in Is 53 is FAR BEHIND what can be found in the nation’s suffering.
You mentioned the might of God when He brings about
the salvation of Israel, as reffering to the Arm of the Lord in Is 53;1 . But you didn’t notice that God always
used people to accomplish his purposes. He used Moses in Egypt , he used Esther to deliever His people. I have no time right now to keep listing all examples.
Also I don’t doubt the deliverance at all, in case you understand me wrong. God clearly said He will use His servant to restore Israel lifting up the tribes of Jacob in chapter 49.
He is going to do it through His righteous servant. If you call all who suffered the righteous suffering servants, majority of them were killed through out the history.
Their death didn’t restore anything. But faith in God that He sent His Messiah for us , brings hope to millions of people all around the world. Brings hope of eternal salvation
resulting in God’s forgiveness that you can’t take it from them.
If you don’t think its about Israel then just look at all the anti-semitism exploding All over the world. If that word was coined during Isaiah’s time I’ll bet he would have used it in this. Just look at how those nations that support antsemitsm Now will react once They Know the truth. Here’s some examples of that history.
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-nexus-of-christian-and-muslim.html
Where did you learn that Rashi turned it from a messiah to a nation. Are you aware Rashi pooled his vast knowledge from generations before. What Rashi wrote wasn’t something new. He is highly regarded because of his Vast knowledge of what was handed down.
Why have you NEVER started from the beginning of chapter 52. THIS is the beginning of the narrative which lays the foundation. You keep avoiding reading it no matter how many times it is brought up.
All the verses you quote from the Xtian text do Not coincide with what Isaiah writes. You are using Eisegesis to formulate your opinions. You will use One word to create an entire theology. If your opinion was so clear you wouldn’t have such difficulty in proving that opinion. There is one verse that you will have to reconcile, which is 53:8. It destroys your entire view of it being about Jsus. Rabbis that preceded Rashi certainly would not have had such a difficulty.
Sharbano,” You said; “If your opinion was so clear you
wouldn’t have such difficulty in proving that opinion.” Really??? You are so one-sided.
First ask all on that webside why they work so hard trying to prove their points?
I see they really work hard.
I will just learn from you and conclude that their oponion is not clear to them either.
And I have to disappoint you but Is 53;8 doesn’t destroy my entire view .
with the interpretation that differs so much even from other contemporary Jewish translations. Just refer the wrong object to the wrong verb, you will have a different message.
I have looked through so many and even with
using plural the message was not even resembling what that one bible.
But if you still think that one verse should knock down entire view, then I tell you there are much more than one verse that is not fulfilled by the nation but ideas how they fit the nation are completlt unrealistic.
Does it knock some down, although they don’t get it? I am sure although they have no explanation, they will still believe. Why?
Because they rely on one fact their suffering. And here is when the ways split. Christians see one sufferer that brought them close to God, benefited them ,
healed them spiritually, died as an innocent in their place,Jewish people will try to see themselves ( that they benefit the world without Jesus).
The interpretation of the servant here is not just based on winning arguments ; so you don’t have to try hard persuade me to your beliefs. They have their base on more than just wone or lost arguments.
I am not benefiting from an ABUSE of the nation and their suffering and their wounds are NOT my healing.
I am benefiting from Jesus who willingly died for me, for my sins. This is my benefit; forgiveness of God through his innocent servant.
Trying to fit the nation in Is 53 and interpreting the abuse of the nation as benefiting the world is immaterial to me with no single support in the entire scriptures.
If this Jsus is suppose to be So very important in G-d’s plan why isn’t there even One clear evidence of him. One cannot get any more vague than Isaiah 53. If G-d would make sure to name Cyrus His anointed why would He not do so in 53. You seem to think that if that chapter doesn’t apply to every single Jew it doesn’t apply to any. There are plenty of cases in Tanach where Israel is punished for the sins of the few, even the one. You fail to realize that Israel is treated as a nation, and thus the reason he is called a “firstborn son”. Finally, how much do you really know of Jewish history. The vast majority of Xtians know nothing of Jewish history apart from the Shoah. I cannot count the number of occasions when confronting 1492 among people and they are “astonished” when they hear how a Jew thinks of that year. The reason you cannot “see” Israel in 53 is simply because you know very little of Jewish history. My grandparents came from Russia during the Russian pogroms. Do you know what transpired during that time. I suggest Xtians want to erase Jewish history, thereby erasing Their part IN that history and how it applies to Isaiah.
“I am not benefiting from an ABUSE of the nation and their suffering and their wounds are NOT my healing”
As I’ve mentioned previously, to no avail. If you would start at the beginning, the beginning of 52 you would see this knowledge of the nations doesn’t speak of the present, as YOU want to define it, but in the future. Read from the beginning and tell me how THAT applies to Jsus. You have consistently avoided considering those.
Eric, super busy but just a quick point. You wrote: “Trying to fit the nation in Is 53 and interpreting the abuse of the nation as benefiting the world is immaterial to me WITH NO SINGLE SUPPORT IN THE ENTIRE SCRIPTURES” (my emphasis).
Do you realize that the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53 has “no single support in the entire scriptures,” so according to your own argument you should be deeply troubled. This is the only place in the entire Hebrew Bible that teaches–according to the Christian interpretation–that the purpose of the Messiah is to suffer and die for mankind’s sins and only if you believe in him will achieve eternal salvation. This interpretation is by no means clear and is therefore disputed even among Christians.
It might interest you to know that “In The Gospel According to Isaiah 53,” Mitch Glaser wrote:
“Before you venture forward in this pilgrimage through Isaiah 53, it is essential to know that no other prophesy in the entirety of the Old Testament Scriptures explicitly links the death of the Messiah with his work of atonement” (page 29).
If “NO SINGLE SUPPORT IN THE ENTIRE SCRIPTURES” makes an argument “IMMATERIAL TO you,” perhaps you should rethink your position…or change your argument.
Hi Eric,
There’s something I need to get off my chest. I know you to be an honest and sincere person, so I can’t blame you for repeating a lie that you think is true. But I must tell you that you are repeating a lie.
You wrote: “I will just add the reminder fact that the passage of Is 52;13-53;12 – was considered by the jewish communities Messianic prediction until Rashi ( 1040-1105) a rabbi who infuenced Jewish teaching by refering the passage to Israel as nation because of sharing one common thing; suffering.”
This is not a fact. It is a lie.
In the year 248, Origen wrote in Contra Celsus, “Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual.”
The Talmud, which was redacted about a half a millenium before Rashi, refers Isaiah 53 to Israel as a whole (Berachot 5a).
We do not have evidence of earlier commentary, as far as I know.
Eric, please retract what you wrote. Also, please realize that missionaries–who disseminate these lies–often do not check their sources to make sure they are telling the truth. Use their information with great caution.
I also recommend that you read Psalm 44 carefully. I think it will shed a lot of light on the Jewish understanding of Isaiah 53.
Thank you,
Dina
Dina, Shortly about Rashi- You quoted here one opinion and are building your entire ideology based on that.
Everything you would so easily regard as a lie. Can you prove that all possible records found that refered Is 53 to the Messiah are based on a lie?
I doubt so.
The are more than one Jewish references of Isaiah
as refering to Messiah even before Rashi. References also to psalms showing a whole picture that Jewish people discard so easily. But I have no time to go over that today.
Maybe some other time.
I won’t add much more to your interpretation of Is 52 , just once again I will repeat myself; the astonishment refers first to the marred -looking ‘human’ – you have 2 verbs
refering to two objects. Whatever you say it is your interpretation. Sorry but I won’t agree with you.
I don’t deny the servant being lifted up but you completly disregard the message of the first part.
To the rest of the message you wrote about a perception of Jesus
not matching the description of Isaiah 53, I will just add, that you won’t understand it untill you will
see the purpose of the servants’ suffering NOT fulfilled in the nation ( or yourself). Meanwhile just arguing about who suffered more who less, who longer who shorter
thus qualifying to be the spoken servant here in Isaiah 53, is pointless! How pointless it is ,as with arguing about who scored a goal while playing socker. The entire team
was on the field, players from A to Z, but it is a player Y who did the score ( with one kick).
They all were kicking the ball ( suffered), they all tried to score a goal, but it is the one player Y who made the difference for all .
Accomplished something what others couldn’t themselves. Others failed ( their lives were not free from sin).
As for Jesus; it is the suffering as an innocent in their place, for them. Not for his own mistakes and others.
As far as Ps 44 you have the answer there too. Why was the nation scattered around?
Is 50 ;1 is the answer. And it is a picture not of the servant in Is 53.
I tackeled more points about why it doesn’t fit the nation in my previous email.
Hi Eric,
I’m super busy before Passover and don’t have the time to give your words the attention they deserve. I hope I will have more time next week to respond.
Thanks for your patience,
Dina
Eric, just a quick reminder, I’m not addressing the traditional Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 at the moment. I just want to show why it can’t be talking about Jesus, and for you to try to prove that it is.
Dina, no, problem, this week is busy for all . I thought about something ; instead of trying to prove Isaiah 53 is not talking about Jesus for you lets try to put more investigation why it according to you speaks about the nation and how all that suffering mentions serves the world.. Both sides have to be addressed. Focusing only on one side doesn’t give a complete picture.
Eric, I agree, but it’s too much to tackle all at once. If you don’t mind, I’d like to first address the Christian interpretation and then the Jewish. Thanks for your patience.
Dina, one more point; I mean I would be good to include these questions ; whose suffering serves the world? I mean Is Israel’s suffering what the world really needs? An d comparing with how Jesus’ suffering serves the world. But no hurry. Till next week.
Eric, I’m responding to this comment:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/isaiah-53-micah-7-and-isaiah-62/#comment-17878
This is a question that Christians are preoccupied with. The Torah is not preoccupied with this question and therefore neither are Jews. The Torah is preoccupied with stressing that we owe our obedience to God by following His commandments and enumerating those commandments. Therefore, that is our preoccupation.
But I will answer your question anyway. Jesus’s suffering does not serve the world. You have to accept that it does on faith, because nowhere does the Torah ever teach such a thing.
Israel’s suffering serves the purpose of expiating our sins. When we learn from our punishment and repent, we can better fulfill our mission to be a light to the nations.
Eric, I am responding to this comment of yours:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/isaiah-53-micah-7-and-isaiah-62/#comment-17849
Your reading of Tanach is shockingly one-sided. I presented Psalm 44. Ignoring the implications of that Psalm for your theology, you said, why are the Jews scattered among the nations (as if I ever denied the reason, which I did not), and presented Isaiah 50. Why not read on to chapters 51 and 52? And yes, 53? How about all the remaining chapters of Isaiah?
You wrote, “Whatever you say it is your interpretation. Sorry but I won’t agree with you.”
Are you saying that no matter what I say, you won’t agree with me? You believe what you believe, don’t confuse you with the facts?
You also wrote, ” you won’t understand it untill you will see the purpose of the servants’ suffering NOT fulfilled in the nation.”
Eric, this is called circular reasoning. You have to believe that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus in order to understand your interpretation.
This is not intellectual honesty. This is saying, in effect, “I believe what I believe because I believe it.”
Eric, if you read Chapters 52 and 53 together, it’s obvious that the astonishment of the nations is over the fact that the one whom they perceived as subhuman-looking, whom they despised and isolated, whom they persecuted–that he is the very one who is now exalted.
I can only repeat, the perception of Jesus by the world and by Christian scripture, both during his lifetime and after, does not match the description of Isaiah 53. To re-emphasize what I said, consider the fact that according to Christian scripture, Jesus’s ministry lasted only three years. According to Christian scripture, until that time, he was healthy, strong, and popular. During that time, he drew a huge following and attracted massive crowds wherever he went–as Rambo pointed out, he was still massively popular despite the small group of conspiring Pharisees who were out to get him.
During his lifetime, according to Christian scripture, Jesus was beloved by the masses. He was not isolated nor despised–even the Romans didn’t really want to kill him. We have a tiny handful of people who hated him, according to Christian scripture.
His suffering was brief. This is not “a man of pains.” We do not call someone who broke his foot once in his life, to use your analogy, “a man of pains.” Reading all these verses together, it’s seems a stretch to say that the servant is merely someone who is “familiar” with what pain feels like. In fact, it is patently absurd. Allow me to demonstrate:
“He was despised and isolated from men.”
“A man of pains and accustomed to illness.”
“He was despised and we had no regard for him.”
“We had regarded him diseased, stricken by God, and afflicted.”
“He was persecuted and afflicted.”
No, Eric, this is a picture of a man who suffers constantly, is constantly persecuted and afflicted.
Furthermore, after his death, with two billion Christians following him, with one billion Muslims revering him as a prophet, with half a billion Hindus respecting him, Jesus remains the most popular and loved man on the planet, in all of history.
Therefore, he is the last person who will astonish the kings and nations when he will be exalted, as you believe, at his second coming.
Ultimately, we simply do not agree that the description of Isaiah 53 matches the description of Jesus in Christian scripture and the world’s perception of him throughout history.
As you can see, I am not answering your challenges on why this can’t be talking about the nation of Israel. I want to tackle one topic at a time, so I am limiting myself to arguing that if the subject of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, can we say without a doubt that it refers to Jesus?
I am content to let the readers decide which of our arguments are more convincing, but before I move on to the next set of verses, I would like to know if you have anything else to add.
Thanks for your perseverance in staying with me in this conversation.
Best wishes,
Dina
Dina, I will go back to you some time this week.
eric:
If a person was sererly bitten up,
you could use the same words describing his condition of ‘ barely resembling a human’.
dina:
(“his appearance is too marred to be a man’s, and his visage to be human,” further along “without such visage that we could desire him,” “as one from whom we would hide our faces”).
“Thinking he was the gardener, she said, “Sir, if you have carried him away, tell me where you have put him, and I will get him.”
mary saw a gardener who resembled a human .
“As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him.”
1.disciples did not witness the crucifixion
2.disciples talked to a human who resembled a human
3. how is is 52:14 even relevant to a disciples who did not even witness the crucifixion?
Excellent points, Rambo. Thanks!
(“his appearance is too marred to be a man’s, and his visage to be human,” further along “without such visage that we could desire him,” “as one from whom we would hide our faces”).
It is quite obvious that the nations are seeing Israel in a “new light”. But Why do they see it now and finally.
The images below reflect how those same nations actually viewed the Jews. THIS is the way those nations Drew caricatures of the Jews. One cannot understand Isaiah Without understanding Jewish history in light of the nations perceptions. I truly suspect the reason it cannot be admitted by Xtianity is an attempt to disregard the suffering of Jews throughout the last two thousand years at the hands of those same Xtians.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Antisemite+images+through+history&sa=X&hl=en&tbm=isch&gbv=2&sei=FzoLVdyKBdKHsQT35YHQBQ#hl=en&gbv=2&tbm=isch&q=Antisemite+caricatures+through+history
“You asked; but was Jesus so hated?
If he wasn’t he wouldn’t be put to death! His death wasn’t just running accidentally into Romans’ hands.
Luke 4;29-30 “They got up, drove him out of the town, and took him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw him off the cliff.”
“So all those in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, 29 and rose up and thrust him out of the city; and they led him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down over the cliff. 30 Then passing through the midst of them, he went his way.”
i think the marcionites would have loved this verse. so this “suffering servant” can go unnoticed in a gathering which wants to topple him.
“Matth 12;14 “Then the Pharisees went out, and held a council against him, how they might destroy him.”
John 5;18, John 11;45-53, John 19;12-15,
Mark 3;6 ; “Then the Pharisees went out and began to plot with the Herodians how they might kill Jesus.”
Luke 23;21 “Pilate, wanting to release Jesus, addressed them again, but they kept on calling out, saying, “Crucify, crucify Him!”
Luke 23;13-25
Mark 15;14 “But they shouted all the more, “Crucify Him!” Wishing to satisfy the CROWD, Pilate released Barabbas for them, and after having
Jesus scourged, he handed Him over to be crucified.”
quote:
6 The Pharisees went out and immediately conspired with the Herodians against him, how to destroy him.
A Multitude at the Seaside
7 Jesus departed with his disciples to the sea, and a great multitude from Galilee followed him; 8 hearing all that he was doing, they came to him in great numbers from Judea, Jerusalem, Idumea, beyond the Jordan, and the region around Tyre and Sidon. 9 He told his disciples to have a boat ready for him because of the crowd, so that they would not crush him; 10 for he had cured many, so that all who had diseases pressed upon him to touch him. 11 Whenever the unclean spirits saw him, they fell down before him and shouted, “You are the Son of God!” 12 But he sternly ordered them not to make him known.
wow , poor “suffering servant” was very popular after the attempt of the pharisees.
Dina, About your words “Since this passage seems to be talking about LITERAL, physical ugliness as perceived by the narrator, and since the narrator characterizes the servant by his ugliness, then even if the subject is the Messiah, the subject cannot be Jesus.”
If we exclude Jesus, we also have to exclude literal physical ugliness of Israel- it doesn’t fit.
If it fits because we consider suffering it also fits Jesus.
If you want to leave yourself with some ‘other Messiah here ;. let’s focus on the fact how the rest of the words would even fit any other messiah; stricken by God and afflicted’ and how would he ‘heal; others by his wounds etc. Would you apply Is 53 to any other Messiah with the same interpretation like you do to the nation?
Throughout the book of Isaiah, the author is speaking to and/or of Israel & Israelites who are suffering & who are servants of God, so Israel is the true literal sense of the written narrative, first & foremost. Since much of the writing of Isaiah is poetic, a non-literal interpretation was first and foremost apply to the suffering servants of God, known as Israel (or as Jews). The plain narrative of chap 53 is of past events & personages; it was not written as prophecy. If one interprets it as “prophecy”, something which is foreordained & is the inevitable will of God, one must ask why there would be any merit to Jesus to “suffer any suffering” which supposedly was an inevitable necessity (Almighty God desired and freely chose that God should “play-act suffering” because that would show “God in all His Glory”?)? And could anyone be accused of a sin and a crime against a “sufferer”, when they were both “created and controlled by God to sin and carry out a crime”? Unless you believe that Jesus was talking of Judas, of the NT who many “believers” would call “the least on earth”, when he said “the least on earth” will be the “greatest in heaven”. At least one non-canonical Christian gospel made that very point, that Judas was a hero, an inevitable necessity, a suffering servant, who would be made great in heaven.
The plain and unmistakable narrative is of a righteous man who lived before this chapter was written. A righteous man who was despised, pitied, and abandoned. A man who courageously suffered, yet whose faith was unshakeable. And he was rewarded in his life (before his death, not just afterwards in heaven). Some would say that that man was the Prophet Jeremiah who lived at that time. All the struggles, sorrow, disappointment , and affliction in the whole chapter fits his life. The words may have been spoken as a eulogy after his death. He had suffered so much by the sins of his people.
Based on 2nd Chronicles 35, some scholars believe this chapter was written by Jeremiah after the death of King Josiah at Megiddo. But verse 10 to the end wouldn’t apply to him. But, more likely, the chapter might not be referencing any particular person, but instead it might be a poem to comfort the people, teaching them the same things contained in the book of Job showing that the righteous person should not despair because of their affliction, degradation, and suffering experienced in their exile at that time. In the near future, the people would triumph and they, like Job, would be “paid double for their trouble”. Reminds us of Malachi 3 and several of the Psalms.
In fact, the chapter could be a funeral oration given at the death Job. Some scholars say every word in Isaiah 53 applies exactly to Job. There supposedly are several mentions of this in the Talmud: Job lived in the time of Daniel and Ezekiel; Job was one of the men who returned from the Babylonian captivity; and this was the time Isaiah 53 was written.
Some say that it was a public speech given at the funeral of “the royal sire of Zerubabel, King Jehoiachin or Jekoniah”, whose life is mirrored (or recorded) in the “entire chapter from beginning to end”. Made a King of Judah as a boy, but soon the country was overrun and Jerusalem was threatened with destruction, so “he laid down his crown”, “delivered himself up to the enemy without a murmur”, “dragged like a sheep to the slaughter-pen”, went into captivity, “left his family sepulcher to the wicked invaders”, and his “castle/high place” to his rich brother and successor. A prisoner, despised, shunned, disgraced and “sick on account of his people’s sins”,etc. until he was taken out of prison and “bestowed with the highest honors”. Zerubabel returned to Israel and so that king did see “seed & length of days.” And on to the end. A funeral oration for a king? Or, was all of “Deutero-Isaiah” (Chap 40 – 66) written by King Jehoiachin, as Abraham Ibn Ezra had written?
There are a few other scholarly opinions & interpretations of Isaiah 53 and most are more sensible or more likely to be true and historical than the typical or traditionally conservative Christian speculation. That interpretation mainly requires circular logic (i.e., you have to believe the gospel story is true in order to accept their interpretation of Chap 53 as proof that the gospel story and their interpretation is true or valid). It is almost impossible to prove that any such person as the Jesus of the NT ever existed. And if the NT Jesus was somewhat based on some historical personage, it would then be almost impossible to determine what he actually did or said versus what his biographers and/or later editors invented (or what they rewrote or what they discarded).
Isaiah 51:22 – 52:5. (Partially Paraphrased). Thus said the LORD, your Lord, Your God who champions His people: Herewith I take from your hand the cup of reeling,… I will put it in the hands of your tormentors, Who have commanded you,”Get down, that we may walk over you”– So that you made your back like the ground, Like a street for passersby. Awake, awake, O Zion! Clothe yourself in splendor; Put on your robes of majesty, Jerusalem, holy city!… Arise, shake off the dust, Sit[ on your throne], Jerusalem! Loose the bonds from your neck,
O captive one, Fair Zion! For thus said the LORD: You were sold for no price, and shall be redeemed without money. For thus said the Lord GOD: Of old, My people went down To Egypt to sojourn there; But Assyria has robbed them, Giving nothing in return. What therefore do I gain here? — declares the LORD — For My people have been carried off for nothing, Their mockers howl — declares the LORD — And constantly, unceasingly, My name is reviled.
Isaiah 52:7-9. God is telling Zion, Jerusalem, his people, that their God is King. Their LORD will return to them, Zion. They, ruins of Jerusalem, will raise a shout of joy together! For the LORD will comfort His people and will redeem Jerusalem.
So the enemy of Zion bound the people of Jerusalem as captives and forced them, Zion, to the ground to be walked over, trampled on. Like righteous servants of the God who outsiders reviled, God’s people were robbed, carried off, mocked, beaten, and worse done to them. Such suffering these servants of God endured because of the sins of others. This captive Zion, these people (hated and enslaved & suffering like they were in Egypt) will awake & be clothed in splendor. Jerusalem (not only one person) will put on the “robes of Majesty” and sit on their throne. The prophet is not talking about God or a ruler, but a city, a nation, a people. They who suffered, they need to be comforted, redeemed. A messiah sent by God does not need to be released from captivity & comforted like the suffering people, city, nation. Once “the outsiders” see the Lord of Zion working in Zion for Zion (not all over the world and not coming to these outsiders), they will want “in on this too” and they will grab a hold of the exiled Jew to go up to Zion as well.
Isaiah & other prophets spoke too many words about the people of Judea & Israel, Jerusalem, & Zion, for some people to ignore most of them in order to focus in on only a few lines here and there that promote their narrow perspective. Isaiah was writing for a people, a nation, and he was not writing another “gospel of Jesus” nor of any messiah. Any interpretation that takes the text out of context (or mistranslates) or that “cherry picks” a few lines & part of a chapter that seems to support their particular belief is intentionally “rewriting the prophecies & words of the prophet” and they are blinding themselves to the “big picture” that the prophet presented, the Truth.
“Rewriting the prophets” is part of what some might call “replacement theology”. The church is Zion or Jerusalem or Israel. Angel of the Lord or similar terms is Jesus. The literal words of Tanach aren’t just “cherry picked” for the desired effect, the literal words of God are all reinterpreted metaphorically or as analogy or parable to conform to the “New Tanach”, which is taken literally. Some people don’t use New Covenant (to justify their belief or else maybe to not offend Jews who they hope to persuade?), but instead say “renewed covenant” or “restored covenant”. But that is difficult to believe when there is so much that is new or that has been replaced in what they say about the “old”.
But the church sure has to change drastically in the future, and perhaps most Christians have to become enemies of the NT & the church, in order to see the church as Zion or Jerusalem and Jesus as their messiah who restores them “to their former glory”.
yedidiah
Before I start I just wanted to make sure that it is understood; Exalted servant is not about whether Israel is excluded from it but whether Jesus is included and plays any role in God’s plan of redemption. All Christians are know God will lift up the nation of Israel in the future.
It is very important to recognize first the identity of the suffering servant described in Is 53 in order to give any conclusions.
According to Jewish interpretation it is the nations and kings who are speaking through the prophet in chapter 53.
But Is 53 doesn’t look like a future report given by anybody but it is a prophecy.
First of all the concept that the speakers are nations and kings is concluded based on the last words of chapter 52. In this chapter the nations are to be surprised and astonished seeing something that has never been told to them and they are to shut their mouths in amazement. Logically saying it has to be after they witnessed the servant exalted, and are possibly disappointed seeing that there was no Jesus in the scene.
Then we have the words in Is 53 ;1 ” who would believe what we have heard?” – according to Jewish interpretation these are the nations speaking . By saying “who would believe WHAT WE HAVE HEARD?” they indicate they KNOW who fulfilled the prophecy in Is 53 v.10-12. What else ‘ have they heard of” that we haven’t now? Everybody knows about Jesus’ suffering and Israel as a nation.
So it is logical to conclude they should have heard about who vindicated the Righteous One to multitudes, who is assigned a portion from multitudes, who heals the world etc.
But there is a little problem with that scenario. Verses 10 -12 are still giving report about the FUTURE EVENTS that are NOT FULFILLED YET when the ‘nations are sharing what they have heard . The words in Verse 10 are still relating to the future! So we have a future report about the future… And then the next speaking person ( through isaiah) is God Himself also relating His words to the future shown as the events still to come. v 11b-12.
There is nothing about the nations admitting they are witnessing/ or they already witnessed the words in v 10-12 fulfilled on Israel. There is no word given that anybody witnessed the events in v 10-12 at all because it is a prophecy not a ‘future report’.
If Is 53 was to be the nations’ report given in the future about what the nations saw , it would make sense that they would be reporting it all as past or present tense actions / events. Their report would be about things that just happened or are happening, reporting simply all what they witnessed. That includes all events in v10-12. yet we see the events in v 10-12 are not described as fulfilled and not witnessed by the nations.
We know from the chapter 52 that the nations are to be surprised, astonished NOT BEFORE the servant is exalted but while or after witnessing Israel’s exaltation and realizing Jesus is not there. There is no other way for them to be surprised unless they see there is just the nation without jesus. They have to see the events in v10 -12 fulfilled on Israel in order to be shocked that it was not about whom they expected. But based on Is 53 they have not witnessed the future yet.
That is why such interpretation that the Is 53 is just a future report of the nations makes very little sense!
Therefore the prophet speaking in Is 53 is simply Isaiah himself, ( not the future report of the nations) . Isaiah says the sufferer was punished for “the transgression of MY people,” according to verse 8. Who are the people of Isaiah? Israel. So the sufferer of Isaiah 53 suffered for Israel. So how could he be Israel? It is one of their people.
other facts;
-The “arm of the Lord” in Is 53 ;1 refers to God’s powerful act of salvation. So the message of the speaker is the message of a prophet declaring what God has done to save his people.
-The figure of Isaiah 53 dies and is buried according to verses 8 and 9. The people of Israel have never died as a whole. They have been out of the land on two occasions and have returned, but they have never ceased to be among the living. Yet Jesus died, was buried, and rose again.
-The Jewish people (Israel) were promised that if they obeyed G-d, they would be greatly blessed. Only if they were disobedient would they be cursed. (See, for example, Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28.) If Israel were the righteous servant of Isaiah 53, it would have been impossible for her to have suffered and died under the conditions and in the manner described in this passage.
As far as your words about prodigal son;
the prodigal son is a story of forgiveness. Jesus – is for our redemption.
But about that next time.
p.s The examples you showed from Is 51 and more are about glorious future that will be possible through what the suffering servant in is 53 accomplished.
I didn’t intend this to be so very long (and disjointed & not proof-read), but you asked some basic questions, which were already addressed a few times by other posters. I also included part of a few comments I posted above, some time back. And yet it doesn’t address all your points.
All Christians do not know that God will lift up the nation of Israel in the future. Many still see the church as Israel (or Jesus?). Many believe Israel becoming Christian will “lift the nation of Israel up” and then the enemy will attack in a final battle.
Your interpretation attempts to exclude Israel, while failing to explain who “the individual servant” would have been to Isaiah or to his audience. Why would he include a Jesus, who may not have existed (as he was described in the gospels), who was unknown to him and came almost 500 years later, and of whom many of the verses do not apply, except by a wide stretch of the imagination?
The plain and unmistakable narrative is of a righteous man who lived before this chapter was written. A righteous man who was despised, pitied, and abandoned. A man who courageously suffered, yet whose faith was unshakeable. And he was rewarded in his life (before his death, not just afterwards in heaven). There is no need, as you do, to say some verses (10-12) are future (to us), the next are past (to us & the “present” of Jesus), and then back to the future. And if you speculate about the future in order to fit the past of Jesus into it, then others can also conjure up a future where Jesus is not a part of our future (ie, “the nations” that are shut up & astonished could be Christian nations. It is quite possible that the many who were, are, or will be deceived are Christians – they are many, they are many of the non-Israelite, non-Jewish nations, and they have quite a few kings & other rulers).
In your opinion what is the relation of Jesus to God, since that plays a part in your interpretation. There are several Christian intrepretations of who Jesus was or wasn’t. If “he was a man” it would make some of the verses absurd relating them to Jesus, and if “he was God”, it would make other verses irrelevant and absurd? Who is the servant in 53 (see paragraphs below for some Christian scholars views)? In 1-11a:, it is unclear who the surprised observers’ are who speak (speak not “through” the prophet). Are they the kings and nations of the world (cf. 52.15)? Then the servant is the one in Isaiah’s lifetime and the same servant that Isaiah has been talking about for many chapters, which is the nation Israel, and the “nations” are stunned that such an insignificant and lowly group turns out to have been so important to the divine plan (also see, Deut. 7.7.). This is “one Jewish interpretation”, but it is also one Christian interpretation based on the plain meaning of the words in context (& the historical one in the time of Isaiah). Or, the speakers may be the Judeans themselves, in which case the servant is either a pious minority (instead of the mass of Judeans whose faith “missed the mark” that God set for them), or else the servant is some individual within the Israelite community. Then, either the servant suffered on behalf of the speakers, or he suffered along with the guilty, even though he himself did not share in the guilt of his fellow Israelites (excludes the sins or guilt of the enemy or of non-Israelites). The 1st idea (vicarious suffering where the guilty Israelites are not punished at all) would be unusual for the Bible, but the 2nd (corporate guilt) is not. Could Jesus be in opposite camps (innocent & guilty, saint & sinner, friend and enemy, Israel & the “nations” Kings), yet in neither/none?
Some Christian scholars believe that the “individual” servant was Jeremiah since many of those verses “mirror” his life, disease, and sufferings. Some believe this chapter was written by Jeremiah after the death of King Josiah at Megiddo and that Josiah was that “individual” servant. Some believe it could refer to Job. As mentioned in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others, God’s servants include many; David, Israel, Jacob or Judea or Jeshurun (separate from Israel), Isaiah, Josiah, Zerubbabel, priests, prophets, the “branch”, non-Israelite Cyrus, and others, even including the enemy of Israel, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon.
In fact, the chapter could be a funeral oration given at the death Job. Some scholars say every word in Isaiah 53 applies exactly to Job. There supposedly are several mentions of this in the Talmud: Job lived in the time of Daniel and Ezekiel; Job was one of the men who returned from the Babylonian captivity; and this was the time Isaiah 53 was written.
Some say that it was a public speech given at the funeral of “the royal sire of Zerubabel, King Jehoiachin or Jekoniah”, whose life is mirrored (or recorded) in the “entire chapter from beginning to end”. Made a King of Judah as a boy, but soon the country was overrun and Jerusalem was threatened with destruction, so “he laid down his crown”, “delivered himself up to the enemy without a murmur”, “dragged like a sheep to the slaughter-pen”, went into captivity, “left his family sepulcher to the wicked invaders”, and his “castle/high place” to his rich brother and successor. A prisoner, despised, shunned, disgraced and “sick on account of his people’s sins”,etc. until he was taken out of prison and “bestowed with the highest honors”. Zerubabel returned to Israel and so that king did see “seed & length of days.” And on to the end. A funeral oration for a king? Or, was all of “Deutero-Isaiah” (Chap 40 – 66) written by King Jehoiachin, as Abraham Ibn Ezra had written?
As a prophecy (which does not mean “fortune telling” or “predicting the future”), the chapter might not be referencing any particular person, but instead it might be a poem or parable l to comfort the people, teaching them the same things contained in the book of Job, showing that the righteous person should not despair because of their affliction, degradation, and suffering experienced in their exile at that time. In the near future, the people would triumph and they, like Job, would be “paid double for their trouble”. This would be similar to Malachi 3 and several of the Psalms.
The Gospels speak little directly of Jesus as the “servant” (although the authors know Isaiah & other prophets & use selected verses to model their tale about Jesus). But, the Jesus that the disciples knew did not remind them of these “prophecies”. John 12:38? Was that verse a eversal of 53:1? Was Jesus supposed to be a herald or was he “supposed to blind his audience” until some “recoming” to happen shortly in their time (which is still in the future 2000 years later)? Zion was “blinded”, but the “nations” “can see clearly” in some type of “reverse prophecy” where the “many” believe the report and they are correct and where the “few” are deceived and surprised? Zion is the last to hear and be comforted for their suffering, while many who cause the suffering bring “the good news”? Matthew 8:17? Did Jesus bare or carry in him all the illnesses (& demons like the swine did?) or did he just take them “from us and carry them away”? Was those diseases evident in Jesus as they were in Job? In Isa 52:6, we see “…That I, the One who promised, am now at hand.” (that is not in the future). And in :7 “…Telling Zion,”Your God is King!” (Was Jesus just a herald and was that message to Israel the primary message of Jesus?).
So several individuals fit any of the chapter’s “individual” servant (if one refuses to see it applying to many) better than it does to Jesus, plus they would have been known by Isaiah and by his audience, whereas Jesus only came about later and is presented as metaphor or an analogy of the real righteous servant, and then only partially. Jesus is almost supposed to be more than a few verses in Isaiah. Isaiah did not set about to write the “first gospel” of Jesus.
i have questions about isaiah 53
1. do you agree that nowhere in isaiah 53 is there the christian belief that human blood atones/ human blood heals?
2. how do you interpret the words at the end of verse 5
“…and with his wounds
we were healed. ”
how do you understand the hebrew word for “wounds” ?
“wounds” does not mean ” blood” right?
Rambo, that is such a good point. There is no mention anywhere in this chapter or anywhere in the Hebrew Bible about the atoning power of human blood. It just talks about suffering. Finally, when the passage says “if his soul will acknowledge guilt”–which Christians translate as “if he offers himself as a sacrifice,” or something like that–the following words are not “then he will redeem mankind” but a promise of reward!
Dina, I am glad we don’t hear about the atoning power of human blood. People would be killing each other thinking they are doing each other favor that way.
But atonement is not just about shedding human blood , as if blood had some magic power to clean anything. The same way blood wasn’t ‘cleaning ‘ anything literally in the altar in Levit but symblised something that was to come to redeem people and allowed a person to be in the presence of God ( without death). That ‘s why the symbolical ‘cleaning’ from sin before entering God’s presence. Don’t you think the priest could just be forgiven so that he could show up in God’s presence all ‘clean’? I bet , he entered like that , he was dead right away.
You said Christians translate the following passage, “if his soul will acknowledge guilt”– into “if he offers himself as a sacrifice,” or something like that. First of all I am not sure how you interpret that word here’ sacriffice’ as Jesus wasn’t killed and offered to God as a sacrifice. It meant by acknowledging quilt he made himself guilty for us ( did something on our behalf) that is why we say he sacrificed himself.
Then you brought up the words that Is 53 doesn’t say that “then he will redeem mankind” but there is a promise of reward!
Yes, you have a promise of reward but you missed some other important words; vindivating the Righteous One to multitudes, then it explaination how;” it is their iniquities that he will carry.” You don’t have to have words about ” he will redeem mankind” , but you have an explanation how he will do it; by carrying their iniquities.
The same way what Ps 130; 8 says ” (…)And with Him is abundant redemption. And He will redeem Israel From all his iniquities.”
Redemption includes redeeming people from their sins , not only enemies of people. Isaiah other chapters talk lots about that. I just don’t have time to write it all down today.
Eric, I am responding to this comment:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/isaiah-53-micah-7-and-isaiah-62/#comment-17931
You wrote that you are glad we don’t hear about the atoning power of human blood. You have now admitted that the Torah does not teach that human blood has the power to atone. Now you try to make it symbolic. But it is Jesus’s literal death and literal blood that Christians talk about, not his symbolic death and symbolic blood.
I’m mostly not sure what your points are in this comment, but between yesterday and today I think I’ve given you enough to think about :).
1. The shedding of human blood would be considered murder (e.g., Abel’s blood cried out). In some cultures or in some pagan belief systems, the god or gods could only be appeased with the sacrifice of a human, particularly a young child or virgin girl. The God of Israel would consider that blood an abomination.
2. Wounds might involve blood, but usually not with disease and disease, illness, or pains are what the servant was mostly or firstly afflicted with. Blemished, bruised, sickly animals or ones with sores and wounds were acceptable as sacrifices or satisfactory gifts to God?
Verse 5 is more properly/correctly translated as “He was wounded because of our transgressions and crushed because of our inequities”. This is in line with the basic idea that God promises forgiveness & redemption to all who sincerely return to Him”. Plus, there is no need for a messiah to atone for others as we see in several verses, such as Isa 55:6-7, Jer 36:3, Ezekiel 18: & 33:, Dan 4:27, Hosea 14:1-3, Prov 16:6, Jonah 3:6-10, etc.
yeddidiah,
You might find your answers to your questions in the other emails where I explained that Jesus wasn’t a sacrifice as somebody who was killed and offered to God by people.
He offered himself to die in our place, that is why we say he sacrificed himself. So all the other points you asked about don’t apply ( about wounded, bruised sacrifice etc).
Yedidiah, I agree that God promises forgiveness & redemption to all who sincerely return to Him. That still doesn’t exclude the fact that God’s plan of redemption included righteous servant dying for our sins.
The “plan” doesn’t exclude any number of righteous servants dying or living for others. The more the better because it shows a direct more sincere, more personal and loving relationship. A blanket “pardon” becomes virtually meaningless, it is as if we were just pitifully “written off” because we do not measure up to any worthy standard. That “love” is cheapened and we are “robotically rubber-stamped” as “passable” along the “assembly line to heaven”. Isn’t there more to life than to be just a “number”; born to die to get a stamp of just barely “ok” to warrant any mercy at all?
Yedidiah , No, You are mistaken. The plan INCLUDES’ God’s love and is based on God’s love and shows how much we are worth to God that He gives for us what He was the most precious- His son to die for us no matter what the price. John 3;15
I was giving a consequence of certain aspects of Christian beliefs. I did and would not exclude God’s love nor would I exclude how much worth we are to God. That is absolutely absurd and in fact is diametrically opposite of the phrase “we can be Holy as God is Holy” (in this life).
We might also reference Daniel 12:3, “And the knowledgeable will be radiant like the bright expanse of sky, and those who lead the many to righteousness will be like the stars forever and ever.” The knowledgable and “those who lead” are not to be minimized or overlooked.
Think about all the different situations and aspects of people giving gifts to other people, especially their dearest, loved ones. Maybe a couple of lessons from the results of Abel & Cain’s gifts (set aside the typical assumptions we make)?
What seems to be unsupported (not from the NT, but from the Hebrew bible -) is that God would choose to “give”…. Give what? Or does one mean “show” instead, since “it” is not a thing given directly. Or give whom? A “son”? But that is either God modeling pagan polytheism or else it is a very poor choice of a word (or merely symbolic?) that confuses the worldly or humanistic concepts with the spiritual. This is idolatry or at least it is a regression to a more primitive and pagan theology. And it confuses the worldly concept of temporary being and materialistic death with the spiritual. God is teaching us about “deathlessness” or immortality or the “everlasting” by what rejecting immortality temporarily to show that it is possible to live again and that death was never permanent. As if no one ever thought of immortality before? As if no one ever before seen a summer turn to fall turn to winter turn to spring? No, that was the message of all those “dying & rising” pagan gods. That was the salvation & god model (Canaanite, Egyptian, Babylonian, etc) that many Israelites strayed after and were chastised by God for, time and time again. Some of the Israelites or later “the Jews” finally learned their lesson well and some even chose to die trusting in their God rather than assimilate or surrender to this foreign model of god. They were “passed over” and right now are celebrating the Sabbath. If only we had that faith and trust in their God.
Since G-d says specifically and unequivocally that ALL Israel is G-d’s son then what John has to say HAS to refer to ALL Israel. Simple as that. Ergo Isaiah 53 HAS to be all Israel.
Sharbano,f you have a group of people that is called son of God, then if you are Jewish -aren’t you also God’s son? That is what you are trying to say that ; A. B. C etc as a whole is a son of God but A, or B as individual can’t be called so.
There are some very embarrassing verses, even in the NT, regarding the effacacy of Jesus’ blood, death, and an atonement.
Collosians 1:24 Now I (Paul) rejoice in MY SUFFERINGS for your sake, and in my flesh I DO MY SHARE on behalf of His body, which is the church, in filling up what is LACKING IN CHRIST’S AFFLICTIONS.
It seems that Even the early Christians saw a mainly redemptive quality achieved through ANY righteous man’s SUFFERING as opposed to the modern view that says WE NEED Jesus BLOOD atonment.
Acts 2:37-38 When the people heard this, they were CUT TO THE HEART and said to Peter and the other apostles, “BROTHERS, what shall we do?” Peter replied, “REPENT and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
REPENT FOR FORGIVENESS? 😉
I see here that Peter is preaching repentance, not the Christian vaccine of “Jesus blood” scenario. It seems to me that the early Christians saw repentance as the chief means to atonment, (based upon reflection of the loss of their founder Jesus’ life.) cf Zechariah 12
Tanakh has many examples of a righteous person’s death AND OR SUFFERING causing a reflection on the situation, a remorse, followed by national repentance, cf Zechariah 12, but NEVER DO YOU FIND INNOCENT SUFFERING BEING AN END OF ITSELF.
i just don’t understand how one can conflate wounds, cuts punctures , lacerations etc with a flowing fluid called BLOOD
isn’t conflating a logical fallacy in logic?
does blood when it is “poured out” heal?
look at their lexicon on bible interlinear
for the words
we are healed
rapha’ (raw-faw’)
to mend (by stitching), i.e. (figuratively) to cure — cure, (cause to) heal, physician, repair, thoroughly, make whole.
i can almost picture the point of the text and it clearly doesn’t seem to be of human blood atoning for sins.
rambo2016
Ask yourself the same question using a lexicon and meaning the word’ heal’ and apply it to the nation in Is 53.
Then try to explain how the nations suffering is healing the world? There were wounds, blood included, etc How would that heal the world?
Isaiah 53 is not talking about BLOOD. it talks about SUFFERING, WOUNDS that definitely included BLOOD, but blood is not the magic factor here , but RESULTS of the suffering. The text tells you somebody suffers for others, carries on other peoples iniquities and dies for them, then makes others righteous. How it is that possible? If you make yourself guilty instead of other person who were truly guilty and ,you carry this person’s iniquities instead of her/him. So when Christians say they are ‘healed by blood’ it doesn’t mean the blood magically healed them but it means the righteous servant suffered for them ( and shed his blood for them ) while carrying their punishment for sin.
The question about why we die, was not about ‘how much we know what happens after death- that was not the point . Go to Gen 3 that explains everything. Once you understand that , Jesus will be more clear to you.
Maybe you would better understand the text if you quit trying to read Everything so Hyper-literally. You are unable to see the forest for the trees. You are so utterly desperate to see your Jsus in the text you thus fail to see a “narrative”. How many times must it be said to start reading At The Beginning of chapter 52. You have consistently ignored the narrative therefore how can you understand. You know if Isaiah wanted to get across what your desire is he would have used the word anointed instead of servant. Thus, the singular would be evident. Obviously your Entire Religion is based on this one word, Servant. Do you really want to base your redemption on a single word. I, for one, would certainly Not.
Sharbano,As much as you say we focus on Jesus , as much you focus on history and are failing to see that there is a different reason the individual servant is suffering for in is 53. I suggest you read from chapter 1 of Isaiah and see why the nation is suffering and study the reason of suffering in chapter 53 and all details that are NOT matching the nation’s suffering.
You’ll try every diversionary tactic in the world. Your entire debate is focusing on “select” verses in Isaiah, NOW, You want to start at chapter one. I suggest you start at chapter 52:1. What is the subject matter in the beginning verses of that chapter. I suggest you fear reading and understanding what is written there. Before the servant is mentioned the narrative speaks of the Israelite nation, the first time to Egypt and Assyria oppressed them without cause. Notice, without cause. Then it says the people were taken away for nothing and those “leaders” who rule are the ones who blaspheme His name. Who might That be, who blasphemes. It can only be one group, the group that has persecuted Jews since Rome. Who has it been that has been twisting His Name and perverting it to be something other than One, that is, calling a man a god.
Since the entire teaching of Xtianity relies on vague obscurities you must ask yourself, why wouldn’t G-d put an answer Here that would be explicit. He deals in explicitness. As it says in Amos, He does nothing without “Revealing” it to the prophets. This doesn’t mean revealing in obscurity.
Sharbano, I remember you had a problem with the Messiah being called a servant, why not called anointed one everywhere , then go to Is 42; 1-4 here even Tanah says:” The Messiah- God’s servant” ” Behold my servant, whom I shall uphold…”
Sharbano, just finishing your conclusions based on the context of Is 52.
You have to look at the whole not just one chapter 52. At the – so called -“servant songs” in Isaiah (Is. 42:1-6; 49:1-3; 50:4-9; 52:13 – 53:12). Each of these servant passages appears to build on one another. First, Isaiah 42:1-6 describes the mission of the servant.
In Isaiah 42:1-4, Here the speaker is God, who designates an individual as his servant and chosen one, endowing him with the spirit so that he may fulfill his mission of dispensing justice and law to the nations- which we know from Is 11 that is the mission of the Messiah . ( read chapter 11)
Then , Isaiah 49:1-13 – the mission assigned to the speaker includes the task of bringing Israel back to its God, which task must be ascribed to an individual or collectivity within Israel, not to Israel itself. Then Isaiah 50:4-9 shows that the servant suffers but does not give the reasons for his suffering. Finally, Isaiah 52:13 – 53:12 demonstrates that the servant’s suffering leads to his death and exaltation.
( this doesn’t exclude the fact that Jews suffered and will be lifted up by God one day. We know that! )
Going back to Is 52; 10 God is talking about coming redemption , and that ” Hashem has bared His Holy Arm before the eyes of all the nation, all ends of the earth will see the salvation of our God.” v.10
God’s arm will provide salvation (Is. 52:10).
This has parallels elsewhere in Isaiah where the arm will rule for God (Is. 40:10); Gentiles will trust in arm (Is. 51:5); the arm will redeem (Is. 51:9);
If you skip that information you will only focus on suffering of the nation.
And God’s arm doesn’t relate to the nation. Neither does in chapter 53. The “arm of the Lord” in Is 52;10 and Is 53 ;1 refers to God’s powerful ACT of SALVATION. So the message of the speaker is the message of a prophet declaring WHAT GOD HAS DONE TO SAVE HIS PEOPLE.
( which you read in Is 53) .
Throughout Ezekiel and Isaiah and Psalms God is showing that redemption is not only about exalting the nation but it includes salvation from sins, sprinkling with ‘clean water” being free from peoples iniquities, etc.
Eric, as Yedidiah pointed out, you are reading selectively. You quoted Isaiah 42:1-6; Yedidah showed that verse 6 defines the servant: “I will set you for a covenant people, for a light to the nations.” You believe this is about Jesus–how can Jesus be a covenant people?
The same problem crops up again in Isaiah 49. You cited only verses 1-3, but verse 10 says “I will make you the people of the covenant.” Furthermore, verse 7 describes the servant as “the one loathed by nations” and “the servant of rulers”–a description that cannot be applied to Jesus by any stretch.
As for Chapter 50, there is no reason on earth to believe that it is talking about anyone but Isaiah himself, as it perfectly describes his life and what he suffered as an unpopular prophet.
Once again Eric you are using diversionary tactics. Your tactics are an effort to overlook the obvious. Since you are unable to deal honestly with the chapter you simply want to ignore it. We can discuss the other references but all this dialog is regarding Who the servant is in 53. Since the servant can be collective Israel and can also be the individual we have to determine which it is here in 53. The preceding chapter shows how the narrative is regarding collective Israel. If it were as Xtians believe it would be speaking of a messiah. Instead the chapter is setting up a “focal point”. It was done in this way in order for 53 to be easily understood.
Sharbano,
I said “Whether we consider Jews as a speaker or the nations we don’t interpret Is 53’s speaker as talking part in abusing and killing the servant. Why ? Because Is 53 speakers’s words don’t indicate the speakers participation in abuse but it says the servant suffered BECAUSE of people’s sins. ” BECAUSE” doesn’t mean you had to be a killer!”
you said “This is contrary to Xtian teaching.”
me; if you want see the speaker in Is 53 as a partaker in abuse, then ( if the servant is Jesus) the speaker would be only Romans who did the execution and the Jewish leaders who insisted on Jesus to be executed. So is that our Christian interpretation? No. Neither all people among the nations were abusing Jews.
If even some Christians say they ‘participated’ in the servants ( Jesus) death, they mean that Jesus death was because of their sinful nature, for their redemption. Another words if everybody was without a sin , Jesus wouldn’t have to die. That is how many say’ they are partakers’.
Who then Inflicted this pain and suffering? Isaiah doesn’t list you WHO participated in the killing, it just tells you why the servant had to die. The answer is in v 5. ” pained because our rebellious sins, etc. Also so called ‘participating’ in causing suffering to the servant is described as ” in truth it was our ills that he bore, and our pains/troubles/sufferings that he carried.” How then , can that be both ways? We ‘beat him up’ literally and then he bears our pains?
you said ” It was done by Romans even though Xtian writings say it was the Jews who killed Jsus.”
Romans were the executors, and if you read the gospels it wasn’t their idea to arrest and execute Jesus but the Jewish leaders who wanted to get rid of Jesus.
Read John 11;47-57. That is why people talk about Jews participating in it. Jesus is handed over to the Romans who agreed with the people’s complaints; Pilate is handing Jesus back to Jewish leaders asking ; do I have to crucify your king? The crowd and leaders say, yes, letting Barnabas the criminal to go free for an exchange..
But does it mean all nation is guilty of literally partaking in Jesus death? No. So there is nothing here having ‘ both ways’ as you said. Whoever wants to blame all people that is their problem, but that is not what the NT is showing.
Once again you are using the Same old tactic. No matter How much you want to avoid it the stage is set at the beginning of 52. It’s ALL about the nation of Israel At the time of redemption, and how they were oppressed without cause. The next chapter (53) continues that narrative with general examples throughout history. As is typical in Torah it goes from a general to a specific and vice versa. The next chapter (54) continues along the same narrative. What you are doing is taking a couple of snippets and twisting the wordage to make your god fit. You see a word in the Xtian text and see a word in Tanach and say, behold, this is a prophecy. That is nothing more than playing games. All you have done is repeat yourself with nothing added that can be construed as proof. Far from it. Speculation at best.
“Isaiah 53 is not talking about BLOOD. it talks about SUFFERING, WOUNDS that definitely included BLOOD, but blood is not the magic factor here”
Are you truly admitting that Israel has NOT suffered as such. You, then, are wholly ignorant of history and how Xtians has participated in that suffering. Are you following this scenario so as to minimize how Xtians participated. This is what seems to be the case. It is interesting how Xtianity speaks volumes regarding Adam’s sin. His primary sin was not to admit his wrongdoing and Xtians follow in the footsteps of Adam and do not admit their participation in atrocities.
“Isaiah 53 is not talking about BLOOD. it talks about SUFFERING, WOUNDS that definitely included BLOOD, ”
“definitely included blood” the QUESTION is what was in the authors MIND when he used
a word which means :
Bruise, stripe, wound, blow (H2250, also מצודות and others).
did he even care about ” definitely included blood” ?
“but blood is not the magic factor here , but RESULTS of the suffering.”
is the author assuming “blood is…results of the suffering” or is that a christian READING into the text?
pain receptors are built into the flesh not a flowing fluid. it maybe jesus, you and christians are reading “results” into the text?
” The text tells you somebody suffers for others,”
the jews say it is not a person who “willingly” is suffering .
” carries on other peoples iniquities and dies for them,”
how can one read into isaiah that the person “willingly” went to get DOOMED? “willingly” went to do suicide? “willingly” went to get crushed to appease himself/cool down?
you christians remind me of a parent who “willingly” needs to pour boiling water over himself because of his child’s sins. don’t you think that a parent who does such a think needs to go to a clinic?
“then makes others righteous. How it is that possible? If you make yourself guilty instead of other person who were truly guilty and”
that is like raping a girl and then the girl makes herself guilty because i raped her and then took on my punishment . the victim takes on punishment. if such a victim existed one would immediately book it/her into a clinic.
“,you carry this person’s iniquities instead of her/him.”
“So when Christians say they are ‘healed by blood’ it doesn’t mean the blood magically healed them but it means the righteous servant suffered for them ( and shed his blood for them ) while carrying their punishment for sin.”
all i can see is conflation. conflation. conflation.
“Why do you seek further beatings?
Why do you continue to rebel?
The whole head is sick,
and the whole heart faint.
6 From the sole of the foot even to the head,
there is no soundness in it,
but bruises and sores
and bleeding wounds;
they have not been drained, or bound up,
or softened with oil.”
notice you don’t see “bleeding wounds” in is: 53:5?
here is more proof that one should not trust in christian hegemony :
The root XLL is a member of the root family GLL, HLL, XLL, KLL, QLL,
all meaning in essence ‘pile up up’. The letter G of, the typical,
GLL is the single-literal root appearing in full as the three-literal
root G)H, ‘rise’, see Exodus15:1, Ezekiel 47:5 and Job 8:11. The
letter L is the single-literal root appearing in full as the three-
literal root (LH, ‘elevate’, see Exodus 19:3, Joshua 2:8 and Proverbs
30:4. Thus GLL = G)H-(LH-(LH.
1. The act KALAL specifically means ‘to include, to complete’. Thus
KLILAT YOPI of Lamentations 2:15, is ‘beautiful to perfection’. The
useful newly introduced Hebrew word KLALI means ‘general’. The
related act KALAH means ‘to finish off, to terminate’.
2. The act GALAL specifically means ‘to roll up, to roll over, to
pile up, to enfold’, see Genesis 29:3. The word GAL means ‘a pile of
stones, a mound, a wave’, and GALGAL = GAL-GAL is ‘a wheel’, which is
indeed equally high all around. The GALIL of Songs 5:14 is ‘a
cylinder’, and that of Joshua 13:2 is ‘a region’. The GALAL of
Ezekiel 4:15 is ‘solid waste’. The useful newly introduced Hebrew
word GLULAH means ‘pill’.
3. The act HALAL specifically means ‘to heap up praise’.
4. The act KALAL means foremost ‘to rise, to be convex’ as it does in
Genesis 8:11. Its secondary meaning is ‘to curse, to raise and heap
up deprecation, to pour out and roll over ill-wishes’, see 1 Kings
2:8. The KALAL of Ezekiel 1:7 means ‘solid’ or ‘alloyed’. I can not
see how it can mean ‘burnished’.
5. The basic meaning of XALAL is also ‘to include, to enclose, to
encompass, to comprise, to surround, to generate’, except that the
enclosed may be here but empty space, as just pointed out by Shoshana
Walker. Thus XALON, ‘window’ is the cavity or the open space defined
by the surrounding wall, and such is the XALIL, ‘flute’, the
cylindrical [GALIL] hollow wind-pipe, and also the MXILAH [actually
MKILAH], ‘tunnel’, burrowed and included [GLULAH, KLULAH] in the
depth of the earth. XLL in the sense of ‘profane’ may mean ‘devoid or
empty of merit’. Indeed, its opposite QD$, which is but a variant of
GD$, means ‘packed solid with supreme value’. XALAL in the sense of
‘cadaver’, may mean ‘rolled or bent over’ or ‘drained of life’.
Similarly ‘MAXALAH’, ‘illness’, may mean a lacuna or an ill inclusion.
In conclusion: MXOLAL of Isaiah 53:5 is certainly not ‘pierced’.
For a more detailed discussion of these roots look up
http://www.hebrewetymology.com.
Robert,
We need to absolutely distinguish between the operation and the
product. XALON, ‘window’ is a cavity, or an inclusion in the wall,
irrespective of the way it was created. It is a common mistake in
Hebrew etymology to confuse the two.
I see in Isaiah 53 reference to illness and suffering but not to any
use of sharp instruments or tearing the flesh.
In Isaiah 51:9
הַמַּחְצֶבֶת רַהַב מְחוֹלֶלֶת
תַּנִּין
HA-MAXCEBET is ‘shape’ and HA-MXOLELET is ‘form’. In my humble
opinion the translation “Was it not you who crushed Rahab, you who
pierced the dragon?” is unacceptable, and is due again to confusing
the operation with the product. What is this act of bravura on God’s
part, that should impress us so much? To kill his own sea creatures?
Is God in a prowess contest with Canaanite fishermen killing dolphins
and porpoises? Reference is here to the creation of these sea
monsters not to their destruction.
The two roots XCB and XLL, or just XL, appear earlier in verses 1-2
הַבִּיטוּ אֶל-צוּר חֻצַּבְתֶּם
וְאֶל-מַקֶּבֶת בּוֹר נֻקַּרְתֶּם.
הַבִּיטוּ אֶל-אַבְרָהָם אֲבִיכֶם
וְאֶל-שָׂרָה תְּחוֹלֶלְכֶם
clearly in the sense of ‘shape’ and ‘form’.
The root XCB is a variant of XTB. In Psalms 144:12
בְּנוֹתֵינוּ כְזָוִיֹּת
מְחֻטָּבוֹת תַּבְנִית הֵיכָל
MXUTABOT is ‘shaped, formed’ not ‘curved’.
Sorry, but I can not, even remotely, accept MXOLAL of Isaiah 53:5 as
‘pierced’.
Isaac Fried, Boston University
Eric Krakofsky,
Concerning Isaiah 53, in order to determine who the servant is, we need to look at the context. Isaiah 49:3-6 is a good place to start.
Isaiah 49:3. And He said to me, “You are My servant, Israel, about whom I will boast.”
Isaiah 49:4. And I said, “I toiled in vain, I consumed my strength for nought and vanity.” Yet surely my right is with the Lord, and my deed is with my God.
Isaiah 49:5. And now, the Lord, Who formed me from the womb as a servant to Him, said to bring Jacob back to Him, and Israel shall be gathered to Him, and I will be honored in the eyes of the Lord, and my God was my strength.
Isaiah 49:6. And He said, “It is too light for you to be My servant, to establish the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the besieged of Israel, but I will make you a light of nations, so that My salvation shall be until the end of the earth.”
So how is this reconciled? How can Israel bring back Israel? The answer is simple! Isaiah 49:3 refers to a specific part of Israel, namely the righteous remnant. (G-d promised a righteous remnant of Israel throughout all generations.) Verse 5 refers to the remnant bringing back the rest of Israel back to righteousness. And finally, verse 6 refers to the newly restored Israel being “light to the nations” through the revelation of truth through Hashem.
In other words, this is a two step process:
1. The righteous remnant of Israel will bring back the rest of Israel to righteousness. (Isaiah 49:3-5)
2. The newly restored nation of Israel will serve to be a “light to the nations.” (Isaiah 49:6)
So ultimately, the nation of Israel is the servant who will be “a light unto the nations.” However, in order to get to that point, the righteous remnant of Israel will first gather back the rest of Israel back to Torah. It’s a two step process.
The servant is the righteous remnant of ISRAEL.
Isaiah 51:7. Hearken to Me, you who know righteousness, a people that has My Torah in their heart, fear not reproach of man, and from their revilings be not dismayed.
This is yet another verse which highlights the suffering of G-d righteous servant, Israel. Isaiah 54 even refers to the “SERVANTS of the Lord”!
Isaiah 54:17. Any weapon whetted against you shall not succeed, and any tongue that contends with you in judgment, you shall condemn; this is the heritage of the SERVANTS OF THE LORD and their due reward from Me, says the Lord.
Isaiah 52:15 describes the gentiles kings who will shut their mouths because of their astonishment of Israel’s vindication by Hashem:
Isaiah 52:15 So shall he cast down many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him, for, what had not been told them they saw, and [at] what they had not heard they gazed.
Micah 7:16-17 echoes this sentiment:
Micah 7:16. Nations shall see and be ashamed of all their might-they shall place a hand upon their mouth; their ears shall become deaf.
Micah 7:17. They shall lick the dust as a snake, as those who crawl on the earth. They shall quake from their imprisonment; they shall fear the Lord, our God, and they shall fear you.
Also, Isaiah 60:14 speaks of the future Israel who was previously despised by the nations as being vindicated at the end of days, also echoing in line with the suffering/despised servant of Isaiah 53:
Isaiah 60:14And the children of your oppressors shall go to you bent over, and *THOSE WHO DESPISED YOU* shall prostrate themselves at the soles of your feet, and they shall call you ‘the city of the Lord, Zion of the Holy One of Israel.
So there you have it. The suffering servant of Isaiah 53 ultimately is the nation of Israel.
**Please note that the Messiah is a part of Israel.**
Shalom
Yehuda Y , You are on a good way by saying ;
“Please note that the Messiah is a part of Israel”
I don’t deny your defence of Israel being lifted up one day. We know it all that God will lift up his people. If you only included that Messiah in the nation like you say and understand his contribution to that final glourious future, that is all what I am trying to show you. Therefore my despute is not about whether Israel is a servant and suffered or not and will be exalted but whether the Messiah is included in these sufferings and in the contribution to the whole events described in Is 49 through 53, 61.
If you started listing your notes with the chapter 42 you would notice that the speaker’s focus is not only over the whole nation.
You said ” It is a two- part proces” when it comes to the redemption. And we believe Jesus is simply part of that first one, as the righteous one lifting up the rest of israel. My jewish friends are really happy to know they have such messiah who was willing to die for them. Like jesus said ” there is no higher love like giving up your life to your friends” They can’t imagine anybody better ruling in th e future.
My question also is; did only a remnant suffer??? No, in reality you have both righteous , unrighteous ones were effected, people throughout the centuries, and book of Isaiah talks about the whole nation’s suffering , so why do you limit the suffering servant only to the righteous remnant? So he can fit to the innocence of the servant in Is 53? Why to exclude part of the rest of the nation? Does only their suffering contributes to the world? Couldn’t the unrighteous ones also be putified by suffering? Everybody has a chance to change. And truly to say it is the unrighteous ones who need purification not th e righteous ones.
See, you still have to do the selection to fit the servant in Is 53 , we simply ‘shirnk’ that selection to one individual ( when it comes to Is 53 and the other parts of Isaiah titled ‘servant’s songs’.
It is not that we blame the nation for the sins. Nobody is better in the world. Everybody dies for the same reason one day. Which is sin. So why only Jesus fits ? God confirmed him ‘being free from any sin’ by his resurrection, or else he would stay in th e grave like everybody else.
“My jewish friends are really happy to know they have such messiah who was willing to die for them.”
My Jewish friends? My JEWISH friends? Obviously they lacked a “Jewish” education. Besides, it doesn’t appear this messiah was too willing to die. Show me ONE place in all of Tanach, or Any Jewish source for that matter where it states that “messiah” will die. If this was the will of G-d there would be an explicit reference to that. G-d was quite explicit in Torah in many things, even to the point of repetition. Now, all of a sudden G-d is instructing a prophet and even the prophet doesn’t know what G-d really wants. There’s no point of even going to the prophet and speaking to him.
Isn’t it rather curious that one of the first prophetic examples in Matthew is Jsus telling his follower to go over there and bring the donkeys so I can ride it and fulfill a prophecy. This wasn’t a fulfillment, instead it was a contrivance. Considering this is the first example it shows us a pattern that is followed subsequently. If Jsus will resort to this charade no doubt the rest has to be considered in the same manner.
Sharbano, You don’t have to agree with Christianity, nobody is forcing you to believe anything but this time you are going over yourself by adding this extra stuff that is not there; saying ; .” in Matthew is Jsus telling his follower to go over there and bring the donkeys SO I CAN RIDE it and fulfill a prophecy. ”
Then open Matthew 21;2- 11 where the story is described and tell me where does jesus SAY such things as ” SO I CAN RIDE it and FULFILL the prophecy”? Far away from what it is said.
Jesus is asking to bring a donkey that he will need , then in
v. 4 you have the narrator commenting that it happened the way as it was prophesied/spoken because God knew ahead all these things and let them known through the prophets Isaiah and Zechariah.
I wonder how do you explain the other facts Jesus ‘ enforced ‘ on himself to happen ; including his ‘ oppressive judgement’ to fulfill Is 53 and making sure they beat him exactly the same way according to the words in Is 50;5-7 ( Matthew 26; 67; Mar 14;65) then his experience on the cross to fulfill words in ps 22,
“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”
“But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.
All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,.He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.”
( Matthew 27;39; Mar 15;29; Luke 23,35)
“14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.” description of a person clearly dying death a cross.
v.15 (…) and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.”
v.17 ” for dogs have surrounded me , a pack of evildoers has enclosed me, like a lion they attack my hands and my feet.” I can count all my bones , they look on and gloat over me”
v18 ” They divide my garments among themselves , and cast lots on my clothing”
Ps 69;22″ They also gave me gall for my food And for my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink. ”
No -one of these things ever happened to David although he was saying these words in his songs!
Then Jesus made sure he would die to fulfill to be ” in his death ” to be put dead in the rich mans’ tomb to match Isaiah 53 and then God resurrected such a manipulate back to life. Wow!
You have unwittingly confirmed my point. The point of that statement, a fulfillment of prophecy, is an utterly ridiculous statement. Can you imagine this jsus as being the only one who ever rode a donkey in that place at that time. As to the point I made, this is indicative of how the entire Xtian text attempts to paint a picture of fulfillment when it is far from it. The donkey begins and thus a pattern develops where text is forced to comply with prophecy. It is quite instructive by inadvertently teaching us the error of Xtianity from the beginning. The Xtian writers were keen is using the exact same wording as in Tanach in order facilitate this same method of faux fulfillment. I must say it is rather convenient.
You compound it and thus reinforce my assertion by citing the Psalms. Read the entire narrative. It is speaking of David. What does the first verse say. You certainly have opened my eyes to see how the Xtian text has been “engineered”. Of course at the time of these writings the individual didn’t have the benefit of their own copies of Tanach in order to verify what was written.
Does THIS sound like Jsus
“My God, I call out by day and You do not reply, and at night I do not keep silent.” Where.
Does This sound like Jsus
“But I am a worm and not a man; a reproach of man, despised by peoples.” If he’s a son of G-d wouldn’t it be the appropriate place to give such an indication. It DOES sound like something David would say, and in the same manner as many other of his Psalms.
Getting back to 53, I will quote from R’ Tovia Singer who has made some excellent points in this regard.
“As it turns out, if you are not thoroughly familiar the chapters that precede it, this text can appear quite puzzling. Let it be said once and for all: These passages were never meant to be confusing or mysterious. The prophet presupposed, however, that the reader of Isaiah 53 is already familiar with the chapters that introduce it.
Never lose sight of this point: If a verse can be understood in more than one way, what is the correct rendering? One that is in agreement with the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures. If a person ignores vital portions of the immediate context of a passage, and builds his belief around a favorite rendering of a particular text, then what he believes really reflects, not the Word of God, but rather his own ideas, and perhaps those of another imperfect human.”
As it turns out, we are introduced to different speakers in these famed passages: God and the gentile kings of nations (the astonished gentiles). Each is expressing, from a very different perspective, why the servant of God, the humiliated and battered Jews, suffered so much during their long bitter exile. Understandably, gentiles and God do not have the identical outlook of this striking phenomenon. To be clear, God/Isaiah is speaking in Isaiah 52:13-15. The astonished kings of nations are alone speaking in Isaiah 53:1-8. God resumes speaking in Isaiah 53:9-12. If you grasp the breakdown of these passages, this timeless, crystalline chapter comes into view in full color.
“Kings of nations are speaking in 53:1-8. They are together in numbed astonishment, for what they will witness in the messianic age will contradict everything they had ever heard or considered in the past. “Who would have believed our report?” the astounded and contrite world leaders wonder aloud in their dazed bewilderment (53:1). The humbled kings of nations (52:15) will finally grasp and confess that Jewish suffering occurred as a direct result of “our own iniquity,” (53:5) i.e., depraved, reckless Jew-hatred, rather than, as they previously thought, the stubborn blindness of the Jews. They are utterly stunned that the Jewish people, whom all their nations have uniformly despised and molested, are finally vindicated to enjoy the promised salvation of God.”
“This palpable shock that Israel’s neighbors will express in the End of Days is a common theme in the Hebrew Scriptures. It goes without saying that there is not a single instance in Tanach in which prophets foretell that the Jewish People will be surprised or astonished that the gentiles were right in their understanding of God’s salvation plan for mankind during the messianic age. Accordingly, we find nowhere in Tanach that the Jews will seek out the gentiles for spiritual guidance. On the contrary, the Bible reveals that in the End of Days, ten gentiles of different languages will grasp the shirt of a Jew and say, “Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you!” (Zechariah 8:23). The Hebrew word “emachem” in this passage means “you,” in the plural. If, as the Church claims, the Jews were wrong in their assessment of Jesus, why will the gentiles seek out the knowledge of the Jews in the Messianic Age?”
“Throughout Israel’s long and bitter exile, the nations mistakenly attributed the miserable predicament of the Jew to his stubborn rejection of the world’s religions. In the End of Days, however, all that will change: the gentiles will finally discover what was until then unimaginable: the unwavering Jew was, in fact, all this time faithful to the true God. On the other hand, “We despised and held him of no account” (53:3). In contrast, Christians who ignore the context of the fourth Servant Song, erroneously conclude that Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus.”
“But how will the gentile make sense out of the past Jewish suffering of long duration? They, not God, will conclude the Jews endured the suffering that they (the gentiles) rightfully deserved. Second, the striking and unparalleled suffering of the Jew gripped and warmed the gentile’s heart. Events such as the Holocaust did not go unnoticed by many gentiles worldwide. Even heart-wrenching, epoch films such as Schindler’s List and Fiddler on the Roof, and the gruesome, ghastly images of young Jewish terror victims brought the gentiles to repent.”
“There are, no doubt, many gentiles who are repenting now as they grasp the full weight and measure of these words. Our arms are open to you, righteous gentiles. Welcome home. We are holding you close. We will not let you go. Each day, many gentiles are made whole because their mind and soul became permeated with the unimaginable suffering of the Jew. Jewish suffering sparked their repentance: “By his wounds we were healed” (53:5).”
“This chapter has not yet concluded, for God now steps forward to make clear how the Servant will kindle the exoneration and vindication of the gentiles. After all, the Jewish people are called to be a “Light to the Gentiles.” The King of kings is now speaking: The world is set to be vindicated by the “servant’s knowledge” (53:10).”
“Does the Church teach that Jesus vindicated the world with his “knowledge”? According to Christian theology, it was not Jesus’ knowledge that vindicated the world. It was his blood. This epic verse is completely inconsistent with a fundamental doctrine of the Church.”
“Isaiah, however, is not speaking of a crucified messiah in his 53rd chapter. The prophet is referring to the faithful remnant of Israel, who, by their knowledge bear witness to the world that there is no Savior other than the God of Israel (Isaiah 43:10-11). This mandate to vindicate the world as a light to the nations (49:6) is not a task for a common people. The devout remnant of Israel will be righteous (Isaiah 60:21; Zephaniah 3:12-20 ).”
“In the End of Days, non-Jews will cherish and crave Israel’s knowledge. They will turn to the children of Israel in order to learn of Hashem and His Torah. Filled with remorse, they will confess to the Jewish people “Surely our fathers have inherited lies, worthlessness and unprofitable things. Can a man make gods for himself, which are not gods?” (Jeremiah 16:19-20).”
Sharbano, Before I will address your email about your interpretation of Is 52;12-12 – Is 53, I will have to go back a little bit to Is 41-42;1-9 to explain a couple of things needed for addressing you message.
What you wanted to show me by the Jewish interpretation is that the narrative should speak for itself and indicate that the next chapter 53 should be continuation about no other servant but the nation God spoke before, because it seems illogical for God to change the focus on an individual servant in the other chapter without saying clearly ‘ my servant Messiah.
That seems like unacceptable and against the narrative, but the same situation occurs in chapters 41-42. Chapter 41 and chapters before , focuses on the nation ( as the servant) and words of hope and deliverance and clear statement identifying the servant v.8 ” But you o Israel, my servant, Jacob (…) ”
But if we go to chapter 42 , the words start with ” Behold my servant, whom I shall uphold, my chosen one whom my soul desired (…) till v.9
THERE IS A CHANGE OF FOCUS.
No specific words to see that the speaker is changing the focus unless we read further verses that show the focus is on the Messiah this time ( v.4) . ( To this even Tanah has no doubt) . Looking further at the verses till v.9 the speaker is focused on the same object continuing ; ” I have called you(…) etc.
Going further to chapter 43 we have a CHANGE OF FOCUS AGAIN BACK TO THE SERVANT NATION.
So your interpretation wants to show me the CHANGE OF FOCUS it is not acceptable.
But the servant in Is 53 is clearly DIFFERENTIATED both from the remnant and from the entire nation. The same way he was differentiated in chapters 41-42-43.
Going back again to chapter 42 ; 1-9 we have clear words what is expected from the servant Messiah. The same tasks are repeated throughout the other chapters we call ‘ servant’s songs. being him a light to gentiles is mentioned in chapter 42 and 49.
Then we know God is clearly introducing an individual as his servant along with talking about entire nation as a servant. The fact of talking about individual servant , the Messiah is not excluding the importance of the nation. Both are spoken about but being different. One listens the other not, one not mentioned with sin, the other sinning and suffering from that. One as a deliverer, ruler and teacher, the other as the one that needs deliverance. One that helps to lift up Israel so that the other can have his glorious future.
If you would not ignore these important messages in Is 42;1-9 and the rest of servants ‘ songs , you would not have a problem understanding Is 53 as spoken about God’s messiah.
Most Jews agree Is 42 verses 1-4 identify the Messiah, but continuing talking about messiah the till v 9 for Jews seems uncomfortable as it would justify the christian interpretation. verses 6-9 talk about the same tasks the servants carries in chapters 49 ( light to gentiles and facing opposition and suffering , then the same righteous servant in Is 50 that would lead also to Is 53 the same individual which is the Messiah, and that would include also his future exaltation.
But you have an interesting solution to that. You say; there is a change of an object spoken about because v. 5 says ” thus said the God, who created the heavens(..) then God continues; ” I have called you..” According to the Jewish interpretation ‘ You ‘ IS NO LONGER THE MESSIAH. which is more illogical then your comment against us Christians that Is 53 is not following the same narrative. I will ask you a question What narrative do you follow in chapters 41-42 that allow you to talk about two servants; in chapters 42;1-4 ( individual ) via Is 42;5-9? ( which according to you is a nation) You change it although there is no information in between to indicate the change of the object spoken about!!! “Thus said the Lord is even indicating continuation of the same subject !
You put a comment relating to Is 53 ; ” the reader of Isaiah 53 is already familiar with the chapters that introduce it.”
Why don’t you follow the same rule about the speaker in Is 42;5-9 being familiar what he spoke about just a verse above in Is 42;1-4???? It would help you understand Christian perspective
I will answer you about our interpretation; yes, the speaker is familiar with the previous information and also noticed an important message about God’s Arm playing important part in the whole process of redemption ( mentioned in Is 52 and 53) and based on previous chapters starting from Is 42 he knows what that help is and that God’s helper will also face suffering and future exaltation.
Ignoring all that , Jewish interpretation doesn’t tell apart these two events; Messiah’ help and suffering and exaltation, second ; deliverance of Israel with Messiah’ help, restoration and future exaltation.
So making conclusions based on only two chapters Is 52- 53 is not the whole picture and Is 53 is not even resembling any future report!
You said that ” Each ( gentile kings and nations) in 52;12-13; is expressing, from a very different perspective, why the servant of God, the humiliated and battered Jews, suffered so much during their long bitter exile.”
me; Where does it even say Jews in Is 53 ???? We still only know one fact ; the servant suffered and one day will be exalted. No more, no less. As for the future report of astonished nations; there is no astonishment expressed in Is 53 , neither the servant is identified by name; Jewish people. And if that was to be a future report the speaker says nothing more what is known to people nowadays.
Is 53;9-12 clearly says these future events ( about servant’s exaltation) didn’t even come to pass yet!
The speaker is not an eye witnesses of exalted servant yet so where does he identify Jewish people by name in that chapter??? Where is the astonishment expressed in that chapter that there was no Jesus no Messiah but just exalted nation?
“Who would have believed our report?”
-Tanah says ” who would believe what we HAVE HEARD?” indicates the speaker is familiar with the events. But he is not expressing anything more in Is 53 than is known to us now.
” The humbled kings of nations (52:15) will finally grasp and confess that Jewish suffering occurred as a direct result of “our own iniquity,”
– Where does it say ‘ Jewish suffering’ again ? As a future report Is 53 should already clearly name the servant, Jesus not included. So where is that?
“there is not a single instance in Tanach in which prophets foretell that the Jewish People will be surprised or astonished that the gentiles were right in their understanding of God’s salvation plan for mankind during the messianic age.”
my answer;
– God’s salvation plan including Jesus was not introduced by gentiles but Jews!
– Also there are numerous places mentioning Jews coming to God in the last days.
– Zechariah 12 bears a testimony.
About surprised nations;
-Not all gentiles are true believers . The title; christian doesn’t make all people followers of God.
so there is nothing unusual to claim that the nations can be surprised by God’s intervention.
“Accordingly, we find nowhere in Tanach that the Jews will seek out the gentiles for spiritual guidance.”
– they don’t have to seek out gentiles . What we call today as Christianity came from the Jews who witnessed coming of Messiah. NT scriptures came from Jews not gentiles.
” the Bible reveals that in the End of Days, ten gentiles of different languages will grasp the shirt of a Jew and say, “Let us go with you, for we have heard that God is with you!” (Zechariah 8:23).
me; This verse speaks about messianic times where the Messiah is already ruling among the nation. The world is not consisting of only believing gentiles. That would be ridiculous to claim. And Zechariah already says there will be still people who don’t know God among the nations while believing nations are joined to
the Lord in the messianic time. Zechariah 2;15 “And many nations shall be joined to the LORD in that day, and shall be my people: and I will dwell in the midst of thee, and thou shalt know that the LORD of hosts hath sent me unto thee.”
You still are avoiding looking at 53 by Beginning with the First verse in 52 and continue through the End of 54. This is the composite of the narrative. Now, if G-d would really want Isaiah to speak about a suffering, dying messiah He certainly would have said My Anointed Servant, especially if something as significant as this purports to be. Furthermore, according to Xtianity Jsus is divine, the same as G-d. It is quite peculiar that this divinity would be called a “servant”, which is akin to a slave.
Of course there will be those Jews who do Teshuva at that time. Find any place in Tanach where it says this Teshuva Incorporates belief in a “doctrine”.
Even if Jews were instrumental in creating this new religion it was a short time when no Jews were part of it. This is according to G-d’s promise. That promise was that those who are faithful will never become extinct. We know that G-d Kept that promise to those who are called Pharisees. They and their descendants have continued throughout this exile and exist today. Those Jews who were part of the Xtian movement are lost to history never to reappear. No doubt this may have been Jsus prediction that those who he was speaking to would be there during his return. He may have thought he was teaching true Torah and G-d would fulfill the promise. Little did he know it wasn’t true Torah and instead those who he had castigated were the ones who Would continue.
If you want to talk about extinction, I would suggest paleontology.
What you call as ‘extinct’ is the fact that Jews who believed in Jesus ( throughout any time in the history) became called Christians, thus not any more counted as Jews in the ortodox environment. Also due to persecution many had to abondon their Jewsih practices and became like gentile Christians. Then completely assimilated into a Christian world, them and their families because times were hard.
If the only true believers were ONLY among the ortodox Jews, the ‘ extinction ‘ should be part of Christian gentiles as well to show God’s judgement upon the same false belief. Why to judge only one group?
There is a story known of a Jewish lawyer -Joseph Rabbinovitch (mid nineteenth century in Kishineff ) who didn’t need any Christian to witness to him in order to understand Jesus is the Messiah.
During a time of intense persecution by Russia he went to the Holy Land, convinced that salvation for the Jews would only come through a return. On his arrival he began reading a New Testament, which he had been assured would give a reliable description of historic locations. As he read, he became convince that Jesus is the Messiah. All of this was accomplished between Rabinovitch and the Holy Spirit, and not by preaching from a Christian.
Somehow he didn’t undergo the process of ‘extinction’ or any judgement.
But if you still want to insist that Messianic Jews is an recent occurrence, then to my information -extinction shouldn’t be followed by any rebirth.
Eric, you just proved Sharbano’s point. God did not preserve the identity of those early Jewish Christians AS JEWS. By converting to Christianity, they lost their Jewish identity. And they completely assimilated “because times were hard”–nice little euphemism!
Thus, they lost their connection to the Jewish people.
And whoever this Jewish lawyer is, if the story is true, he was cut off from his people as well, by virtue of not producing identifiably Jewish descendants. Being cut off from our nation is the punishment in the Bible reserved for the worst sins.
When God promises to preserve a righteous remnant of the Jewish people, we take Him at His word that He will preserve them as recognizably Jewish.
Christians look forward to a time when all the Jews will accept Jesus as their lord and savior. Thus, the nicest Christians, even those most supportive of Jews and Israel, anticipate the extinction of the Jewish people through mass conversion to Christianity.
Because, my dear friend Eric, that is exactly what would happen if all Jews were to convert to Christianity–the eventual end of the Jewish people.
And because God promised that would never happen, it will never happen.
Dina, God’s people don’t stop being God’s people because they believe Jesus is the Messiah, you do the judgement , you cut them off not God.
Converting to Christianity doesn’t mean the end of jewish people for God. God doesn’t want just followers of rituals but trusting Him, and those who trust Him and believe the Messiah is Jesus , they are still God’s people.
Eric, I would like to ask you three questions and I ask that you consider them carefully, as this is a painful subject for Jewish people. It gives us no pleasure to see our brethren disappear through conversion/assimilation; rather it is a cause for grief.
My first question is, what is the point of being God’s people if no one, including God’s people, can identify them as such? (Through your own admission, Jews who convert to Christianity eventually lose their Jewish identity through assimilation.)
My second question is, do Jews continue to be God’s people if they convert to Islam and Buddhism, as many have?
My third question is, since even you recognize that Jews who convert to Christianity lose their Jewish identity, then why do Christians not realize that when they look forward to the conversion of all Jews, they are looking forward to an end of God’s people retaining the ability to self-identify and be identified as Jews?
Eric, excuse me for intervening in between your dialog with Dina, but you are wrongly assuming that Jews are only “followers of rituals” and don’t “trust God”. And most of those “rituals” were given by God as well. Christians also are “followers of rituals” and from my observation over decades are no more “trusting of Him” than many Jews. What I have seen of Jews who converted (most of whom left the Church after a few months & hopefully returned to their former faith as Jews), is that they begin to lose their identity as Jews and become “ordinary Christians”, outwardly and inwardly. I recall one young man/father (who had a Christian wife) had to wear a overly big cross on an arm bracelet to remind himself constantly he was now a follower of Christ (being a “believer” or “follower” of God as a Jew was “not good enough” and presumably he was not really one of “God’s people”, unless he believed in Jesus.). Paul supposedly wrote, that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, do a Jew must necessarily stop being a Jew, which means to stop adhering to a everlasting covenant with God for a “covenant not given to Jews” (since their messiah has not arrived yet, as was promised by God through Isaiah and their other prophets) . Whereas non-Jews can retain a lot of their Greek or Roman or Babylonian or other identity and way of thinking.
Yedidiah, thank you, that is a very important point. Christians have a tremendous contempt for Judaism, and Eric reveals this contempt when he sneers at our following the rituals that God Himself commanded us to observe and when he dismisses our faith and trust in Him.
Eric, if you read the Torah to learn what God wants and not just to find Jesus in there, you will find the theme of obedience to God repeated many times, obedience which is defined as observing God’s commandments. And God does not tell us which commandments we may discard (such as ritual observances) and which we must keep (such as the ethical commandments). The God in the Torah Who commanded us to refrain from eating pork and from working on the Sabbath is the same God in the same Torah who commanded us to love Him and to love your fellow as yourself.
Therefore, I recommend reading Leviticus chapter 19, the whole chapter, carefully. Please realize that Orthodox Jews take this chapter of the Bible very seriously. Please note that the chapter begins with God telling us “Be holy for holy am I, the Lord your God,” and ends with “You shall observe ALL My decrees and ALL My ordinances, and you shall perform them–I am the Lord.”
Also, Eric, since the words of King David are obviously important to you, you might want to read what he thought of God’s commandments. Psalm 119 is a love song to God’s commandments. It’s the longest chapter in the Bible! Here are a few examples:
10: With all my heart I sought you, do not let me stray from Your commandments.
12-13: Blessed are you, O Lord, teach me Your statutes. With my lips I recounted all the ordinances of Your mouth.
20: My soul is shattered with yearning for Your ordinances always.
35: Lead me on the path of Your commandments, for that is my desire.
40: Behold, I yearn for Your precepts…
47: I will be preoccupied with Your commandments that I love.
54: Your statutes were music to me, in my dwelling place.
72: The law of Your mouth is better for me than thousands in gold and silver.
97: O how I love Your law! All day long it is my conversation.
103: How sweet to my palate is Your word, more than honey to my mouth.
115: Depart from me, you evildoers, and I will guard the commandments of my God.
127: THEREFORE I HAVE LOVED YOUR COMMANDMENTS MORE THAN GOLD, EVEN MORE THAN FINE GOLD.
I’m stopping here but I have to restrain myself from putting the whole chapter in this comment. Jews find it so inspiring! Perhaps you will find it so as well.
We love and trust God–contrary to what you believe–and it is a great joy to perform God’s commandments, His precious gift to His people.
My heart breaks for my those among my brothers and sisters who convert to Christianity. They do not know what they are throwing away, more precious than gold, even than fine gold.
Interesting that you Still are avoiding the entire narrative.
That was Exactly my point. Those Jews who became Xtian forsook their roots and as a result became no “different” than Gentiles. Therefore there is no further continuation for their line. THIS is the danger of Xtianity and what it holds for the Jew. No doubt this is the reason G-d had said only those who keep Torah will survive through the centuries. The result is the same for those who would assimilate among the nations, their ancestry disappears.
The reason G-d judges his people more so than Gentiles is because they are his firstborn. As it says in Amos; “Only you did I love above all the families of the earth; therefore, I will visit upon you all your iniquities.”
I realize Xtians relish in finding a Jew who converted to Xtianity and any time it can be brought up they like to show it as some iconoclastic revelation. What we find is most generally that historical account is lacking in evidence. The sources used are primarily from Xtian books that give the account and many of those are literally made up. As with your “Jewish Lawyer” example. Is it because he was a Jewish lawyer that it has merit. Examples such as this and many others by Xtians show how one much reach to the extreme obscure individuals in order to make a case. What source material can you cite that this lawyer was Xtian in the manner you espouse and who are his descendants.
I just did a search for this man and what you wrote is an exact copy of a forum post from 2008. Is THIS how you research your material, whatever a Xtian site posts on a blog.
In regards to your use of the holy spirit accomplishing his conversion, Is this the same holy spirit that guided Stephen in His inaccuracy in his speech concerning the events in Torah.
Hi Eric,
I’m preparing a response to your various comments over the last week, but in the meantime I had to reply to this one. You have shamelessly quoted the Psalms out of context and I must correct you. What you have done is shocking and disgraceful. You would think I would be used to Christians’ abuse of the Hebrew Scriptures by now, but each time it takes my breath away with its sheer brazenness.
I will begin with Psalm 22.
Verse 2: “My God, my God why have you forsaken me?”
Why are these Jesus’s last words? Did he not know this was to be his mission, that God had not forsaken him but had prepared him specially for this?
“Why so far from saving me, from the words of my roar?” Why does Jesus need to be saved?
Verse 3: “O my God! I call out by day, but You answer not; and by night, but there is no respite for me.”
Are you sure you want Jesus to be addressing this to God?
Verse 7: “But I am a worm and not a man, scorn of humanity, despised of people.”
Really? The small group of Jews (supposedly) and Romans who had a hand in Jesus’s death are now all of humanity? Jesus is a worm and not a man?
You mistranslated verse 8, which reads: “All who see me deride me; they open wide with [their] lip, they wag [their] head.”
Wait! Weren’t there people who mourned what was going on, and who cried about it? What’s with the “ALL who see me deride me”? And why is Jesus complaining so much–didn’t he do this willingly?
I don’t know what you did with verse 9, it’s really bizarre. You rendered verse 9 as follows: “saying,.He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.” But that is not what it says at all. First, the word “saying” does not appear. It says, “If one commits himself to Hashem, He will deliver him! He will rescue him, because He desires him!”
Why did Jesus need deliverance?
Verse 15 (I think 14 in your version): “I am poured out like water, and all my bones became disjointed; my heart is like wax, melted within my innards.” You wrote that this is a “description of a person clearly dying death a cross.”
Why is that such a clear description of death by crucifixion? It sounds to me like a clear description of someone who is terrified of some kind of awful, impending doom. It could just as easily describe someone being drawn and quartered or having his throat slit. A “description of a person clearly dying death a cross” would be something like “my body is tied [or nailed] to strips of wood and I can’t breathe because my legs can’t support me.” If David wanted to write a clear description of a crucifixion he had the words at his disposal to do so.
Verse 16: “My strength is dried up like baked clay and my tongue cleaves to my palate”–also a clear description of someone in the throes of terror, someone who is paralyzed by terror, whose mouth is dry with fear.
Verse 17: “For dogs have surrounded me etc.” He’s beset by enemies. Nothing specific to Jesus here.
Verse 19: “They divide my garments among themselves and cast lots for my clothing.” Do you know how many times Jews were stripped down before being killed? The latest example being the Nazis who stripped them down to their gold teeth before sending them into the gas chamber. So this is not specific to Jesus at all.
Next you quoted Psalm 69, only one verse 22. Well, did you bother reading the whole Psalm?
How about verse 2? “Save me, O God, for the waters have reached until the soul!”
Did Jesus die by drowning, now? How are you going to get out of this one?
Verse 3: More drowning imagery.
But wait for it, verse 6: “O God, You know my folly, and MY GUILTY ACTS are not hidden from you. Verse 7: Let those who wait for You NOT BE SHAMED through me etc.”
Are you sure you want sinless Jesus to be saying these words?
Verse 14: “Answer me with the truth of Your salvation.” Jesus needed salvation?
Verses 23-29: David is praying for God to pour His wrath upon his enemies. Do you think he is praying for all these terrible things to happen to his own brethren? Are you kidding?
Verse 30: “Your salvation, O God, shall raise me high.” Again, why would Jesus be praying for salvation?
You wrote, “No -one of these things ever happened to David although he was saying these words in his songs!”
That is a very silly thing to say, being that David composed songs in the name of others, like Psalm 44 which speaks for Israel and whose theological implications you ignore. For example, verse 23: “Because for Your sake we are killed all the time etc.” David wasn’t killed in the line of duty. He died an old man. So what are you saying, Eric?
I wonder what contortions you will put yourself through to explain away the out-of-context quotations and mistranslation. Or perhaps you will admit your error?
Dina, Your comments to Psalms;.
Verse 2: “My God, my God why have you forsaken me?”
you are asking “Why are these his last words?
– Why not? God didn’t forsake him, the same way He didn’t forsake David. But being in an agony seemed as if there was no God . So what is so strange Jesus felt like that before he died?
Verse 7: “But I am a worm and not a man, scorn of humanity, despised of people.
you ” Really? The small group of Jews (supposedly) and Romans who had a hand in Jesus’s death are now all of humanity? Jesus is a worm and not a man?”
Your conclussions here are complete misunderstanding. ” the small group of Jews and Romans …are now all “of humanity? “. The sentence doesn’t even express anything like that! Your comment doesn’t express anything but being upset. It bothers you more how others look like being ) ‘ of humanity’ rather than could Jesus ever feel like that or not. But the right conclusion is not that the gruop of people is out of humanity!
The words ” scorn of humanity ‘ is expressing jesus feelings of being in a state of rejection while he is going through the trial and death.
“All who see me deride me; they open wide with [their] lip, they wag [their] head.
you ; Wait! Weren’t there people who mourned what was going on, and who cried about it? What’s with the “ALL who see me deride me”?
– why do you enforce that these are the morners saying? Read Matthew 27;39, Mk 15;29, Luke 23;35
“Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads 40 and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!” 41 In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. 42 “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” 44 In the same way the rebels who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him.”
you; “And why is Jesus complaining so much–didn’t he do this willingly?”
– he is expressing his feelings and the situation he is in. Giiving your life for others doesn’t mean you won’t feel anything and that your feelings get frozen. Your judgement over the words is simply illogical.
Nothing bizzare about v.9 “If one commits himself to Hashem, He will deliver him! He will rescue him, because He desires him!”
-This is the continuation of words in v 8 . and the answer you have is in an above in Matthew 27;39.
( ..)He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him(…)
Even without having words in psalm ” they said” v.9 expresses what people know, would say, or would think about seeing situation like that where there seems no help but trouble.
you “Why did Jesus need deliverance?”
and also you asked ;
“Why so far from saving me, from the words of my roar?”
Why does Jesus need to be saved?
-Jesus had to endure his suffering, it seemed as if it was no end of his agony.
If you suffered , wouldn’t you want your odreal over? If you went to a burning house to rescue somebody by your own will, would you enjoy being burned because you do it willingly????? Could you silently ignore any injury , burns because you are doing it ‘ WILLINGLY’? You want the ordeal over but you don’t run back , you want to rescue a person you went for.
So Jesus had to endure him ‘being killed as innocent man’ and he wanted that suffering to be over.
to your comment on v 15
Verse 15 “I am poured out like water, and all my bones became disjointed; my heart is like wax, melted within my innards.” You wrote that this is a “description of a person clearly dying death a cross.”
– Can’t you deny a person on the cross would not feel like that? I don’t doub you may feel like that in any other trouble. But that doesn’t mean it was not possible for Jesus to feel that way.
you ; A “description of a person clearly dying death on a cross” would be something like “my body is tied [or nailed] to strips of wood and I can’t breathe because my legs can’t support me.”
– Jesus is not describing himself , he is aware he is nailed to strips of wood ! so he doesn’t need to say that! His words are expression of his feelings and suffering.
Verse 16: “My strength is dried up like baked clay and my tongue cleaves to my palate”–
you ; “also a clear description of someone in the throes of terror, someone who is paralyzed by terror, whose mouth is dry with fear.”
– That means you exclude thirst as it can ONLY BE DUE to terror…? That means jesus could never say that or feel that?
Verse 19: “They divide my garments among themselves and cast lots for my clothing.”
you said ” So this is not specific to Jesus at all.”
– It doesn’t have to but the sentence is not finished; ” and (they) cast lots for my clothing.” And that took place at his death.
you;” How about verse 2? “Save me, O God, for the waters have reached until the soul!”
” Did Jesus die by drowning, now? How are you going to get out of this one?”
– Ask David, was David ever drowning? Second don’t you see the figurative language that is used here? Can the reall waters reach your SOUL? They can reach the top of you head, but not soul.
Besides it is the verse you quoted.
Jesus is not quoting every verse one by one . Ps 22 and 69 were not a fulfilment just for Jesus. These psalms are a PRAYER OF ONE AFFLICTED FOR THE TRUTH .
There are so many things that were expressed in prayer by David – as God’s servant and king -and they found their fulfillment also in what Jesus went through
Jesus ‘prayer was not to addjust his suffering to the words of David, that would be radiculous. If he was to do that he would quote all lines of psalms and say it was all about me. And he would make sure he was in a bit of ‘drowning situation ‘ to fulfill words in v 2 you quoted.
Eric, your lack of self-awareness is troubling. You do not seem to realize that your counter to my argument that you have taken words out of context can in fact be used to bolster my argument.
There are three problems with your response:
One: you take the words of the Psalmist literally when it suits your theology and symbolically when it doesn’t suit your theology.
Two: you cherry pick verses to suit your theology–this is called quoting out of context. In this comment you defended this intellectually dishonest practice.
Three: you assume that if a passage can mean two things, it can only mean what you need it to mean to suit your interpretation.
I will give you examples of all three.
You take the words of the Psalmist literally or symbolically in an inconsistent way, to suit your interpretation. You hold fast to the literal meaning of 22:19 and 69:22 but want to interpret 69:1-3 symbolically (you wrote, “don’t you see the figurative language that is used here?”). Psalm 22 is to you a very clear description of a death by crucifixion, although it is not obvious at all. But Psalm 69 which contains extremely clear imagery of drowning is suddenly symbolic. (By the way, I have no problem with the symbolic interpretation; I’m just arguing for consistency.)
An example of the second problem, cherry picking: You wrote, “Besides it is the verse you quoted. Jesus is not quoting every verse one by one . Ps 22 and 69 were not a fulfilment just for Jesus.” Furthermore, you wrote, “Jesus ‘prayer was not to addjust his suffering to the words of David, that would be radiculous. If he was to do that he would quote all lines of psalms and say it was all about me.”
You are here justifying taking a verse from one Psalm here and a verse from another Psalm there to make it seem like a prophecy about Jesus, ignoring the IMMEDIATE CONTEXT. You wrote, “If he was to do that he would quote all lines of psalms,” as if I were arguing that you have to consider the entire context of the whole Book of Psalms. This is shameful. Context matters, and quoting out of context–OUT OF THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT–is an intellectually dishonest way to try to score points in a debate.
So, Eric, do you defend the Christian practice of quoting out-of-context verses from Tanach to claim prophetic fulfillment by Jesus? Yes or no?
In the third problem, I gave you an alternate way to understand Psalm 22:15 and 16 because you claimed that this is clearly a death by crucifixion. I showed you that it is a description of someone in the throes of terror, afraid for his life, which could end in any number of ways. Your response was ludicrous: “That means you exclude thirst as it can ONLY BE DUE to terror…?” But I never argued that. I simply offered an obvious possibility (one that fits the context well). You claimed that it was clearly a description of crucifixion. It is only clear if you first believe it to be talking about Jesus’s last moments. Do you still stand by that statement, or are you willing to concede that there is an equally valid alternate explanation? Or am I correct in stating, as I did above, “that if a passage can mean two things, it can only mean what you need it to mean to suit your interpretation”?
One last point: you wrote, “Ask David, was David ever drowning?” That was exactly my point, which makes me wonder if you really are as careless a reader as Yedidiah accused you of being. I’ll repost my previous point here:
[Begin quote:] You wrote, “No -one of these things ever happened to David although he was saying these words in his songs!”
That is a very silly thing to say, being that David COMPOSED SONGS IN THE NAME OF OTHERS [added emphasis], like Psalm 44 which speaks for Israel and whose theological implications you ignore [pay attention to these examples, Eric]. For example, verse 23: “Because for Your sake we are killed all the time etc.” David wasn’t killed in the line of duty. He died an old man. So what are you saying, Eric? [End quote.]
I will finish by saying that you did not satisfactorily answer why Jesus needed salvation and ignored my very important point about the guilt of the speaker in Psalm 69.
Wait, I’m not finished yet. You defended Jesus’s last words, all his complaining and supplicating, although he chose his mission willingly because “If you suffered , wouldn’t you want your odreal over? If you went to a burning house to rescue somebody by your own will, would you enjoy being burned because you do it willingly????? Could you silently ignore any injury , burns because you are doing it ‘ WILLINGLY’? You want the ordeal over but you don’t run back , you want to rescue a person you went for.”
Yes, you should expect more courage and a more stoic acceptance of fate from Jesus if he is the literal son of God, at least more than the legions of Jews over the centuries who went to their deaths proclaiming the Shema: “Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One!” (Eyewitness accounts describe the heroism of people burned at the stake at the infamous auto-da-fe during the Spanish Inquisition, for example, or going to the gas chambers reciting the Shema.)
Dina, sorry you didn’t see more courage from Jesus facing the fate contra with all your hero you mentioned. You know there were thousands of Jews praying for deliverance day and night while being in camps. You should include them too in your argument against Jesus lack of courage.
Don’t bother for more comments as I don’t see a point in endless arguments and especially as ridiculous as that last part.
Eric,
I respectfully disagree. I believe these discussions lead to greater clarity and help us in our search for the truth, even if at times it seems like we are going around in circles or pointlessly hashing out the same point over and over again. And it’s okay to get frustrated sometimes. I understand how you feel. It’s the same way I feel when I sense that my opponent is refusing to consider the possibility that he may be wrong.
I’m disappointed that from my lengthy comment (https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/isaiah-53-micah-7-and-isaiah-62/#comment-18200) you chose a side point to get hung up on. I showed you three ways in which you abused Psalms 22 and 69. Do you not have an answer for me? I took the better part of an hour to formulate a response because I thought what you wrote deserved the time and attention.
If you choose not to continue the discussion, that is your choice. But I would be sorry to think that you consider it worthless.
Peace,
Dina
Dina, I am going over your emails today, so I can try to catch up on responding but there are too many many of your questions. I have no time to focus on all of them but I will on some. When I mentioned internet and the history, it is not to say that Internet information is not reliable comparing to books, but that history lessons would posted publicly like ( in google) would rather expose mainly dark side of Jewish history, as if any possitive relationship between Jews and Christians never existed in the past. But then you find out from historical documentation on completly different historical subject that if not some of that possitive ( Jewish -gentile) relationship , no economy would ever flourish so much and no Jews would ever survived if no positive relationship ever existed.
You asked ‘ why the writings of vicious and rabid Jew haters such as John Chrysostom and Martin Luther are studied in Christian seminaries and the authors regarded with reverence, still.”
Definitelly they are not studied to give lessons of hate, I don’t remember ever a lesson about ‘keeping on hating’ because that evil side was found in these people. If their names were mentioned it is to focuse on some possitives, like Luther’s statement that sin’s are not pardoned by money/indulgences etc. If you go through history and find a person who protested against catholic disformation of truth ( like indulgences ) which are not teaching of NT, you can’t overpass the persons name, just because he was evil and say” it was an anonimus who stood up against those indulgences” but you will hear his name if the person is known. That ‘s it. Personally I don’t care of any of these people ideas as their theology was twisted.
And you can’t consider somebody real Christian, that means real believer who hates others. No matter what anybody says, God knows the best. I gave you once that example from the words of jesus; you seem like not seeing them ” Matthew 7;21
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ 23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
Once again;
-you have what matters; doing the will of the Father who is in heaven ( which is God)
– you have examples of those who claimed to be Christians and were doing things in Jesus name, but their works were evil. Is Jesus approving of that and saying ‘great job, my followers?” No, and he says the opposite”I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’
You asked why is Saint Louis still considered a saint? I don’t care about catholic teachings and their doctrines so I don’t consider any of their Saints- saints. Catholic religious leaders added so much stuff to their teachings throughout the history , stuff with no support in the bible.
I can’t believe you really asked such a question?
“If so many Christians were helping Jews, why were they so afraid? There’s safety in numbers, as they say. Furthermore, what happened to create a climate in which it was dangerous to help Jews survive?”
It is not about being afraid but protecting others keeping SILENT. Set’s bring an example from the 2 world war with the climate really dangerous to help Jews. If you were to speak openly that you are hiding other people in your house that the Nazi want to kill, guess what would happen. before you knew Nazi would be at your door to come and search your house to kill or arrest you and your family and kill ALL those you were trying to protect. So do you want somebody to survive, you better keep quiet as you didn’t know who would betray you by hearing what good you are doing. Many times an enemy( Nazis) was coming sneaky undercover asking if you could help somebody to hide. They were trying you out. If you said yes, they would know you are involved in hiding work and they would get the information out of you to find the hiding people in order to kill them. That situation took place with Corrie Teb Boom’s family, where they weren’t to quiet keeping their ‘hiding work’ too secretally. Silence was not only protecting you but others. In Poland, you had to extremally secret with any protection because if Nazi found at least one person hiding in your home the whole village had to pay with their lives and all Jews found killed.
I don’t know any detailed stories from th e earlier centuries but It is very understandable why you would keep any such work far away from public information .
Dina, This is the answer about jesus ‘secret ‘ teaching.
You blame Jesus for being deceitful. You simply don’t understand what he was saying by his words ” I said nothing in secret ‘ and then you are quoting partial conversation and accuse him of ‘ teaching in secret’ because he talked on the side with his disciples.
But whatever Jesus talked about with his disciples on the side , it was NOT in CONTRADICTION to what he taught publically because all the truth about God’s kingdom he taught didn’t differ what he explained his disciples on the side .
What you call ‘ his secret teaching’ was ANSWERING his disciples’ QUESTIONS they asked about meaning of parables and whatever they didn’t understand.
quoting John 18 you should have started with v.19
“Meanwhile, the high priest questioned Jesus about his disciples and his TEACHiNG.”
– so his answer relates to his TEACHING ( TEACHING ABOUT kINGDOM OF GOD, ABOUT SIN, ABOUT GOD’S FORGIVENESS AND ETERNAL LIFE, ABOUT PEUPOSE OF HIS COMING) and you should have quoted the whole answer in v 21. ;
21. Why question me? Ask those who heard me. Surely they know what I said.”
So what was that secret teaching, or saying something in secret? Nothing secret. He said to ask those who heard it and they would tell you what he taught. There would be no contradicting answers. Whatever people would say what they learnt from him about kingdom of God it would go in agreement with what he taught “SURELY THEY KNOW WHAT i SAID’
And there is nothing wrong to answer questions concering teaching if others ask you on a side.
So acording to you if would be a crime if a student came up to me after class and asked questions about German grammar he didn’t understand and I would give him some answers on a side. Then I should have been accused of a secret teaching too! ( more; if I added; I don’t say anything secretly)
……
Mark 4:11-12: “He told them, The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!” ( I am using online translation for being easier)
Is parable to make something hard to understand ? A parable is basically an earthly story with a heavenly meaning. And those who wanted to understand it they did, or if they had questions they asked Jesus later v.10 . Nothing was hidden as a secret to anybody. Those ‘outside’ are those who have no interest in understanding the parable and after they hear it they leave.
Also talking in parables was predicted by David in ps 78;2 ” I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter riddles from from antiquity. That which we have heard and know our fathers told us .” So the same known stories can be told in parables.
Part two of his answer is bringing up what was predicted in Isaiah 6;9 that some people will be hearing God’s message and never understanding so that they could be healed which means forgiven. But does it say why? They simply don’t want to understand.
Is 6;9 He said, “Go and tell this people:
” Surely you hear , but you do not comprehend, and surely you see but you fail to know. This people is fattening its heart , hardening its ears and sealing its eyes, lest it see with its eyes, hear with its ears and understand with its heart , so that it will repent and be healed”
P.S. By the way , it is clear that ‘healing’ is followed by repenting , then healing means to be forgiven.
….
Luke 9:18-21: “Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, Who do the crowds say I am? They replied,
Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life. But what about you? he asked. Who do you say I am? Peter answered, God’s Messiah. Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to anyone.”
Was that a secret message /any secret teaching that he is a messiah to keep it out of everybody? So why does he tell it to a Samaritan lady in John 4 that he is the messiah when she asks him? Jesus explains that he wanted his identity to be reaveled by His Father in Heaven to those who have faith like he said in
Matthew 16; 13-17 answering Peter who recognised him as the Messiah;
v.17″Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.” More blessed thing was it to be believe because God revealed it to you because of your faith , than just hearing from somebody ; “he is the messiah” which would mean nothing to those who still had no faith.
summary;
These were all the reasons why Jesus spoke like he spoke. First of all you had to understand what Jesus meant by saing ‘ I said nothing in secret” It doesn’t mean he never spoke a single word while not teaching publically! It doesn’t mean he was never answering peoples questions when they asked him on a side! it doesn’t mean he never asked anybody a question when he was with his disciples! And all examples you listed and my answers show you that what he meant is ; his teaching on a side didn’t carry an opposite message contradicting the truth he taught public ally.
dina,
Back to pslams . I appoligice for my inclear explanation. I read it and it seemed confusing. When I said that some things are about David some about jesus I mean that although most psalms relate to David he also composed songs in the name of others like you brought up an example ps 44 . Then there are his songs relating to a future king ruling the nations Ps 2 and 110 , 47 and psalm 22 is a whole prophetic psalm relating to Jesus. If David was inspired by God to talk about the future events in his songs , the same way it is not impossible for God to insipre his songs to write about his future Messiah. Read the psalm ten times and the story about cructificion in each gospel you will see corelation of events. You may argue it can relate to any other trouble , that is fine. You argue but we see it would be rather an unusuall coinsidence to have all the events taken place reflecting the suffering Jesus went through described in the gospels; feeling forsaken , scorned, despised by those around you who want your death, people passing by seeing you ‘helpless’ and wagging their heads ,saying or thinking; ” if one commits himself to God, He will deliver him! People opening their mouth agains him, his bones becoming disjoined ( disjoining of bones/ detaching of joints was fact in all crucified people, that is why this type of death was considered very painful and cruel), experience of thirst, his hands and feet ‘attacked’ , counted bones mentioned, people gloating over him, his garments being divided and being casted lots for. Prayer for God’s help and future praise. .
Don’t you know it would be more convenient for a gospel writer to ; make ‘ Jesus recite the psalm , if he wanted to make up the story ? But Jesus is not reciting lines by lines of the psalm 22 because they are just expression of his thoughts and feelings and prayer at his suffering.
I don’t know much about psalm 69 who it relates to but definitelly whoever is spoken about he is not a victim of a literal drowning.
I don’t want to interpret Ps 69:1-3 symbolically. These lines were already writen figuratively to EMPHESIZE the person’s trouble. Haven’t you ever said yourself “I am drowing” if you were overwelmed by lots of things, to do or troubles? It dosen’t mean you really drown but everybody would understand that it means to be overwhelmed! Many times David also said ; he was dip in mud, but that doesn’t mean he was in a sinking sand.
“. The plan INCLUDES’ God’s love and is based on God’s love and shows how much we are worth to God that He gives for us what He was the most precious- His son to die for us no matter what the price. John 3;15″
actually your theology teaches that one has to ACCEPT the violent murder of jesus.
it teaches you christians from mon-sun what god had to do to his son because of your sinful nature which god gave you. there are christians who say they ” punish thier sins on jesus ” what is the sinful repentful sinners WORTH if he doesn’t accept jesus’ temporary weekend ” sacrifice” ?
the REPENTFUL sinner has to SPEAK a word to ALMIGHTY god / have a simple conversation with him THROUGH a weekend bloody crucifixion ? this is the WORTH ? you want a SIMPLE chat to ALMIGHTY God, but he puts you on ignore because you didn’t accept his sons weekend “sacrifice” ? this is ” how much we are worth to god” ?
christianity teaches that god COOLS off because of his sons “sacrifice” if it wasn’t for the weekend ” sacrifice” god would be frying human beings. the REPENTFUL sinner has no worth even if he SINCERELY repented .
“First of all the concept that the speakers are nations and kings is concluded based on the last words of chapter 52. In this chapter the nations are to be surprised and astonished seeing something that has never been told to them and they are to shut their mouths in amazement. Logically saying it has to be after they witnessed the servant exalted, and are possibly disappointed seeing that there was no Jesus in the scene.”
Is it really so difficult to view the astonished as the Nations. You must be oblivious to all that is going on in the world. Just look at the “United Nations” and tell me they would not be utterly astonished when a time comes and Israel is seen as it is destined to.
I still would like to know why you haven’t considered reading the narrative from the Beginning of chapter 52. You should also read the following chapter, (54) which is a continuation of the narrative.
There was once a Xtian who finally took the challenge to read Tanach from beginning to end. He read the entire Tanach using the Koren translation and when he finished he realized the Xtain narrative was full of it. Your failure to take into account the Entire narrative has created perceptions that disappear when context is considered.
Sharbano, You didn’t really address the points I wrote about how the speaker as the nations doesn’t fit in Is 53. It is clear to see that only a Jewish person, whether Isaiah or a nation of Israel qualifies as a speaker of Is 53. That explains that there is a particular servant suffering on behalf of others including Israel.
So even if want to insist that nations will be shocked by Israel’s exaltation in Is 52;13 it would not happen without that particular servant ( Jesus) who is to lift up the tribes of Judah and restore the rest of Israel we read about in Is 49;5-6. And I am sure it will be very surprising to many seeing Jesus coming back and included among the nation as their Messiah.
As far as narrative – the more chapters you read the more you see that there is a particular servant among the nation that is carrying the redemption work, and stands out from the all nation that suffers for their own sins. ( unlike in Is 53)
As I’ve said time and time again, read from the Beginning, starting with Isaiah 52:1. WHO is Isaiah referring to THERE. Quit changing the subject and read and understand. If you cannot grasp the narrative’s beginning how can you understand what follows. Maybe you just don’t Want to understand. What would you be left with if your religion fails. You would be in the same place as You began, not unlike what I wrote regarding Adam. Adam didn’t recognize and admit to G-d his failing and suffered the result. You and Xtians alike are truly following the nature of Adam.
Death is a part of material being, of our creation. We were not created as angels or wholly spiritual beings. We were created on earth, not in heaven. Adam was formed from what had already been created as non-living material. Adam & Eve needed to eat food to sustain their life, or else they faced the possibility of death. A&E were removed from the garden “lest they eat” of the “tree of life” and live forever (or, as long as they ate of it & it was a part of our diet that sustained the “breath of life” that Adam received), which can only mean that they, and we, were not immortal and were not guaranteed immortality in the future.
Next, understand that many of our English words were derived from European, non-Hebrew words that expressed ideas & concepts that may differ somewhat from ideas and concepts held by Hebrew speakers. A person can actually redeem their own self. Forgiveness & redemption can also mean the same thing. In the “Christian Lord’s” prayer, a phrase has been translated as “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors”. That means we can redeem or release another from debt or blame (and in this case you are asking God to do to you what you do to some person). Most Jews would probably agree that national redemption can come only from God. And God can choose to forgive us and bless us, without God employing the tactics or mode of operations of the pagan gods, such as promoting idolatry (by “becoming a man”), or becoming polytheistic (by killing “his son” , who some believe is really himself).
yedidiah, According to you
” A person can actually redeem their own self.”
” In the “Christian Lord’s” prayer, a phrase has been translated as “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors”. That means we can redeem or release another from debt or blame (and in this case you are asking God to do to you what you do to some person).”
But if that was the case of forgiveness/redemption that ‘s supposed to be the same , then what else would keep you from coming into God’s Holy presence without dying? I am bringing an example of a high priest having to offer a sacrifice first for his sins and then for the peoples. Wouldn’t it be easier to just forgive each other and everybody would be clean before God? Yet, there was still something extra that had to be done to ‘cover’ the sins .
It doesn’t matter what people believe whether jesus was God , half- god , or just a human. God doesn’t save us based on correct knowledge but by trusting Him.
What matters is the trusting God that Jesus is His servant and it was God’s plan for our redemption and that he died for our sins.
Your explanation why we die is just because “we are not created as angels” and we have to eat, and if we don’t it is normal we would die like you brought up an example with Eve. But daniel 12;2 tells you that after resurrection people will rise to everlasting life, so I guess food isn’t an obstacle any more , neither the fact that we are not created as angels. An obstacle is our sinful nature.
According to the definition of redemption a person can actually redeem their own self. According to the bible, yes, a person can come into the Holy presence of God without dying. We were commanded to be holy as God was Holy. Yes, it would easier to just forgive each other our trespasses, but that is not the only type of cleanness we might need. If God can consider us as being capable of being holy & righteous (in this life), then that should be sufficient for us, if we have faith in God and can trust God. But many people accept what they have been taught, and that is the worldly assumption that pagan rituals and beliefs are superior to what God has offered through his laws and his OT prophets. They believe that there is “something extra” missing from God’s equation, such as God must be like the pagan gods they knew or long for. Human blood, especially if an “innocent one” is not only acceptable, but it is the highest form of spilt blood (so the many pagan nations were right & the God of Israel was wrong?) in hopes of appeasing the gods and hoping to “‘cover’ up the sins of the people”.
It does indeed matter what people believe about whether jesus was God, half-god, or just a human. Can they truly trust God, if they are willfully ignorant or stubbornly rebellious of the Oneness of God? They may not have much “correct knowledge”, but they may have heard about “10 commandments” and they may have heard about idolatry and they might assume that placing trust in idols (even if they do not know that it also applies to humans and “man-gods”, and not just gold calves) are not the same as trusting God. Many have some idea that many Israelites failed, whether it was only based on lack of knowledge or on lack of trust or on some combination of the 2. Without knowledge, how do they know who a servant is and what “plan” is out there? Trust alone may lead one to accept “sweet talking” con artists, false prophets, false messiahs, or satan.
You seem to see little purpose in life (or of Creation or of a Garden in Genesis 2) or being created in God’s image, other than that it all appears to be an “obstacle” to “everlasting life”. You trust that God has a good plan to get us out of the mess that God got us into to begin with? So, “sinful nature” was the nature necessary for “God’s plan”?
If it were the case that we trust G-d that “his servant”…. then it should be written as such. As so many have said there are LITERALLY COUNTLESS examples where it is just the OPPOSITE, turning to G-d WITHOUT a “servant”. You have completely failed in your pursuit to convince anyone. The Tanach speaks for itself and doesn’t agree with you.
yedidiah
In your long email you listed some individuals who possible might have been the servant in Is 53. All based on carrying the similarities of having gone through suffering in their lives. But if that was all – you might try to ‘fit’ there anybody who ever suffered. That could be anybody on this earth.
But there is more to that than looking for resamblence to suffering picture given in that chapter. There is a purpose given of suffering that clearly is described as BENEFITING and HEALING others. And that excludes all those whom you listed. Did ever suffering of a nation , Jeremiah or Job benefit anybody?
Yes, it did. Unless you believe that Isaiah gave false hope to the hopeless? Or that he was a false prophet or just a dreamer? Was he out of touch with the reality around him? And “silly Jews”, believed the lies and kept his words around and alive, despite the words having no relevance to them? Your problem may be with Isaiah.
Who should be trusted, the original prophet or some unknown authors 4-500 years later, whose stories (sometimes contradicting each other) depend upon a relatively small number of “resemblances” taken out of context from the many other words of that prophet and other. Select words selected from a book (and other words ignored perhaps as ones unhelpful or even detrimental to the story) in order to “put flesh” on a person that otherwise might be simply a two-dimensional “stick figure”; one that failed to impress both Jews and Gentiles/Romans alike “in his own time”). There were many suffered in many nations and they had many “healers” and many who benefitted many. Many of those “suffering healers” had no knowledge of Isaiah or Abraham or Jesus. Many were, are, and will be misled by “great signs and wonders” by those whom some people call the “anti-Christ” and others call “the Christ” or the “whatever or the whoever”.
For Concerned Reader and Eric–
Here is something to think about. Sometimes it is not what scripture says but what it doesnt say.
Ezekiel was a prophet living in exile. What was his concern?
Ezekiel the prophet, was a Cohen, a Priest. Let that sink in for a moment.
That means atonement of his people would have been of utmost concern. And as a priest, specifically as a priest in exile, if blood sacrifices on the altar were no longer possible as the sole means of forgiveness, it would have been an intolerable situation for Ezekiel. Ezekiel lived during the Babylonian Exile. They had No Temple. They had No ability to offer sacrifice. So what did Ezekiel write about? What was his main concern?
Ezekiel mentions blood in various contexts, 46 times, second only to Leviticus (72). Sometimes with respect to idolatry, murder and then, the restored offerings in the 3rd temple.
Ezekiel NOT ONCE…mentions the lack of blood sacrifice as a problem for “personal salvation”. There is not one lament of a now doomed people, lost and condemned without a blood sacrifice.
Ezekiel IS very concerned about the departure of G-d’s Shekinah from the temple, the destruction of Jerusalem, idolatry, corruption, the lack of Torah observance, lack of Justice, Mercy and such….This a HUGE concern of Ezekiel’s.
Ezekiel writes about a restored Temple, Priesthood, Sacrificial system and the Jewish people being redeemed for the sake of G-ds name and the return of the Divine Presence to Jerusalem and the Temple….This is a huge concern of Ezekiel’s.
But he NEVER talks about and has ZERO concern regarding blood sacrifice as something missing or being restored for us. It is about Hashem. A departing and returning Shekinah of Hashem.
He talks of a Jewish people wicked and corrupt…exiled
He talks of a geluah, a redeemed Jewish people, who now are observant and obey G-ds laws, statutes and ordinances. Why? why would the Jewish people be shown successfully obeying the law?
Finally, Ezekiel the priest, writes nothing about “blood sacrifices only for forgiveness sin”…. being lost…. and then restored. Nor did he write about a messiah to come and be this once-for-all korbanot, sacrifice. Nor does Jeremiah, Isaiah, Daniel or Esther, who all lived in exile, write such a thing. Nor does Jeremiah in Lamentations mention a loss of personal salvation through the loss of blood atonement. Ezekiel as a Cohen, surely should have said as much and that should have been Ezekiels main concern but it wasnt.
“But was his suffering just beatings ? What about being ridiculed, put down, despised, being laughed off, criticised, accused of healing others with demon’s power,
, being hunted as a criminal, hated for healings and popularity, being chased to be put to death, finally being killed as a criminal? I guess that’s just not enough for one person.”
“Mark 15;14 “But they shouted all the more, “Crucify Him!” Wishing to satisfy the CROWD, Pilate released Barabbas for them, and after having
Jesus scourged, he handed Him over to be crucified.”
*************************************************************************************************************
26As the soldiers led him away, they seized Simon from Cyrene, who was on his way in from the country, and put the cross on him and made him carry it behind Jesus. 27A large number of people followed him, including women who mourned and wailed for him.”
jesus still got a fan base
“a large number of people followed….”
“He was despised and rejected by others;
a man of suffering[a] and acquainted with infirmity;
and as one from whom others hide their faces[b]
he was despised, and we held him of no account.”
can you believe it ?the “suffering servant” still has WOMEN mourning for him.
do christian apologists have any respect for the bible?
“yet we accounted him stricken,
struck down by God, and afflicted.”
mourning
the expression of sorrow for someone’s death.
wail
make a prolonged high-pitched sound.
“Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children.”
when jesus was trying to self fulfill prophecy, shouldn’t he have asked the women to start cursing him?
“yet we accounted him stricken,
struck down by God, and afflicted.”
rambo 2016, I am sorry to say but reading what you wrote makes little sense. What is your argument here about and what it is going to prove? The fact that there were still some people who were sorry for Jesus while he was led to be killed is something to prove your point? What point?
How many gentiles gave their lives for Jews during the world war 2? How many whole families were killed because they were hiding Jews and were aware of danger and still were helping?
I guess you didn’t hear much history in that matter.
So what is fulfilled prophecy in your eyes about? No support for the suffering servant, no mourning, no help , no compassion ever expressed by anybody? That is what you pointed to in your comment is that Jesus should be eliminated from suffering servant because he had people who cried over him being led to death.
It is really hard to comment what you wrote.
Your words ” when jesus was trying to self fulfill prophecy, shouldn’t he have asked the women to start cursing him? ”
Ask yourself the same question Mr Suffering. If somebody had compassion over you, would you deliberately ask for being cursed to fulfill the prophecy? So why are you writing that about Jesus? You are completely missing a point.
“No support for the suffering servant, no mourning, no help , no compassion ever expressed by anybody?”
QUOTE :
he had no form or majesty that we should look at him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
He was despised and rejected by others;
a man of suffering[a] and acquainted with infirmity;
and as one from whom others hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him of no account.
yet we accounted him stricken,
struck down by God, and afflicted
He was oppressed, and he was afflicted,
For he was cut off from the land of the living,
so you people are assuming that the “he” is referring to one person
i quote thom stark:
remember that the speaker in Isa 53:1-10 is the nations and kings, the ones who taunted Israel, the ones who afflicted Israel, the ones who saw nothing of value in Israel that they should step in to save them. It is for these sins that Israel’s suffering atones. Israel’s suffering and subsequent exaltation effects the very purposes of Yahweh: to make the nations take notice so that they will recognize Yahweh’s power and come to worship him. Israel’s suffering and exaltation makes Israel a light to the Gentiles. This is a pervasive theme throughout Second Isaiah, and is shown in a number of ways
http://religionatthemargins.com/2012/06/it-is-finished-for-richard-carriers-dying-messiah-part-2/
i will use stark’s explanation to make a point .
if we assume that the “he” refers to your jesus, then the woman did not taunt , afflict… jesus.
so jesus’ suffering could not be an atonement for them, right?
rambo2016, you didn’t really answer my question regarding what about those who helped Jews throughout the history? I hope you don’t deny Jews also had their supporters? So I don’t know what your quoting of most Isaiah was pointing too? Is 53 doesn’t mention of people who were supporting the servant, but still the servant had his supporters whether we consider jesus or Israel. Although mentioned as despised , doesn’t mean everybody despised him. If you are not familiar with that part of the history I recommend reading “Hiding place ‘ by Corrie ten Boom, true story of those who loved Jewish people and were helping.
I don’t really understand the last words in your message so I can’t answer them.
To what you wrote about Israel’s suffering atoning for others is like saying you had to oppressed in order to save the oppressor. So who is supposed to benefit from your suffering? You say the world. but the world are people so which people??? Those who caused you to suffer or those who didn’t? The nation doesn’t have to be abused to make the world better. And abusers are responsible for their own crimes, if they don’t repent , your suffering won’t help them. Isn’t this clear to you? It is the REPENTANCE that changes people.
The servant in Is 53 is not even paying for his own mistakes as he is blameless; no sin came out of his mouth, no evil action . Only an innocent can atone for others. How? By replacement of guilt.
People come to God and repent when they hear God forgave them in Jesus who willingly took our guilt upon himself. Then they say ; thank you Father for Jesus who paid my price. But they don’t come to God and say; thank you God for Jewish people suffering, now I am forgiven.
Jewish people suffered for their own mistakes. And an abuser of Jews can’t benefit from his own abuse. Do you understand that?
“The servant in Is 53 is not even paying for his own mistakes as he is blameless; no sin came out of his mouth, no evil action .”
where does it say he is “blameless” ? did you make that bs up?
“People come to God and repent when they hear God forgave them in Jesus who willingly took our guilt upon himself.”
what does this mean? you sin Monday-Friday thinking that your “innocent” jesus took on “guilt” just for the WEEKEND? there are people who lost thier eyes for ALL thier lives, what is great about taking on guilt just for the weekend ? what good is your jesus’ role play on a cross when the REAL guilty person MUST acknowledge his guilt? jesus can “take on” guilt upon himself 1 million times but it is USELESS. the one who is GUILTY knows his guilt better than “sinless” jesus..
guilt:
[gilt]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
the fact or state of having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, especially against moral or penal law; culpability:
He admitted his guilt.
2.
a feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime, wrong, etc., whether real or imagined.
3.
conduct involving the commission of such crimes, wrongs, etc.:
to live a life of guilt.
the one who acknowledges his GUILT must know his responsibility and remorse better than jesus’ weekend role play on the cross.
Actually, that’s a valid point. How many continue to speak of the guilt they had for all the wrongs that were done.
One point that never seems to be highlighted by Xtians is, if a person would steal from someone or other wrongs similarly and that person comes to Jsus apparently he doesn’t have to repay those wrongs. I’m sure there are better examples but, in essence, the come to Jsus moments absolves the individual from all responsibility for his actions. Certainly this would make the mind feel comfortable in his new found abdication of responsibility.
there is something very odd with christian beliefs
god can’t forgive people even though the christian acknowledges people are capable of having remorse . nobody needs jesus to have feeling of responsibility and remorse.
jesus can “take on” guilt upon himself 1 million times but it is USELESS. the one who is GUILTY knows his guilt better than “sinless” jesus.
god can’t forgive and has to violently punish jesus who took guilt on himself
why do you have to have remorse for a person/god who is allowing you to punish him? if guilt is to commit a crime, then jesus is willingly allowing one to do the crime on him.
not only is one doing crime on jesus from mon-sun but is having his crimes punished on jesus. what is going on here?
rambo2016,
You said that nobody needs jesus to have feeling of responsibility and remorse.
The point is not to feel remorse with or without Jesus but the point is redemption. God always offered His forgiveness but through Jesus God brought us redemption.
Not the type of redemption of one nation exalted but redemption available for all mankind.
The benefits of redemption are eternal life, forgiveness of sin, deliverance from sin bondage, peace with God ,being justified ,reconciled thus getting all God’s blessings.
It doesn’t mean you go sin M- Fr because somebody paid for you. You choose your master you want to serve; God or your sin. You will still fail even while serving God. That’s why jesus paid for your mistakes.
You said ” god can’t forgive and has to violently punish jesus who took guilt on himself”
Who said God can’t forgive? Of course God can forgive but He is also just. Adam was forgiven too but still by the disobedience he suffered consequences of sin which was death.
Also God didn’t desire anybody’s violence. He just knew how Jesus would be treated and killed. So He prophesied it in the book of Isaiah.
God allowed Jesus to suffer for a certain reason;
Jesus dying for us means he took our death penalty we deserved for our sin. Yes, we still die but not forever for those who follow God. Jesus paid for the final consequences of our sin that would result in our everlasting death. ( Death in genesis wasn’t to be temporary)
You would ask how could the death of one man pay the penalty for millions? The same way like by one person’s disobedience death came to world ( Adam) the same way by ones person complete obedience are people released from the death penalty. ( everlasting death)
You asked something like that “why do you have to have remorse for a person ( you meant Jesus) who is allowing you to punish him?
First of all why would you punish an innocent person( kill him) out of your own desire?? Jesus didn’t come to people and asked for being killed ,either .
He submitted himself to their judgement and he could have been released as an innocent or a punished as a guilty one. The decision was up to them. But they chose to release a criminal free and let Jesus die. He dies as a guilty one for us.
“You would ask how could the death of one man pay the penalty for millions? ”
no, i would ask , if death = “forever”
how does a temporary weekend death and then immediate reward of life imply penalty has been paid?
if a god can quickly give his son death and then life, why is he unable to do it with the rest of creation? why can’t he give everyone weekend death?
justice really demands weekend death.
where was it written that god’s justice means weekend death for his son and eternal death for sinners?
justice is NOT really demanding eternal death if his son is getting weekend death, is it?
“You will still fail even while serving God. ”
who CREATED man?
“the decision was up to them”
what? if jesus WANTED to get caught (did he want to get caught?) then he made his own decision for his suicide mission, right? and if he was RELEASED , jesus would have taken his life some other way, right? wasn’t jesus postmortem signed even before jesus was born?
before you said, “takes our guilt” and now “dies as a guilty one” do you want to make up your mind ?
“First of all why would you punish an innocent person( kill him) ”
well because you said “he willingly took our guilt…” thats an invitation to punish him like the romans did.
“God allowed Jesus to suffer for a certain reason;
Jesus dying for us means he took our death penalty we deserved for our sin. ”
but if one is “born in sin” then god CREATED you in “born in sin” nature which no human baby chose for itself. if you are in hell hole of sin who gave you that sinful nature?
and
“You will still fail even while serving God. That’s why jesus paid for your mistakes. ”
which mistakes are you talking about?
why don’t you list your mistakes and tell us how you feel about someone dying for the weekend?
“He submitted himself to their judgement and he could have been released as an innocent or a punished as a guilty one. The decision was up to them. But they chose to release a criminal free and let Jesus die.”
i seriously don’t get you people
you worship a god who needs to get appeased by violent murder and then you say ” it was UP to them” what?
you need someone to DIE brutally for your sins and you say “it was up to them” ?
actually your jesus made the decision
“Am I not to drink the cup that the Father has given me?”
tell me which sane person, other than jesus, seek out one of the most brutal and agonizing forms of execution in history?
some people do have a love for abusing themselves through other people.
your theology requires the murder of a “son of god” otherwise “just” god cannot be APPEASED.
The “salvation plan” given by God by His grace through his prophets in the OT or Tanach, is more universal, more just, more merciful, more easily obtained, less confusing or contradictory, than that given by the man Jesus. Beware of the false prophet(s) who have & will mis-lead many.
The “salvation” of Jesus is “for the few” & is very narrow, limited, & often mis-leading, as we see in Matthew 7:14 “…narrow is the gate and constricted the road that leads to life, and those who find them are few.” And further down, in Matthew 7:21-23, “Not everyone who says to me, “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of Heaven….many will say to me, “Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, drive out demons in your name, and in your name perform many miracles?” Then I will tell them plainly, “I never knew you. Out of my sight; your deeds are evil!” We are further promised that in the “end times”, MANY people, seekers of a messiah will be deceived. That is because many pervert the words of the prophets. The “anti-messiah” (as even the NT attests), came into the world (about 2000 years ago) and is still quite active today. As someone mentioned “they work really hard at making a point”. Looking for their “messiah” in all the wrong places (or rather, in a very few places where he was not mentioned & not known or even suspected, by the prophets).
sarbano
your question “If this Jsus is suppose to be So very important in G-d’s plan why isn’t there even One clear evidence of him.”
Me; christians are aware of jewish history and won’t apply Is 53 to Israel. If you read carefully all Isaiah chapters to 1- 53 and other prophets you will see a big contrast between particular servant and the reason he suffers unlike the rest of the people. But if you don’t see it you think there is no clear evidence of him.
There is not even a singe event in the whole OT that God would punish the nation for gentiles’ mistakes.
The idea or interpretation of gentiles abusing Jewish people in order to benefit from it later- is simply unreasonable.
OT books clearly say that if there is suffering caused by gentiles it is not to the gentiles benefit but because of God’s judgement due to israel’s sin.
Israel is portrayed as the one who doesn’t listen
while the particular servant is the one who listens ( Is 50).
The particular servant is without deceit on his mouth unlike the entire people ” O House of Jacob(…) who swear by the name of Hashem (..) but not in truth and not in righteousness. Is 48.
There are two different portraits of servant’s character. Going further;
(Based on Is 53 )The particular servant justifies many by his suffering, CARRIES THEIR INIQUITIES ( NOTHING MENTIONED ABOUT HIS OWN!!) and THEN because of that he is exalted; ” THEREFORE I WILL ASSIGN HIM FROM THE MULTITUDES(…)
There is no explanation in Jewish community how the servant carries gentiles iniquities. They interpret it as being abused by mean world. But carrying somebodys crimes deosn’t mean you are just a victim of abuse. It means you are making yourself guilty in the place of others who were guilty, you pay for them.
The Jewish idea is the world will benefit in the future by them being the light to others. There will be benefit in the future to have a godly nation led by their Messiah
( Christians don’t deny Israel’s exaltation) , but suffering here is no contribution. Actually the world would already benefit even more if Israel was the light to the world from the begining ( without suffering).
As far as benefiting the world whether in the future , past or now, – if you have people who didn’t repent and won’t do it, nobody’s martyr would save them, no exalted nation saves them, either.
To answer your questions in the other message ( I didn’t avoid that subject, there are just too many details to discuss at once)
That Jewish scenario of how the world will benefit in the future leaves all 6000+ years of mankind left out, I mean all who died by the time Israel is leading as the light to the world. Those who never repented are not resurrected and they don’t benefit by neither Jesus suffering nor israel. Isn’t this clear too you?
And how people benefit from Jesus relates to all mankind from the first Adam till the last person. He paid for redemption of all people so all God’s blessings are possible for those all who repented or will ever repent.
God talks about redeemed and righteous ones as those who are ” bought out” by the Lord from all their iniquities. ( Is 51;11, Psalm 130:8 )
That doesn’t relate only to Israel but all people who want to serve God.
My mentioning of an example of Corrie ten Boom was to point to the fact that suffering servant ( if you mean Israel) experiences support . And her example is one of thousands. That was to show to rambo that arguments of jesus having support , doesn’t exclude him from the picture.
…..
Your understanding of guilt , doing wrongs and coming to Jesus is incorrect.
You said;
“One point that never seems to be highlighted by Xtians is,
if a person would steal from someone or other wrongs similarly and that person comes to Jsus apparently he doesn’t have to repay those wrongs.”
I don’t know where did you get that conclusion from? Coming to Jesus means coming to serve God , not enjoying life in sin because death is paid off.!
Here is a good example what happens when such a person comes to Jesus. He repents, he gets understanding of wrongs and sets the matters right with God and people. That is what he is expected to do.
Zacchaeus the Tax Collector (Luke 19-1-10)
19 Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through. 2 A man was there by the name of Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was wealthy. 3 He wanted to see who Jesus was, but because he was short he could not see over the crowd. 4 So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore-fig tree to see him, since Jesus was coming that way.
5 When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” 6 So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.
7 All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a sinner.”
8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”
9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”
If you look at the narrative Tanach you would be able to realize why Isaiah doesn’t make mention of people like Corrie ten Boom. Much of Tanach deals with the failings of Israel. Very little is written of the righteous of Israel. It is the same with Isaiah. He is making a point, which, by the way, you wish to ignore. Furthermore, it says Israel has suffered double for her sins. Who was the vehicle for that suffering. Once again, why not read the entire narrative.
“Who said God can’t forgive? Of course God can forgive but He is also just. Adam was forgiven too but still by the disobedience he suffered consequences of sin which was death.”
1. are you celebrating your jesus’ temporary violent punishment and death for the weekend and then immediate reward of life today?
“who said god can’t forgive”
verb (used with object), forgave, forgiven, forgiving.
1.
to grant pardon for or remission of (an offense, debt, etc.); absolve.
2.
to give up all claim on account of; remit (a debt, obligation, etc.).
3.
to grant pardon to (a person).
4.
to cease to feel resentment against:
to forgive one’s enemies.
5.
to cancel an indebtedness or liability of:
to forgive the interest owed on a loan.
you said, “of course god can FORGIVE…” SO what you are saying is that god CAN forgive without the need of VIOLENT crucifixion, right?
“Adam was forgiven too but still by the disobedience he suffered consequences of sin which was death.”
so where was the forgiveness if consequences had to be PAID? you just DESTROYED the definition of the word ” forgive”
rambo2016 I have no time to respond to all your words but this
“so where was the forgiveness if consequences had to be PAID? you just DESTROYED the definition of the word ” forgive””
So ask yourself a simple question;
– was Adam and Eve forgiven? Yes.
– Did they still suffer consequences of their sin? , Yes.
weren’t they kicked off the Eden? Yes, did they ever die ? Yes.
– The answer is yes to everything.
Did David suffer any consequences of his sin? Yes. Did God forgave him? Yes, but he still suffered the consequences.
Such examples you can collect multiple throughout the whole bible.
“Who said God can’t forgive? Of course God can forgive but He is also just. Adam was forgiven too but still by the disobedience he suffered consequences of sin which was death.”
after adam eat from an easy to reach tree which god had made, adam was allowed to go and have children which were “born in sin”
so what was “just” god doing when he allowed adam to go off and have children?
and since adam was forgiven and at the same time NOT forgiven because he had to pay the PENALTY , does that mean adam ATONED for his own sins without jesus?
rambo 2016,
Penalty for sin which is death wasn’t an immediate death, but the fact of not being allowed to live forever . Adam didn’t die immediately as you see in Genesis.
rambo2016, before i answer your other questions, I have to ask this question;
Why does everybody die although God can forgive?
Hi Eric,
I have a question for you. You wrote that God forgives, but we still have to pay the penalty for sin, which is death. And that means eternal death, so Jesus’s sacrifice ensures eternal life for all those who accept him.
So what happens to those who never heard of him, like Adam and David, to use your examples? How did they attain eternal life, and why was what worked for them not good enough for us?
Dina, you asked about what I said ; ” … God forgives, but we still have to pay the penalty for sin, which is death. And that means eternal death, so Jesus’s sacrifice ensures eternal life for all those who accept him.”
I will finish; for those who repented and trust God. Jesus’ death is a covering for sins FOR THOSE who REPENTED and CAME to GOD.
If you believe that death was God’s plan from the begining then you won’t understand why we believe this is the consequence of sin. Gen 3 ( read the whole chapter) If Adam was predestined to die one day anyways, God would not tell him that he will die after he sins. Also Gen 3;22-23. His everlasting life is taken away after Adam sinned.
To contrast to all of us who die, Jesus’s resurrection showed that there is no power of death over the one whom God considers innocent and that grave won’t hold him forever but he rises back to life. But death has power over us and we don’t rise back to life right after ( 3 days , less or more), like Jesus because we carry the same consequences of our sin like Adam and we are not innocent. God might give us 100 years of life but we will still die.
So if God proved to us innocence of His servant by raising him back to life we believe He says the truth. Nobody would just die for a made up idea and then be risen by God back to life ( after a lie).
It also makes all sense why those who are resurrected one day ( according to Dan 12;2) , are promised eternal life . Who will be those people? Those completly justified, whose sins are covered.
It all also makes sense why the resurrection of the dead is to happen at the Messiah’s coming.
To answer your other question;
“So what happens to those who never heard of him, like Adam and David, to use your examples? How did they attain eternal life, and why was what worked for them not good enough for us?”
If they trusted God and listened to thoses whom God gave to listen to – that is what matters beforfe God. They are justified because they trusted God.
I gave you once an example with Moses.
If you lived at Moses times and rejected his leadership, you would not make it to the promised land but stayed as a slave in Egypt. At Moses times you might have asked the same question. What about Adam who never heard of Moses and conclude that you can do without Moses this time also.
So when you ask about Adam or David who never heard Jesus words, this is the same situation. Every period of time had their leaders that God appointed to listen to. When God sent Jesus to share His plan of redemption- his words are as God’s words for us. Nobody was expected to listen to Jesus before he was born but God promised that God would sent a redeamer and those who lived before trusted God about that. They didn’t have to know details what God will do and how. They knew God would take care of what He promised, now we have it all revealed and are not rejecting it.
Eric, I’m responding to this comment of yours:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/isaiah-53-micah-7-and-isaiah-62/#comment-17930
You did not answer my question. If believing and trusting in God was good enough for those people who lived before Jesus, what changed? If David could get right with God without Jesus, why can’t you? If the way to eternal life is only through Jesus, why was David able to attain it–and if he can attain it, why can’t you?
shouldn’t you know the answer to this question? don’t christian apologists say that the soul part didn’t die but the flesh part did? does judaism say death is a DISASTER? no one really perceives what happens to the soul during the time of death. we don’t really know what happens. people die peaceful deaths, but no one knows the situation of the soul whether it is a peaceful or horrible exit.
rambo2016, “of course god can FORGIVE…” SO what you are saying is that god CAN forgive without the need of VIOLENT crucifixion, right?
Right! Crucifixion and Jesus’ death isn’t about forgiveness but REDEMPTION . But first answer my question why everybody dies.
nobody on this planet needs jesus for deliverance from sin. i am sure god is kind enough to create that ability in human beings but maybe he didn’t create it for original sin stained christians?
rambo, you said ” nobody on this planet needs jesus for deliverance from sin.
This is for us like saying ;nobody on this planet needs God for deliverance from sin, ” as Jesus is God’s plan for the deliverance, on him( Jesus) were our sins condemned.
I’ll just say this. We do NOT need this Jsus to be close to G-d and never have.
Sharbano, I say it simple too; then don’t!
We have no reason to give up Jesus.
rambo, you said ” nobody on this planet needs jesus for deliverance from sin.
This is for us like saying ;nobody on this planet needs God for deliverance from sin, ” as Jesus is God’s plan for the deliverance, on him( Jesus) were our sins condemned.
1. are you telling me that a god who has been giving LIFE AND death for millions of years really needs ” sacrificie” of his son before he could give LIFE again?
2. is god’s fairness , love, forgiveness closer to him or is jesus’ FINITE ” sacrifice” closer to him? are god’s INFINITE attributes closer to him or some human flesh “sacrifice” ?
if his attributes are , then he is powerful enough to give forgiveness and resurrection to the REPENTANT sinner without the need of jesus. god can “deliver” through his own powers, jesus’ is not required at all.
Eric, I am responding here to your note to Rambo about all the Christians who loved and supported Jews throughout history.
Since the beginning of Christianity, Christian writers have been writing about Christianity. And Jews. There are about 1.5 THOUSAND writings against Jews by Christian authors (see Holy Hatred by Robert Michael and Christian Antisemitism by William Nicholls). Some of these authors have been greatly revered throughout the centuries for their holiness, like Tertullian, John Chrysostom, Martin Luther, and John Calvin.
I challenge you to find me ONE Christian writer before the eighteenth century who wrote that real Christians love Jews and that it is wrong to write these nasty lies about Jews.
Thank you,
Dina
Eric, if I may ask you some pointed questions about your notions of blood atonement and Jesus’ death, your responses may prove fruitful to discussion.
1. If Jesus had died at 12 and not at 33, would his death still have served as an atonment for all Sin?
2. If Jesus’ steadfast obedience (in contrast to Adam’s disobedience,) is what marked Jesus as the Second Adam, doesn’t it stand to reason that G-d desires steadfast obedience and perseverance to the end in his commands on behalf of a follower more than a covering of blood?
Consider the Passover blood on the lintels.
Take a bunch of hyssop, dip it into the blood in the basin and put some of the blood on the top and on both sides of the doorframe. NONE OF YOU SHALL GO OUT THE DOOR of your house until morning. The important bit here is that it is the command DO NOT GO OUT that is more important than blood on the doors.
There is actually a prevalent theme involving blood that is not apparent to most people when reading the Exodus story. The lamb’s blood wasn’t the only blood present in Exodus. The Nile also bled. This is important because both the Nile and the Lamb were symbols of divinity involving the water in Egyptian culture. G-d’s striking distance of the Nile, and the killing of the lamb was a direct Stab at Egyptian religion, and a symbol of Jewish solidarity, not an atonement.
The Egyptian god Khnum was regarded as the source of the Nile’s flow. He was a god associated with the Ram, in fact, he has a Ram’s head.
This explains why Moses has the following exchange with the Pharaoh: Then Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and said, “Go, sacrifice to your God here in the land.” 26 But Moses said, “That would not be right. The sacrifices we offer the LORD our God would be detestable to the Egyptians. And if we offer sacrifices that are detestable in their eyes, will they not stone us?
The Egyptians would be offended at their offerings, and Stone Moses because they worshipped the animal on order for the offering.
Concerned Reader,
“If Jesus had died at 12 and not at 33, would his death still have served as an atonement for all Sin?”
I am sure God would preserve his servant to the right time to fulfill His will. I am not God to know what would happen if any other circumstances accrued to an event. It is certain God would take care of every event to take place in it’s right time. There were many times Jesus might have been killed, but God saved him to the age He chose.
As far as the Passover;
I will just ask you the question. Would you still survive even with NOT going out that night while DISOBEYING some of God’s command and NOT applying the blood on your door? I am sure you wouldn’t . It was both to do EVERY thing God said on that day. Not one thing was more important than the other.
Wouldn’t God make it easier and just tell people to stay home? We also read; wherever blood was not applied , the death angel didn’t spare the firstborn. We don’t read; whoever was out, then he died.
God clearly said the other time ; the atonement is in the blood ( symbol of lost life) . I wouldn’t mix it all up with the examples you wrote about Moses and Nile. That had nothing to do with atonement.
It is not about blood that God desires it or so. It is not about applying blood whenever you sin. It is about understanding that sin brings death and Jesus’ loss of life for us ( his blood) is replacement for our guilt. I am sure you know what Christians understand, so I don’t have to bore you you long explanations.
I will try to read about other of your questions some other time. Going back to work.
The atonment of the “Passover lamb” is perseverance in hardship, and the repudiation of idolatry, not a desire for blood on G-d’s part. Perseverance and repentance is also the point of Miriam’s well referenced by Paul, ie (the rock that followed the Israelites.)
Concerned reader , finishing your email; you said ” If Jesus’ steadfast obedience (in contrast to Adam’s disobedience,) is what marked Jesus as the Second Adam,
doesn’t it stand to reason that G-d desires steadfast obedience and perseverance to the end in his commands on behalf of a follower more than a covering of blood?
What makes Jesus ‘second Adam ‘ is his obedience to God , unlike first Adam with disobedience. Jesus obedience to God included to be submitted to the peoples judgement and they chose to kill him. His obedience to God was to submit himself to suffering as an innocent for the guilty ones( us). So you have blood, which became our covering . Of course God desires our steadfast obedience but we fail anyways. If we could be able just to be so perfect, than Jesus would not have to die as a guilty one for us.
You said that the atonement of the “Passover lamb” is perseverance in hardship.
If that is what’s all to you, then you are missing some other facts “The blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you live; and WHEN I SEE the blood I will pass over you and no plague will befall you to destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt.”
And v.23
“For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when He sees the blood on the lintel and on the two doorposts, the LORD will PASS OVER the door and WILL NOT ALLOW the destroyer to come in to your houses to smite you.”
And v.28
“And when your children ask you, ‘What does this ceremony mean to you?’ 27 then tell them, ‘It is the Passover sacrifice to the Lord, who passed over the houses of the Israelites in Egypt and SPARED OUR HOMES when he struck down the Egyptians.’
Christians (probably because of certain verses in the NT) often make God small (as if he were a man). Some believed Jews virtually or practically “went extinct” a long, long time ago & no type of Israel would arise, except the Church (which replaced the old Israel) and the new Israel Jesus would bring about. Those long held beliefs has gone through a little remodeling, since the Jews just won’t go away.
“Atonement” and salvation can only come though “blood”, even though even Jesus gave a parable about a “dead Son” repenting without blood & the “Father saw” him from a distance & “RAN to the Son”. The many, plain words (chapter after chapter) of the prophets about a suffering Israel being called “God’s servant” can’t be taken literally, just can’t be accepted. The Rabbis just can’t be right about their Messiah. That would be like leading a camel through the eye of a needle. O, ye of little faith, remember what your teacher said about you being able to “throw a mountain into the sea”, if you had just a very small amount of faith (not that throwing a mountain would be any sort of “godly thing” to do or want to do”). Or, like a prodigal son you are not ready to “return” because of pride? Perhaps your faith is in the wrong God? You worship a “son” and not “your Father in Heaven”?
Hi Eric,
I’m back, and it’s time for me to start responding to your comments. But before I do so, I must bring to your attention two questions I asked that you did not respond to. I am assuming you did not see those comments, so here are the questions again.
You asserted that in ancient times, the Jewish people had always seen the subject of Isaiah 53 as the Messiah. Rashi was the first commentator to propose that the subject of Isaiah 53 is Israel. In my comment to you, I told you that was a lie–not that you personally are lying but you are repeating what you read without checking the sources.
More than 700 years before Rashi was born, Origen mentioned in his famous Contra Celsus the traditional Jewish interpretation: “Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations.”
The Talmud, the redaction of which began about 800 years before Rashi’s birth, contains this interpretation as well (Midrash Rabbah Numbers 13:2, Babylonian Talmud Brachot 5a).
Eric, are you willing to retract your assertion and admit your error? Please realize the awful implications of this mendacious charge. According to this charge, until Rashi, the Jews viewed the subject of Isaiah 53 as the Messiah. In response to Christian apologetics, Rashi changed the traditional interpretation–willfully and knowingly perpetrating a false interpretation in order not to have to face the “truth.” The Jews really do know the truth, but they are stubborn and hard-hearted and committed to the lie. I don’t think you believe this, but you cannot escape the implications of this charge.
Do you see how despicable is this charge that you have repeated?
My second question regards your stating at least twice that the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 that the nation of Israel suffers for the sins of the nations of the world is unsupported anywhere else in Tanach.
You misunderstand the Jewish interpretation, as I have shown you. You seem unable to shake off the Christological meaning in order to really understand, even while disagreeing, what we believe. I will leave that subject for another time.
I want to pick on your argument that because this is unsupported anywhere else in Tanach, it’s a ridiculous assertion. I pointed out to you that I can easily use your own argument against you. Nowhere in Tanach, nowhere at all, is it taught that one must believe in the Messiah, whose purpose was to suffer and die to conquer sin and death for all mankind, in order to earn eternal salvation. The only place in Tanach that you find is Isaiah 53 IF you accept the Christian interpretation. In other words, the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53 is not supported ANYWHERE in all of Hebrew scripture.
I quoted to you the words of Mitch Glaser from the book that he coauthored, The Gospel According to Isaiah 53: “Before you venture forward in this pilgrimage through Isaiah 53, it is essential to know that no other prophesy in the entirety of the Old Testament Scriptures explicitly links the death of the Messiah with his work of atonement” (page 29).
So what do you say, Eric? Does this not make your position at least as tenuous as you claim ours is?
Dina, still finishing responding to your old emails. I might have no time to get to your new ones, until first address the points I have not responded yet.
I don’t have a reason to believe that every statement ( before Rashi) quoted by different scholars nowdays) as messianic reference to Is 53 by ancient jews is a lie. It is almost impossible that not related to each other scholars found the same statements after their research both in the 19 century and now. I read comments of people who were able to check the given sources and the names of rabbies are true as well their statements. If you want to argue about that find the reasons and prove the words are not there. The list is pretty long you can find in in many sources online.
Also the fact that rashi had to strongly manifest his statement of Is 53 relating to the nation speakes for other interpretations that certainly had been offered.
Find the reasons for all that to be a lie;
Start with studies of Alfred Edersheim ( also Jewish) supported by his profound studies who provided ” List of Hebrew Scripture Passages Messianically Applied in Ancient Rabbinic Writings”
And then I am listing some the most known statements;
1) Behold, My Servant the Messiah shall prosper.
Targum (“Targum Jonathan”) to Isaiah 52:13, various editions (such as Samson H. Levey, The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation; the Messianic Exegesis of the Targum.” Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College, 1974, p. 63).
2) Lots of documentry that Isaiah 53 as the prophetic portion, was preached in certain old synagogues.
Rav Asher Soloff, “The Fifty Third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Commentators, to the Sixteenth Century” (Ph.D. Thesis, Drew University,1967), p. 146.
3) The addition of 53.4-5 [to the cycle of synagogue readings] was evidently of a Messianic purport by reason of the theory of a suffering Messiah. The earlier part of [the Haftarah] (52.7ff.) dealt with the redemption of Israel, and in this connection the tribulations of the Messiah were briefly alluded to by the recital of the above 2 verses.
Jacob Mann, The Bible as Read and Preached in the Old Synagogue (NY: Ktav, 1971, © 1940), p. 298.
4)The Rabbis said: His name is “the leper scholar,” as it is written, Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted. [Isaiah 53:4].Soncino Talmud edition.
5) Interpreting the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 as the nation Israel was also the view of the 14th Century rabbi, Moshe Cohen Crispen, and many other rabbis of his era. See The Fifty-Third Chapter According to Jewish Interpreters, © 1969 KTAV Publishing House.
6) In the 14th century, Rabbi Moshe Cohen Ibn Crispin said that Isaiah 53 “was given by God to describe the Messiah. This rabbi said the following about some of his fellow rabbis: “Having forsaken the wisdom of our teachers, they are inclined to the stubborness of their own opinions which twist the passage from its main meaning.”
7)
In the 16th century, Rabbi Moshe El Sheikh of Safed wrote in his Commentaries on the Earlier Prophets:
“Our rabbis accept and confirm with one voice the opinion that the prophet (Isaiah in Chapter 53) is speaking here of the King Messiah, and we shall also ourselves adhere to the same view.”
8) Rabbi Isaac Abrabanel (died 1508) who was a bitter opponent of Christianity, he noted that “Jonathan Ben Uzziel interprets Isaiah 53 in the Targum to mean the future Messiah; and this is also the opinion of our learned men in the majority of their midrashim.”
9) In the Book of Zohar, which dates in its original form from the 2nd century, having been composed by Rabbi Simon Ben Jochai, there is an interesting statement:
“When the Messiah receives a message about the misery of Israel in their dispersion and sees that they are themselves responsible for their agony, he weeps loudly for their sins, for it is written: “He was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities.”
Another fact that idea of the Messiah ( for ancient jews ) wasn’t as clear as it seems ; is the fact of having ideas introduced of two Messiah; one as a conquering king ( Messiah Ben David) , the other as a humble , suffering servant who they called ; Messiah Ben Jopseph.
So even if you want to call all above statements as a made up stories, the idea of two Messiah ( well documented that it existed) speaks for itself , that the suffering wasn’t just a part of the nation but also ( believed by some ancient Jews) as relating to the Messiah.
” I read comments of people who were able to check the given sources and the names of rabbies are true as well their statements. If you want to argue about that find the reasons and prove the words are not there.”
You read Comments”. Just Where did you find this information. And This, “prove the words are Not there”? Answer this then, I’ve read that Paul actually made up everything he wrote. Prove to me that it isn’t so.
Where did you get this list from. Most all the sources are Xtian, Not Jewish. Much of this is literally made up By Xtians and Xtians today use older Xtian writings as the source. This list sounds like something from Michael Brown, which he had to retract some of his sources as illegitimate. I would conclude that you have done No research on this matter but only took the word of some “commentator”. Hearsay from the ignorant does little to further your case, instead it diminishes any assertions you may promulgate.
The Soncino translations are some of the worst translations there are. It was clear to me when I found they used the term “mercy seat”.
Hi Eric,
In a recent comment–I don’t know exactly where on this page, but I think you addressed it to Sharbano–you once again insisted that the narrator of Isaiah 53 is the people of Israel.
I have shown you, conclusively, that the context identifies the speaker as the kings and nations. You are not willing to accept this explanation. Why do ignore the prophet’s own words and wrench Isaiah 53 out of its proper context?
You may not be aware that Isaiah did not write this book with chapter-and-verse divisions. Many hundreds of years later, a Christian monk divided up the scroll into chapters and verses. It is fair to say that as a result of his Christian bias–perhaps unconsciously–this monk began Chapter 53 at a point where it makes little sense to do so.
If we remove the chapter break, we can see why:
Behold, My servant will succeed; he will be exalted and become exceedingly high and lofty. Just as multitudes were astonished over you [saying], “His appearance is too marred to be a man’s, and his visage to be human,” so will the many nations exclaim about him, and kings will shut their mouths [in amazement], for they will see that which had never been told to them, and will perceive things that they had never heard. “Who would believe what we have heard! For whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed! Formerly he grew like a sapling etc.” (Isaiah 52:13 to 53:2).
This makes it very clear that the speaker is the kings and nations who are expressing their astonishment over something.
Based on the context, it is preposterous to suggest any other narrator.
By the way, if the speaker is the nation of Israel, then you are claiming that the Jews are saying that they persecuted, beat, and killed Jesus. And one day they will realize their mistake.
This is problematic for a number of reasons. The obvious one is that the Jews did not do any of that. The Romans did. Tell me, why are only the Jews culpable for an act that they did not even carry out? Why do not the Italians get any blame for it?
Furthermore, even if the Jews had done it, it would have been a small group of Jews in Jerusalem. The vast majority of Jews were very far away from these events, not only in remote parts of Israel but many still in the Diaspora since the destruction of the First Temple who never even heard of Jesus.
Your interpretation of Isaiah 53 places guilt on all Jews everywhere, for all time, for the beating and killing of Jesus. All Jews, from all times and places, in this passage, will accept the blame for what they had done, see the error of their ways, and repent.
Is that just?
Besides, if Jesus’s suffering and dying to conquer sin and death is the most wonderful thing to ever happen, shouldn’t the Jews be praised and thanked for doing mankind this great favor?
Eric, an honest reading of Isaiah 53 will show you that Isaiah is talking to the Jewish people and telling them that at the end of days the nations of the world are going to be very shocked by the exaltation of God’s servant. It stretches credulity to the breaking point to believe that he is telling them that they are going to persecute, beat, and kill Jesus and then will be shocked that Jesus is exalted.
Dina, you know I won’t be able to answer all of your points at once and everybody’s else. I have limited time so I will go back to it some time later. But at least I wanted to address a few things you wrote here. I will want to show you that Is 53 is not blaming any specific person or group of people for killing the servant but is shows WHY the servant suffers.
Also It is not the divissions of chapters that make us think it is about Jesus. But the whole portrait of a righteous servant who lifts up the rest of israel and his reason of suffering. For the verses ;
“Who would believe what we have heard! For whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed! I suggested you to address the points in my last email to see why it doesn’t fit the nations. Not just concluding it from previous chapter . I already showed you why it doesn’t work.
There is astonishment over something, but the speaker doesn’t clearly reveal who is the subject of Is 53.
It is a wrong conclussion to say that if the speaker is Isaiah ( talking about his people) then
the Jews are those who persecuted, beat, and killed Jesus. No! Is 53 is not talking about whom to blame ( who is the killer) but WHY the servant had to suffer.
Look at the words” but in truth it was our ills that he bore (…) the chasement upon him was to our benefit”
Do they look like describing an literal abuser/killer of the servant? If yes, then the abuser would HAVE TO SAY HE BENEFITED ( or will benefit) from his abuse which would be nonsense! So nobody is here to blame!
The thing shown here is that the servant suffers because of sinful nature of people and because of their sin somebody had to carry the price.
If you want to claim that it is the nations speaking, having remorses over what they did; which is abusing Jewish people
then Is 53 would be speaking just about one type of sin which is abusing others. But v 4 shows that this theory would have no sense. Simple reason; abuse can’t bring any benefit!
Back to the the speaker being the nations…. if it was so and if we conclude that Is 53 is about a voice of a literal abuser of the servant , it would look like all nations are guilty of abusing Jewish people which is not true as there are many people who always supported Jewish people and are praying for them. Even saying that it is about some gentiles nations , then it doesn’t make sense for the following reason;
we have to exclude those who were supportive ( helping Jews) , that leaves us with Is 53 talking only about abusive nations . But the same speakers ; abusive nations are the ones who also say; they are benefiting ( based on v 4) … not now but…in the future… very little sense!
Eric, you simply cannot escape the implications of your interpretation.
The speaker is Israel.
The servant is Jesus.
Israel is bemoaning the fact that the one they afflicted, Jesus, is the one who is God’s servant, and therefore they were wrong to inflict the suffering they inflicted on him.
It’s just that simple. And to believe this you have to believe that all of Israel participated in the crime of “deicide” and all Jews of all times and places are guilty of this crime.
So trying to make it sound like the suffering of the servant is caused by everyone’s sins is ridiculous doesn’t work because the speaker is talking about specific actions taken against a specific victim.
You can’t have it both ways.
“The thing shown here is that the servant suffers because of sinful nature of people and because of their sin somebody had to carry the price.”
rape, genocide, incest, pedophilia, blasphemy, etc…
so either jesus is doing all these sinful actions or these sinful actions are done on jesus and jesus is either willingly doing them or willingly allowing them to be done on him.
if he is carrying rapist guilt then he knows what it is to be in rapists shoes after rapist does rape.
when i said
i will further explain
32While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” 36So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord commanded Moses.
so nobody could feel/experience guilt over doing something which is mandated. for each stone which lands and causes pain no guilt could be felt because God himself ordered the man be stoned to death. each person who threw the stone cannot be called “sinful ” because he threw the stone.
so it makes sense to say that the pagan romans were doing sinless action when they were NAILING jesus. “sins are transferable”, say the christians.
jesus became polluted on the cross
now here is the problem
when a baby is born what sin did it do?
jesus can pay the price for
rape, genocide, incest, pedophilia, blasphemy, etc…
but a human baby who knows no sin is a sinner/not free of sin?
Eric, you wrote, “There is astonishment over something, but the speaker DOESN’T CLEARLY reveal who is the subject of Is 53” (my emphasis).
That’s the point I’ve been trying to make. It isn’t clear to Christians that the subject of this passage is Jesus. In fact, here are four respected Christian sources who identify the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 as ISRAEL, not Jesus:
1. “The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah” by Christopher R. North, Oxford Univ.Press 1948, has AT LEAST FIFTY Christian SCHOLARS taking this approach
2. The New Interpreters Study Bible
3. Harper Collins Study Bible
4. New English Bible -Oxford Study Edition
To your point about abuse and benefit–I would like to explain your misunderstanding of this when I explain the Jewish interpretation in greater detail.
Finally, you write that it can’t be the kings and nations abusing the Jews because not all the kings and nations did so. The passage doesn’t say all. Again, you’re adding on words that aren’t there. Also, your understanding of Jewish history is shockingly ignorant. The Jews were hated and marginalized in almost every country they lived in. At best, as here in the United States, we were tolerated, but never loved.
Can you find me Christians before the eighteenth century who supported and prayed for the Jews? And I don’t mean rulers who at best made attempts to protect them from extinction so as to fulfill the Augustinian doctrine of preserving the Jews in degradation so that they could be witnesses to their crimes (not “don’t kill them because they’re humans created in God’s image” but “don’t kill them so that they can remain the Witness People”).
There was one Christian, Peter Abelard, who had real compassion and who viewed Jews as actual human beings. He’s the only Christian writer who wrote that Jews should be viewed as such.
One Christian before the eighteenth century! That’s pathetic. No, that’s the wrong word. It’s monstrous. It’s a disgrace for Christianity.
You know what, Eric? You need to read about the history of anti-Semitism if you want to understand what’s really going on. You need to read it in an honest and open-minded way instead of the defensive attitude you’ve been taking up until this point.
Finally, I’d like to know if you will retract your statement about Rashi and about relying on only one instance in Scripture for your theology.
“The thing shown here is that the servant suffers because of sinful nature of people and because of their sin somebody had to carry the price.”
“Do they look like describing an literal abuser/killer of the servant? If yes, then the abuser would HAVE TO SAY HE BENEFITED ( or will benefit) from his abuse which would be nonsense! So nobody is here to blame!”
when the pagan romans were nailing jesus to a cross was there anything wrong with thier actions? god is a “just” god and he needs to be appeased through violent blood sacrifice . so there is no way the actions of the pagan romans could be called SINFUL.
if you want to say that “because of thier sin somebody had to carry the price”
then the ones making the servant SUFFER were actually appeasing god.
there cannot be any sin in making the servant suffer because the ACTIONS are mandated by christian god himself
“without the violent shedding of blood no…”
i will further explain
32While the Israelites were in the wilderness, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. 33Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, 34and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. 35Then the Lord said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” 36So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the Lord commanded Moses.
so nobody could feel/experience guilt over doing something which is mandated. for each stone which lands and causes pain no guilt could be felt because God himself ordered the man be stoned to death. each person who threw the stone cannot be called “sinful ” because he threw the stone.
so “cursed” jesus got justly executed. if jesus is like an animal sacrifice , then all you christians should be participating in nailing him to the cross because god is just and needs violent bloody atonement of himself/his son.
if the roman actions are SINFUL , how do sinful actions bring about atonement?
when i read the following :
Despised and rejected by men, a man of pains and accustomed to illness, and as one who hides his face from us, despised and we held him of no account.
4Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains-he carried them, yet we accounted him as plagued, smitten by God and oppressed.
5But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed.
i don’t see anywhere where the servants flesh, blood , pain and death BRING atonement . how does sinful act on diseased person bring atonement?
Eric, I have thus far shown that the description of the servant in Isaiah 53 does not match the description of Jesus in the New Testament. It also does not match Christian expectation of Jesus in the second coming.
Of course, you disagree. I hope with God’s help to show you in the next verses why Isaiah 53 cannot possibly be talking about Jesus, sometime this week.
Dina, I would recommend you first addressed the points I wrote about why Is 53 doesn’t look like a future report of the nations; so once again I am pasting it in;
The concept that the speakers are nations and kings is concluded based on the last words of chapter 52. In this chapter the nations are to be surprised and astonished seeing something that has never been told to them and they are to shut their mouths in amazement. Logically saying it has to be after they witnessed the servant exalted, and are possibly disappointed seeing that there was no Jesus in the scene.
Then we have the words in Is 53 ;1 ” who would believe what we have heard?” – according to Jewish interpretation these are the nations speaking . By saying “who would believe WHAT WE HAVE HEARD?” they indicate they KNOW who fulfilled the prophecy in Is 53 v.10-12. What else ‘ have they heard of” that we haven’t now? Everybody knows about a servant that suffered. The question is who is the one in Is53, an individual or all people?
So it is logical to conclude they ( whoever is speaking) should have heard about who vindicated the Righteous One to multitudes, who is assigned a portion from multitudes, who heals the world etc.
But there is a little problem with that scenario that it is the nations speaking. Verses 10 -12 are still giving report about the FUTURE EVENTS that are NOT FULFILLED YET when the ‘nations ( according to you) are sharing what they have heard . The words in Verse 10 are still relating to the future! So we have a future report about the future… And then the next speaking person ( through isaiah) is God Himself also relating His words to the future shown as the events still to come. v 11b-12.
There is nothing about the nations ADMITTING they are witnessing/ or they already witnessed the words in v 10-12 fulfilled on Israel. There is no word given that anybody witnessed the events in v 10-12 at all because it is a prophecy not a ‘future report’.
If Is 53 was to be the nations’ report given in the future about what the nations saw , it would make sense that they would be reporting it all as PAST or AT LEAST PRESENT tense actions / events. Their report would be about things that just happened or are happening, reporting simply all what they witnessed. That includes all events in v10-12. yet we see the events in v 10-12 are not described as fulfilled and not witnessed by the nations( NOR WITNESSED BY ANYBODY).
We know from the chapter 52 that the nations are to be surprised, astonished NOT BEFORE the servant is exalted but while or after witnessing Israel’s exaltation and realizing Jesus is not there. There is no other way for them to be surprised UNLESS they see there is just the nation without Jesus. They have to see the events in v10 -12 fulfilled ON ISRAEL in order to be shocked that it was not about whom they expected. But based on Is 53 they have not witnessed the future yet.
That is why such interpretation that the Is 53 is just a future report of the nations makes very little sense!
THE OTHER POINTS;
-The figure of Isaiah 53 dies and is buried according to verses 8 and 9. The people of Israel have never died as a whole. They have been out of the land on two occasions and have returned, but they have never ceased to be among the living. Yet Jesus died, was buried, and rose again.
-The Jewish people (Israel) were promised that if they obeyed G-d, they would be greatly blessed. Only if they were disobedient would they be cursed. (See, for example, Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28.) If Israel were the righteous servant of Isaiah 53, it would have been impossible for her to have suffered and died under the conditions and in the manner described in this passage.
That is just a few things that don’t testify for what you want me to believe.
Hi Eric,
I’m sorry, but I can’t make heads or tails of this comment about past and future tenses. The context makes it perfectly clear that the speaker is the kings and nations. The tense the speaker uses makes perfect sense; it’s normal speech. And I don’t see why the prophet has to report every detail that the kings and nations witnessed. The speaker gives the gist of it–that they could not imagine that the one whom they oppressed would ever have been released from captivity (verse 8) and exalted (verse 1).
Did you read my comment about the devastating implications caused by casting Israel in the role of the speaker? What a horrific return to the ancient and despicable charge of deicide, of which all Jews of every time and place are guilty! What do have to say for yourself? Are you not ashamed?
As for your two final points: the people of Israel have never died out as a whole. The passage in Isaiah 53 doesn’t ever say that. You see, you cannot extricate yourself from the Christological reading of this passage. If you could (and if you could read Hebrew), you would see that the servant submitted himself to his “deaths,” and that because of the sin of the speaker, “they” were afflicted. This means that not everyone was killed, especially since there is a reward for long life and children to the servant–you can’t promise a reward of long life and children to someone who is dead, even if he was resurrected and is in heaven. And I’ve already shown you that the Hebrew words in this verse are very specific about an earthly and finite life as opposed to an eternal afterlife and about biological offspring as opposed to metaphorical children.
But you are determined to get distracted. I want to focus on one thing at a time. First, let us focus on whether this passage can possibly be talking about Jesus. Then let us talk about the Jewish interpretation. Let’s keep it simple!
As for your final point, I have no idea what you mean.
Dina, I will go back to your rashi discussion later.
You said ” My second question regards your stating at least twice that the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 that the nation of Israel suffers for the sins of the nations of the world is unsupported anywhere else in Tanach.”
And then there was no answer of yours but ” I misunderstand the Jewish interpretation” Wow, then start with answering that;
1. can your suffering ( as the nation) change anybody ? Unless the person repents , nobody”s suffering will do him any good. Do you agree?
2. How can Jewish people suffer FOR the sins of the nations? Let’s say for those who steal, kill,rape, do crimes, cheat etc in other countries, and you are telling me you had to suffer for that? That included poor kids going through Holocaust. You know for anybody to accept such interpretation , you have to be really illogical.
So tell me where does it say( in Tanach )that if other nations will sin, you will have to suffer FOR that???
Comparing lack of answer to the argument of ” Nowhere in Tanach, nowhere at all, is it taught that one must believe in the Messiah” is irrelevant as salvation ( believed by Christians) is not about just believing in Messiah. Many people use that statement ; you have to believe in the Messiah, but they don’t mention that you start with repentance and turning back to God FIRST and believing in Messiah means you accept God’s servant as God’s spokesman and listen to his words as God’s words. The same way it will be when the Messiah will be reigning on earth and he will the AUTHORITY, a leader, a king among God’s people. So believing in the Messiah means believing that his words are from God .
“The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your fellow Israelites. You must listen to him.”
“My servant David will be a LEADER for them FOREVER” Ez 37 ( Messiah called David, because he sprung from David according to the flesh)
Ezek 34:23
23 And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.
( it is not the resurrected David)
I don’t see a problem with Mitch words that Is 53 is the chapter the most fully demonstrating the death of the Messiah with his work of atonement”.
The same way you have only one place in which it is spoken that the Messiah will be the one who will be able to approach God unlike other people. ( Jer 30;21)
But sufferings of the Messiah were predicted also in Psalms and David wasn’t talking about himself. He was never in situations that he expressed in these psalms.
But that is another subject.
Also entire picture of Messiah is not made just based on one chapter. One prophecy links to another, the description of an individual servant mentioned in the verses of chapters 42, 49, 50, 61 till 53 , and mentioning Is 42 again, it starts with the servant Messiah.
Then one Jewish servant comes and fulfills what was said including his resurrection.
You just simply can’t accept that one God’s servant’s suffering would serve some significant purpose and was different than the suffering of the nation.
Also I showed you before that salvation wasn’t about just deliverance from the enemies but also from sin, iniquities, Read Ez 36;25-27
“Then will I SPRINKLE CLEAN WATER UPON YOU, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.”
Don’t you see that there is MORE than just being forgiven?
To answer you question; shouldn’t we be tankful to the Jews for doing us the favor? Yes, we are thankful because even NT says salvation comes from Jews. I am thankful for all those who shared the good news of God’s forgiveness and redemption.
Eric, I’m going to try to be charitable and say that the only reason you took my words grossly out of context is that you don’t understand English very well. Because if that is not the reason, then what you have done in this comment is dishonest.
You wrote, “And then there was no answer of yours but ‘I misunderstand the Jewish interpretation’ Wow, then start with answering that.” You ignored the last sentence in that paragraph, where I explained that I will leave that argument for another time because I had a different point I wanted to make. Please read my whole comment again carefully; here it is:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/isaiah-53-micah-7-and-isaiah-62/#comment-17976
You simply missed the whole point of my argument. I will explain again. You have repeatedly asserted that since nowhere else does Tanach teach that the people of Israel suffer for the sins of the nations, then therefore the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 is wrong.
I will say again that you misunderstand the Jewish interpretation–and that I will explain to you what is wrong with what you said–but first I wanted to make sure that you are aware that you are operating a double standard.
If I say that Isaiah teaches that Israel suffers for the sins of the nations (I don’t say that, but let us say for argument’s sake that I do) and you say that interpretation is incorrect because it is unsupported elsewhere in Tanach–then do you not see that I can use that argument against you?
If you say that Isaiah 53 teaches that the Messiah is to suffer and die for the sins of mankind and that the only way to achieve eternal salvation is to believe in this Messiah, then I can say that since this teaching is unsupported elsewhere in Tanach, then your interpretation is incorrect.
To counter this you wrote that Christians don’t believe that you just have to believe in the Messiah but must also repent. This does not answer the question. According to your doctrine, your repentance avails you nothing if you do not believe in the Messiah. Since this is not taught anywhere in Tanach, and you raised that as a fair argument, then I am turning that argument against you.
You admitted that you agree with Mitch Glaser who wrote that Isaiah 53 is indeed the only place in Tanach that teaches what you think it teaches. So why is your position stronger than ours?
You presented questions above to challenge me on an interpretation of Isaiah 53 that I never presented, so it would be silly for me to answer them. For example, I never said that Isaiah 53 teaches that the people of Israel suffer for the crimes of others, such as theft or rape.
I will post more in a separate comment, God willing.
Eric, it would be very instructive for you to read Tanach to find out what Hashem teaches rather than to look desperately for the weakest of support for your theology.
You wrote, “You just simply can’t accept that one God’s servant’s suffering would serve some significant purpose and was different than the suffering of the nation” as if your arguments are so convincing that if only I could remove my bias I would agree with you.
Well, Eric, take out the beam from your own eye.
I recommend you read the whole chapter 36 in Ezekiel, instead of starting with verse 25. I wonder if your eyes will simply skip over all the verses that don’t conveniently fit your beliefs. I find it fascinating to observe this phenomenon.
But I have a question for you. A similar prophecy is described in Deuteronomy 30:1-6. Are these two passages a prophecy concerning the same event?
Eric, you wrote: “To answer you question; shouldn’t we be tankful to the Jews for doing us the favor? Yes, we are thankful because even NT says salvation comes from Jews. I am thankful for all those who shared the good news of God’s forgiveness and redemption.”
You missed the point of the question. If the speaker of Isaiah 53 is Israel, then you have Israel talking about how terrible it was that they beat up God’s servant. But if this was the best thing that happened to mankind, then the speaker should be talking about how awesome it was and what a great favor they did for everybody. Isaiah should be heaping praise and thankfulness on the Jewish people. So why all this sorrowful language?
(By the way, the Jews didn’t beat up Jesus–the Romans did. So really, the speaker should be the Romans.)
It’s like 1 Thessalonians 2:15. Why is killing Jesus described as a bad thing? It should be described as the most loving thing the Jews could have done (even though they didn’t).
can someone please show where the “arm of the lord” gets BEAT up?
You made several excellent points that are not often made. They are so very plain & clear that some people may want to ignore or wish them away or that they are too biased too see.
To be fair, a lot of the bias is the result of the bible versions that many people read.
If this is addressed to me, then thank you, Yedidiah!
In his response on 17 April to Sharbano, Eric seems to assume that most or all of the other commenters believe redemption is “only about exalting the nation” and they do no include “salvation from sins, sprinkling with ‘clean water” being free from peoples iniquities, etc”. That is not the case I feel, they are just emphasizing and repeating over and over again what Isaiah has been saying chapter after chapter and that is that Israel and/or Judea was/is God’s servant (as he also was and others living in his own time also were), which is what many Christians reject since they desperately need chap 53 to be about Jesus and him alone. They are not just looking at 52-54 alone, but the whole of Isaiah and their other prophets. That includes the “servant songs” in (Isa. 42:1-6; 49:1-3; 50:4-9; 52:13 – 53:12). Eric does quote Isaiah 42:1-4, and therefore stops before we see in verses 6 & 7, who God is talking about; “I the LORD, in My grace, have summoned you, and I have grasped you by the hand. I created you, and appointed you a covenant people, a light of nations”, opening eyes deprived of light, rescuing prisoners from confinement, from the dungeon those who sit in darkness.” This “light” is a “nation” and not just one man.
He also goes Isa 52:10 and says “God is talking….”. No, that is wrong. It is the prophet talking metaphorically in v.10 (God would not say “the victory of our God”, but Isaiah would have). Isaiah is then talking about God’s “arm”. Many Christians get confused when some Bible authors wrote poetry or spoke poetically or metaphorically. They often see “the arm” as Jesus, but this “arm” is no more a man than it would be a giant physical arm of some giant messiah-man. They seem to assume that this “arm” must be physically seen by human eyes, and this “arm” is something or some being outside of God- literally. But in Isa 40, is God really a human shepherd & are people really “real sheep”? Is “the arm to be understood as a giant physical human-like arm coming out of the sky? Who is this (jolly green giant?) giant human-creator God “outside of the other creator God” who supposedly “literally” “measured water by cupping his hand” and “weighed mountains” on some gigantic scale? In Isa 40:1-12, we read “Like a shepherd He pastures His flock: He gathers the lambs in His arms And carries them in His bosom; Gently He drives the mother sheep. Who measured the waters with the hollow of His hand, And gauged the skies with a span, And meted earth’s dust with a measure, And weighed the mountains with a scale, And the hills with a balance?” If you take the prophet literally, we might be astonished at the size of such a steel/iron scale. And wonder why God needed to know how many countless millions of tons a mountain weighed.
In Exodus, we (but not the Israelites) also see “the arm”, but in Exodus 14:16, it is “Moses’ arm” and rod that was needed; “And you (Moses) lift up your rod and hold out your arm over the sea and split it, so that the Israelites may march into the sea on dry ground.” Was Moses Jesus?
yedidiah, I have to correct what you wrote what IO said :
“He also goes Isa 52:10 and says “God is talking…. These words ( where God is talking ) are refering to Is 53;11-12″ My servant will vindicate the righteous one to multitudes….Therefor I will assign him a portion…” Is that clear now???
Then you said;
“Eric does quote Isaiah 42:1-4, and therefore stops before we see in verses 6 & 7, who God is talking about..”
Yes we see that first God was talking about his servant Messiah, then He talks about the nation. The speaker SWITSCHES- to talking about the nation or we can say he CONTINUES talking about the nation he was talking BEFORE HE MENTIONED his servant Messiah.
What does it tell you? That there is POSSIBLE that the speaker can talk about an individual servant while he is talking about the nation. You see clearly that it is possible without any special introduction to the change of focus/subject. Besides an individual servant is still part of the nation. The same situation we see in so called “servant songs” in (Isa. 42:1-6; 49:1-3; 50:4-9; 52:13 – 53:12). While talking about the nation the speaker is talking about the contribution to God’s work of his one individual servant ( lifting up the rest of tribes of Juda etc)
Also you misunderstand what we mean by God’s arm. Of course nobody means a literal ARM! Nobody means it has to be a human! Just because it refers to the work of th e servant in ch 53 it doesn’t indicate that the ARM is alway a human, or a part of the body!
I already wrote it a couple of times that the ARM refers to powerful act of God’s salvation, act of helping His people, the means of help that God brings to help his people. And that aid can be through his servant , his angels, anything God wants to! is that clearer now?
You are correcting me, you are just giving an interpretation of verses taken out of context. Isa 52:10 refers to Isa 52:10, where all the nations see the “the Lord will bare his arm…” and “victory of OUR God”, which is Isaiah (or another human) speaking about their God. No, it is not clear when you confuse speakers. And there is no indication here that God is insufficient to act and needs another being, man or angel, in this “ultimate moment” to show His Glory & Power, although that would not be necessary if a nation is His Light. We can see in Chap. 41 many things that the “Lord’s hand” can do without a servant or servants.
Why do you reject the idea that a nation can be a righteous servant although that is what God promised through much of Isaiah and other prophets? There is no need to switch back and forth between “1 servant” and 1 nation of servants with no clear indication who is spoken of here but not there and no explanation of why. Unless one believes God or the prophet was intentionally being dissembling and meant confusion to be the “clear message”.
Yes, an individual of a nation is part of a nation (and not part of “something else”). A servant is part of the servant or “the servants”. Which implies that the “individual servant” is like a General of an army; without the army the General is powerless, whereas it is possible for an army to function, at least temporarily, without a General. The General needs the Army in order to be part of “a nation of light”.
You misunderstand what is meant by the “arm of the Lord” and you definitely misunderstood my entire point about “the arm”. Many Christians believe the “arm” or the “angel of the Lord” can only mean Jesus. Reject those ideas and you eliminate much of the Jesus who is “on every page of the OT”. Yes, it is clear that God can act without becoming a man, without “dying and rising” like pagan gods? Yes, God can act through an angel or angels, or through a servant or servants, or alone (whether invisible in the background” or “on the front lines”).
Error in line 1, “You are not correcting me, you are just giving an interpretation taken of out context,” probably based on accepting Jesus first as the suffering servant, some time before you read Isaiah. Those who only read Isaiah could not see your opinion written in it.
Yeddiah, you are confusing something. What error you mean in line 1?? what is out of context to you? I said the speaker is God in verses Is 53; 11-12. Who else is saying these words???
Of course God is speaking through his prophet!
Yedidiah, you seem outraged that I said God would use somebody in His work . you said
” We can see in Chap. 41 many things that the “Lord’s hand” can do without a servant or servants. ” Yes, but why then did God use Moses? Why will He use His messiah in the future to rule? Why did He use Esther and many other people to fulfill his purposes? You act as if that fact was really unheard to you.
As usual, I am typing this in on a phone and it is hard to spell check, edit, and organize my writing as I would like to. I sometimes copy and paste a sentence incompletely and sometimes I leave out a close parentheses. But, most words I chose carefully, to avoid being misunderstood, but that still I am misunderstood not matter how clear I make my point.
———
eric,
when you use such extreme, inflammatory words as “outraged”, it is more likely that those feelings are your own, so I apologize if my points have upset you to that degree. Or, it could be that you are a very careless reader, so it may help you if you remain calm and read as if you were not being personally attacked, which you are not, at least not by me. Most people who know me, would say that I am the person who would be one of those least likely to be upset by others and one of the people they know that would be least likely to upset others, even unintentionally. I try to write like I drive, defensively. I try to anticipate how others might act or react and I try to address their possible objections before they can respond to me.
There is absolutely no reason for me to be outraged. I am not being attacked in front of an audience of 100’s and I am not verbally debating someone in front of 100’s in a situation were I have only seconds to respond. When writing, if I were somehow to be “outraged”, I can step away for a minute or 2 before I respond. Plus, I am not a Jew that I might feel insulted by the many hurtful words that many (or should I say most?) Christians might use in discussing their beliefs (although most sincerely do not intend to hurt another’s feelings). Most of my bible studies was as a Christian hearing what Christians taught or reading what Christian scholars wrote. I think someone posted a list of a number of Christians scholars a few days ago who would disagree with the interpretation of many other Christians who somehow need Isaiah 53. So “they” or “we” might agree with Jewish scholars or ordinary Jews like several who posted comments above.
I once tried to learn all I could about Jesus and I used to try to “prove Jesus”, but “truth” is hard to find if you are biased and closed minded. To be a good student or a scholar, you need to have a “healthy skepticism”. But, I soon learned why my fellow Christians thought that there was much danger in that. I learned why one should avoid the “OT” or writings by Jews. The more you hear what Jews believe, the harder it is to maintain what Christians believe (no matter what set of beliefs that you call Christian). Many years back a well known pastor of a “mega-church” not too far from where I live, told a small group of Jews that if Jews had a good Jewish education, there would be little concern that they would convert to Christianity. I don’t quite agree with that, because from my observation, a Jew who is “not very religious” is not likely to become a “very religious” Christian (less so than secular-type non-Jews might become radical Christians.) I looked around at a messianic “Jewish” congregation and seen the several different types of “believers” (many of whom were non-Jews who were strong followers of “Yeshua” and almost “despised” calling Jesus by the name, Jesus).
Eric, (I dislike addressing individuals by name, since often the person takes a rational argument as some sort of personal attack, perhaps so they can dismiss the argument without good cause?), you might not be a very careful reader. I anticipated what one of your objections might be. I tried to point out that it seems you try to read “somebody else” into some particular places where the prophet clearly intended to speak about God or where God is speaking. You seem to put an individual servant or a messiah in places, without any real good reason. The author, first and foremost, was speaking to his intended audience for a good and clear reason. He was speaking about his world and the situation he & his people were in. He was giving himself and his people hope in their time. Not people or situations, 500 or 2500 years later; not to unknown persons in unknown times in unknown situations. Any other interpretation, whether it yours or whether it a common Christian one or a Jewish one is secondary. Isaiah must be read as Isaiah or his neighbor would have read “Isaiah”. Not as Matthew or Luke or the Essenes or Rabbi whoever might read and interpret it. Isaiah did not write a gospel of Jesus. But the NT writers knew about Isaiah and they occasionally used Isaiah and other “OT” writings; not wholesale, but selectively and in some cases, unintentionally or not, incorrectly. NT writers may have Jesus saying unabashedly & unapologetically, that he did some things “to fulfill prophecy”. They say he did things consciously in order to tell “their story, their way”. No messiah needs a narrative story when historical facts tell a better, more believable story. No real messiah or prophet needs someone else’s story to prove and justify their story.
In your last paragraph, in your last comment eric, you seem to insinuate that I am a “bible illiterate”. I know about Moses, Esther, and numerous other servants. You just haven’t a good case about interjecting your servant, where Isaiah put himself or “his servant” or his God. I was anticipating that you might be a careless reader, so I ended my comment that you replied to, by writing, “God can act through an angel or angels, or through a servant or servants, or alone (whether invisible in the background” or “on the front lines”).
I believe God can act alone (whether invisible in the background” or “on the front lines”). Do you wish to deny that? God can act through an angel or angels, or through a servant or servants, or alone (whether invisible in the background” or “on the front lines”). But I doubt that God needs a man-god in imitation of the “neighboring pagan gods”.
Yedidiah, I cannot help but admire the compassionate and understanding way that you stated your case in this comment. Here’s the interesting thing. As you said, Isaiah wrote the book that bears his name for Jews. When writing, he would have had his target audience in mind and would have addressed his words to them in language that they would understand.
For a Christian to come along and tell us how to understand his message is as bizarre as, for example, me telling Eric what his wife meant in her love letters to him.
Dina ” For a Christian to come along and tell us how to understand his message is as bizarre as, for example, me telling Eric what his wife meant in her love letters to him.”
You are forgetting that the first Christians were Jewish believers .
So lets’ replace the word
” Christans” that seems like an alien to the Jewish world , with the word ; ‘ the Jewish believers of the1st century who believed jesus is the Messiah”.
No gentiles were telling them ( like me) what the ‘ love letter in Isaiah is about” .
Eric, you are indeed telling us how to understand our own Scriptures, and you are not Jewish and thus not the intended audience. You are also not one of the early Christians. Isaiah’s target audience was not a group of Jews that would exist for a brief period of time at some point in his future, but the people of Israel then and now who are loyal to the Torah. In fact, those are the only Jews, then and now, who read and study his words.
Yedidiah, did I say I am talking about ” god- man” ? So suggesting here some pogan god doesn’t fit here what I said. I am skipping commenting on that ‘ outrage’ I didn’t think you would take it as ‘ heavy’ as you expressed. Anyways what I wanted to say shortly; you speak in your own name what and how you feel about Christianity, but you can’t speak for every Christian because in some church somebody said so and so.
Most definitions of the word “outrage” is more than “heavy”, , even to the point of physical violence or brutality. That is not to say that I truly thought that you really meant any form of “outrage”, in fact your use if the term almost comical. But again, your use of such extreme language is more indicative of your feelings of “outrage”, because what I may have said, or you were simply using hyperbolic language for some effect, and in either case, it may have been due to misunderstanding on your part. So, it still seems more expressive than used for some impressive effect.
I am also very aware of the many differences of opinion in “Christianity” about the nature of Jesus. But serious, more objective study, is necessarily closer to the “truth” than when “you speak in your own name what and how you feel about Christianity, but you can’t speak for every Christian because in some church somebody said so and so” and you believe them. You quite often use the word “we” in phrases such as “what we believe” as Christians versus what “you believe” as Jews. I, less often than you, speak in such general terms. There are several different beliefs about a “messiah” by religious Jews as well, however not as many as “we hear by Christians” of various types. One could divide the major beliefs about Jesus by Christians and classify them by type and present them in a table as in a “PowerPoint” slide.
Most Christians don’t “talk about” Jesus as “god-man”, so I wouldn’t suggest that you do. But one’s beliefs about the nature of Jesus can be beside the point. What the NT authors suggest or actually is more important that what modern Christians “believe” (or even what “1st century Christians” believed). Numerous individuals and serious scholars can see the connection to or relationship of Jesus with pagan “dying and rising gods” or “man-gods”. That was expressed by early church fathers almost 1800 years ago. If you are “not talking about the Jesus as portrayed in the NT” that many of us read today, than what exactly is your point? Why have you wasted so much time arguing about a “less than divine” human servant or “messiah” who died and was buried (& stayed buried) almost 2000 years ago? Your servant is no more relevant than any other servant of God who died 2500 or 2000 or 500 years ago and no more noteworthy than one who died last year. No more than any other of the countless number of martyrs who died for the sins of others, just “because some wayward Jew or some Christian in a church somewhere said so”.
yedidiah, you still comment on that ‘outrage’ I don’t even remember that but you still keep bringing it up. Aren’t you a bit over sensitive?
“Your servant is no more relevant than any other servant of God who died 2500 or 2000 or 500 years ago and no more noteworthy than one who died last year.”
First thing; It is not a point of being ;divine ‘ or not .
second; no other servant dies as a guilt offering for others paying for our sins.
eric, I was just responding to your comment after you “brought it up again”. So after several days have passed, you “remembered it” and are “bringing it up again”. If my responding appropriately to your earlier comment is not acceptable to you, then most people might reasonable ask you if you are being more than “a bit oversensitive” or upset for unknown some reason. I again apologize if I hurt your feelings.
“Your servant is no more relevant than any other servant of God who died 2500 or 2000 or 500 years ago and no more noteworthy than one who died last year” is a statement I made because many people “including some or all NT writers” do consider “the servant” or “their messiah” or “their Christ” or divine. Either divine before he was “born” or after he was “baptized” or at the “transfiguration” or after his death. If he died as a servant is as dead as any other servant. Many servants (and even non-servants) can die because of the sins of others or “for the sins of others” (someone can choose what some erroneously call “self-sacrifice”). A person dying as some sort of pagan “guilt offering” (not to be confused with simple or unavoidable martyrdom) would be an anathema to the “salvation plan” of the God of the Hebrew Bible. A “dying and rising god” was acceptable to several ancient peoples and nations and yes, many Israelites and Jews did forsake the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob in order to follow other divinities and gods who had their own version of “salvation” and “redemption”.
Isaiah 42:17-20. 17 Driven back and utterly shamed Shall be those who trust in an image, Those who say to idols, You are our gods!'” 18 Listen, you who are deaf; You blind ones, look up and see! 19 Who is so blind as My servant, So deaf as the messenger I send? Who is so blind as the chosen one, So blind as the servant of the LORD? 20 Seeing many things, he gives no heed; With ears open, he hears nothing.”
Who has an image of their servant and puts trust in him? Who sees a man as a god or some part of a “godhead”? There is none as blind as that servant (has to include Jesus, if he qualifies as a servant and not an enemy of God). Who do you believe was a messenger and was sent (can’t be a nation some say), yet is the “blindest”? Who do Christian say was “chosen”, was “anointed”? That servant was blind and quite a few people see clearer and hear better and will be exalted and vindicated, when God redeems/vindicates his servants. And the many of the nations who followed the false-messiah will be astonished and see that they followed the wrong path all those years, because they were to weak to wait for the servant to come the first time.
yedidiah
You are trying hard but it doesn’t make sense. First of all you joined two topics together and making your wrong conclusions. v 17 is not an introduction to the rest of the chapter but it is ending one previous topic.
You seem not to realize that Isaiah is talking about two servants ; Messiah and the nation. He is not introducing a third servant as a false Messiah – Jesus, NEXT TO the Messiah mentioned in the book . Where does Isaiah even speak about one individual false God’s servant in his book ????
The only places referring to one person-servant are identified by Christians as Is 49, 42, 50;4-10 , 53,, 61;1-3 and by Jews chapter 42, and eventually 49 in some interpretations. None of them portray an individual God’s servant as blind but to the contrast – very pleasing God.
So you have either one spoken about ( nation) or the other ( messiah) in this book. From what you wrote you are blaming for blindness the annointed one ( messiah) since you excluded that Is 42;17-25 would be talking about the nation.
But is the Messiah portrayed as blind? If you have a problem to see what Is 42;17 -20 is about look at the PLURAL that it refers to “you blind ONES ” If ‘ blind ONES” is not enouth to see PLURAL , any other language is using it as only english uses ‘you’ as refering to both singular and plural. Also follow to the verse 25 and it will be more clear to you who Isaiah is talking about.
your question; “Who do Christian say was “chosen”, was “anointed”? It is not what we say but what the bible says. You have the Messiah in chapter 42. And you say that servant was blind.
Eric, with apologies to Yedidiah for intruding, but I can see from your response to his comment that you didn’t understand what he wrote. He did not say the Messiah is blind; nor did he say that the servant in Chapter 42 is the Messiah. I think you need to read his comment more carefully.
You also misunderstood the passage that Yedidiah quoted. Read that passage carefully. The servant is not the Messiah. He is blind (19) and deaf (20) and a perfected man (19), he is God’s servant and messenger (19), and he is righteous (21). Now go try and make sense of that.
Dina, I figured you won’t understand my answer. I am aware he is not talking about the messiah but Jesus and I said there are only TWO servants Isaiah is mentioning, either the nation or the Messiah ( for us Jesus) . So if we see Jesus being spoken about it has to be in th e chapters that relate to the Messiah . Do you understand so far? Then he makes estimation that Is 42;17-20 relates to blindness of Jesus . There is none as blind as that servant (has to include Jesus, if he qualifies as a servant (..) First of all I showed him that chapter is not talking about the Messiah, so it can be talking about jesus. The rest of explanation was in that previous email. Is that more clear?
Dina, responding to your email about Rashi.
It is not as important whether Rashi was first with his interpretation or there was somebody preceding him. The main point is that there were other interpretations existing and that is the question why? If the interpretation of Is 53 was just one and obvious before Rashi or that other commentator 800 years before , there would be no need for them to teach Is 53 referring as to the nation as it would be well known to all Jews.
you said ” you never argued that Isaiah 53 cannot possibly refer to the Messiah.
-so ‘if it could’ I am curious ; what would speak for that possibility of referring to him, from your point of view? ( even if it was a very little possibility?)
And since you don’t deny possibility of some ancient commentaries viewing Isaiah 53 as messianic
-what would make Jewish commentaries to view it that way? ( whether partially or as a whole text)
You said that “The traditional interpretation follows the plain meaning and the plain context–this is the primary mode of interpretation for Jews.”
So why is that plain meaning and context not followed in chapter 42’1-9? thus leaving description of one servant to verses 1-4 and the other to 5-9? ” Thus said Hashem you are…” doesn’t indicate change of topic.
You said “The midrashic literature often provides an additional layer of meaning, in this case saying that Isaiah 53 refers to the Messiah in a loose sense, in the sense that the Messiah is part of Israel and thus represents them.”
-So what exactly do you mean here by a loose sense? , how is he representing the nation in that particular chapter 53?
You wrote that ” the authors of the midrashic texts and other commentaries do not read into Isaiah 53 that the purpose of the Messiah is to suffer and die..”
– putting aside Christian view , what is their view while Is 53 mainly talks about suffering?
Even if my sources you think are not reliable, we know that the messianic interpretation existed and no matter which line you would address, it is actually impossible to treat any separately as Is 53 shows one whole servant’s description. So I wonder what the ‘reliable ‘ source ‘ was saying?
I have already said that it is not ” that only by accepting the Messiah can one be “saved.” It starts with God and trusting Him so acceptance of God’s servant is not on it’s own.
You asked me what is the point of my claim that there is “lots of documentary that Isaiah 53 as the prophetic portion, was preached in certain old synagogues”?
It is not to support “the despicable charge that the rabbis “knew” this was a prophecy about Jesus but wanted to hide it from everyone else’ like you concluded but the fact that some Jews understood it differently, messianic and the question is why???
I am not sure what you wanted to say by that:
“How then do you explain that Isaiah chapters 42-48 and 55-59 are also not read as the haftorah? Or the fact that Isaiah 9:5-6, a Christian proof text, is read as part of the haftorah? Or the fact that evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which PREDATED Christianity, suggests that Isaiah 53 was skipped then too?”
What I said that in some synagogues Is 53 would be skipped while chapters 52 and 54 would be read, my question is why? From what I heard from Jewish people was “so that it would not bring unnecessary association to Jesus.” I heard from one Jewish person such response when he heard Is 53 being read to him , he said” don’t read to me from your christian scripture about Jesus, and we said ‘ that it is his Hebrew scripture not the NT. As soon as he heard Is 53 it made him think about jesus instead of himself as a partaker of sufferings in the nation. Maybe that skipping of that chapter has nothing to do with what I said and that person was just one type of an ‘encounter’ but anyways it made me wonder.
eric, you are not trying hard enough (and the plain words in Isaiah 42 don’t require much effort). Where did I say v. 17 was an introduction? And what 2 topics? In what bible version are you using that you see a chapter heading or ending or subdivision in the middle of chap 42? The verses flow together as the author intended, until v.21 in several versions where they have a sub-chapter heading.
My question was about verse 19; if the servant is an “individual servant” (or messiah”), then that servant is blind (“who is blind but my servant?”). The servant is a messenger who is sent and who is deaf (deaf like my messenger whom I send?). Verse 19 continues in several versions with something similar to “Who is blind like my dedicated one, or blind like the servant of the Lord?”. So my question is, who is this “one”? And what rule determines when “one” and “you” is in singular person and at other times (sometimes the very next verse or surrounding verses), “one” and “you” or “my servant” is plural? Other than perhaps an arbitrary or subjective one where “if it is good or positive” it is an individual servant and if it is “bad or negative or deals with disobedience or “blindness”” then it is “the Jews”.
Now you get way off base. I am not “introducing a third servant”. How could I be? I am assuming that when some people (not all) who read an “individual servant” in several places in Isaiah, especially in select verses (Is 49, 42, 50;4-10 , 53,, 61;1-3, etc) they “see Jesus”, just as I was taught. He is seen as a messenger, one who was sent, and a dedicated or anointed one and a servant. But then, “Who is so blind like my dedicated one, or blind like the servant of the Lord?”
Isaiah speaks often about false teachers prophets and even in the singular. One person can be part of a group, like “false prophets”, but even if a prophet is alone, he can be a false prophet. I know several people who consider themselves prophets (or prophetesses) and I have heard about many others. If one is a “blind” servant, his falsehood may not be intentional, Isa 42:20 continues with very singular sounding pronouns, “He sees many things, but does not observe them; his ears are open, but he does not hear”. Yes, the individual servant can be “blind”, just as he or she can suffer from disease, be afflicted, be “cut-off”, and even “stricken by God”. The “blind” & “deaf” can suffer from their condition, especially they can suffer because of the sins of others.
You greatly misunderstand, in absolutely no way can I or Isaiah speak/write of a “blind” servant (individual or nation) and not also write of a servant that is pleasing to God. Just because an individual servant could be “blind”, doesn’t mean that that servant or others can’t “see” later. That is the best type of servant (BTW, this is beside any point I was trying to make or questioning, often in the NT the word translated from the Greek as servant, is better translated as slave). But Isaiah, not I, wrote what he wrote. I did not translate Isaiah either. You protest too much perhaps? Remember, Joseph went from “the pit to the palace” & Moses rose to be the greatest prophet. And Job the good servant who suffered (who might have been the model for Isa 53 according to some Jewish commentators & some Christian scholars), as I have heard it said, was “paid double for his trouble”.
yedidiah,
You didn’t have to say v 17 was an introduction.It speaks for itself – you kind of mixed two things to give a reason to speak about ;blind; jesus. When you started your comment with “saiah 42:17-20.” v. 17 talks about those who rely on god’s man made images, then why do you ask ” Who sees a man as a god or some part of a “godhead”?” So what is the answer? Whom I should bring up to my mind? Pagan gentiles or are you suggesting ‘blind’ christians here? And then you continue of a blindness of one God’s servant while v. 18 addresses clearly plural aoudience ‘listen you deaf ones. By the way if even God addresses a group as a nation, it doesn’t mean every single person is blind.
But then you focus on Jesus ( why because some think of him as a man-god? or at least you want to include him in that blind group. It is interesting because Jesus is not really believed by Jews that he really existed , he might be a made up story ( for them), so why would Isaiah be speaking about such? He either existed or didn’t , so if he did and got resurrected, that testified God called him righteous.
You said that chapter can’t be talking about the nation because God says ; my servant, my messenger I sent etc , well then I can insist 100% Is 53 is about Jesus as it addresses singular servant. So who is the speaker reffering to and talking about? He is referring to the blind ones to tell them about one particular blind one or some blinde ones? You didn’t have to write it but that is how your interpretation suggests.
If the message about Jesus( messiah) portrays him as ‘annointed’ according to Is , why do you suggest him as a false- messiah?
You said
“Isa 42:20 continues with very singular sounding pronouns, “He sees many things, but does not observe them; his ears are open, but he does not hear”. Oh really, I wish all Jews were to hold on to ‘your rule’. They would all see Is 53 as a one person servant. There every line is ‘he’ and ‘he’ did this’ ‘he’ , in all the 12 verses the pronoun is singular ‘he’.
eric, I don’t see in any bible version where v.17 is marked as any type of introduction , nor nothing that you have written could make it “an introduction”, so you can splitting a paragraph up so you might be speaking for yourself and “kind of mixed things”. My point was to show that by using your line of reasoning, you are making an “individual servant”, a singular “he” “blind” & “deaf” (a few verses earlier it states that God will lead “the blind”, with no indication of any servant doing it, which now you are essentially making an “individual he” as the one who is blind & must be lead in order to lead others). Earlier in this psalm of praise, Isaiah wouldn’t be speaking of either pagan Gentiles or Christians, so only by insisting that a “singular he” or a “you” is not identifying a nation or a remnant of a nation, you are identifying “the servant” as “blind and deaf” for anyone who believes the servant is Jesus. You are proving that point; I am warning about the consequences of your argument.
By Isaiah’s warning of a people straying to idolatrous worship (which in Isaiah would be Israel & Judea”)(which, “By the way if even God addresses a group as a nation, it doesn’t mean every single person is blind”, nor does it mean the majority were blind), by trying to identify Jesus as this “individual servant”, you are replacing “Isaiah’s Israel” with Christians or “the Church” (either all or all but a remnant). That is “what is interesting” since Jews would not be making that case about Jesus “and why would Isaiah be speaking about such?” By inserting Jesus into the book of Isaiah, you are making the point that Jesus is the “he” who is “blind” and his followers make up part of those who are “blind”.
I am not the one saying “that chapter can’t be talking about the nation because God says ; my servant, my messenger I sent etc”. I don’t know what % of Is 53 you are insisting upon or could insist upon, “that is about Jesus as it addresses singular servant.” You may have a problem with a “possibly blind” “anointed one”? Well, some non-Israelites, non-Jews, were called messiahs. And Israel was called “God’s people”. As is often the case, Israel is called God’s Son and even God’s Daughter (even after “they” “failed”)(an exalted name and in the singular, without the authors even considering what “my rule” might be). And some Kings were called “God’s only begotten Son”.
Again when I am quoting Isaiah, it is not me who wrote or translated the book of Isaiah. And the quotes are not “my interpretation”, but “my interpretation” of the quotes is only one of the reasonable conclusion based on your interpretation. Nor did I state any “rule”. Nor can I “speak for any Jew”. However, from what I’ve heard, most make more reasonable, more believable, more “natural” arguments, since most use the Tanach (or previous arguments based on Tanach) as their basis for interpretation. Btw, the Greek Septuagint (supposedly written before Jesus), would support Rashi’s commentary. So would several Christian bibles that are more literal interpretations of the “OT”.
You still haven’t really addressed my questions. In Isa 42:20 who is the “he”, when it continues with very singular sounding pronouns? “He sees many things, but does not observe them; his ears are open, but he does not hear”. Pronouns clearly point to some noun, some subject.
Remember the Sabbath.
yedidiah, your way of writing doesn’t make any sense to me, sorry. I can’t comment on that which doesn’t make any sense. Your first part of message are your conclusions based on ideas I even didn’t suggest. You seem to argue for the sake of arguing.
The NRSV (New Revised Standard Ver) is more literal & less biased than some Christian bibles, but with some verses mentioned above (in Chaps 40, 42, 49, 52-53 etc), it also does some “strange things” sometimes with commas and the word “and”, etc., which results in putting Jesus in (out of context) where Isaiah had or means Israel (or “a righteous remnant”). For instance, instead of Isa 42:6 reading in context “…appointed you a covenant people,…”(which makes grammatical sense), it has “…I have given you as a covenant to the people…”. Who is God giving as a “covenant” and to which “people”? It is nonsensical, unless someone is trying to plug Jesus in where he was not (almost like attempting to make Isaiah the 1st gospel of the NT).
And instead of Isa 49:7 reading “Thus says the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, …” , we read “…the Redeemer of Israel and his Holy One,…”, which suggests that Israel and “his Holy One” are separate entities (yet both must be redeemed). Or the prophet is “his Holy One”. Or there is an unnamed “Holy One”, some unnamed messiah (?), which Christians can then see as evidence for their messiah and Isaiah again is preaching Jesus. Usually these types of “insertions” remove the verse from the historical context and the context of the prophets message and create grammatical difficulties (that might only make sense if one already knew about Jesus, which Isaiah definitely didn’t know about).
Eric, you said you would get back to the discussion about Rashi later. But this is simple and should not take more than a few seconds of your time.
You asserted that Rashi was the first to propose that the subject of Isaiah 53 is Israel and that according to ancient Jewish tradition it was the Messiah.
I showed you sources beginning in the third century and all predating Rashi by hundreds of years that contradict your assertion. Furthermore, you did not give evidence for the ancient understanding you claimed.
All you need to do is retract your statement.
More impressive than expressive usage of the term “outrage”?
Hi Eric,
I wrote a lot of comments to you so I don’t expect you to answer all of them right away. In the meantime, I’d like to continue examining the description of the servant in Isaiah 53 to see if it matches the description of Jesus in Christian scripture and in the hearts and minds of his followers.
Thus far, I have argued that Jesus is not characterized as “a man of pains and accustomed to illness”; nor was he “despised and isolated from men.”
I further argued that the speaker, if it be Israel, accepts responsibility for the beating and crucifixion of Jesus, when in actual historical reality, the Romans carried out those acts. I asked, in all fairness, why the speaker is not the Italians. If the speaker is Israel, then Isaiah is putting in her mouth historical fabrications.
I shall now examine a few more passages and show that they cannot be talking of Jesus.
Verse 7: He was persecuted and afflicted, but he did not open his mouth; like a sheep being led to the slaughter or a ewe that is silent before her shearers, he did not open his mouth.
Was Jesus silent in the face of his death sentence? In Christian scripture we see contradictory accounts. In one account he is silent; in others he defends himself.
Verse 8: He had been removed from the Land of the Living, an affliction upon them that was my people’s sin.
Hebrew readers of the Bible recognize the expression “the Land of the Living” to refer to the Land of Israel. Jesus was never removed from the Holy Land.
“An affliction upon them that was my people’s sin.” Who is “them” referring to in this verse? Is Jesus a plurality of persons?
Verse 9: He submitted himself to his grave with wicked men and in his deaths with the wealthy for a crime that he did not commit and no deceit in his mouth.
This is the opposite of the description of Jesus’s end in Christian scripture. He was killed with the wicked (the robbers) and buried in the grave of a wealthy man. Also, the plural word “deaths” is a problem.
“No deceit in his mouth”–Jesus insisted at his trial the he was open about his teachings, but numerous times we find him teaching secretly, telling people not to repeat what they had seen or been taught, or teaching in parables so only his inner circle would understand. This is deceitful.
These are small details in Chapter 53 of Isaiah that do not match the description of the life and actions of Jesus in Christian scripture.
There is more, of course, but before I continue I have a question for you:
Was Jesus created expressly for the purpose of suffering and dying to conquer sin and death on behalf of all of mankind? In other words, could Jesus have chosen to walk away from this mission? Could he have said, “Oh, forget it, I’d rather be a farmer in Galilee, tilling my land till the end of my days”?
Dina, adressing your statement that there was just one christian found before 18 century who had compassion for jews or parayed for them…
When I read what you wrote, it was also really pathetic- sorry to say, but you built your entire view on what is before your eyes, what not.
Can you even say something like that and deny the fact of somebody existing because his name and actions are not listed on interrnet, or there is no book written about?
We know that all you can read on linternet is a histry influenced by political events and the most you can find is who hated whom and who killed whom and how bad Jews suffered. But that all doesn’t mean there were no human relationship between gentiles and Jews existing together. The fact that somebody who possibly helping Jews or was praying for them and he didn’t write a book about it, or wasn’t reported by historians – doesn’t mean he didn’t existed. In the world where people are persecuted you have also people who are helping, if not that there would be no Jews ever left in all these european countries where persecussion was present.
if every single neighbour was a betrayer and Jews hater there would be nobody left alive among the Jews living together with gentiles. Nobbody would get any help , no Jew would have a place to hide.
Based on the historical events you can find out that it was almost IMPOSSIBLE to write or talk about help for Jews as all European countries were constantly at war with each other and anybody speaking, writing for Jews was killed or persecuted like them ( during the oppression times). So whatever help was done it was done quielty, in secret far away from political leaders and authorities, far away known from public life!
The same way like you are getting to know more and more what was going on during 2 world war is because some witness giving finally the events into light. If not witnessing the execution of Ulm’s family who was protecting Jews, no body would ever find out that the whole 8 people family was shot for hiding Jews in their home.
http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/righteous/stories/ulma.asp
Going back to “before 18 century”
-Jonathan Elukin -one of the historians – in his book Living Together, Living Apart writes about about Christians hidiing Jews during the Crusades. Why? They had no compassion?
– Why there are also cases of interfaith marriages repotred by historians between Jews and gentiles families if all ware to hate them so much?
– it is reported by historians that there were Bishops and Archbishops alike trying to spare the Jews from violence during crucereds( offering monetary bribes to protect Jewish families) They had no compassion??
If you study Jewish – gentile relationship you can read that there also close bonds between Jewish and Christian neighbors leading to Jewish communities thriving in Christian cities.
– It is reported that although the French monarchy prohibited the creation of Jewish religious centers, friendly relations with Christians provided the Jews with the support they needed to build a synagogue in Béziers in 1278. Was that be possible if you were just hated by everybody?
-During times of persecution against the Jews, chronicles show that Christian relations provided them aid and shelter during a time of violence against the Jews during Shavuot.
– it is reported that some authorities spoke against the accusations Pope Innocent III wrote in 1199:
No Christian shall do the Jews any personal injury, except in executing the judgments of a judge, or deprive them of their possessions, or change the rights and privileges which they have been accustomed to have. During the celebration of their festivals, no one shall disturb them by beating them with clubs or by throwing stones at them. No one shall compel them to render any services except those which they have been accustomed to render. And to prevent the baseness and avarice of wicked men we forbid anyone to deface or damage their cemeteries or to extort money from them by threatening to exhume the bodies of their dead.
– why Poland became a shelter for persecuted and expelled European Jewish communities? If they were welcomed by everybody’s hate , would that be possible?
– reported story where the vast majority of Jews in Cologne surviving Shavuot because local Christians had reached out and offered their homes as a means of asylum from the Crusaders.
I am sure there are more stories I have no time to list you it all..
Excuse me, Eric Krafosky, sir! Why do assume I get all my information from the Internet? You are the one who reveals his ignorance of the history of Christian anti-Semitism every time you write. These are the books I have read on the subject. I suggest you do the same:
The Anguish of the Jews: Twenty-Three Centuries of Antisemitism by Edward Flannery (400 pages)
Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews, A History by James Carroll (768 pages)
Holy Hatred: Christianity, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust by Robert Michael (256 pages)
A Moral Reckoning: The Role of the Church in the Holocaust and Its Unfulfilled Duty of Repair by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen (416 pages, didn’t finish it yet)
A History of the Jews by Paul Johnson (656 pages)
Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate by William Nicholls (499 pages, almost finished reading it)
These are six books I can remember off the top of my head.
You presented arguments that respond to what you wish I had said instead of what I actually did say. I did not say that no Christians ever tried to help or protect Jews. I did not say that popes did not issue papal bulls stating that no one is allowed to kill Jews or persecute them in other ways. In fact, I am well aware that there were quite a few of them. I am aware of this because of all the reading I have done.
My argument was that we have well over a thousand writings against Jews that are filled with vicious and baseless calumnies, but not a SINGLE writing protesting these ideas. A pope saying “don’t kill Jews” (which it should never have even been necessary to say–why was there such a hatred toward Jews that the pope needed to say that, I ask you?) is not the same as a pope saying “real Christians love Jews” or “we must love and honor the Jews the same we love and honor each other because the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself applies equally to Jews.” Even Peter Abelard didn’t say that!
As usual you missed the main point of my argument.
Dina, sorry to miss your points but you expect everybody will read your mind the same way you expect . To you focus on the number of christian writings was the most important, not the list of people who were helping Jews in th e history. Well. I could have said; sorry there was just one writer I wish there were more, I didn’t live at that time I can’t influence the past. So I chose the other way to answer but first will ask you a question; what is more important to have a facts registered in action that there were people who had compassion, or just having a number of books that expressed somebody’s compassion? I already wrote you there were difficult time when you could not speak publicly for defense of jews or else you ended up persecuted like them. So most things were done secretly, far away from political life . That is why I don’t focus on number of books.
P.S Just to finish the previous email’ arguments against about jesus’ deceiti on his mouth and his secret teaching.” Deceit you have if you teach something different on the side comparing to what you teach public ally. And that didn’t have a place in his life. Th e rest of that I explained in the e mail
I’m curioius Eric, How much do you actually know of Jewish history among all the nations. Do you know what Jewish life was like under Russia during the pogroms under Xtian domination. Do you know how Jews lived and survived in Yemen or Arabia during Mohammed’s time. Now then, how much knowledge do you have of the land known as Palestine through the centuries. How many different nations (occupiers), occupied the land from the time of Rome onward. It’s been my experience that Xtians only know the history of Israel from what they have read in Tanach. I recall hearing years ago where Xtians were contemplating the “400 silent years”. The only reason it was “silent” was they saw little purpose in studying history. Sadly, for the most part, it is still true today.
Sharbano here are some of your comments from your last long message’
” Even heart-wrenching, epoch films such as Schindler’s List and Fiddler on the Roof, and the gruesome, ghastly images of young Jewish terror victims brought the gentiles to repent.”
-Who was to repent? Gentiles who didn’t participate in the holocoust , or the killers of whom most of them have already died? Can somebody repent for other peoples crimes???
“ After all, the Jewish people are called to be a “Light to the Gentiles.”
– So is the Messian in Is 42 and 49 and those who listen to God.
you said ;
“Does the Church teach that Jesus vindicated the world with his “knowledge”?
“According to Christian theology, it was not Jesus’ knowledge that vindicated the world. It was his blood. This epic verse is completely inconsistent with a fundamental doctrine of the Church.”
my answer; what is the knowledge in Is 53; 11? You didn’t finish the whole sentence ” it is that their iniquities that he will carry.” This is the knowledge. The servant knows he he carried our iniquities so he suffered for us to make us free.
“there is no Savior other than the God of Israel (Isaiah 43:10-11).”
-So why are you waiting for your Messiah? Doesn’t God always used people although He is the only Savior?
How did God use Moses to save His people from Egypt? The same way scriptures say He will use His Messiah to help His people.
” The devout remnant of Israel will be righteous Isaiah 60:21; Zephaniah 3:12-20 ”
-Because they will trust their God and the Messiah He sent.
“Surely our fathers have inherited lies, worthlessness and unprofitable things. Can a man make gods for himself, which are not gods?” (Jeremiah 16:19-20
-speaking of made man gods ( wooden, silver etc) not about God the creator we believe.
“Can you imagine this jsus as being the only one who ever rode a donkey in that place at that time?”
– donkey itself it wasn’t a point but being welcomed as a king who enters Jerusalem as a humble man. That was a point to show that he was not to enter the city as a hero on a horse. No other donkey -riders in Jesus time were welcomed like a king.
About psalms’
“It is speaking of David.”
my answer; just tell me when did ever David say , he was given gal and vinegar to drink in his thirst, when were his garments being divided among his enemy with casting lots??
you asked ; does it sound like Jesus? and list a verse Jesus didn’t quote aloud at the cross.
my answer ; Prophecy is not about reciting a writen message but the words in Ps 22 were showing what the servant will feel and go through. And can you deny all words Jesus ever prayed during his trial and suffering , because all 24 hours of his thoughts are not recoderd in NT?
That was probably the post where I quoted R’ Tovia Singer.
Many a Xtian HAVE repented for the evils that their coreligionists had done in the past and had done in Jsus name. They would have never come to this if it weren’t for what they had seen with their own eyes. They had never considered it before.
““there is no Savior other than the God of Israel (Isaiah 43:10-11).”
-So why are you waiting for your Messiah? Doesn’t God always used people although He is the only Savior?
How did God use Moses to save His people from Egypt? The same way scriptures say He will use His Messiah to help His people. ”
I’m going to be blunt here. How can you be that dumb. You mean to tell us why are we waiting for messiah?
““Surely our fathers have inherited lies, worthlessness and unprofitable things. Can a man make gods for himself, which are not gods?” (Jeremiah 16:19-20
-speaking of made man gods ( wooden, silver etc) not about God the creator we believe.”
Doesn’t Every Single church take wood and create the shape of a cross and sings songs about it. It’s an image you use as a reflection of Jsus. This is no different that the golden calf was to many of the Israelites.
Sharbano, sorry but cross is not our god! You asked me ‘how can you be that dumb? You didn’t even understand my question what is meant by ‘ why are you waiting for your messiah”.
Anyways the discussions here are pointless to continue .
Hi Eric,
Please let me know when you are ready to hear back from me.
Thanks,
Dina
Dina, you can write whenever you want to.
Once again you want to minimize Xtian history regarding the atrocities perpetrated by those same Xtians. No one ever said there weren’t those who assisted Jews in those times. Of course when Jews were exiled to another land those people were initially sympathetic. But that sympathy was short-lived. All one has to do is look at recent history. One would imagine that after the Shoah we wouldn’t see the rise of anti-semitism in our lifetime. But lo and behold it has raised its ugly head once again.
Those who hid Jews during the Crusades I guess makes up for the atrocities of those same Crusades, as when Jews were rounded up and locked in the Shul only to be burnt alive. I guess that doesn’t count since some were hid.
Dina, to the rest of your comments about is 53 I will get back some time this week. Iit would be good it you didn’t add more info right now so I have time responding to the previous emails I had no time even to read. I am here simply not 24/7 , thanks
Okay, Eric, I will try to restrain myself and not respond to your comment about Rashi. I will wait a little while and then, oh boy, will I let loose :).
Dina,
We have already went through it last year. I have that Jewish interpretation with me and comparing it with how Jesus fulfilled there more definitely speaking for him .
Ok, back to your arguments you presented;
Verse 7: He was persecuted and afflicted, but he did not open his mouth; like a sheep being led to the slaughter or a ewe that is silent before her shearers, he did not open his mouth.
What you mean by ” Jesus not being silent” ? Because he had something to say when they were beating him? ” Why are you hitting me?” Wow, your arguments ‘cry for checking it how they apply to the nation . You don’t want to talk about it now – as you said- but it is necessary to see how the same argument applies to the your case and what as ‘being silent’ is really meant in Isiah. Because what you require from Jesus here 0 in your argument- wasn’t neither met by the nation.
So tell me if anybody ever protested or said a word when Jews were having their rights cut, being dragged out from their homes, didn’t they even want to rescue themselves but were silently waiting until they get hunted and killed??? Nobody ever said a word? Of course no! Almost everybody who only could rescue himself , he would be looking for safe place to go. It is natural to all people and all people do it that way. So you see that not this type of ‘silence’ is meant here as if it was a case , it would not fit neither Jesus nor the nation. Neither can you just look selectively and say that people in the camps were submissive, as that was a place with no choice, no way to rescue yourself. There were situations in which it was simply to late to say anything.
But let’s go back to Jesus case and what we know from the gospels; he said
John 10;17-18
“(…) I lay down my life—only to take it up again. NO ONE takes it from me, but I lay it down of ON MU OWN ACCORD . I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.” AND MORE LUKE 22;42 MATTHEW 26; 47-56
Jesus is expressing his willingness to submit himself to the hands of those who were looking for him. He is not hiding or running away .He says he willingly lays his life down and if he wanted he was able to ask God for legions of angels for his defense, he rejects Peter’s help who wants to fight with his sword against the soldiers, etc.
That is how he fulfills his submissive ‘being led to the slaughter’ He knows it is a will of God for him to submit himself to the people’s judgement.
Not because God desires violence- like some people suggested- people might have chosen to plead Jesus not guilty but God knew ahead how they will treat his servant. So God is useing the innocent death of his servant for His glory.
next;
Verse 9: He submitted himself to his grave with wicked men and in his deaths with the wealthy for a crime that he did not commit and no deceit in his mouth.
or some translations say
“And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death;
If there was any deceit in his mouth , God would not raise him back to life for a lie.
He wasn’t teaching anything that would be deceitful and teaching in parables you had already prophesied that it would happen in OT. He was explaining the parables on the side if anybody still didn’t get it.
You said ” Thus far, I have argued that Jesus is not characterized as “a man of pains and accustomed to illness” nor was he “despised and isolated from men.”
You keep your arguments but that doesn’t speak to me. Isaiah 53 doesn’t tell you whether you should measure suffering by the length or quality or number of people participating or that someone suffered less or more in order to qualify. No, Is 53 just tells you that some type of suffering happened for a certain reason.
“he SUBMITTED himself to the grave with the wicked ” is expressing his WILLINGNESS to die, that he was still submissive to the death on the cross that was usually appointed to the criminals . If it was just about a place ‘grave’ where you put the body, you would not have SUBMISSION expressed as criminals didn’t have to decide where they put their body after they died.
“… and in his death with the wealthy” speaks for itself he was buried in a rich man’s tomb.
Verse 8: He had been removed from the Land of the Living, an affliction upon them that was my people’s sin.
Ii is being on the ground among the borders but also including being alive in that land. Other verses still support the case that the servant experiences literal death, literal grave.
“An affliction upon them that was my people’s sin.” It depends on the translation. Other Jewish translation even updated JPS says is that way;
” through the sin of my people that deserved punishment.” So I can’t debate on that .
\
To your question “could Jesus have chosen to walk away from this mission?” From what it is written , he was doing always what the will of God was, so if being submissive to the unfair judgement and death was God’s will, Jesus would obey it.
“Oh, forget it, I’d rather be a farmer in Galilee, tilling my land till the end of my days”? If he knew that his innocent death is our punishment substitute , he chose what served the world not his own desires. He expressed that in his prayer ‘ Not mine will but yours be done”
Eric, can you identify the “Style” of writing that Isaiah is using compared to how Xtian writing is done. Can you identify what those differences are. If you cannot read Hebrew you may not be able to determine it.
“I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.” AND MORE LUKE 22;42 MATTHEW 26; 47-56
Jesus is expressing his willingness to submit himself to the hands of those who were looking for him. He is not hiding or running away .He says he willingly lays his life down and if he wanted he was able to ask God for legions of angels for his defense, he rejects Peter’s help who wants to fight with his sword against the soldiers, etc.”
where is this “willingness” when he begs his dad to remove the cup 3 times? have you ever in your entire life JUXTAPOSED johns text with marks text? where in john do you see jesus’ RELUCTANCE to “willingly” go to his death? why is there RELUCTANCE in marks account? you said “rejects peters help”
where in john do we see jesus begging and falling to the ground repeatedly REQUESTING the same thing about removing the cup?
check out marks version
47 But one of those who stood near drew his sword and struck the slave of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 48 Then Jesus said to them, “Have you come out with swords and clubs to arrest me as though I were a bandit? 49 Day after day I was with you in the temple teaching, and you did not arrest me. But let the scriptures be fulfilled.” 50 All of them deserted him and fled.
notice something strange here? THOSE who DO NOT attack are ATTACKED. swords and clubs are not used. yet jesus attacks the people who did not USE thier weapons. notice that the ATTACKER who does use his weapon is NEVER rebuked?
rambo 2016,
Before you want to comment on what Jesus said; I suggest you read carefuly what NT says instead of expression your opinion that has nothing in common with the real situation;
your words are ” notice something strange here? THOSE who DO NOT attack are ATTACKED. swords and clubs are not used. yet jesus attacks the people who did not USE thier weapons. notice that the ATTACKER who does use his weapon is NEVER rebuked?
Now find me just ONE place in NT where Jesus ATTACKS ANYBODY while being arrested. good luck on that .
Then more of what you said : “notice that the ATTACKER who does use his weapon is NEVER rebuked?” which you mean of Peter. Where did you u take that from?
Jesus commanded Peter, John 18’11″Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?”
Matthew 26;59″Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”
So don’t be too quick put your comment untill you really read what somebody said..
Second; you keep your argumants agains Jesus willingness to go through that suffereing.
You focus on Jesus ‘ prayer when he asks his Father to remove that suffering ( cap ) if it was possible. Then you finish your conclussion with that. What about the part two; what follows next? Jesus hears from God that there is no way out and he SUBMITS himself to what has to come upon him. He understands the nessecerity of going thorough that suffering but he also has a choice to say ‘no.’ which he is not choosing. He says to Peter ( while rebuking him for taking out the sword – which rebuKe you denied) that if he really needed help , he has authority to ask his Father for setting him out legions of angels for his defense.
Hi Eric,
Quick question: you wrote here that Jesus understood why he had to suffer but had the choice to refuse to undertake that mission. In light of John 3:16 (“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”), can you explain how it is possible that Jesus had any choice in the matter?
What would have happened had he refused? Would God have created another son in another woman’s womb without a man and tried again?
Dina,To this ” Jesus understood why he had to suffer but had the choice to refuse to undertake that mission. In light of John 3:16 (“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life”), can you explain how it is possible that Jesus had any choice in the matter?
.Compare it to the story with Abraham going to give his son. Abraham knew Issaak would be submissive. – God who knows everything He knew Jesus would always obey him and do His will. He knew he wouldn’t say ‘ no God , I can’t do that’.
“What would have happened had he refused?”
– I don’t know what would have happen, definitely if God can see the future ahead, He knew it would happen like it did so could sent Jesus for that.
Dina, to finish above comment; jesus had a choice but understanding that his ‘ no’ would mean no ‘ covering for sin ” and no eternal life, he chooses to do what God says.
Eric, I don’t understand your comparison to Abraham and I don’t see how you reconciled John 3:16.
Genesis 22:1 tells us that God tested Abraham. Genesis 22:12 tells us the conclusion of that test. God says, “For now I know that you are a God-fearing man.” The message is clear: Abraham had a choice. And God tested him to see how he would choose.
This is not at all parallel to Jesus, because John 3:16 tells us it was God’s choice, and not Jesus’s. This verse proclaims that God gave his “one and only” son; it seems to preclude the possibility that Jesus had any say in the matter. Subject: God; verb: gave; direct object: Jesus. Make it a passive construct: Jesus was given.
Some Christians believe that Jesus did not have a choice, so given John 3:16, why do you disagree with them?
Dina, You asked me before if jesus had a choice and how that goes together with John 3;16 in which God gives his son ( as if the son has nothing to say, or had no choice)
So why I brough up the story of Abraham was to demonstarte the relationship ‘father via his only son, and the situation in which he has to give up his son for some more important reason , and the relationship between both of them was based on complete trust with included complete submission of the son to the will of his father rather than running away and saying; you’re crazy dad!”
I was showing that example to point out how is possible for the Father to be in a situatuion when ‘he has to give up his son) and the will of his son is to obey that ( but having also a choice ) like Jesus said ; if he wanted he would ask his Father for angels’ protection and no harm would be done to him.
In both cases you have submission to father’s will, but also choice; Isaak could have run away, jesus could have called for angel’s protection.
I don’t know of any christians who claims Jesus had no choice. If some claim that I would say they don’t know NT scriptures much enough to say that. His willing choice to obey is also expressed in John 18;10, that he will do it and that nobody is forcing him. That way God could offer him what you read in John 3;16
Hi Eric,
It still doesn’t make sense to me but thanks for trying to explain. Not a terribly important question, I was just curious for your take on it.
“rambo 2016,
Before you want to comment on what Jesus said; I suggest you read carefuly what NT says instead of expression your opinion that has nothing in common with the real situation;”
i think you did not understand .
your words are ” notice something strange here? THOSE who DO NOT attack are ATTACKED. swords and clubs are not used. yet jesus attacks the people who did not USE thier weapons. notice that the ATTACKER who does use his weapon is NEVER rebuked?
“Now find me just ONE place in NT where Jesus ATTACKS ANYBODY while being arrested. good luck on that .”
when i said “attack” i meant verbal attack on those carrying swords. notice that according to mark the people carrying swords are attacked , but not the one who sliced the ear?
“Then more of what you said : “notice that the ATTACKER who does use his weapon is NEVER rebuked?” which you mean of Peter. ”
“Where did you u take that from?
Jesus commanded Peter, John 18’11″Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?””
why are you getting this from john? notice how john has contradicted marks “father remove this cup from me” ? why? because he has his jesus and the father as “one” right from the start. johns jesus is ready to get mauled by the romans , marks jesus is the one who needs more faith in order to get prepared for getting mauled by the romans .
“Matthew 26;59″Put your sword back in its place,” Jesus said to him, “for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”
you are using an author who used 90 percent of mark and made changes to it. if mark can have his jesus verbally attack those who came to arrest him ( they didn’t even USE thier weapons) why didn’t he (mark)quote matthews jesus’ words?
“So don’t be too quick put your comment untill you really read what somebody said..”
try to understand
“Second; you keep your argumants agains Jesus willingness to go through that suffereing.”
his “willingness” was very unwilling when he REPEATEDLY asked his father to remove the cup. if you are honest with the texts you will see that jesus’ guts to die start developing from matthew to john
can you believe it, just death for the weekend and the man is begging his father to remove the cup?
marks jesus
“my SOUL IS DEEPLY TROUBLED EVEN Unto death” “jesus began to feel distressed and agitated ” “jesus FELL TO THE ground in ANGUISH”…jesus asked his god about the hour might PASS FROM him
this verse causes problems for the trinitarians . they say that the the mind of jesus and the mind of the father are no longer one . these verses, i am sure, didn’t inspire christians to willingly give up thier lives.
“You focus on Jesus ‘ prayer when he asks his Father to remove that suffering ( cap ) if it was possible. Then you finish your conclussion with that. What about the part two; what follows next? Jesus hears from God that there is no way out and he SUBMITS himself to what has to come upon him. ”
you miss the point . the point was there is no “part two” found in the other accounts. the other accounts give him more guts to take on death. why do you think you can’t find any of the stuff quoted above from marks version in john and luke ?
“He understands the nessecerity of going thorough that suffering but he also has a choice to say ‘no.’ which he is not choosing.”
he was begging for that “no” repeatedly ,read gospel of mark.
“He says to Peter ( while rebuking him for taking out the sword – which rebuKe you denied) that if he really needed help , he has authority to ask his Father for setting him out legions of angels for his defense.”
the rebuke is not in marks version. jesus calls peter “satan” according to mark. why would mark , knowing about the rebuke of jesus, remove it from his account and instead write about his jesus attacking those who do not even use thier weapons?
rambo2016, your reasoning about what you wrote is so twisty that I suggest you find somebody else to work on ‘ how to untwist it’ as it seems like there is no way to help you understand anything. I gave you explanation and you twist it even more not checking the text , you confused everything so much that I don’t see a way for you to get to any conclusion but keeping on ‘ twisting ‘ even more.
As far as “ his willingness” was very unwilling when he REPEATEDLY asked his father to remove the cup.”
Are you saying Jewish people never prayed for deliverance from the trouble, they were never asking God for the way out but were facing any disaster willingly , that they were just SILENTLY WAITING WITHOUT A PRAYER TO GOD to face any trouble to come?
if jesus’ prayer is a problem then that same argument – according to you – disqualifies also the entire servant which is a nation from the ‘ willingness to suffer, because people all over prayed as well.
“Are you saying Jewish people never prayed for deliverance from the trouble, they were never asking God for the way out but were facing any disaster willingly”
here is john 1 :29. this gospel has made jesus into sacrificial lamb right from the beginning.
“The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! ”
so if you asked john your question “…never prayed for deliverance…” the author of john would say that it’s version of jesus has no need to ask for “way out”
” , that they were just SILENTLY WAITING WITHOUT A PRAYER TO GOD to face any trouble to come?”
it is the later writers who modify marks jesus and want thier version of jesus to look forward to a bad weekend . having a bad weekend for sins is very different than dying and leaving the earth permanently, yet your jesus , according to mark, is praying to avert a bad weekend?
what you need to understand is that the later writers were not comfortable with jesus’ repetitive prayer to his dad. how can a “lamb of god” ask for the cup to be removed? isn’t that going to become reluctant sacrifice? if it is , then how is it a pure and 100 % willing sacrifice? i think these were the questions which led the later writers such as john to make changes to marks reluctant jesus.
Dina, This email doesn ‘t include any answers to you last email yet. I need to correct these words you said ;
” It stretches credulity to the breaking point to believe that he is telling them that they are going to persecute, beat, and kill Jesus and then will be shocked that Jesus is exalted.”
It is a wrong statement as we don’t proclame anything like that!
Neither this what you wrote ” you have to believe that all of Israel participated in the crime of “deicide” and all Jews of all times and places are guilty of this crime.” That is what you want to conclude but we don’t.
You can only make such a statement being confused by your interpteration in which a speaker in Is 53 identifies with taking part in abusing and killing the servant(s).
Whether we consider Jews as a speaker or the nations we don’t interpret Is 53’s speaker as talikng part in abusing and killing the servant. Why ? Because Is 53 speakers’s words don’t indicate the speakers participation in abuse but it says the servant suffered BECAUSE of people’s sins. ” BECAUSE” doesn’t mean you had to be a killer!
Now you can interpret it two ways; –
a) peoples’ sin is them ( people) being cruel to the servant ( this is how you interpret it)
b) peoples sin is their sinful nature, lying, cheating, any sinful actions . This is our interpretation.
Just looking at Is 53:4 “Sure he took up OUR pain and bore OUR PAINS.” or ” but in truth it was our ills that he bore”
Now- to make it more clear – replace ‘pains’ with any synonim like ‘ he took up our troubles/sufferings’.
Does it look like interpretation “a” in which we are cruel to the servant? If I abuse you, how can I say then you took up my pains ( my troubles/ suffering) by my evil actions? That wouldn’t be nonsense! The list goes on that doesn’t fit Jewish interpretation.
Isaiah doesn’t write to idenfify WHO afflicted the servant ( who abused him and killed) but FOR WHAT REASON that had to happen.
v5 says that the speaker thought the servant suffered stricken by God. If the speaker(s) were to identify themselves as partakers in the crimes they would not say ” we regarded him stricken by God” . They would rather say ” we abused him, we killed him.”
v6 “… and the Lord visited upon him the quilt of us all” Another exapmle in which it clearly says the quilt was already in the people ( indicationg their sinful nature) . The guilt was not because they abused the servant!!!!
v.8 cut off from th e land of the living ..through the sin of my people WhO deserved punishment. ( it clearly states the servant suffered for the sinners, who deserved punishment. Isaiah doesn’t say the THAT SERVANT’S OPPRESSORS deserved punishment because they coused the servant to suffer)
I am not sure ; was it you who wrote;” the speaker is talking about specific actions taken against a specific victim. ????
If you look briefly at those ‘specific actions”then they relate to Jesus .
-being offering for quilt ( v 10)
– willingly suffering
– servant’s judgement, death and promise of life back.
– justificating others
You said you didn’t understand what I meant by it not being the future report. Ok, lets replace ‘future report’ for ” a statement of the nations spoken in 100-500 years”.
First of all why would you even say that this report relates to the future? In both cases if we relate it to now or future the servant
( described in this chapter) is not named or identified with anymore information than we know about him today which is ( somebody suffered and will be exalted). If Jesus was excluded from taking part in that, the future report of the nations should already state that! It should state their disappointment! But there is not even a word about that?
If you know what I meam now, then compare it to the last words in chapter 52 in which the nations ‘ are to understand who the servant was ( according to your interpretation) they should understand, things will be revealed, obvious, something the had no clue about should be understood. Does Is 53 express anything like that???? No, nothing more than we know now.
Somebody suffered , somebody will be exalted.
Does it even express any disappointment that one of the two ( Jesus and nation ) was exuded? That there was no Jesus , but the nation??? Why? For such a controversy it should!!!
And Christians know that God is going to lift up Israel one day. They even pray for that and for the peace there. There are groups helping the Holocust survivers, there are gruops praying for the people and their protection. So they can’t be shocked that one day God will take care of his nation. They know it all from Zechariah 12-14. ( in which Jesus is also in the picture, at the time of Israel’s deliverance)
If God was to exalt His nation , surely he would also exalt any of His suffering servant . That means if Jesus ‘ suffering benefits the mankind, God will exalt him as well and that is what Christians see in Is 53.
…………………
I’ll just make a comment on your final point regarding the “suffering Jsus”. Do you really think Jsus suffering was extraordinary. His suffering was mild compared to others. The suffering of Rabbi Akiva was Much greater yet he didn’t complain to G-d as Jsus did. Instead he recited Shema. His Emunah was much greater than that of Jsus.
You still have been unable to reconcile how ch.52 declares unambiguously who is the central character and immediately without hesitation speaks of My Servant being extolled. We have a narrative how Israel was oppressed without cause and how those who rule over them view the people. There is no hesitation by Isaiah when he goes from the trials of Israel to usage of the term “My Servant”. There is a poetic flow in this narrative which Xtianity has to chop into unrelated segments to justify a claim. You yourself have had to jump all over the place in order to fulfill a broken narrative. Not only that, you have to reassign words to complete that broken narrative. Just read it for what it is and not use Xtian eisegesis to a meaning that is not said.
Dina made an interesting point which I didn’t fully grasp until now which you said in reply.
“Whether we consider Jews as a speaker or the nations we don’t interpret Is 53’s speaker as talikng part in abusing and killing the servant. Why ? Because Is 53 speakers’s words don’t indicate the speakers participation in abuse but it says the servant suffered BECAUSE of people’s sins. ” BECAUSE” doesn’t mean you had to be a killer!”
This is contrary to Xtian teaching. You also have written that Jsus suffered and died for the sins of people. Who then Inflicted this pain and suffering. It was done by Romans even though Xtian writings say it was the Jews who killed Jsus. Therefore Dina is accurate in stating according to Isaiah it would include all Israel. You cannot have it both ways. I suspect most Xtians would actually agree with Dina’s perception but, these days, do not want to admit it outright.
You choice of the word “Because” doesn’t mean “For” either. Therefore according to this chapter Jsus did not die “for” anyone’s sins. The word “because” identifies a perpetrator and then who is that perpetrator. Is it Israel or is it the Nations.
I just realised something after viewing a mob attack on YouTube . Notice that in the gospels , the Christian human god either runs away , or magically walks through a group of angry Jews who were about to topple him? When reading isaiAh 53 , I ask , can I see this object of persecution worthy of a trial before an authority ? I clearly can’t . Something is very odd with the gospel accounts. Notice how mark is able to quickly gather crowds upon jebus arrival and in 2 days he has pharisee turn crowds against him?
Eric, I have about eight comments of yours in my email box that are awaiting response. I am going to respond one by one, as time permits, and I shall reference each comment in my response.
In this comment, I am responding to https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/isaiah-53-micah-7-and-isaiah-62/#comment-18037
Eric, I never said there there weren’t any ancient commentaries that viewed Isaiah 53 as messianic. And I never said that your sources lied about that. So why did you even bring that up? Asking for evidence of something is not the same thing as asserting it doesn’t exist. I choose my words carefully.
Your thinking on this issue is fundamentally dishonest. You asserted that Rashi was the first Jewish commentator to propose that Isaiah 53 refers to the nation of Israel. I cited sources showing that this interpretation predated Rashi by at least 800 years. I asked you to retract that statement.
You refused to retract your statement and admit your error, instead bringing proof of ancient commentaries that hinted that Isaiah 53 refers to the Messiah.
I never argued that Isaiah 53 cannot possibly refer to the Messiah, nor did I argue that no Jewish commentaries ever said it did.
The traditional interpretation follows the plain meaning and the plain context–this is the primary mode of interpretation for Jews. The midrashic literature often provides an additional layer of meaning, in this case saying that Isaiah 53 refers to the Messiah in a loose sense, in the sense that the Messiah is part of Israel and thus represents them. This additional meaning does not replace or supersede the plain meaning, which is what I am arguing for. (You need this passage to be messianic; I don’t need it to be not messianic, since you need it to be specifically about Jesus and I don’t.)
It would have been so simple for you to say something like, “I checked my statement on Rashi and have found it to be in error. However, ancient commentaries that predate Rashi view the subject of Isaiah 53 as messianic.”
Why do you find it so hard to say that? I’m disappointed in you, Eric. This is not the behavior of someone who cares deeply about the truth. It is rather the attitude of one who places his agenda above the truth. So are you willing now to admit your error?
Furthermore, the authors of the midrashic texts and other commentaries do not read into Isaiah 53 that the purpose of the Messiah is to suffer and die to redeem mankind from sin and death and that only by accepting the Messiah in that sense can one be “saved.” So it is disgustingly dishonest to take what they said and try to make it seem like they support your theology when in reality they taught the opposite and would rather have died than submit to such a notion.
I do not have the resources to check whether your sources–the ones you quoted in the comment referenced above–are accurate or to check that you are quoting them accurately and in context. But I caution you to beware. Wherever you are getting your information from–it should have been easy for whoever made that claim about Rashi to check if it were true (it took me only a quick Google search to discover that it isn’t). One can fairly conclude that your source is therefore unreliable, its impressive credentials notwithstanding.
I must respond to what you wrote: “Also the fact that rashi had to strongly manifest his statement of Is 53 relating to the nation speakes for other interpretations that certainly had been offered.”
I assure that Rashi was aware of other commentaries on Isaiah 53. Rashi is most famous for explaining the plain meaning of the text, and that is what he does here in verse 3. He states it matter-of-factly; I don’t see that he “had to strongly manifest” anything. The tone of the writing does not suggest at all that Rashi “had to strongly manifest his statement.” I don’t know why you think so. I think you ought to retract that statement as well.
Also, what is the point of your claim that there is “lots of documentry that Isaiah 53 as the prophetic portion, was preached in certain old synagogues”?
Is it to support the despicable charge that the rabbis “knew” this was a prophecy about Jesus but wanted to hide it from everyone else?
How then do you explain that Isaiah chapters 42-48 and 55-59 are also not read as the haftorah? Or the fact that Isaiah 9:5-6, a Christian proof text, is read as part of the haftorah? Or the fact that evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which PREDATED Christianity, suggests that Isaiah 53 was skipped then too?
Eric, you’re spouting missionary nonsense from “scholars” whose main goal is to convert Jews, not to find the truth.
There has been much said about “the astonishment of the nations” and in the same context that of Xtians being astonished. This is an excerpt from Jpost that can show just how, in the end, that Xtians will most certainly be astonished to learn that which they now are against.
(“These activities would ordinarily be out of reach for a group its size. But, due to the largesse of nine European Christian aid agencies, Zochrot does not lack resources. Foreign funding for 2014 and first quarter of 2015 totals NIS 2,892,665 (about $740,000). Of that, some NIS 2,726,917—about 93 percent—comes from the Christian charities.
These charities, both Catholic and Protestant, receive funding grants from their respective governments, mostly European. The charities are Bischoefliches Misereor (Germany), Broederlijk Delen (Belgium), Christian Aid (U.K.), Finn Church Aid (Finland), HEKS-EPER (Switzerland), ICCO (Netherlands), Trócaire (Ireland), the Mennonite Central Committee (Canada), and the United Church of Canada (Canada).
That these Christian groups support the abolishment of Jewish Israel is deeply troubling. The modern Zionist movement emerged in response to 19th-century anti-Semitic pogroms often caused by the anti-Jewish incitement of Christian clergy. Israel was subsequently established in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust, the road to which was pave by centuries of anti-Semitic Christian teachings.
Following the Holocaust, a number of the world’s leading Christian theologians began a comprehensive reconsideration of Christianity’s attitudes toward Jews and Judaism. They undertook a process of renouncing and reformulating centuries of Christian teachings that led to anti-Jewish violence over the centuries.
Yet in the last two decades, some churches have partnered with anti-Israel activists to reverse these theological reforms, by introducing a “Palestinian liberation theology”—a fusion of Palestinian nationalism and Christian theology. This ideology seeks to undermine Jewish claims, religious or historical, to sovereignty in any and all parts of the Land of Israel.
Zochrot serves as perfect window dressing for this theological onslaught on the right of the Jewish people to sovereign equality. Without its Christian backers, Zochrot and its pernicious agenda would cease to exist.”)
This will precisely align with the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 when they learn that which they had not understood. This is a microcosm of Jewish history that has been for 2000 years.
Hi Eric,
I don’t know if you are reading my comments, as you indicated that you no longer cared for this discussion. I hope that is not the case and that you will consider my words. In any event, I am continuing to write for any interested audience members.
In this comment I shall tackle two related posts,
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/isaiah-53-micah-7-and-isaiah-62/#comment-18038
and
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/isaiah-53-micah-7-and-isaiah-62/#comment-18063
In the first one, you lectured me about getting information on the Internet. I responded by showing you that in fact I had read a number of books on the subject. In the second post, you scoffed at the notion of getting information from books.
What am I supposed to say to that? Damned if I do, damned if I don’t! How else am I supposed to acquire knowledge about history? Am I supposed to just rely on your say-so?
You argued that lack of historical documentation for a particular event is not proof that it didn’t happen. An argument from silence is a very weak position to take. It would be like arguing that lack of unicorn sightings doesn’t prove their non-existence.
As you correctly pointed out, however, we do have documentation of Christians helping and protecting Jews. But as any responsible historian can tell you, these Christians were few and far between, tiny pinpricks of light in the deep darkness of Christian oppression of the Jews.
The fact that you refuse to face is that before 1960 (which was not so very long ago, you know), a Christian could be an anti-Semite and still be considered a Christian in good standing. It did not occur to anyone that it was wrong or evil to hate Jews, although it did occur to a few–a very few–including some popes and clergy, that it was wrong to kill or persecute them. While some did speak out against hurting Jews physically or economically–for which we have historical evidence–no one argued that Christians must love them as they love each other. Somehow, the commandment to love your neighbor applied only to other Christians.
Is it possible that there were Christians who genuinely loved Jews and believed it was a great sin, a moral evil, to hate them?
Since we do not have a single written statement before the eighteenth century affirming this principle, we don’t know. But one thing is for sure: every single Christian leader until then, many who are still venerated today, did not come out and say so. In fact, many of them hated Jews themselves.
It is fair to ask Christians today why the writings of vicious and rabid Jew haters such as John Chrysostom and Martin Luther are studied in Christian seminaries and the authors regarded with reverence, still.
That’s my question to you, Eric. Why don’t Christians renounce these evil people instead of venerating them?
If real Christians don’t hate Jews but love them, why are all these Christian leaders and saints who hated Jews considered real Christians? Why is Saint Louis still considered a saint, when he was sainted for persecuting his Jewish subjects, to name but one example of many?
And here’s another question for you to consider. You wrote: “So whatever help was done it was done quielty, in secret far away from political leaders and authorities, far away known from public life!”
If so many Christians were helping Jews, why were they so afraid? There’s safety in numbers, as they say. Furthermore, what happened to create a climate in which it was dangerous to help Jews survive?
Eric, as long as Christians don’t take our past suffering seriously and do some real soul searching, the danger of a repeat performance will be ever-present.
It is once again becoming respectable to hate Jews. To their credit, many Christians are taking a stand and speaking out against it.
P.S. You finished the second comment about deceit. To be more clear:
John 18:20: “I have spoken openly to the world, Jesus replied. I always taught in synagogues or at the temple, where all the Jews come together. I said nothing in secret.”
Mark 4:11-12: “He told them, The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!”
Luke 9:18-21: “Once when Jesus was praying in private and his disciples were with him, he asked them, Who do the crowds say I am? They replied, Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, that one of the prophets of long ago has come back to life. But what about you? he asked. Who do you say I am? Peter answered, God’s Messiah. Jesus strictly warned them not to tell this to anyone.”
In John 18 Jesus claims he said nothing in secret, but the passages in Mark and Luke that I cited give the lie to his words.
You might wish to argue that he had a very good reason for it. That’s not the point. The point is, he was deceitful.
Dina, I will see if I will want to go back to that maybe after the weekend. I copied the stuff I will want to address but because you put so many questions I might not have time to respond to all.
Eric, I am glad you’re back in the game! Take your time. I am still responding to old comments of yours, so I will be posting more responses over the next few days. No pressure!
dina, I am still responding to your old email . To identify God’s people I would first have some question. Would you call atheist Jews also God’s people? Those who don’t know who God is, those who don’t trust Him and those who don’t want to listen to Him, they don’t keep the law, they don’t care about their festivals. Would you still call them God’s people although they don’t want to have anything to do with God? What is their Jewish identity? Just ancestors?
So in this case being Jewish doesn’t always go along with being God;s person.
You asked me how Jewish people keep their identity if they become Christians? But what marks God’s person? Love of God and trusting Him and love of others, right? Can somebody who does it be excluded from being God’s person?
So if a Jewish person trusts God and wants to listen to Him and wants to serve Him and then finds out who is the Messiah and understands what God accomplished through him,( he bacomes a Christian) how can he not be God’s person anymore? He didn’t stop knowing God, he didn’t stop trusting Him , he still wants to love God. In fact many Messianic Jews still keep all the law and festivals and the sabbath.
God looks at the heart. He doesn’t need to identify his people by the hats on their heads, or color on their clothes or by observed customs as somebody who does it all might be far away with his heart from Him like it says Is 29;13 ;
” Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, their fear of Me is like rote learning of human commands (…).”
God doesn’t have a problem with identifying His people because he looks at the persons heart. And if your desire is to trust Him and and love Him , you are His person , not an outcast.
I don’t know much about Islam and Buddism and any Jewish person in that to answer your second question.
Hi Eric,
In this comment I am responding to what you wrote here:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/isaiah-53-micah-7-and-isaiah-62/#comment-18045
You correctly pointed out that the speaker in Isaiah 53 does not specifically mention abusing or persecuting the servant; therefore, my conclusion that Christians read it this way is wrong. I hear what you are saying and I am glad to know that Christians don’t read it this way.
It still disturbing, though, if the speaker is Israel, then Israel is talking about how the servant was despised. Christians have accused Jews of hating Jesus down through the centuries with horrific consequences for the Jews (such as massacres and expulsions resulting from host desecration charges; since you know little of the history of Christian persecution of Jews you likely are not familiar with this).
Of course, Jews don’t hate Jesus, so why would Isaiah be saying that they do?
You wrote that this can’t be a future report; otherwise the prophet would have said that the kings and nation would be disappointed. I don’t know why shock isn’t a good enough emotion for you. If you are dead certain you are right and then discover you were wrong, the strongest emotion you would feel is amazement that you got it so wrong when you thought you were so right. So Isaiah is right on.
But Eric, here’s another thing. How can this prophecy have been fulfilled from a Christian point of view? When has Israel ever said that they see the error of their ways regarding Jesus? Do you believe now that the speaker is only the individual Jewish converts to Christianity over the centuries? Or does this force you to say that only part of Isaiah 53 has been fulfilled (which would be very damaging to your credibility, because the way you decide which part has been fulfilled and which part hasn’t is circular)?
Also, you wrote that Christians won’t be astonished that Israel will be exalted because they expect it. Yes, they will be astonished, Eric, because they expect that Israel will be exalted after mass conversion to Christianity. You do not expect the Jews to be exalted because all along they remained loyal to God and His Torah and didn’t follow the idols of other religions. That they are going to be exalted for resisting the message of Christianity (and Islam and the rest) is going to shock you.
Dina, Answering your last email about ;surprised nations , etc sorry it’s long.
You asked ; “Of course, Jews don’t hate Jesus, so why would Isaiah be saying that they do?”
– Isaiah is talking about those who dispised Jesus at the time when he was lead to be killed. He is not talking about all Jews hating Jesus. Everything what is written in Is 53 about the servant- Jesus was relating to his suffering being rejected despised and mistreated at his trial and crucifixion.
YOU TO ME; “You wrote that this can’t be a future report; otherwise the prophet would have said that the kings and nation would be disappointed. I don’t know why shock isn’t a good enough emotion for you. If you are dead certain you are right and then discover you were wrong, the strongest emotion you would feel is amazement that you got it so wrong when you thought you were so right.”
-What I mean Is 53 is NEITHER expressing disappointment NOR ANY shock of anybody. That is why I don’t see it as future report.
“How can this prophecy have been fulfilled from a Christian point of view? When has Israel ever said that they see the error of their ways regarding Jesus?”
There is one important thing here, that might be misunderstood. It doesn’t mean that all Israel will come to God and admit they sinned or that they need forgiveness because the audience is Israel but the same message of repentance is also relating to all people on earth as there is no single person on earth gentiles or Jews that would be without at least one sin.
It would be crazy to say that Jesus is dying only for jews and only Jews have to admit their sin.. So although the audience is Israel( because God worked first through Israel) all gentiles have to admit the same ‘error’ that they need God’s forgiveness and they will understand that Jesus died also for them. And that is what all -those we call Christians -did.
If God gives something to Jews like forgiveness and speaks to them about it and about how their sins are covered , it doesn;t mean He wants others( gentiles) to be excliuded from that. That is why althouth the speaker ( through Isaiah) is Israel the message of forgiveness it to everybody that the servant died for them.
“Also, you wrote that Christians won’t be astonished that Israel will be exalted because they expect it. Yes, they will be astonished, Eric, because they expect that Israel will be exalted after mass conversion to Christianity.”
Me; – which simply means after they repent according to Is 59;20 ” A redeemer will come to Zion and to those of Jacob who repent from willful sin- the word of Hashem.”
(and the message about Jesus is mainly nothing but the message of repentance and God’s forgiveness.
So what reason do Christians have in Jews hearing about Jesus the Messiah so much ? They want them to hear the message of God’s forgiveness and accept it so that th redeemer would come and so that God would establish His kindgom on earth.
” You said here ( I will shorten it a bit) ; “You do not expect the Jews (…) that they are going to be exalted for resisting the message of Christianity (and Islam and the rest) is going to shock you.”
– so where is that shock expressed in is 53???
– is God not going to exalt His people who repented because of Jesus ( I mean Messianic Jews)?
I doubt so, He would exclude them..
-why is Zech 12 describing the mourning of every person separatelly on the day of their victory and redemption? V 6-8 clearlt tell you about victory and God’s intervention ” On that day Hashem will protect the inhabitant of Jerusalem , on that day even the weakest among them will be like David , and the house of David will be like divine beings..” I don’t want to quote the whole story, you can read it for yourself . The mourning of people “because of those whom they have stabbed..” doesn’t make sense. First of all ” they’ is not identified as Isaiah is not mentioning any other people before that sentence,
-second; “those stubbed ones” appear in every bible as singular and the further verses that continues about it ; “they will mourn over HIM..” and “be embittered over HIM…”
‘Him’ is referred to as singular .
If that was to be some cry over national tragedy people would rather mourn united ( like they do everywhere) , not separatelly wives – husbands, tribes from tribes.
Every christian interpters these verses about Jews being sorry for finding out they were rejecting the truth about Jesus forgiveness seeing God sending them the redeemer through His Messiah which will be Jesus. Chapter 13 continues about ‘ spring open for cleansing for purification” which means time to repent and accepting God’s forgiveness.
You may not agree, I am just sharing it from Christian point of view. I am sharing it not to convert you but so that you would understand WHY Christians believe so.
The last thing I wanted to mention while talking about these ‘ amazed nations’ over exalted servant.
According to the Bible Israel’s deliverance and coming of the Messiah are coming at the same time.
So that means it is possible people would be supresed by both? I don’t think that seeing a person coming back on clouds would shock people less than deliverance of Israel taking place.
The other thing is when Isaiah talks about the nations, it doesn’t mean every single person , but that in every nation there will be people who will be amazed.
Jewish view is that because most of the world seems Christians they should not be amzaed by Jesus coming. Then I can tell you that I found out about his second coming 20 years after being Christian and it was pterrty shocking to me at that time . Why? Because most Christians in Catholic churches are not taught about it but relay on extra added stuff that was added by the corrupted cleargy during middle ages( making saints of people, confession to the priest, intermediators to Jesus etc) and the message about jesus is rather limited to his death for some sin and nobody has a clue what it really means. That was me and most people around me who claimed to be Christans. So getting the bible in my hands opened my eyes for more I had no clue about.
When you want to insist that Is 53 is a future report despite all the discussed previous argumants that are not defended, lets imagine the audience the nations saying ‘ it was us being mean that the Jews suffered” ( I am just paraphrasing it as that statement is not even there) . If they would be admitting that in the future and are admitting their sin ( their peoples) what good would that be to them , when the previous real persecutors from the past are already dead ( Crusaders, Nazi, other anti-semites etc) and them who really are guilty are not admiting their sin and are not part of that confession ” we went like ship astray…” but the future nations who are not part of persecussion are admiring not their own sin ” we went like sheep astray…” just a thought , that ( furure report) interpretation doesn’t make sense.
Hi Eric,
Thank you for taking the time to write lengthy and researched comments in answer to my challenges. I have five comments from you since May 1 and another three from April that I haven’t responded to. It might be a couple of weeks before I get to them. Thanks for your patience!
Dina, no hurry, meanwhile I am sending this link I found today as they were celebrating the name of that person Irena Sendler ( in our Polish news ) who managed to rescue 2500 kids from gettho together with her cooperation group. It is a nice story about somebody I haven’t heard about before .
http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/righteous/stories/sendler.asp
eric, as long as what I write makes sense to others, I am not “arguing for the sake of arguing”. Sorry, but not until I read your comments on 5 May with its many spelling errors and unclear sentences, that I realized that you might not be as proficient at understanding the English language as you appeared to a few other times. Some of your confusion on what I and others write may also be due to the bibles that we use as a source. I use Jewish translations into English and the more literal, less unbiased Christian translations and study bibles. There are huge differences between different translations, which is one reason I asked a couple of times what version you used to base your opinions on.
And most of my arguments are direct responses to what you have written, which is one reason that I use a lot of quotes in my replies. In some cases, I use the very same words and the same line of reasoning that you, or others, make and I use them against you or them. If what I write makes little sense, then perhaps it is because one fails to see how little sense that their argument makes to others.
However, based on your earlier replies to me, you seemed quite capable then of making sense of it, so I think that what I write might make “too much sense” to you. Especially since I am not a Jew. Too often Christians use the “them” versus “us Christians ” argument. “We” read this, but “you Jews” read it the “wrong way”. But “the Jews” here (for the most part) make more sense to me than those who argue against them, which is why I would agree often with those Christian scholars, that someone quoted above, who are or were not afraid to say that Jesus was not Isaiah’s servant. Trying rob”shoe horn” Jesus into the “OT” where he wasn’t and where he doesn’t fit, is about the weakest case you could make for Jesus.
That last sentence should start with the words ” Trying to shoe-horn” Jesus into the “OT”….
So that I am not misunderstood above, I try to make sense of what a person writes no matter what their native language is. What is important is “what” a person is trying to say, not “how” they say it. But some bible translations into English from Hebrew or Greek do have a Christian or a denominational bias. People argue over and over again, and they may never agree or “see eye to eye”, because they base their arguments on “different sources”. They have different “world views”, different foundations for their beliefs.
So eric’s reasoning, which is mostly what I was taught and what I heard for decades, is less convincing than most of the “Jewish arguments”. If one would finally accept Jesus as the only candidate for the “suffering servant” of Isaiah, that would only be one of many dozens or hundreds of more hurdles and problems one most overcome to accept Jesus as any type of messiah, no matter how one defines that “messiah” based on the “OT” or the Jewish tradition.
yedidiah, If I am trying to ‘shoe-horn’ Jesus into the “OT” where he wasn’t and where he doesn’t fit, I wonder why are you trying to put him in Is 42;17-20
your words; “There is none as blind as that servant (has to include Jesus(…)” And all that talking and talking that didn’t lead to anything. To answer your last question – you complained I didn’t answer- is in Is 42; 24-25. There it tells you who the whole passage v 18-25 relates to.
No, eric I didn’t put Jesus anywhere in Isaiah, you and others make the servant Jesus or “the Messiah” and so include him as a blind servant. You try to read Jesus as “the he” in some places and at the same time try to exclude him as “the he” in other places. So you didn’t really answer my question of who the “he” was, but instead pointed to a “them”. Isaiah doesn’t stop with the servant at 42; 24-25, but continues on & on. Instead of stopping at 42:25, we read 43:1-8. And reading on, we see the surprised external “nations” acting & speaking as one and asking who has told it and who of them foretold it? Isaiah 43:9-10 “All the nations assemble as one, The peoples gather. Who among them declared this, Foretold to us the things that have happened? Let them produce their witnesses and be vindicated, That men, hearing them, may say, “It is true!”” And God speaks, “My witnesses are you –declares the LORD– My servant, whom I have chosen.” So God has witnesses who are “you my servant whom I have chosen”. When many are addressed “you my chosen servant” is plural. Isaiah 43:4 “Because you are precious to Me, And honored, and I love you, I give men in exchange for you And peoples in your stead”. So other people’s are “given in exchange” and “in their stead” for these servants who suffered.
yedidiah, you keep adding stuff and not making sense again. By saying ” you and others make the servant Jesus or “the Messiah” and so include him as a blind servant. ” Definitely NO Christians in that web included Jesus as a blind servant and Jesus is not identified JUST based on being referred as singular servant. He is identified as the messiah based on what God said about his Messiah,, based on God being pleased with that same singular servant whom He repeats in many chapters in Isaiah, whom he addresses as the Messiah in chapter 42;1-8 , based on clear contrast between addressing a group of people who disobeyed God and the one righteous through whom God wants to accomplish His will to redeem the rest of Jacob tribes, he is identified based on God’s plan of redemption described in the prophets, based on the testimony God gave about him in NT.
P.s. what I meant by saying that chapter is not as important; I meant endless discussion about blindness of people described in that chapter which was obvious and clear so I don’t need to ‘digest’ it over and over. So I say ;’ that topic is not as important to keep digging in it.
eric, your definition of messiah is not the only definition of messiah, not even the only Christian definition. Isaiah was not talking about Jesus and he and his audience didn’t even have him in mind. Yes, it wouldn’t make sense (so therefore I would NOT write it) to suggest that “Christians in that web included Jesus as a blind servant and Jesus is not identified JUST based on being referred as singular servant”. If you read the least bit carefully & not automatically assume nonsense, you would see that I did not say that Christians “included Jesus as a blind servant”, nor that they identified him “JUST based” on being a singular servant. But they often do “make a big deal” on references to a “singular servant”, even if the plain context of the singular “he” or “you” refers to some specific person or if it refers to many people. Few intentionally believe in an error nor would they promote what they believe to be false, but when one bases their foundation of faith on an error, on falsehood, eventually what they believe proves to be false. The NT says many will be deceived. Many who believe, Jesus will not know.
So, your definition is not the only definition of messiah or servant. And not even the best. If your definition were correct, then you still would have to show where logically it would apply to Jesus. And first you would have to show that any person or being like the “Jesus of the NT” even existed. You would then have to show that the contradictory & sinful nature of Jesus in the NT writings were not only not contradictory, but true. You would have to strip almost 2000 years of false concepts and ideas about Jesus to “return him to a worthwhile candidate for a messiah”.
I am going to add some more stuff from Isaiah (there is much more to add although it makes no sense to you). Isaiah 45:1-4, “Thus said the LORD to Cyrus, His anointed one– Whose right hand He has grasped, treading down nations before him, ungirding the loins of kings, opening doors before him And letting no gate stay shut: I will march before you and level the hills that loom up; I will shatter doors of bronze and cut down iron bars. I will give you treasures concealed in the dark and secret hoards– So that you may know that it is I the LORD, The God of Israel, who call you by name. For the sake of My servant Jacob, Israel My chosen one, I call you by name, I hail you by title, though you have not known Me.” Isaiah 42:1-8. “This is My servant, whom I uphold, My chosen one, in whom I delight. I have put My spirit upon him, he shall teach the true way to the nations.
He shall not cry out or shout aloud, or make his voice heard in the streets…. I the LORD, in My grace, have summoned you and I have grasped you by the hand. I created you, and appointed you a covenant people, light of nations– opening eyes deprived of light, rescuing prisoners from confinement, from the dungeon those who sit in darkness. I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not yield My glory to another, nor My renown to idols.” Isaiah 43:12-13 “I alone foretold the triumph. And I brought it to pass; I announced it, And no strange god was among you. So you are My witnesses –declares the LORD– And I am God…”
God alone with no yielding of Glory to another. No yielding of His renown to an idol, no “strange god who was among you”. The chosen one, “Jacob”, is (or are) His “witnesses”. That is the testimony.
Yedidiah, I should have quoted ;( plural); ” They did not wish to go in His ways and did not listen to His Torah(…) so you won’t suggest I was talking about God. Just precaution knowing what conclusions you make of my messages sometimes… but anyways that chapter is not terribly important to me so take it easy, too.
That is part of the problem; some chapters and some verses are made to be more important than others in order to develope & sustain a certain set of beliefs that aren’t part of Isaiah’s real message. By taking verses out of context and by de-emphasizing most of the whole picture given by Isaiah (and other prophets) one distorts God’s real message.
But since you are starting to agree with me, slowly step by step, you might eventually see Isa chap 53 is not that important to you either.
Hi Eric,
I have over ten comments of yours that I saved in an email folder that I have yet to respond to. I hope to tackle them one at a time at some point. However, we have gotten off track, so I’d like to bring us back to where we were.
I was attempting to prove to you that even if Isaiah 53 in its plain meaning refers to the Messiah (I have no problem with a messianic meaning symbolically), the subject cannot possibly be Jesus.
To summarize my points thus far:
The servant is described as despised and isolated. As the most popular man on earth, both in his lifetime as recorded by the gospels and after his lifetime as we see in the numbers of Christians, Muslims, and Hindus who revere him, Jesus does not match this description.
The servant is described as disfigured. Again, we do not know anything of Jesus’s appearance, but he is described in the gospels as healthy and strong and is depicted as handsome in Christian art. Not a match.
The servant is described as “a man of pains” and “accustomed to illness.” A few days of suffering at the end of his life hardly qualifies.
You disagree. You claim that the fact that people today hate or reject Jesus is enough to qualify him as being described as despised and rejected. The disfiguring effects of his suffering qualify him to be described as having a marred appearance. One event of suffering at the end of his life qualifies him to match the description of “a man of pains” and “accustomed to illness.”
We also discussed the fact that Jesus was buried in a rich man’s tomb and crucified with criminals, while the servant is described as being killed with the wealthy and buried with the wicked. I don’t remember your counter to that, forgive me.
I would like to point out two more reasons the servant does not match the description of Jesus. One is that the plural form is used twice in this passage. You have used the argument of plural and singular usage to prove that the singular servant is corporate Israel in another chapter of Isaiah. I ask you to be consistent and accept that argument here.
In verse 8, “an affliction upon THEM that was my people’s sin.” The word “lamo” is plural. In all but one of the other places that the word “lamo” appears in the KJV it is correctly translated as plural. I cannot explain why your versions have translated in the singular. But I am not lying. It is a plural word.
In verse 9, the word “b’mosav” means in his DEATHS. It is a plural word. This is as clear and plain as day to this Hebrew speaker. Again, I cannot explain why your versions have translated this incorrectly. But they are incorrect.
You can assume I’m a liar. Or you can go ahead and learn Hebrew and prepare to be astonished at the errors in translation. I don’t know what else to say.
The fact is, in this passage the servant is referred to in both singular and plural form, make of that what you will.
My second point refers to something we already discussed but never resolved. The servant is promised the reward of long life and offspring. You insist that the long life is eternal life and the offspring is metaphorical children. However, the Hebrew uses the very specific term “live long days” which in the Bible never means eternal life, and it uses the very specific word “zerah” which means only physical, biological offspring. The Hebrew has a word for children that can be either literal or metaphorical: “banim.” That is not the word used here.
All the points I have presented thus far prove that while the subject of Isaiah 53 could be the Messiah, it cannot possibly be Jesus.
I look forward to your response. After we finish hashing this out, I hope to present you, God willing and as time permits, with the traditional Jewish understanding of the PLAIN meaning of the text, of which you have many misconceptions.
Dina, You are repeating yourself with your arguments over and over ; so I have to repeat my answers over again;
” One event of suffering at the end of his life qualifies him to match the description of “a man of pains” and “accustomed to illness.”
Does it talk here about ‘ illness’ as a physical sickness like flu, pneumonia etc? If according to you ‘ yes’ then v. 4 should be talking about literal sickness as well; ” but in truth it was our ills that he bore..” that means ‘our flu, our Lyme, our sore throat, diabetics, pneumonia’s etc. Which wouldn’t make sense to interpret it like that.
To the rest of your argument it is very pitiful to see that from your point of view a person tortured for 3 days ending up hardly recognizable and dying later on a cross doesn’t qualify for ‘ a man of pains’ . No matter whether you qualify somebody or not, God and Isaiah already did.
Isaiah is talking about those who despised Jesus at the time when he was lead to be killed. It describes the process of him giving his life for us. Everything what is written in Is 53 was relating to Jesus’ suffering at his trial and crucifition. The chapter covers the suffering period of time till the servant’s death and resurrection. What you called as the ‘popularity of Jesus’ is the fact that there are people in many religions who believe that ‘some’ Jesus existed . But that is not the point of Isaiah. If that type of ‘popularity ‘ is your argument there are also lots of ‘popular’ Jews who are known by many ( famous writers, scientists). Also ‘popularity’ of a person doesn’t replace the fact that the same person was despised by many in a certain time before. By the way v 11-12 talk about coming ‘popularity’ which is exaltation of the servant.
“The servant is described as “a man of pains” and “accustomed to illness.” A few days of suffering at the end of his life hardly qualifies.”
You measure suffering by the length or quality or number of people participating in it, that someone suffered less or more in order to qualify. Very radiculous. So most of the people shouldn’t qualify either as theose who were simply shut on spot , they died in a blink of an eye.
You qouote v 9 against Jesus that the opposite happened to him. Nothing opposite happened , but you simply misunderstand the message . You read the whole verse as talking just about a tomb.
v.9 says; “he SUBMITTED himself to the grave with the wicked ” . Does it talk here just about the grave to be put in? The verese is about the servants submission / WILLINGNESS to die, submission to the death on the cross that was usually appointed to the criminals . ‘Grave ‘ is usually expression of a place you die, not necesserily a tomb ! If Isaiah talked just about a place ‘tomb’ where you put the body, you would not have SUBMISSION expressed as criminals didn’t have to decide where they were to die or buried.
“… and in his death with the wealthy” speakes for itself he was buried in a rich man’s tomb.
You should not express only your bias as far as interpreting the servant and trying to show me how it doesn’t fit Jesus, and excluding how it does fit the nation.
How was the nation throughout the centuries ‘ in their death with the wealthy’?
Whatever way you try to interpret it , it won’t make sense for the servant-nation. Whether they were ” in his death with the wealthy’ as relating to the place of execution or they were “in a tomb with the wealthy’ as a place to put the bodies , it doesn’t make sense. Your arguments against Jesus not fulfilling v 9. are not proving anything.
You are contradicting yourself in that following statement;
“I was attempting to prove to you that even if Isaiah 53 in its plain meaning refers to the Messiah (I have no problem with a messianic meaning symbolically), the subject cannot possibly be Jesus.”
By saying that you admit you have no problem Is 53 is about an individual as refering to the Messiah. Then you list number of argumants to prove it can’t be about an individual because of some plurals used.
As far as your ‘plurals’ ;
“In verse 8, I cannot explain why your versions have translated in the singular.”
Why did the very known JPS Jewish Tanakh edition did? ” By oppressive judgement he was taken away. Who would describe HIS abode?”
Also the v.9 they translate it ‘ in his death’ in singular ” according to traditional Hebrew text” . But even if you wanted to use ‘in his deaths’ as pl, if you treat the servant as a nation as a whole, you would still use singular to make sense. If you want to talk about ‘deaths’ of the nation in every century why do they always die or are put to the grave with the wealthy? That has to all go together!
Your arguments don’t make any sense about ‘being disfigured’ Another words Jesus couldn’t be disfigured as he is described as a healthy man before he went to the cross. .’ Disfiguration” in Isaiah has nothing to do with somebody being healthy and strong or not Most Jews were ‘heathy and strong ‘ not disfigured before they were persecuted. The same Jesus was healthy before he was tortured . And argumants based on peoples imagination depicted as handsome Jesus in Christian art don’t relate to that verse. They also show a crucified Jesus in their pictures, not a handsome man.
“The servant is promised the reward of long life and offspring.”
Why I insist that the long life is eternal life and the offspring is metaphorical children? Based on Daniel 12;2 we know that resurrected people will be facing eternal life. So if all those killed throughout the centiuries are to have any life, there is only one choice; eternal life or not waking to life at all. That is why that’ long life’ is simply eternal I( even if it doesn’t say in that verse) . If that was about just ‘long life ending with death maybe after 100 year that would contradict Daniel 12;2 promise. ( look it up)
I don’t have a problem with the offspring.
First of all in order for the servant who died to see offspring is to be brought back to life that means resurrection.
Talking about biological offspring, I see Abrahams offspring being talked about ,that the servant will see, Jewish people for whom he died. Isaiah is not even mentioning ‘ his offspring’ as a person’s kids.
Eric This is Dina’s argument and not mine but please forgive my intrusion. You insist that Isaiah is talking about the limited time of Jesus’ being taken to be killed – where does Isaiah tell us this? This statement is your own idea in your attempt to shoehorn your hero into the text. The text does make it clear that the speakers will view the servant as a man of pains until they see his exaltation. In other words the prophet is telling us how the onlookers will identify the servant in their mind until they are shocked into seeing him in a different light at the time of his sudden exaltation.
ypfriend; ” You insist that Isaiah is talking about the limited time of Jesus ’ being taken to be killed – where does Isaiah tell us this? ”
Isaiah doesn’ t say ” he is taken to be killed’ but shows you that his suffering and judgement resulted in his death and will result in his resurrection.
No, this statement is not just my own idea. Jesus fulfilled all what was spoken in the text till his resurrection.
“The text does make it clear that the speakers will view the servant as a man of pains until they see his exaltation.”
So the onlookers should also identify the servant based on more message that is in the chapter that is in every line which doesn’t find fulfilment treated as the nation.
Eric You didn’t get my point – but that puts me in good company because you didn’t get Isaiah’s point either. The prophet gives us to understand that the servant is well known to the onlookers and they see him as a man of pains – not because of what the prophet said but because that is how they see him
Eric, Rabbi B. made an important point and you did not answer it AT ALL.
The Rabbi makes a good point, especially considering what you wrote here:
“Everything what is written in Is 53 was relating to Jesus’ suffering at his trial and crucifition.”
If this is the case then how would v10 correspond to his trial and crucifixion.
Sharbano, By ‘everything’ I mean all what talks about servants’ suffering v 1- 9 . You didn’t read the message carefully. We were talking about suffering part whether Jesus ‘ qualifies’ according to Dina or not as his suffering was ‘ too short’ to qualify according to her. That is why I said that ‘ suffering description ‘ relates to his trial and crucifixion not his whole life before he was killed.
Sharbano, v 10 talks about his life back ( promise of resurrection) after the servant dies .
That was not the point of focus in our conversation while discussing the way of his suffering .
That makes absolutely NO Sense whatsoever. “To prolong his days” is “resurrection”?? That doesn’t fit in the wildest of imaginations. If you have to spend THIS much effort in trying to relate the text then clearly your conclusions are questionable.
Shalom Sharbano! If you read Hebrew you will see that it is not written ‘He will prolong his days’ but ‘He will prolong days’ יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים here the days are not his for the sacred Author did not specify it. Please translate correctly! Todah!
Shabat Shalom!
Mr. L., “ya’arich yamim” is an idiomatic expression that means “he will have long life.” If you try to translate exactly and literally from one language to another without allowing for idiomatic usage you will end up translating incorrectly and absurdly, as anyone knows who speaks more than one language.
For example, if I tell an Israeli “ata lo’ais et ha’ozen sheli” he will think I’ve gone off my rocker, although it would make perfect sense for me to say, “you are chewing my ear off.”
Do you see what I am saying?
Dina, I quoted your line ” Why I insist that the long life is eternal life and the offspring is metaphorical children?” I don’t say they have to be metaphorical children if they are children of Abraham.
Eric, my point in repeating old arguments was to summarize my points and your points so we can move on. I’m sorry that wasn’t clear, because much of your response was therefore unnecessary.
As for your argument that the plural/singular doesn’t work if I take the symbolic meaning, I agree with you. That is why the symbolic (or midrashic) explanation is not the primary one–only the plain meaning is. According to the plain meaning, we see singular and plural usages for the servant.
It’s not going to help to quote at me a Jewish translation as showing these forms in the singular. I know Hebrew. I know they are plural. It would be like me insisting to you that “children” is singular although you know for a fact that it is plural. It’s just too bad for you that there are two plural usages in this passage.
As for the very specific usages of “long life” rather than eternal life and literal offspring rather than metaphorical offspring, you have to ask yourself why the prophet chose such peculiar phrasing. Surely it would have made more sense, if this is exclusively about Jesus, to use “eternal life” and the word “banim” rather than these very specific terms.
Why descendants of Abraham makes this acceptable you I simply do not understand. Of course, the servant is a descendant of Abraham, so his children will also be descendants of Abraham. But his children will specifically be those created by his seed, which is the word the prophet uses.
You have demonstrated time and again your misunderstanding of the Jewish interpretation. I ask for your patience, as I hope to explain that after we finish this thread.
Dina, ” you have to ask yourself why the prophet chose such peculiar phrasing.;’ long life’ I don’t know why he is using it but no matter whom you choose as a servant ; nation or an individual , the long life relates to their resurrection, as those killed throughout the centuries are not born just to long life but eternal; Daniel 12;2. The people in messianic kingdom who will be born will have long life but they are no the ones who suffered.
No, Eric, the passage promises the servant long life but says nothing about resurrection and eternal life. The fact that that concept is mentioned elsewhere in the Bible is irrelevant.
Dina, I know your interpretation, so don’t work too hard. I read it many times. This is not about winning arguments and deciding whose side I should hold on to. My understanding is based on what God revealed to me in prayer and I am 100 % sure of his son Jesus to be true.
Eric, you may have read our interpretation many times, but each time you repeat it you misrepresent it in some way. So obviously you missed some important points along the way.
You say that your understanding is based on what you received from God in prayer. How do you know that it comes from God? Maybe it comes from Satan! Who’s to say? At any rate, you are basically admitting that you have closed your mind to the possibility that you may be in error and thus there is no point to our discussion, then, is there? You are not open to evaluating our respective positions using reason and common sense, because you have accepted an interpretation based on faith and prayer rather than reason.
So much for earnest truth seeking.
One thing that has come up repeatedly is how Xtians learn their theology from their holy spirit. Well, we have conclusive proof of That “holy spirit” with Stephen being “guided” or filled, however it was put.
Good point, Sharbano. Filled with the “holy spirit,” Stephen made Scriptural errors that any Orthodox Jewish second grader could point out.
Dina Shalom! The Hebrew Text does not say ‘he shall see his offspring (seed)’ but ‘He shall see a seed’ יִרְאֶה זֶרַע
Dina I know Hebrew I thought you were honest here. You were right always refer to the Hebrew Text. Please stick to a correct translation. Now knowing that the correct translation is: ”He shall see a seed” The seed (zera) is not define but I will for you define it. The seed is the seed of the Eternal and the offspring are all the children of the Eternal the Yehudim.
Dina I suppose that you know the meaning of Yehudim? It means Children of YHWH. Understanding Scriptures requires more than human wit but it requires the mind of the Author the Ruah Hakodesh. The suffering servant is Yahshuo, it is also Yehudah. Yahshuo is Yehudah for He is the primal Child of YHWH. All the Yehudim will experience Isaiah 53. Again to understand Scriptures one must penetrates beyond the letter to plunge in the inner meanings by the power of the Ruah transforming our mind to the mind of the Beloved.
Never forget that the Author of the Tanakh is the Ruah Hakodesh!!
Mr. L., you have got to be kidding. The word “zera,” which literally means “seed,” refers to physical descendants when used of offspring. Your statement that “The seed is the seed of the Eternal and the offspring are all the children of the Eternal the Yehudim” is nothing more than incoherent gobbledy-gook that is not based on anything Scripture has to say.
Your assertion that “Yehudim” means children of Hashem further shows your ignorance of etymology. The word “Yehudi” comes from “Yehuda,” or “Judah.” In other words, “Yehudi” means “Judahite” which as you know has become shortened to “Jew.” The name “Yehuda” comes from the Hebrew word for gratitude.
Take care not to throw around accusations of dishonesty loosely. Remove the beam from your own eye before taking out the splinter from your friend’s.
May God Who is the Father of us all lead us in the light of His truth.
Shalom Dina! You accuse me and I forgave you. But the reality here the truth about what Yehudim, Yehudah, Yehudim means what you said but obviously you do not know the secret meanings of the words. See an orthodox rabbi who knows the Kabbalah!
You are ignorant of the secret meaning which you should analyze with the value of each Hebrew letter which are sacred. May be you will see better!
Yehudim יהודים is a fusion of יהוה YHWH and ילדים Children
Yehudah יהודה is a fusion of יהוה YHWH and ילד Child (Boy)
Now if you take the numerical values of Child (44) Children (94) (and compare to David (14) you will see all words finishing by 4 which refers to the sign TAV (T) (400) all related to the Cross of Yahshuo. For David means Beloved and Yahshuo was the son Beloved crucified for our sins. Only by Him can we become true Yehudim not just in the flesh but in our mind and soul.
You can not be saved and be part of the elect in the heavens without the Door (Dalet). He is the DALET! The Door!
May the one Elohim the one that you dare not pronounce his Holy Name show you the truth according to his will! For I know his Name and praise is Name for I’m a true Yehudi!
Shalom Shabat!
Mr. L.,
I don’t have time to respond to everything you said, as it’s Erev Shabbat, but here are more secret meanings to ponder:
“Snow” is the fusion of “smart” and “knowledge,” so if you roll around in the snow you will be smart and knowledgeable.
“Oatmeal” is the fusion of “oaf” and “mealtime,” so only oafs eat oatmeal when it’s not time for meals.
So, um, yeah.
Do you really know Hebrew? Because Hebrew speakers would never say “Shalom Shabat.” Your credibility is fast eroding.
Shabbat Shalom!
And Who is it that you learned your Kabbalah from. Specifically Which orthodox Rabbi did you learn this from.
The reason for not pronouncing the ineffable Name is according to Torah. If you were a follower of Torah you would know this.
I do find it fascinating that here we have another Xtian who has created Another version of Xtianity. Apparently each and every Xtian not only has a person savior but also a personal religion.
I am not a Hebrew speaker, but is it correct to say “Holy Spirit” as a common title for God, since in the “OT” there is only 3 or so references to that term & not as a title? It sounds as if there could could have an “unholy spirit”. I believe the term came about after the Babylonian exile & was influenced by the dualism of Zorastrianism?
You mention in a comment below about Satan. Can Satan become a “tsadik” & can he obey “the One Elohim” (whether or not it would be “in spirit and truth”), since God created Satan and God controls all his creation, especially those Spirits in the “Spiritual realm”?
To Correct my 2nd sentence above: using the term “holy spirit” sounds as if God could have an unholy spirit”. Or at least it sounds as if one must distinguish “one holy spirit” from all the other “unholy spirits”. In a dualistic theology, there can not only be good & bad spirits in Holy Heaven, but there is a good god and a bad god (called by some a devil or a satan).
Kabbalah has strong roots in Greek Gnosticism. In neo-Platonism and in Gnostic Christianity, there are quite a lot of “secret meanings” and “secret teachings”. Is one being responsible by writing or speaking in public, what was meant to be a secret only told to a few? Does God want us to be ignorant and therefore dependent on the teaching of the select few? Then why is so much of God’s words clear & plain to many? Is God deceiving the many, and His Truth is only given to a few men in secret? And if we want God’s Truth, we are only supposed to get the Truth from men & not from God or God’s Word, as revealed by His prophets proven not to be false?
Is the Dalet maybe also short for Devil?
Obviously Dina you are ignorant of many things! First I have employed the Hebrew letters and you make fun of the well known building of the language with vernacular language.
Second we say usually Shabat Shalom! But I say Shalom Shabat! Why? First in Shabat there is one beit not two. Second words in Hebrew can be interchanged in order without loosing the meaning In my case I said Shalom to which you Peace to your Shabat! Shabat Shalom could mean the Shabat will give you Peace which also his correct. Idiomatic expression that you should know if your were versed in the sacred Tongue!
Pride coming from a woman is detestable in the eyes of HaShem!! Be careful!
Mr. L., you claim to be possessor of the sole truth that you receive directly from God, and you dare to lecture me about pride? And not only that, but in reprehensible, sexist terms!
First you accuse me of dishonesty, then you accuse me of pride–I’m really feeling the Christian love!
Your explanation of Shalom Shabbat is ridiculous to anyone who speaks Hebrew–but your English is so garbled that I’m not sure you really speak that language either.
Dina,
At first, I found myself rather annoyed at Mr. Lion’s sexist comment, but I must admit that I’ve come to see it in a new light. Usually, when you or another commenter are being treated with contempt in these comments, it is because you are Jewish. But now you are held in contempt for being a woman. I can see how, as the object of contempt, this might not impress you, but I find myself thankful for a little variation. Of course, it would be more refreshing to have respectful interchange rather than scorn, but if contempt there must be, then I for one am all for mixing it up a little.
Mr. Lion,
Such discourse is quite distasteful. You will notice that Dina contends with you over facts and not gender. Usually, civility is appreciated.
Jim
Jim, thank you for pointing out this important concept. I shall endeavor to be pleased by the variation rather than disgusted :).
Shalom Dina! Sexist I’m not I was paraphrasing the Tanakh. Are you accusing Holy Scriptures! Plus it is a mitvot to reprimand a brother or sister not walking in the way of the holy Torah!
I speak a few langages and understand a little bite more. If you want to bash me on the mastering of the english tongue fine enough but I could speak you in French which you will not understand… we could try Spanish or a little Russian. But צרפתית is my mother tongue!
P.S.: I prideful person will never admit that he or she is prideful for his ego is more important than the truth. You will be judged by the one Elohim who is the judge of us all.
To finish before Shabat: The Satan knows all the Scriptures but that does not make him a tsadik only those obeying the One Elohim in spirit and truth are. Not those accusing the messihim and spitting on their face and elevating themselves above the others. Those who elevate themselves will be like Heylel brought down to the lowest pit. Be careful!
Dear Mr. L.,
As endlessly fascinating as a discussion of my character must certainly be, I fail to see how it is relevant to an earnest search for the truth. I do see, however, that it is a convenient distraction for a man who has no better argument than “you should believe me because I am filled with ruach hakodesh.”
As everyone knows, if you run out of intellectual ammunition, then the next step is to attack your opponent’s character.
You are correct to note that it is a mitzvah to rebuke a fellow Jew. So here you go. My dishonesty and pride are as nothing compared with the greatest sin of them all. The greatest sin a human being can commit against Hashem is the sin of idolatry. It is a crime in which you are engaged at this very moment. Abandon your idols and return to the one true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
May God open you eyes and give you courage, my lost brother.
Dina
P.S. French is my favorite language. Je l’ai appris a l’école il y a beacoup d’ans! Mais je ne le parle jamais avec personne, alors j’ai oublié la plupart du français que j’ai appris. Je peut écrire un peut et lire un peut, mais pas parler et pas comprendre quand on parle. Quel dommage! My spelling and grammar are quite horrible, but I haven’t spoken to anyone in French in about twenty years!
Just another little point. The Satan is one of God’s deputies, or emissaries, or angels, or, well, you see what I mean. He works for God, not against God. There is no power in the world that operates independently of God. The Christian concept of Satan is yet another idolatrous notion.
Mr. L.,
I hope you eat fish twice a day.
Why? I am going to share with you a very deep secret. It’s a secret revealed only to me, so take heed! The numerological value of the Hebrew word for fish, דג, is seven, which is half of fourteen. To really reach the full power of understanding Jesus, you must eat fish twice a day, because two times seven is fourteen.
I hope you understand where I am going with this. It’s silly to randomly take words and try to work out numerological ways to make them support your beliefs. You can do this to support any ridiculous notion on the planet.
To justify your belief in a worship that is alien to the Torah, well, you will simply have to do better than that, sir.
Dear sister! I take your words after Shabat I pray and thought of you and I’m sorry to have been rude with you.
J’aimerai bien te parler en français mais je crois que la plupart de nos frères ne comprendront pas. Merci des quelques mots que tu m’as écrits. Comme une soeur je te respecte et t’aime tendrement. Merci!
Idolatry is a grave sin and trust me it is not what I want to do. My worship and love is directed only to the One Elohim. My Beloved is YHWH Elohim! My only difference with you is the Yahshuo is the Messiah of Israel. That is a debate that we must clear out in order to not miss the boat. One Rabbi very famous got a book on the Kosher Jesus explaining many interesting things. We as a nation must re-appropriate Yahshuo in order to reunite the tribes of Israel. Our enemies are increasing in numbers and Israel prophecy of the Danite Tribe is getting closer. (The war with Gog)
16 “Dan shall judge his people
As one of the tribes of Israel.
17 Dan shall be a serpent by the way,
A viper by the path,
That bites the horse’s heels
So that its rider shall fall backward.
18 I have waited for your salvation, O Lord! (Genesis chap.49)
The Danite are mixed with Yavan and other sons of Yahphet. But the most terrible and powerful extension is Russia. They have been assigned by the Eternal to make war. The North will invade and destroy. All the prophets warns us. Our mission is to reunite all the tribes to make the Land ready for the war of Gog. See Isaiah 14 for further insight. As a people we must love each other and follow the One Torah and purify ourselves from all babylonian influence and all the slaveries of Misrayim.
Dina May Hashem always bless you with his Ruah Hakodesh! Love you!
Hi Mr. L.,
Thank you for your apology and of course I accept it. I was pleased to see that I could understand everything you wrote in French without having to look up any words on Google Translate!
Before we go on I would like to clarify one point. The establishment of this point will determine for me the course I will take in this discussion. Do you believe that Jesus is one of the three persons of the godhead, or do you believe that Jesus is a human and not part of God at all? In other words, do you subscribe to the Trinitarian or the Unitarian belief about God?
May God guide us firmly in the right direction during out most important quest for the truth.
Just following. This conversation could give Horace a run for his money!
Dear Dina Shalom!
In Genesis the Elohim said: ”let us make man in our image according to our likeness”: וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ Here the Us is not angels and the Elohim but the ONE ELOHIM not alone with Himself but the Elohim being in Relations in His Oneness.
The Greek terminology does not suit my Hebrew mind and the Father Son and Holy Spirit terminology is not Hebraic and sufficient in its expression. Elohim is a plural of majesty, yes but also a complexity and communion. Like us the human race have one essence or nature called the human nature composed of multiple relations of persons ‘according to the likeness’ of the Elohim being One Essence the ELOHIM ONE in RELATIONS.
The Principe of the Dabar Elohim the Seed (Life-Power-Energy-Grace) Eternal is to make us capable by his descent to our level in the humanity of the Messiah to commune to the ONE Elohim by the ”transformative” power of the Resurrected Spiritualized-Flesh of the Messiah. For the Resurrected body of the Messiah becomes the Unified Principle that make us in Relations in and with the ONE Elohim for it is written in Tehilim 82:
אַנִי־אָמַרְתִּי אֱלֹהִים אַתֶּם וּבְנֵי עֶלְיוֹן כֻּלְּכֶם׃ : Me I have said Elohim ye are or sons of Elyon
אֲסַפְּרָה אֶל חֹק יְהוָה אָמַר אֵלַי בְּנִי אַתָּה אֲנִי הַיּוֹם יְלִדְתִּיךָ : Declaration toward an enactment: YHWH said Elay(ancient dual form lost in our days meaning my EL(god)) my son you are I the day have begotten you… N.B.:translated literally the sense of the verse is very powerful to those who have ears to hear…
Holy Communion is therefore the mean for the sons of the Elyon to attain their full stature in their divine election. They will live and love for eternity in the Heavens with and for the One Beautiful King YHWH ELOHIM through their unification to the one Messianic Body.
Baruch YHWH Adonai!
Mr. L.,
The reason I asked you that question is that you had claimed that the only difference between us is our belief about the Messiah. But that is in fact not true. There are many differences between us, and the main one is that you worship a man as God. You believe in a divine messiah.
I will not address your proof texts, as I can see from what you wrote that you are familiar with our counter-arguments. But I would caution you about taking certain phrases literally. For example, Exodus 4:22 says בני בכרי ישראל “Israel is my firstborn son.” Does this mean that the people of Israel are divine and worthy of being worshiped as gods? Of course not. Similarly, the verse you quoted is not literal. You have also quoted it out of context.
Here is what you need to understand, Mr. L. It’s simple. Our ancestors stood at Mount Sinai and heard God speak to Moses. If you read Deuteronomy 4 carefully, you will see Moses’s dire warnings to the people of Israel to worship God ONLY according the knowledge of Himself that He imparted to us at Sinai. At Sinai, God did not teach us about compound unities, trinities, divine messiahs, and Jesus. Instead, Moses reminds us that we saw NOTHING at Sinai, only heard the sound of God’s voice and we must take heed lest we make an image of anything, including a MALE or a female. And so on. It’s a very instructive chapter, so read it slowly and carefully.
Since we are to worship God only as He appeared at Sinai and only according the way our fathers have taught us about him, passing on this knowledge from parent father to child (also in Deuteronomy 4–this teaching is to be passed from parent to child) and since we are not to ever worship God in any way that would have been unknown to our fathers (Deuteronomy 13)–then all your proofs of compound unities and theophanies are irrelevant. They are irrelevant because even if your interpretations are correct (they are not, but let us say for argument’s sake) we are still only allowed to worship God in the ways that He clearly taught us how to worship Him.
Over and over again, the Torah warns us against the very worship you are advocating. Who should we listen to, God or Eliyah Lion?
It’s a no-brainer.
Shalom Dina!
Todah Rabah! I understand what you say and I worship the One Elohim. Elohei Abraham Isaac and Yaakov. I know that we do not need to expand on the Elohim that is no suitable but when we love we want to know more about the Beloved YHWH.
When are slaves we obey and fear the LORD!
When we are little children we try to obey and stumble and smile and cry to the LORD!
When we are adolescent we sometimes rebel and try to forge our own experience and the patience of the LORD awaits us!
When we are in Love with YHWH we want to know more about Him and we commune and see the Beauty Ineffable of His Face!
Sinai was the first stage! The Messiah brings us to the last stage! And the Prophet said:
“And it shall be, in that day,”
Says YHWH,
“That you will call Me ‘My Husband,’
And no longer call Me ‘My Master,’ (Hosea ch.2)
…
“I will betroth you to Me forever;
Yes, I will betroth you to Me
In righteousness and justice,
In loving kindness and mercy;
I will betroth you to Me in faithfulness,
And you shall know אֶת־ YHWH
Note the אֶת־ here the Aleph and the Tav, first letter and the last letter. Beginning to End … That is powerful and amazing so beautiful to see how our Beloved wants us to enter in a deep Relation with us. It is the calling of Love but we must respect the different stages depending on the will of the Elohim on us.
Mr. L., your citation of Hosea chapter 2 makes no sense to me. How does it justify your worship of Jesus?
This chapter talks about a time when the Jews will be restored to the Land (verse 17) and a time when there will be no more war (verse 20). I note that you left out those verses. Since neither of these events have happened yet, then obviously, this prophecy has yet to occur.
Plus it is a mitvot to reprimand a brother or sister not walking in the way of the holy Torah!
First, mr. Hebrew expert, it is a Mitvah (singular.) I’m surprised rhat you believe your Hebrew is better than native speakers? Also, if Jews are your siblings in Torah, what’s the problem? Let them keep the Torah. If you teach Torah then you know that Torah alone is sufficient. No blood, no messiah god man, etc. if you believed in the Torah, you would not be adding books to Moses’ books.
Yes! It is more important to observe the mitvot especially the Shabat than to correct typo errors. Shomer Shabat?? I presume Con that you are not Jewish (Yehudi)…
And Who is it that you learned your Kabbalah from. Specifically Which orthodox Rabbi did you learn this from.
The reason for not pronouncing the ineffable Name is according to Torah. If you were a follower of Torah you would know this.
I do find it fascinating that here we have another Xtian who has created Another version of Xtianity. Apparently each and every Xtian not only has a person savior but also a personal religion.
Sharbano, if a Christian is not a member of the Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, or mainline Protestant, (Lutheran, Anglican, etc.) churches, then their religion literally is totally personal and unorganized. The smaller denominations lack liturgy, a prayer book, an agreed upon calander, an agreed upon theology, etc. that’s why they follow whatever comes along.
Shalom! I am from race David member fully of the glorious Orthodoxy in case you wonder.
Now the power of Christianity comes from the Resurrection of the Messiah without his Resurrection the religion will be false. The authority of a true religion comes from the testimony a true witnesses confirmed by the fruit they bear. The saints are living torots. They kept the faith in spite of persecution. They confess with their blood eaten by lions, crucified but still chanting and forgiving their enemies.
After the Christianity that you saw triumphing got corrupted by emperors and earthly powers having seen its force in adversity. But the power and the love Mammon corrupted the holy Knesset and rendered it a contra-witness to the truth like the Israel of old who were corrupted and deported because of their prostitutions.
Now only the hand of the one Elohim will put order before the coming Messiah. Baruch HaShem Adonai!
You might want to reconsider how much of a “lion” that you want to be, because you might come out appearing angry & to quick to “bite”. Your confidence might appear to be arrogance and pridefulness and people may begin to think that you were talking about yourself when you wrote that a “prideful person will never admit that he or she is prideful for his ego is more important than the truth.” You might be too prideful when you had to mention that you spoke several languages. Who cares? You seem too overly concerned about spelling & language rules, like Shabbat should be spelled with 1 “b”. That is not a typo”, but when a Christian mentioned that you should have written mitzvah instead of mitzvot (thinking perhaps it was a grammar error instead of a typo error), you replied “Yes! It is more important to observe the mitvot especially the Shabat than to correct typo errors”. Traditionally in English most Christians say their lord is named Jesus, but within the last few decades some people have gotten “hung up” on so-called “sacred names”, and they say that “Jesus” is a pagan name & that “Yeshua” is correct. Problem is, there are way over 12 different “one and only one correct spellings” of the “sacred-name” Yeshua (e.g., Yehoshua, Yahshua, Yahushua, Yahwehshua, etc.) and you added a new one, “Yahshuo”. No one should fault you for your English, nor should you fault others because your rules of Hebrew are different from the tradition of most Hebrew writers or speakers. I doubt that your “Hebrew” would have been criticized if you first had not criticized others. What one says & means is more important than how it is said.
You might also want to re-think your reliance on “Kabbalah”, since it is not the “Torah” nor the “written Torah” or is it “Bible”. It is not “Orthodox” and neither is it “The Gospel”. Nor is the “New Testament”, in any way, Torah. By definition the “new covenant” is not the same as the “old covenant”. And the new covenant of Jesus is a far cry from the new covenant promised by the prophets in the Tanach. The evidence that the NT is compatible with Torah is extremely weak. It is very difficult to see how you are “fully Orthodox” (either as a Jew or as a Christian) and simply asserting that it is true, does not make it true.
You might also want to reconsider the “authority” that comes from the “testimony and witnesses” of any sort of resurrection of any person. The evidence is extremely weak and is at times contradictory (where there is any sort of truthful or acceptable testimony). The “fruit borne” by early Christianity is not all that healthy. There is division within “believers” even while their lord was still with them & that division and “bad fruit” and corruption has greatly increased since then (as even you admitted). We are explicitly told by the NT, that a “good tree” can’t bear bad fruit. That is not true in horticulture, nor is it true of Jesus.
You might want to reconsider your overly simplistic and unrealistic view of persecution & martyrdom as well (must more re-examine sacrifice & how un-biblical human sacrifice is). You might want to read a recent examination of “keeping the faith in spite of persecution” by Ms Candida Moss, a Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame. She wrote a book titled, “The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom”. Your example of their confession “with their blood eaten by lions, crucified but still chanting and forgiving their enemies”, is an exaggeration and it was true centuries after the first followers of Jesus. David Da Silva, another scholar wrote, “rarely in the first century were Christians killed” and “far more rarely were they executed on official orders.” Another author, W. H. C. Frend (“Martyrdom and Political Oppression,” in “The Early Christian World, ed. Philip Esler, vol. 2”), notes that, “In the first two centuries C.E. there was a living pagan tradition of self-sacrifice for a cause, a preparedness if necessary to defy an unjust ruler.” All throughout history, all sorts of people were willing to “die for their cause”, especially if they expected great rewards in an afterlife. And Christians never suffered persecution as much as Jews (long before & after Jesus). Because of their faith in God, many Jews defiantly were persecuted, even unto death, by Christians who supposedly believed in the same God. The “corruption of Israel” was greatly exceeded by the corruption that was nourished by the branch that came from Jesus.
I’ve never heard anyone refer to themselves as “from the race of David, a member of the glorious Orthodoxy”.
The Hebrew phraseology you have been using sounds quite peculiar. It’s reminiscent of a person who has had minimal contact with Hebrew and misuses the phrases.
I have heard many refer to the resurrection as Xtianity’s foremost authority. What empowerment is gained by a resurrection. In any sacrifice it is the perpetual death that people acknowledge. What sacrifice is it that doesn’t result in actual death. If this were His ways the Akeidah would have been an actual sacrifice and the binding of Isaac would have had him resurrected in order to fulfill the promise. Thus, in order for a resurrection to be an authentic method there should have been an example.
It would seem many a Xtian sees the practice of Judaism as being a “burden” and maybe unnecessary. They simply don’t realize the underlying principles. If one sees it as an act of Love, not unlike a spouse who will do the many little things that make that person happy. In each and every person it may be thought of as insignificant to that person but to the other it shows the love that person has for the other. If Hashem wants us to don Tallis and lay Tefillin we may think it an unnecessary burden but if He is pleased by it we do it out of love for Him. This is what makes every relationship prosper, doing out of love, what makes the other happy. So it is with the daily prayers and all else.
Shalom dear brother Sharbano! I agree 100%. With love everything is possible. And the proof of love is to choose what pleases our Beloved: YHWH Eloheinu. I love to say and say again in prayer the Schema Israel with the Holy Name pronounced with reverence and complete attention to not pronounced the Holy Name in vain but as a Beloved that you love to say His Holy Name to feel and kiss his infinite Presence.
Schema Israel: YHWH Eloheinu, YHWH Ehad. You will love YHWH Eloheikha with all your heart with all your soul with all your might. Amen!!
Eliyah Lion! Do not EVER pronounce the sacred name of Hashem, the Tetragrammaton, out loud. It is FORBIDDEN.
Shalom Dina!
In prayer it is permitted. For the third commandment forbids the pronunciation in vain. Prayer(chanting of Tehilim) is not in vain.
That is actually contrary to Shemot 20.21.
THIS is the commandment from Hashem Himself on the matter. Therefore it is Not permitted as you say.
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain. (Shemot ch.20)
In vain it is said you shall not pronounce the Holy Name. When you chant and praise YHWH it is not in vain. Do you know Sharbano the definition in vain?
Idioms
6.
in vain,
without effect or avail; to no purpose:
lives lost in vain; to apologize in vain.
in an improper or irreverent manner:
to take God’s name in vain.
If the rabbis do not want you to pronounce the Holy Name in prayer that sound very fishy to me? I will say very very fishy!! Are they serving an another Elohim??
You failed to read, and cite, the appropriate verse. In “vain” is speaking of oaths, not in the colloquial sense that most people use the word. Once again read Shemot 20 and verse 21 for the appropriate knowledge of using the Name.
וַיַּעֲמֹד הָעָם מֵרָחֹק וּמֹשֶׁה נִגַּשׁ אֶל־הָעֲרָפֶל אֲשֶׁר־שָׁם הָאֱלֹהִים
Shemot ch.20 v21 Does not talk about what you are saying? Do you know how to read Hebrew??
And stood the people at distance and Moses approach toward the thick darkness which there was the Elohim.
Your quoting the wrong verse, יח . The verse is כא .
כא וַיַּעֲמֹד הָעָם מֵרָחֹק וּמֹשֶׁה נִגַּשׁ אֶל־הָעֲרָפֶל אֲשֶׁר־שָׁם הָאֱלֹהִים
it depends from which is your source
I look at your source it is written: כא וְאִם-מִזְבַּח אֲבָנִים תַּעֲשֶׂה-לִּי, לֹא-תִבְנֶה אֶתְהֶן גָּזִית: כִּי חַרְבְּךָ הֵנַפְתָּ עָלֶיהָ, וַתְּחַלְלֶהָ.
There is nothing here forbidding the pronunciation of the Holy Name in prayers. Your are diverting from the truth.
“And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it”.
We use the Masoretic text. The verse you cited is actually verse 22. Here is the second part of verse 21:
בכל המקום אשר אזכיר את שמי אבוא אליך וברכתיך
“Wherever I permit my name to be mentioned, I shall come to you and bless you” (Artscroll Stone Edition translation).
Todah Rabah Dina! You have validated my point that it is source of benediction.
Also you have translated אַזְכִּיר with permitted but the correct meaning is “call to mind, call, remember”
Check your translation it is not correct. The Rabbinat of France translate it in french like this which is more near from the correct meaning:
“en quelque lieu que je fasse invoquer mon nom, je viendrai à toi pour te bénir.”
Shalom Yehidia! Your words are well taken. You are a brother and I respect and love you. To seek the truth is a mitvah.
Yahushuo יהושע name finish by ayin which in ancient hebrew was rendered by o it refers to the eye. The literal meaning of His name means YHWH saves. But saves us from whom or what? Yahushuo bears the Name on a mission to destroy the sect of the one eye. To save us from the influence of the deceiver who make Adam and Hawah to fall in the Garden. If you take each Hebrew letter you will see the Shin which symbolize the teeth who destroy to transform. Yahushuo came by the Hand of YHWH to make us turn our hearts to YHWH and destroy all the influence of Heylel see Isaiah 14.
Now all religion including the actual Judaism have been infiltrated and corrupted by the influence of Heylel for his role is to test and corrupt in order to trial the real elect to their worthiness to enter the Heavens. Now why the Resurrection of Yahshuo is important for the reality of the Winner in the combat between the sons of light and the sons of darkness is already known but not yet completely materialize in this world.
Now I will ask you a couple of questions to show you why you can not reject without true searching the reality of the Messiah Resurrected. First how did Abram who became Abraham knew that the Elohim was the true Elohim speaking to him? Second when the Elohim asked him to sacrifice his first born why a sacrifice of a son was accepted in Abraham mind? Third is it not a red flag when a deity here the Elohim ask you to sacrifice your son on an altar when especially all the pagans where doing it for their gods? Please answer with your heart! Toda!
After your response we can have a real discussion for the truth.
Jesus is also known in the NT as Lucifer and the “light-bearer”, shining one, morning star. What makes him less of an Heylel than the king of Babylon or your Satan, who your elohim seems powerless against? “Sons of darkness” will appear as “sons of light” just as a successful wolf will appear as a lamb to many. The many have been deceived, just as the prophets before Jesus warned, and according to the NT, many more will be deceived as they go looking for the messiah, who to them looks & sounds just like Jesus. I am not concerned with “your other sons” who all appear as darkness and bring confusion, since there is God and there are ways to become a “son” and to know God without going through “any other son”. Let me ask you, what was there before “day one”, when God said “let light be”?
And Abram did not become Abraham “overnight”; it was a struggle to come out of the world that he grew up in. He didn’t “know” and he did fail, even after becoming Abraham, and he did face more than one test in order to grow. There are several ways to look at the Akedah or binding of Isaac. So you answer why it was not a “red flag to Abraham when he was asked to “sacrifice” his son on an altar, especially “when all the pagans would do the same thing for their gods”. Of course, Abraham also said “God would see to the sacrifice”. So did Abraham expect Elohim was the same as other gods. Or did he trust that God was not and that God would not model himself after the pagan gods that Abram/Abraham had known? The NT teaches that their god is like some pagan gods who needed human blood in order to be appeased.
Despite your many words of confusion (with “revelation” that contradicts Torah and Tanach), for your sake, I don’t mind a discussion of why you should reject the so-called “reality” of any supposed messiah resurrected. But don’t expect to “see the light overnight”, since you most likely have been looking for God & Truth in so many wrong places. Places that years ago, I found empty of truth.
But that would take us far away from the subject of Rabbi B’s post on Isaiah 53 & 62 and Micah 7.
Shalom Yehidia!
I have access to the Greek text, the English or French translation and I presume all the other translations are very deficient and sometimes misleading. The Greek text have much more power. For example translated literally a text of Saul-Paul says this against your interpretation:
6 And now the one controlling you have perceived, into the one to be revealed him within his own proper time; 7 this indeed mystery already operates of the abolishment of the Torah, alone the one controlling presently until from out of the midst he emerge; 8 and then will be unveiled the negator of the Torah, whom the Lord will refute by the spirit of his mouth and render inoperative by the manifestation of his presence; 9 whose is the presence against operations of the satan in every power and signs and prodigies of falsehood 10 and every deceit of the iniquity among those dying-away, in return for these the love of the truth they did not receive into the one to have saved them; 11 and because of that he will send them the Elohim an operation of delusion into the one to conform them to the liar, 12 in order that they be condemned all those not having conformed to the truth, but having consented in relation to the iniquity.
(2 Thessalonians, chap. 2)
The anti-messiah is the one who take the relay of the mad dream of Heylel (Lucifer) to sit down in the temple-sanctuary of the heavens in place of the one Elohim, trying now on the earth to succeed in a same attempt to sit down above the sons of the Elyon through pride and arrogance unveiling himself in the temple-sanctuary of the church by act of imposture and deception:
3 Lest anyone might seduce you downward by any manner; if perhaps might not come the apostasy first even might be uncovered the man of the sin, the son of the destruction, 4 the one being set against and exalting himself above each being called elohim or object of worship, so as himself in the temple-sanctuary of the Elohim he might sit down, displaying he himself that he is elohim. (2 Thessalonians, chap. 2)
Do you really mean to say that Hashem will destroy the influence of the ‘king of Babylon”, Isaiah 14. It would be one thing to say the end of Yetzer Hara but the end of influence of a king makes no sense at all. And this king also corrupted Judaism? How so.
1st how does your quote go against my argument (or which part of my argument)? 2nd, why use Paul when you have gospels? 3rd, 2nd Thessalonians might not be an “authentic” letter of Paul, but a forgery. Even if it was written by Paul (if Paul was a real person), he was just a man, so why is his speculation of unknowable things of any value? The mystery is why people accept mysteries as known truths.
Could some of these verses, such as 4, 6, or 9 apply to Jesus? Or could Paul be writing about himself, since many Christians believe Paul was a negator of the law (& some early Christians (like some ebionites) called Paul the lawless man).
Do you believe someone will actually “sit down in the temple-sanctuary of the heavens in place of the one Elohim” or did you mean this was only the light-bringers “mad dream”? Why does Elohim sent a delusion in verse 11, when deception was already achieved in verse 9?
Why are you so enamored with Babylonian mystery & salvation cult theology and Greek philosophy & Gnosticism? Why are you obsessed with their speculation and minimize or ignore the clear & plain words of Torah & Tanach?
The talmud comes from Babylonian influence. Yahshuo opposed the Babylonian way of interpreting the Torah. Let us take an example: reincarnation. For most rabbis reincarnation is a reality and taught in the so-called oral torah. For Christianity living with what you alleged gnostic influences rejected the concept of reincarnation which is not taught in the Torah. Who is right?
Paul to so-called alleged negator of the Torah taught only about the Resurrection central to the Jewish Faith. But the rabbis teach the reincarnation as concept taught by Gnosticism, the Greeks and the pagan religions. Which religion preserved the true doctrine: Orthodox Christianity who condemned this as demonic doctrine to loose the souls of those who wants to delay their Repentance.
Knowing perfectly the two religions I can compare. Your scheme of reference might be the Christian sects of the Protestants they count 30000 denominations. Orthodoxy is One! We might say that the Roman Catholics are one also but they are not-conformed in their praxis to the Canons of the Church (what we call the Halakhah) example their priest must be celibate like the pagan priests, the Orthodox priests are mostly married with families except the monks and the bishops who are of the order of the angels.
It is true that the fathers of the Church were anti-yehudim considered them as enemy of humanity having rejected the Christ. Their reaction is condemnable but we would react evenly if we said that Moshe was an egyptian fraud who created a new religion. Some atheist are virulent denier of the truth about Moshe and the Torah alleging that the text on the flood and many other passage comes from more ancient religion. It is risky to know many things but when you walk with the One Elohim, Elohei Israel and when you commune to his Shakhinah you discern what is true and false for your mind as been form by the Divine Wisdom sent from up high to work for the Glory of HaShem!
I know the Faith of our forefathers and the holy Torah of Hashem. I’m his child and He loves me. Love banish fear!
The Galilee region, which was a large part of the Northern Kingdom or Israel (most of the land of the “lost tribes”), more than the Southern Kingdom or Judea, was heavily influenced by Assyrian-Babylonian culture & theology (resurrection/reincarnation, a dying-rising man-god, water baptisms, demons & angelology, monks, the magi, 3 kings of the orient or the east, the devil or the bad god vs. good god dualism, wars in the heavens, 7 heavens, a good bit of the symbolism in the book of revelation of John, etc). The culture & world view of the Seleucid Greeks or Hellenism (the Cynics; the Stoics; Antiochus IV Epiphanes or the man who was a god & from whom we get the term “an epiphany” or “vision of God”, and whose birthday was celebrated in Christianity; the Decapolis or ten Greek cities some of which play a big part in the NT or early Christian legends -Damascus, Philadelphia, Pella, Gadara, etc) had a strong influence on the NT and early Christianity. The gospels not only show great influence by the above, but it includes teachings of the Pharisees and the Saduceees. Jesus used both a Hellenistic and a “Babylonian way of interpreting Torah” & Tanach.
Many early & modern Christians believe that Paul was an “negator of the Torah”. It is significant that Paul is said to be from Tarsus which was called the “Capitol of Mystery religions and syncretic religions”.
The “Orthodox” church is not “One”, and it has evolved over the years. Whatever “orthodox” means, since it is not patterned after the earliest “church” of Jesus. Many of them seemed to virtually disappear from history after about 62 c.e. during the major war with Rome.
“It is true that the fathers of the Church were anti-yehudim considered them as enemy of humanity …” and that is reflected in the gospels as well, while at the same time Judaizing the text and using select quotes from the Hebrew scriptures (even if taken out of context or not translated correctly) in order to justify the new syncretic religion. It is not risky to know many things and not risky to search for “real truth”, but it may be risky if your foundation was weak & you build untruths or half-truths upon that shaky foundation.
In what way does Talmud have a Babylonian influence. Is it because it is called Talmud Bavli as opposed to Talmud Yerushalmi. What is the difference between the two. Are you saying one has authority over the other. Have you actually done any Talmud study.
I have to question your credibility on the matter. Can you cite a specific reference in Talmud pertaining to reincarnation. Furthermore, you appear to have misconstrued the actual teachings of reincarnation.
Shalom Sharbano! I will refer to a famous rabbi Yosef Misrachi on the matter. He will explain all the sources. You will find his lectures on the net. For my part that is the proof that Rabbinic teaching have been contaminated by the Satan. That is the role of the Satan given by the One Elohim to test who is truthful and who is a liar. They will be judge for having admitted teaching against the Holy Torah.
I know what R’ Mizrachi teaches. You were referencing the Talmud. Evidently since you didn’t know what you were talking about so you changed the subject to Rabbis. Furthermore, what do you know of the teaching of reincarnation. It certainly doesn’t compare to any Greek or other methods of understanding. In all the lectures I’ve heard by the Rabbi I’ve never heard him go into much detail at all. His references seem to be more casual. In any event How do you know they Are wrong. It is Only Your opinion. There is no prohibition in Torah that speaks to it.
I will not expand on demonic teaching! It only proves that your Judaism as been corrupted. My Judaism comes from the holy Torah which I know is pure and holy. Nowhere in the Tanakh do we speak on this pagan doctrine. I challenge you. But surely we the Yehudim speak about the resurrection of the dead.
You bashing me does not make your doctrine right. Read the Tanakh from Aleph to Tav (beginning to end) you will see who is speaking the truth.
Well, when I read Tanach from beginning to end I find your conclusion in contradiction to what Tanach relates. Most recently in your references to “Lucifer” and from where that terms originates.
Mr. L., you made a mistake. You wrote:
“My Judaism comes from the holy Torah which I know is pure and holy.”
You should have written, “My Christianity comes from the holy Torah which I know is pure and holy.”
Just because you use Hebrew words for Christian terms (ruach hakodesh for holy spirit, Yeshua for Jesus, and so on) does not make your religion Jewish.
However, you do not derive your Christianity from the Torah because the Torah repudiates the very type of worship that you advocate.
I never employed the term lucifer which is a Latin word meaning light bearer. Your are mistaken. I employed the term Heylel which you will find in Isaiah 14. If you do not know the fall of Heylel .. I wonder who are you serving as the One Elohim??
Also that you are afraid to pronounce the Holy Name in prayers gives me a major hint that you have been deceived by the enemy of mankind to divert you from the truth of true worship and prayers. It means that you are not a true Yehudi from the elect branch who can in the Ruah Hakodesh pronounce the holy name.
Only the elect of the Elyon can pronounce His Name in relation with him for they have the Ruah of Eliyah!! That is the order of the Prophets that you have lost for having rejected the one true Messiah of Israel predicted by the messenger Daniel.
Following men here rabbis have gotten you on the path to perdition for without the Messiah no one can dare to enter the heavens. In the mercy maybe the Eternal will gave access you to a earthly paradise but never will you be able to enter Shama’im.
The great Enoch the patriarch seven after Adam will judge you for having failed to hear his warnings…
Mr. L.,
If you read the passage in context, it is a parable about the king of Babylonia. “Heylel ben Shachar” (the morning star) is a reference to the king, who after having conquered many nations will be brought low.
I fail to see why you think that not knowing about the fall of Nebuchadnezzar makes you unqualified to serve Hashem. What is the connection?
Furthermore, you are disobeying God when you disobey the rabbis, because God Himself commands us in His Torah to listen to our leaders. See Deuteronomy 17:8-13; Deuteronomy 16:18; Exodus 18:13-26; Deuteronomy 1:9-18.
Finally, where on earth did you get the notion that if you do not pronounce the ineffable name of God you are going to hell? Please read the Torah to learn what Hashem wants from you instead of reading it to try to find support for your theology.
You know what’s really fishy? And I mean, really, really, really fishy? That you insist on a type of worship that is not only not taught in the Hebrew Bible but that the Hebrew Bible teaches against, and that you cannot find a single verse that clearly teaches that you are right. Because believe you me, my poor lost brother, if such a verse existed you would have presented it first thing.
Obviously you have forgotten what you have written. It was in This message:
https://yourphariseefriend.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/isaiah-53-micah-7-and-isaiah-62/#comment-18777
And this is the content.
[The anti-messiah is the one who take the relay of the mad dream of Heylel (Lucifer) to sit down in the temple-sanctuary of the heavens in place of the one Elohim, trying now on the earth to succeed in a same attempt to sit down above the sons of the Elyon through pride and arrogance unveiling himself in the temple-sanctuary of the church by act of imposture and deception: ]
You wrote: “Heylel (Lucifer)” Furthermore, as I said previously, Are you suggesting the king of Babylon is a matter of concern.
Evidently you are unable to comprehend what Shemot 20.21 is speaking of. Where Hashem “allows” His Name is in the Temple. The rest of what you wrote sounds more akin to the Essenes than anything else. It’s nothing more than another Xtian developing their own personal style of religion. You are not the first and certainly won’t be the last.
Sharbano you are blinded to truth because of you have accepted teaching contra-Torah. You said: ” Where Hashem “allows” His Name is in the Temple.”
In your statements we see mind absurdities: Shemot(Exodus) does not say: ‘allows His Name is in the Temple’. For the Temple was not constructed in the time of Moshe that is a misinterpretation of the rabbis. Even if it were correct: the true elect are the living Temple in the one Messianic Body in we are indeed allowed to pronounce His Name in the Ruah Hakodesh.
But the Torah in Hebrew does not say what you say you took from a deficient translation. For example you have translated אַזְכִּיר with permitted(allowed) but the correct meaning is “call to mind, call, remember”
Check your translation it is not correct. The Rabbinate of France translate it in french like this which is more near from the correct meaning:
“en quelque lieu que je fasse invoquer mon nom, je viendrai à toi pour te bénir.”
Other French translation from Samuel Cahen (première traduction juive, 1831) & Rabbinat:
“En tout lieu où je ferai rappeler mon nom, je viendrai vers toi et te bénirai.”
The text is in Hebrew is : בְּכָל־הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַזְכִּיר אֶת־שְׁמִי אָבוֹא אֵלֶיךָ וּבֵרַכְתִּיךָ
Literal translation will be: In all the places that I shall make remember my Name I will come to you and bless you
Obviously you do not know Hebrew and you rely on flaw translation. What a shame! Please learn your Hebrew, essential to understand the Dabar Elohim. Do not be lazy!!
Accusing my character by character assassination will not work, stick to the substance discussed and try to bring intelligent arguments backed by the Hebrew Torah!
For one thing, the Temple absorbed all the requirements that were attributed to the Mishkan. Given that, WHAT is the entire narrative speaking of. You are desperate in supporting your assumption that you have failed to see the clarity of it all.
Maybe Dina can address your French interpretation but I could care less what it says in French. Does the French Rabbinate agree with Rashi. I would suspect they do.
Your ideas of a “messianic body” is nothing but pagan in origin and has NO support in Torah whatsoever.
Since I’m home now I will cite Barron’s Hebrew verbs.
The root זכר has the meaning to remember, recall but also has the meaning
recall, be reminded, Be Mentioned.
All one has to do is read the context in that verse to understand the meaning.
Eilyeh, what are your thoughts on “resurrection”? Is resurrection only of the body (raise up the dry bones)? Was Jesus the only one resurrected and for what reason if it was only temporary for some materialistic purpose)? What is the state of soul or body when one is “asleep in the grave” and then later one is “caught up in the air”? Is there a 1000 year reign of Jesus, in the flesh, on earth & who lives then & what happens to them? Since reincarnation (done once) is exactly the same as resurrection, what problem is there? What is the relationship of John the Baptist to Elijah?
Dear Yehidiah Shalom! I will response to all your questions but now my time is limited. In the evening I will address your questions that can not be responded in a hurry. Todah Rabbah!
Shalom Yehidia!
1)Resurrection is imperative if you want to be in true Emounah. The raising of the bones is an image the reality is that our body will be fully transformed in a spiritual body able to materialize and dematerialize. The constraints of time and matter will not be but they will be like stars in the heavens.
2) Yahshuo the Messiah is the only one resurrected completely transformed. According to Orthodox and Catholic theology Maryam the holy mother was also resurrected like the Messiah. For as Yahshuo is the New Adam, Maryam is the New Hawah! I believe not intellectually but in witness I testify that Yahsuo and Maryam are Resurrected in the manner that I have spoken. For the elect the sons of the Elyon they will be resurrected after the coming , the death and the resurrection of Eliyah Hanavi in Yerushala’im.
3) The state of the soul after death is multiple depending of which soul you are talking about: the righteous soul will be brought in paradise to await their resurrection. The not so righteous soul will go in Sheol in a state of fear like in a prison to make their time for all the misdeed they done. The wicked will be brought down to the lowest pit where fear and trembling and darkness prevails. The deniers of Emounah and the Messiah will have a special chastisement as dry woods in a fire that do not extinguish itself. May the LORD have mercy on them. They are partaking with the false prophet, the false Messiah and the demons to the fire of the Wrath of Eloah for they blaspheme the Ruah Hakodesh by accusing what was pure to be impure what was holy to be unholy. They are blind prideful men in perdition!!
4) The Protestant Rapture is not reality, the so-called snatch away that Paul speaks about will only happen after the coming back of the son of man in glory. That I can not reveal yet!
5) The 1000 thousand reigns as been decreed by the Holy Church(Orthodox) as heresy. First the reference to it is in the book of Revelation of Yohan. Xlia Greek term that can be in the dual form which mean that it is a 2000 thousand year period that we are already in at the start of the spreading of the holy Knesset (Church). It started at the Resurrection of the Messiah.Now we are in the time of turmoil the time of GOG from Magog… Like I said before: it is link to the Dan tribe (see my other posts or my blog page). But the world to come will be the Messianic reign of Yehudah not just Israel, this is the Davidic period that will be given for a time as promise in the Prophets. It is the time of the Renewed Yerushala’im.
5)Reincarnation is false and demonic for first it is not taught in the Tanakh. It brings a false sense of security that could be fatal in the after-life. “O I can have second chances I will delay my repentance I’m not scared of the chastisement of Eloah”… but you forgot that in the Torah that there two path one for life one for death.
6) John the Baptist was not the Eliyah but an Eliyah for the name Eliyah is also an Order of the Most High. The term Order is a way of being in this world given to few to accomplish a mission given by Shama’im. Obviously like Mossad it is a elite society at the service of the Total Israel.
There is an expression in English, “to be hoisted by your own petard.” And this is something that has happened to you, Mr. L. You wrote, “Reincarnation is false and demonic for first it is not taught in the Tanakh.”
If something is false and demonic according to you because it is not taught in Tanach, then according to you what you wrote in your comment to Yedidiah (and indeed, most if not all of what you wrote everywhere else) is false and demonic because it is not taught in Tanach.
Appreciate it when those who argue against you are actually confirming that your argument is “right on”. Their curse becomes your blessing. This man, that you were addressing, reminded me of Balaam. What is Holy is called unholy & vice versa. Demons? A Devil? Belief in an powerful evil force necessarily diminishes God. “They are partaking with the false prophet, the false Messiah and the demons to the fire of the Wrath of Eloah for they blaspheme the Ruah Hakodesh by accusing what was pure to be impure what was holy to be unholy. They are blind prideful men in perdition!!” Those types of people are confused by their self-righteousness; they constantly contradict themselves. They imagine, they speculate, they twist scripture to develope a major tenet or principle of their faith, they lie to themselves, they invent their own “new religion”, their own “Elohim”, and no one is right, but themselves, alone. Alone; a sad voice in their “own created wilderness”. Funny, or is it oh so sad, that you can so often use their own words against them; a “prideful person will never admit that he or she is prideful for his ego is more important than the truth.”
Indeed!
I know about Christian mysticism or Gnosticism or “Kabbalah”. If one believed in those belief systems & if they were to speak in front of a church group, the church would soon be empty. Most people can recognize nonsense when they hear it (some pastors aren’t that caught up in it & they don’t preach “any stuff” that is too weird). Some of them must think that the weirder they speak & the less they are understood by the average person, then the more wise and more godly they will appear to be. But you can reduce the obfuscation or the gobbledygook to a few short words, where almost anyone can see what nonsense it is. Some people will use certain key words, like “Ruah haKodesh” & you can immediately almost quess correctly where they are coming from. Someone might say “I’m Orthodox” and in a few more words, you can see that they are neither Orthodox Jewish nor Orthodox Christian.
For myself, this is the first time I’ve encountered such theological ideas.
Not really to teach but as part of a counter to the claim that Jesus is the “one way”or the claim of what the “orthodox” or what the “real Christians believe”. A small number of Christian scholars in the renaissance period (late 1400-1700’s) became interested in the Zohar and the mystical aspects of Judaic Kabbalah, parts of which they saw as compatible with Christian theology. It is fairly obscure, but some tradition of Christian Cabala or Catholic Cabala still persists today. The term Caballa or Cabala was used to distinguish it from Jewish Kabbalah. Mainly what I call “Christian Kaballah” is just a recent interest by some Christians, “messianic believers”, and some in the “return to the Hebrew roots movement” who are interested in “bible codes”, numerology, and a few other ideas that they can borrow from Jewish Kabbalists that sound like it can be applied to or about Jesus. Most don’t mix it up as much as Lion did in some comments above, but quite a few Christians today, as they did in the past, borrow a lot of what they find useful in Torah, Tanach, a little bit of Talmud, etc. There are Christianized Torah studies, Seder’s, “feast days”, etc. Some of this is good for Jews; I’ve seen some positive things when there is a true respect by Christians of Judaism (not just of “the land of Israel” or of “the Jewish people”). But on the other hand, umm, I don’t know. Not if they feel they can somehow make the NT or their Jesus “kosher”.
Gnostic Christianity was perhaps the earliest Christianity. Gnosis meant to know; a very spiritual path to seek truth & to really know Jesus. But the more institutionalized church became the Orthodox and most other sects of Christianity were banned as heretics. Gnostic Christians wrote quite a few gospels, “acts”, letters, revelations, etc (of course long after the apostles died, if those apostles even ever existed). The influence of the Gnostics on the canonized Christian writings is not that great, but probably most visible in the gospel of John & in a few of the letters of Paul. Because some of the “lost gnostic writings” were discovered or rediscovered in Egypt in the late 1940’s, there has been a renewed interest in Gnosticism (but less interest than the Qumran writings generated at about the same time).
Dina Shalom! Show me one thing that I have said that is not in the written Torah or the oral Torah. Things that you do not known personally that are in the Torah does not make them non-existent. Are you the Elohim? Are you the ruler of truth? Be careful not to blaspheme and put yourself in the place of the Eternal.
Our forefathers made a grave sin, for two thousand years they have been banished from Eretz Israel. If they were not bearing a great sin, the Elohim would had protected them. Now we are going to see who was right all along. Is Yahshuo the MESSIAH of Israel the son of ELOHAI?
I will make a prediction you will cry to YHWH in time of trouble coming and only the mountains of Israel will protect you. Here the mountains of Israel are you to find!!
About the only thing you have quoted is Isaiah 14 regarding the king of Babylon. The rest of your theology is mere speculation and that of your own thinking.
Okay, Lion, I am up for the challenge. You say to show you one thing you said that is not taught in the Hebrew Bible. Without combing through your comments I can come up with several:
1. The Christians will be joined to the Jews to fulfill the blessing that we will be as many as the grains of sand.
2. The morning star alluded to in Isaiah 14 is Lucifer.
3. Jesus is Adam and Mary is Chava (which is a rather incestuous belief, now that I think of it, gross).
4. God incarnated in the human form of Jesus. God is therefore a compound unity including Jesus and the holy spirit and must be worshiped as such.
5. Jews must unite in their belief in Jesus as Messiah.
6. All your “secret” teachings about Hebrew words and meanings and use of numerology.
This is just from memory. I’m sure I can find a lot more if I took the time to comb through all your comments.
And here’s another one, monsieur! That we can only discover the truth if we are lucky enough to be filled with the holy spirit, an unbiblical concept if ever there was one. We know the truth because we heard it from our parents, who heard it from their parents, and so on, going back to the generation of our fathers, who heard it from their parents, who HEARD IT FROM GOD.
It’s true that we are in exile for our sins, but at least it’s not for the sin of worshiping the idol Jesus.
By the way, we already have the ruach of Hashem upon us.
“And as for Me, this is My covenant, said Hashem, My spirit which is upon you and My words that I have placed in your mouth will not be withdrawn from your mouth nor from the mouth of your offspring nor from the mouth your offspring’s offspring, said Hashem, from this moment and forever” (Isaiah 59:21).
“You are My witnesses–the word of Hashem–and My servant whom I have chosen” (Isaiah 43:10).
“The Children of Israel shall observe the Sabbath, to make the Sabbath an ETERNAL covenant for their generations. Between Me and the Children of Israel it is a SIGN FOREVER that in a six-day period Hashem made heaven and earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed” (Exodus 31:16-17).
Mr. Lion, take heed. Who has been continuously observing God’s eternal sign between Him and the Children of Israel, the Sabbath? None other than His faithful witnesses, the Jewish people whom He chose to be His servant and witness. Does God make mistakes? You can be sure that if He chooses someone to be His witness, that witness will be reliable.
Pay attention to the testimony of God’s witnesses, those who have been observing the Sabbath since Mount Sinai, upon whom God placed His spirit and promised that His words that He put into their mouths would never depart.
I was going to reply to this:
[5)Reincarnation is false and demonic for first it is not taught in the Tanakh. It brings a false sense of security that could be fatal in the after-life. “O I can have second chances I will delay my repentance I’m not scared of the chastisement of Eloah”… but you forgot that in the Torah that there two path one for life one for death. ]
You have said you have heard Rabbis teach reincarnation and one person you cited was R’ Mizrachi. I you think this is what constitutes reincarnation as taught by some Rabbis then you most certainly Have Not heard Rabbis teach on the matter. Well, I Have and it’s nothing as you have defined. I don’t know whether or not if it’s right or wrong but I can say that the Way it is presented by certain Rabbis it does sound logical. It could show G-d’s loving kindness. One thing that must be considered is the soul is eternal, whereas the physical body is not. Therefore, the body does Not have a soul but the soul has a body.
Shalom to you all and thank you for the insult and all! When the true prophets spoke they were persecuted like your forefathers who bashed and accused Jeremiah of being a agent of the King of Babylon.
When you hear the non sense of certain rabbis so-called masters of Torah those you follow. You see that their logic can be destroy for your reincarnation is taught by Hindous (pagans) Bouddhist (pagans) and the ancient cult of the pagans Greeks and so on… Their logic have been infiltrated by demonic doctrines contrary to Holy Scriptures.
Except Christianity who only teaches the Resurrection of the Bodies like Moshe taught to Israel.
If you are reincarnated in many bodies tell me wise guy which body are you going to be resurrected with? Hmmm… tough one but that only show that you do not have the truth but erring to security of you men made doctrine… Your Judaism is not the Moshe Religion of old.
So, you consider yourself a “prophet”.
Where did Moshe teach Resurrection.
It’s much more reasonable to believe in a reincarnation than all that you have been promulgating. If you think That is pagan then you should also realize what you are teaching is even more so.
Mr. L.,
No one is insulting you, so please don’t take anything personally. You came here to tell us why we should accept your faith, and we responded by showing you the flaws in your reasoning. We pointed out that you failed to provide support for your beliefs in the Hebrew Bible. No offense was ever intended. To respond by saying that you are merely being insulted like the prophets of old is disrespectful to us because it dismisses the arguments that we took the time and care to present to you.
If you can’t do a better job defending your beliefs, then may I suggest you seriously reconsider them. Either show us why we are wrong using logic, common sense, and Scriptural support, or admit defeat.
It’s shameful for Christians who have persecuted Jews for nearly 2000 years, who taunted them and forced them to choose between death and conversion, and who did not allow them to speak in their defense to pretend that we are insulting them when ALL WE ARE DOING IS DEFENDING OUR FAITH. Sorry for shouting, but that is the sole purpose of the countermissionary, to defend Judaism. This website exists ONLY because of Christian efforts to convert us. All Jews have ever wanted is to be left alone, but you never learn, do you? So you don’t torture us anymore, but you still don’t listen to us respectfully, you still preach at us, you still tell us we’re going to hell–without ever stopping to consider that there is a modicum of intelligence inside our skulls. No, we’re still spiritually blind and in a state of eternal rebellion against God, practicing a soulless, man-made religion full of cold and legalistic rules, while you practice love and charity.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose!
By the way, you have not responded to any of my challenges in a real way. Nor did you answer questions about your Jewishness. Do you have a Jewish-born grandmother on your mother’s side?
I think this whole discussion about reincarnation is a distraction from the main issues. Let’s get back to discussing why Jesus can’t be God, nor why he cannot be the Messiah.
Shalom Dina!
My two grandmothers are Yehudi from the Hayat family. I was born in Alexandria in the french maternity I’m circumcised. On my mother side my ancestors fled Spain to return to Eretz Israel but my grandfather fled to Egypt because of poverty.
On my father side my father is Maronite those who are Pro-Israel… my uncle is a phalangist christian miltia that fought with Arial Sharon in 1982 war.
So do not lecture me on my belonging to Israel. I’m Jewish surely from my mother side and even my father side and I’m also from the lost tribes for the Maronite are sons of Israel. Make serious research about those things.
I do not like religious fanatics who always critics other because they are better. Each time I talk with my brothers and sisters living in Israel they say one thing: we can not stand the rabbis and the fanatics with their multiples rules and this and that… dress with no colors like if the world is black and white with hats that are strange, with false hairs to cover their hair and all those small things that make pull away many from the faith .
That is why many in Lebanon, Egypt, everywhere in the Middle East converted to Christianity. The Christians of the Middle East are caring and loving and we have always loved our brothers and sisters in the Faith. We love liberty not slavery, we love our neighbor and like to receive him, we are like Abraham hospitable and have faith to move mountains and we love all Israel.
You judge Christians based on the Christians from the Roman (Edom) empire those are not the same as my brothers and sisters from the Middle East. Be careful please! Many Christians in the Middle East want to unite with the House of Yehudah. No MESSIAH without the two houses being brought back together. That is in the Prophets. Let us build bridges no walls!!
If you wanted to build bridges, you definitely started out on the wrong foot. You must realize that you came to this site with your own preconceived notions & predjudices and with your own quite religious fanaticism and arrogance. And you must realize that most of the Jews who write on this blog are “Americanized” Jews. Plus, one of the people who responded to you earlier, perhaps because of your attitude that they perceived, was “Concerned Reader”, who is from the Orthodox Christian church. You have much in common, but you may have responded to him in a negative way as well. And perhaps you could tell that I am not Jewish, but was raised Christian and still today, attend a church that is known in several parts of the world and has connections with blacks in South Africa, Palestinian Christians in Moslem controlled areas, and with Orthodox Jews & political leaders in Israel (including Netanyahu). I missed out on going on a church trip to Egypt a few years. For a very short time, I worked in Saudi Arabia. I have family members who are very active in the Catholic Church and some who are “fundamentalist” Protestants (some not as extreme and fanatical as they were many years back). But, I see big problems with some very basic principles of Christianity and perhaps with some of the fundamentals of the beliefs that you hold dear. But, don’t assume you know me by my arguments in a “debate”.
Hi Mr. L.,
You are too thin-skinned. You wrote, “So do not lecture me on my belonging to Israel.” I did not lecture you! All I did was ask. Why are you so defensive? It’s hard to have a debate with someone who is so easily offended.
Further, you confirmed what I wrote in my previous comment about Christian anti-Semitism in this charming paragraph:
“I do not like religious fanatics who always critics other because they are better. Each time I talk with my brothers and sisters living in Israel they say one thing: we can not stand the rabbis and the fanatics with their multiples rules and this and that… dress with no colors like if the world is black and white with hats that are strange, with false hairs to cover their hair and all those small things that make pull away many from the faith .”
That was exactly my point. Although you don’t torture us, force us to convert, herd us into ghettos, expel us from our countries–and thank God for that!–nevertheless, like most modern Christians you have a deep contempt for traditional Judaism and the Jews who practice it. You obviously know nothing about the deep joy and warmth and meaning of Orthodox Jewish observance. You are repeating stereotypes and basing your knowledge perhaps on some fringe groups. Every religion has those, may I remind you, even Christians.
As for Christian Arabs, I don’t know what planet you’re living on. Of all the Christian groups in the world, they hate the Jews the most. The group that hates us the least (or tolerates us the most, depending on your perspective) is in fact American Evangelical Christians (despite their contempt for “legalistic” Judaism).
Now about Shabbat.
You missed my point about Shabbat entirely. You wrote that Christians abandoned Shabbat and it’s my job to bring them back to it. Have you not read the passages I cited from the Torah on the matter? The Torah teaches that Hashem did not give Shabbat to the gentiles. He gave Shabbat to the Jewish people as an eternal sign between Hashem and the nation of Israel. An eternal sign means it is not abandoned. The Jews who have kept this eternal sign remained in the covenant between God and Israel; the Jews who have abandoned this eternal left the covenant (by virtue of the fact that they assimilated and the Jewish identity of their progeny became lost). Christians do not come into the picture at all because God did not give them this sign.
God made an eternal covenant with the nation of Israel and no one else. Your notion that the Christians join in is another example of a belief of yours that is unsupported in Tanach.
By the way, you haven’t answered me on Deuteronomy 4 and 13 yet (among many other things!).
I also cited verses that tell us that God appointed Israel as His witness. Listen to our testimony.
Dina, ” I also cited verses that tell us that God appointed Israel as His witness. Listen to our testimony.”
You are forgetting NT was written by Jews . So who is rejecting part of the Jewish testimony?????????????
Eric, listen closely: the same people who accepted the books of the prophets and the writings of Hebrew Scripture as sacred and divinely inspired are the same people who rejected the writings of the “NT” as heresy and blasphemy. Why do you trust these people on one and not the other? Be consistent! Either accept only Hebrew Scripture, or reject both Hebrew Scripture and Christian scripture.
Dina, Then you listen too, What about those who were stoning the prophets? And I have no reason to accept the testimony of wrong doing and liars; Mathew 28;11-15 NT is fulfilling the promises of the OT.
Actually, nobody knows who write any one of the books of the NT. Some of them might be forgeries written by who knows who. But that is beside the point. It is a logical fallacy to believe that everyone has to accept as true and good everything that someone else wrote just because they belong to the same group. So if a Jewish cult leader wrote that worship of satan is good, then every Jew in the world must start worshipping satan? If your government passed a law that it is a good thing to kill all followers of Jesus, so good that if fact it is required to kill them, well then by your “logic”, you should accept their “testimony” and start killing your neighbors & after you killed them all, then kill yourself? Why reject their testimony, their laws, if it is your government, your neighbor, perhaps one of your “loved ones” that testify that it is a good thing because they prayed about it and “God said” it is a good thing?
Yed, Irrelevant examples. Those whom I called ;liars’ were opposing God’s words and His testimony throughout the NT . That’s why their testimony is not a testimony to follow.
No, they were not irrelevant examples, since you were not specific. You made an error of generalization, by making “one” a member of a group and then saying that the group was in error because they righteously disagreed with the “one”. It may be a little too harsh to call followers of Jesus “liars”; gullible or deceived is more like it. But you were correct in that the disciples were opposing God’s words. But again I believe they were naive or gullible .
Whether the disciplines should have known better or not might be irrelevant. They gave testimony that they could not show to be true. They assumed that merely asserting something as true made it true. Anyone who did accept their claims, and then, despite the unreasonableness of those claims, passed on those claims to others were passing on mere “hearsay” claims. So, I would have to agree with you, “That’s why their testimony is not a testimony to follow.”
Yeh, I was not talking about disciples. My original example was about pharisees twisting the truth about Jesus resurrection in Matthew . You always twist my messages and insert your own ideas about what I was talking about. It happens on regular basis. I can’t have an honest discussion with you, sorry.
Yes, but I was talking about disciples. And NT writers giving “testimony” without any evidence whatsover that their testimony is true or reasonable or even good. This is an honest discussion; I don’t have to accept what you believe, unless you can show what you believe to be true and good. If you claim something is true, then you bear the burden of proof to show that your claim is true. You have to show how and why it is true. You asserted something that you believe to be true and I rejected your assertion because is sounds untrue. As an example (I do not claim this is really true!!!), if I said and I wrote a statement that I was abducted by “little green men from outer space”, you do not accept as true what I said or what I wrote. If my “testimony” sounds too unreal, too unbelievable to be true, you don’t need to accept my story of “little green men” as true. If I continually say “believe me, I am not lying”, you still don’t have to believe my story, no matter how many times I repeat my story and no matter how honest many people will say I have been in the past. Even if my spouse tells you the same story, 2 witnesses doesn’t make my story any more true (even if there are 12 other witnesses, my story isn’t all of a sudden super-true and you are “crazy” or “going to hell” if you don’t believe what I wrote). And I and them, may not be “liars” (we may just have all hallucInated because of food poisoning). If I continually fail to give an reasonable explanation for why my claim is, you are right to totally reject my story.
No one has to accept the story when the teller of the story made statements that they did not show to be true. If that author made unreasonable and absurd statements and perhaps slanderous and outlandish lies, neither you, me, or anyone else has to “blindly” accept those claims as reasonable or true. It is not “twisting your messages” by disagreeing with your messages. It is not “inserting my own ideas about what you were talking about”, by providing an alternative, more believable, more logical argument. Of course, although I provided a more logical & reasonable argument, I did not provide evidence of the truth of my claim and you do not have to accept my claims. But, I definitely can provide more evidence for my claims than you can for yours. In other arguments with you and with other commenters, I have provided verses of scripture or quotes. For general and very broad topics, I may provide the url of credible websites or the names of scholarly, well researched books, so that the person who does not accept what I say as true, can see it with their own eyes. I love to provide evidence (so I don’t have to write as much), and because when the facts and references are provided right in front of you, you can see it with your own eyes, you can study it when you have time to study it, when you have time to think and pray about it. There is no one there “in your face” arguing with you; no reason to be defensive & close your mind to truth.
Eric, you say that I should listen to the testimony of the early Jewish Christians about Jesus just because they are Jews (after all, God appointed Jews as His witnesses). As Yedidiah pointed out, that doesn’t mean the testimony of all Jews; otherwise you would have to accept the notions of the Jewish Hellenists, the Essenes, the Karaites, and so on and so forth.
Where the testimony of a Jew conflicts with the word of God, then we reject that testimony. You obviously missed the point I made about who decided that the books of the Hebrew Bible were reliable. That was the same group of people who rejected Christian scripture, which contradicts the Hebrew Bible (as we have shown you time and time again).
But even so, we do not have the testimony of the early Jewish Christians anyway. Jesus didn’t leave us any of his writings (if he even wrote anything). The authors of the gospels were gentiles, not Jews. And even Paul may not have been Jewish. According to the testimony of the Ebionites, an early Christian Jewish sect, he was a gentile and a failed convert.
Also, you asked why you should accept the testimony of Jews who stoned the prophets, in other words the testimony of liars and sinners. If that is your view of the Jews of the Bible, then your reading of the Bible is one-sided, selective, and anti-Semitic. You fail to take into account that this is a book of self-criticism. The people of Israel who recorded and preserved the record of their own sins have a lot more credibility than the gentiles who did not engage in self-criticism in their own scripture but rather slandered their theological opponents therein.
Were Saduceees and Pharisees Jews? Then by your logic, Jesus was dead wrong? The gospels may say many followed Jesus (when they first heard a magic man “was in town”. But once they heard him spout pagan ideas, they did’nt reject him (and God would have blessed them if they had) they just said “this man is too hard to follow”.
Yed, Yes it is hard to follow ‘such man’ if you hear from him that God should be before everything else, not the worldly things. Very ‘pagan’ ideas.
Shalom Dina my dear sister! You understood me wrong here. It might be the way I have formulate it. I love all my brothers and sisters from Israel and from Yehudah. Being from both houses I understand you both.
When I said: .” Each time I talk with my brothers and sisters living in Israel they say one thing: we can not stand the rabbis and the fanatics with their multiples rules and this and that… ” This comes from Jewish brothers and sisters not religious who do not understand you guys. OK not from the Christians Arabs. By the way Maronite and the Phalangist are not Arabs, they fought with Ariel Sharon and are striving in Israel as sons of Israel (from the lost tribes) like the Druze also.
Now I have address many topics and quoted many Scriptures that you did not respond to except Yehidia. But when the argument is too strong people usually back off the fight or diverts it to another topic.
Isaiah 53 the suffering servant not resolved by you!
Hosea 2 the two houses and Ishi vs Baali not resolved
Exodus 20 on the Holy Name not resolved
Genesis 49 Dan role and the benediction to each tribes not resolved
Daniel visions not resolved
Isaiah 14 on Heylel influence and role not resolved
These are a few topics that you did not addressed and have difficulty addressing. Just say that you are not able too and pass the baton to a rabbi. I will debate anywhere anytime for I’m 100% sure that I’m a Orthodox Jew and Christian by my genes yes and in Emounah the same as the one of Moshe, Aaron, Enoch, Eliyah, Adam, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, and of the holy Apostles being fishermen became conquerors of the pagan world to submit them to the ONE ELOHIM of Abraham, Isaac and Israel.
Now a small question to you: how do you make Tikun Olam when you want to be left alone with your sect of Judaism? Is it not anti-Torah?
I’m certain you have given these particular references because the Xtian interpretation is what you want it to say. In all these cases Xtianity has omitted the plain text in order to support a theology, that is, to prove their suppositions. By Xtian reckoning G-d was unable to speak to a prophet and relate precisely the intent. Instead He left it ambiguous so only a ruach hakodesh, a Xtian one that is, would be able to give the interpretation. You have fallen into a trap that allows ones imagination to rule over rational thought.
Isaiah 53 is simply about the Jewish exile and the suffering they would endure and at the end the nations will finally realize their error. The narrative is quite clear when beginning at 52 G-d is telling that Israel is redeemed and then the nations become startled by such a revelation and 53 details how those nations perceived the Jewish people throughout those ages. The next chapter,54, finishes that narrative.
Hoshea 2 simply speaks of the two kingdoms, Israel and Judah which will ultimately be reunited as they were in the beginning.
We already determined the place where His Name would be mentioned. It is the place where the Altar is. Once the Temple was built THAT is where it applies. The Mishkan was the forerunner of the Temple and all laws pertaining to it applies to the Temple.
Isaiah 14 cannot be any more clear than what is written. It’s a parable, simple as that. Xtianity took its beliefs partly from Mithraism and Zoroastrianism and THAT is where the concept of a fallen god who rules the earth comes from. There is NO such thing in Judaism. The S’tan is a holy angel that does the bidding of Hashem. He is the adversary, the prosecuting angel.
I don’t know what visions of Daniel you are speaking of.
It should be noted that most all of Xtianity is far far different than Judaism has Ever taught. If all these beliefs were of Divine origin it would Have to have a foundation from the beginning. But that foundation is lacking. Therefore it is obvious and clear it is something entire new and different. That being the case then it contradicts Hashem and what is written in Devarim. If it were a true fulfillment and a messiah was as Xtianity has come to claim there would be clarity in the matter and not ambiguity. G-d says is Amos that He would reveal it and it would Not be hidden. The Xtian version has it hidden in the text. If G-d would name Cyrus why would He not do the same for Mashiach.
Monsieur L.,
You wrote a list of your arguments which you claim no one has resolved. I am not focusing on most of the items on your list because I prefer to spend my time on the main issues that divide Christians and Jews. After we have finished hashing out those differences, we can move on to the issues that are peculiar to you.
Having said that, I maintain that I did resolve Isaiah 14 with my explanation that the morning star is a reference to the king of Babylon. I do not understand, however, your emphasis on these points nor their relevance to the larger discussion.
I hope to get back to you on Isaiah 53.
You did not resolve my point about Deuteronomy 4 and 13 as well as my argument about the Sabbath observers. Allow me to quote your own words: “When the argument is too strong people usually back off the fight or diverts it to another topic.”
Shalom Sharbano!
Your interpretation of Isaiah 53 does not hold. You have invented a way to divert from the obvious which the holy Text gives with no need of interpretation:
”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.
8
He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.
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.”
”For the transgressions of My people He was stricken”
If Israel was the HE of Isaiah 53 why the prophet says ” My people”
Do the test put Israel where there is He: ‘For the transgressions of Israel He(Israel) was stricken’ You see how absurd is your false interpretation!!
That actually reads more like the KJV.
In any event one has to determine Who is the speaker. The nations “will exclaim about him”
‘an affliction upon them that was my peoples’ sin”, Or “because of my people’s sin”.
Just as it says in 52 that Assyria oppressed them without just cause, so too the nations here will realize it was their sin that is in question regarding the treatment of Israel. Since the Shoah and the birth of the State of Israel there have been a great many Xtians who have admitted this same thing, that is, it was Xtianity’s persecution of the Jews that was sinful to G-d. Many have come to Israel saying such things. In so doing they have felt a healing by the admission.
Sharbano; “The S’tan is a holy angel that does the bidding of Hashem. He is the adversary, the prosecuting angel. ”
” What do you mean by him being ‘ holy’??????? There is only One who is holy- God. Holy means free from sin, impurity, free of any iniquity. How can you give that ‘title’ to an angel who is opposing God and everything that comes from God? His aim was always to destroy God’s people and be equal with God. And that is what you call holy???
” If G-d would name Cyrus why would He not do the same for Mashiach.” God didn’t reveal every detail of his plan to one prophet right away. Did Daniel know the details Zechariach spoke about? No! Every prophecy book is completing the other with new details. So how can we expect God will do all things our way we wished? Don’t you think that if adversary knew every step of the redemption plan, they wouldn’t be working against it? God knows what He is doing.
Understanding why Jesus is the Messiah goes beyond Is 53.
Eric, God tells us to be holy because He is holy (Leviticus 11:44 and 20:26). Holy is not a title. The Hebrew word for “holy” comes from the root “consecrate” or “separate.” It does not mean free from sin or impurity. Since our Bible itself uses the word “holy” to describe people, therefore your reaction to Sharbano’s use of the word is rooted in misunderstanding. I hope I have clarified this for you.
In the Hebrew Bible, Satan appears in the Book of Job, where he obtains God permission to test Job’s righteousness–a far cry from the Christian conception of a fallen angel who works against God. This is an idolatrous notion, for no power in the universe operates independently of God.
Apparently you use the language of Xtianese whereby Xtians impart their Own meaning to words.
How is it that holy means free from sin. [In fact Xtians fail to understand the word sin also]
If holy means “free from sin” then the following are uses are improper
A holy convocation, holy habitation, holy nation, holy sabbath, holy men, a Most Holy Place, holy garments, holy crown, holy foods, whatever touches the altar is holy, holy anointing oil. And finally G-d says to be Holy for He is Holy.
The concept that the S’tan wants to be equal with G-d comes from Xtian imaginations, and probably also from pagan religions, e.g. Zororastrians. Only in the pagan world is there a battle between G-d and angels. One should wonder how it came to be that a “new” religion came about that is the antithesis of what it supposedly is founded upon. I have heard how Xtianity says the S’tan, or the Devil as they say, doesn’t know “The Plan” yet all these Xtians ministers teach constantly on these matters and this entity that has all this power and seeks to overthrow G-d is unable to complete his plans. Really, how stupid must he be. The Xtians know all this yet the Devil does not. It can’t get much more ridiculous.
Do you really think that all the prophets were in their own little cocoon. Are you aware that prophets were part of the Men of the Great Assembly.
I Will say, yes, J’sus Is a Xtian messiah but he is NOT Mashiach and 53 actually proves it.
Fully agree. Just catching up on reading what I missed that day.
Shalom dear sister! It is true that Christians have abandon the Shabat. I do keep the Shabat. The Christian on the influence of Edom have sadly abandon it for Sunday which is Yom Rishon. The argument of the Christian is that the new Shabat is Yom Rishon because of the Resurrection of the Messiah.
If there is one thing that make me sad it is the abandon by the Christians from the East who abandon the Shabat because of Rome. That is for me a Prostitution predicted in the book of the Apocalypse. Like Israel of old who abandon the true worship. Your role sister is to educate with loving kindness our brothers and sisters from the house of Israel.
“Yet the number of the children of Israel
Shall be as the sand of the sea,
Which cannot be measured or numbered.
And it shall come to pass
In the place where it was said to them,
‘You are not My people,’
There it shall be said to them,
‘You are sons of the living God.’
Then the children of Judah and the children of Israel
Shall be gathered together,
And appoint for themselves one head;
And they shall come up out of the land,
For great will be the day of Yezreel!” (Hosea the prophet)
Yehidia Shalom!
What is your take on Ezechiel chap.37-39? Who are the dry bones? And who is Gog from Magog? Do you think that it can relate to Yaakov prophecy on Dan (Bereshit ch.49)?
Well, I asked about the “dry bones” and got an incoherent reply. Gog & Magog are different things to different people; what is most important is what it meant to the prophet & his audience for whom it was intended. As far as Ezekiel 37-39, there is a lot of stuff there. Too much to condense. But there are several books by several different prophets with a whole lot of chapters. They are filled with numerous parables, songs, symbols, visions, dreams, warnings, praises, signs of hope, etc. Foremost, these prophets spoke of and about and for their audience and those things came to pass. What they said is more important than what one wishes they said.
Shalom Yehidia! Todah!
According to your view the Prophets spoke only in their time with no implication for the future. Their prophecies applied only in the near time of their mission. That is a view called primary interpretation that is OK but can only be valid if the prophecy has been fulfilled unless we accuse the prophet of being false. Concerning the dry bones the prophet explains:
11 Then He said to me, “Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel. They indeed say, ‘Our bones are dry, our hope is lost, and we ourselves are cut off!’ 12 Therefore prophesy and say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “Behold, O My people, I will open your graves and cause you to come up from your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.
The interesting part comes after when the prophet says:
15 Again the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 16 “As for you, son of man, take a stick for yourself and write on it: ‘For Judah and for the children of Israel, his companions.’ Then take another stick and write on it, ‘For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel, his companions.’ 17 Then join them one to another for yourself into one stick, and they will become one in your hand.
18 “And when the children of your people speak to you, saying, ‘Will you not show us what you mean by these?’— 19 say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “Surely I will take the stick of Joseph, which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel, his companions; and I will join them with it, with the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, and they will be one in My hand.”’ 20 And the sticks on which you write will be in your hand before their eyes.
21 “Then say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord God: “Surely I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, wherever they have gone, and will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; 22 and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all; they shall no longer be two nations, nor shall they ever be divided into two kingdoms again. 23 They shall not defile themselves anymore with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions; but I will deliver them from all their dwelling places in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them. Then they shall be My people, and I will be their God.
24 “David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. 25 Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children’s children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever. 26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore. 27 My tabernacle also shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 28 The nations also will know that I, the Lord, sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forevermore.”’”
Yehidia here this prophecy in context can not be in a time already past for never the two houses where brought together. Ezechiel is seeing the future and my question to you is who is this David who shall be king over them (both houses) forever. How can he be forever? Only the Elohim can be forever for all men must die… What is that Covenant of Peace that the prophet is talking about?
But don’t take everything said metaphorically as something that can only be taken literally. And the prophet did speak those things to “his people”. Must the prophet come back today, dressed as he was then (should we dress similarly) ? Must he pick up 2 “real sticks”? Must he be there and real people the vision exactly carried out, verse by verse, and we must be surprised as if we didn’t know the ending? Jesus said he “only spoke in parables” to the people. Did those parables actually happen right before the eyes of the people and if they had a video camera, could we see in “living color” his parable no longer a parable? Are parables actually a movie script that actors will read off the page and enact out in real time right in front of us? A parable is a parable. A dream is only a dream (that in the bible the dreamer had to interpret or have some one else to interpret, not act out). A vision is only a vision not a act of reality.
One needs to look at several good study bibles (both Christian and Jewish) to get a clearer, less biased picture of what the Bible says.
In Isaiah 14, the whole section (vv. 4b-21) is directed to the king of Babylon, who is clearly depicted as a human ruler; he is called “the man” and he possesses a physical body. Pagan kings of the earth are addressing another pagan King and/or the king of Babylon. They are laughing at this deluded human king in their taunt song.
According to notes in the New English Translation (NET) bible, verses 9-11 “contain several titles and motifs that resemble those of Canaanite mythology,.. “helel ben-shakhar” or “Helel son of Shachar”, a name for the morning star (Venus) or the crescent moon.” Including, “the stars of El, the mountain of assembly, the recesses of Zaphon, and the divine title Most High. Apparently these verses allude to a mythological story about a minor god”(Helel) “who tried to take over Zaphon, the mountain of the gods. His attempted coup failed and he was hurled down to the underworld. The king of Babylon is taunted for having similar unrealized delusions of grandeur.”
According to the NET notes, “Some Christians have seen an allusion to the fall of Satan here, but this seems contextually unwarranted (see J. Martin, “Isaiah,” BKCOT, 1061).” V. 14:12, “in this line the taunting kings hint at the literal identity of the king, after likening him to the god Helel and a tree. The verb גָדַע (gada’, “cut down”) is used of chopping down trees in 9:10 and 10:33.”
NET notes for 14:13: “In Canaanite mythology the stars of El were astral deities under the authority of the high god El.” And
“Zaphon, the Canaanite version of Olympus, was the “mountain of assembly” where the gods met.”
NET notes for 14:14: “the high places.” This word often refers to the high places where pagan worship was conducted, but here it probably refers to the “backs” or tops of the clouds. See HALOT 136 s.v. בָּמָה.” “Normally in the OT the title “Most High” belongs to the God of Israel, but in this context, where the mythological overtones are so strong, it probably refers to the Canaanite high god El.”
V. 14:15 describes the king’s downfall. “Cistern” is sometimes used metaphorically to refer to the place of the dead or the entrance to the underworld.
NET notes for 14:14. “The word “thinking” is supplied in the translation in order to make it clear that the next line records their thoughts as they gaze at him.”
What I get from all these notes and from other study bibles is that the historical, human being king of Babylon is being taunted and laughed at because he, as a human, thinks of himself as a god, a god-man equal to any “real” pagan gods. No man is a god nor can one become a god. Anyone who claims divinity and all his disciples, will be smashed by God. And on the other hand, anyone who uses Helel or Heylel as part of their theology is accepting Canaanite mythology for the justification of the theological principles. They chose pagan mythology over the Hebrew God.
In Daniel 3:25, some Christians use King Nebuchadnezzar’s vision of a fourth being (the angel) as another “prophecy” of Jesus. Especially when the angel or a god (one of the pagan gods according to the pagan king who is the apparently the only one who sees) or even “son of the gods” gets translated in a few Christian bibles, like the KJV, as “Son of God”.
Shalom Yehidiah! Here you are right. Daniel is written here in Aramaic. And the term אֱלָהִין’elahin’ means gods.
Todah! Your interpretation is OK but your reference to EL is erroneous. EL is a reference to the Almighty in the Masculine.
” Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was the priest to EL ELYON. And he blessed him and said:
“Blessed be Abram of EL ELYON,
Possessor of heavens and earth;
And blessed be EL ELYON,
Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.” Genesis 14
As Eloah is a reference to the Eternal in the Feminine. Elohim is a plural not in the Dual Form (Elohai, Adonai). Many of us does not know very well the Ancient Hebrew Dual Form in English it very limited rendered by the term Both. Therefore Elohim refers to a plural which gives a major hint that the Unity of the Elohim is a Compound Unity. The Doctrine of the Trinity from the Orthodox-Catholic Church is not false but rendered in Greek terminology. In Hebrew the One Elohim refers to the Unity in a plural form not define but implied. Every serious reader will see that all adoration and worship goes to EL ELYON, to YHWH ELOHIM for HE is the SOURCE of All.
Let us go back to Isaiah 14 now for yes Isaiah talk about a man but in parallel he refers to Heylel has the one wanting to be substituted to EL ELYON. Here is the text translated with respect of the dual form in the ancient Hebrew:
12 “O how you fell out of heavens
Heylel הילל son of dawn,
Have been hewed down toward the earth
You who predominates over nations;
13 And you said in your heart
‘The heavens I will ascend out of a vortex toward dual stars of EL,
I will exalt my throne and sit in a mountain of assembly
In dual extremities of the north
14 I will ascend on dual high places of thick cloud
I will be similar to Elyon.’
15 Only unto Sheol you will be brought down
To dual extremities of the pit. (Isaiah, chap.14)
You clearly see that behind the king of Babylon folly there is the influence of the mad dream of Heylel having failed in the heavens now working to repeat his dream on this earth. The One Elohim let him do, for he serves the purpose of Eloah in the accomplishment of the Plan of EL-ELYON. For everything is in the Hand of Eloah!!
On what basis, and by what means have you determined a parallel between the king and another entity.
This is strictly a Xtian personification that was derived from other religions that had a significant influence of the time.
Shalom Sharbano!
Only read the Text. IT is quite clear if you bring down you prejudging basis. Can a man try to ascend out of a vortex toward dual stars of EL?
What is astonishing is how Isaiah knew the concept of vortex to traverse space and time? This Text actually proves again that Faith and Science complete each other. For Science is the study of the visible extension of the invisible world!!
Glory in all to the One Elohim EL-ELYON, Elohei Israel!
I made no interpretation of the actual text. I merely summarized or concluded what many Christian and Jewish scholars, historians, or intrepretors of the text wrote.
El was a Canaanite god long before Abram came to Canaan. Have you wondered why Melchizedek, a powerful king and priest, needed Abram’s help? Why is Melchizedek not mentioned (or only barely according to some) mentioned in the Hebrew before or after those events? Why did God call one man, Abram, out of a distant pagan land to populate the land IF he already had a line of priests and kings there well established? There are writings of the Canaanites & of El their God that still exist, so do you reject those writings of El and accept only those preserved by the Jews? Only the writings that the Israelites, who God so often chastised, chose to keep?
You raised another question about God’s servant King David reigning again. In your vision of the future where is David and what role does he play and where is Jesus, a “son of David@?
And if Jesus will be Adam, what happened to Adam or was Jesus the Adam that was deceived? Or is the old Adam, not born of a woman, somehow renewed, while Jesus, born of a woman, is just an improved version or “clone” of Adam?
Peace to you Yehidia! Always interesting questions and comments from your part! I will adress those in the evening. Thank you!
Yehidia very interesting point! EL means God in the masculine form. That the Canaanite use the word does not go against who is EL. Take for instance the angel MichaEL’s which name means WHo is like EL? EL is like God in English it refers to the concept of the Supreme One. After Adam’s fall humanity knew the terminology of the heavens, you just have to look at Enoch’s book rejected by modern Judaism for it refers too explicitly to the Messiah the Elect One:
“1. And thus the Lord commanded the kings and the mighty and the exalted, and those who dwell on the earth, and said: ‘Open your eyes and lift up your horns if ye are able to recognize the Elect One.’
2. And the Lord of Spirits seated him on the throne of His glory,
And the spirit of righteousness was poured out upon him,
And the word of his mouth slays all the sinners,
And all the unrighteous are destroyed from before his face. …”
The David reigning is not the David of old but a new David. Scriptures are clear. This David is a son of the Elohim transformed in the grace of the Ruah to reign as promised on the Land.
El being masculine is an irrelevant point. And the fact that many Hebrew or Jewish have “el” or “yah” in their name is well known & changes little or nothing about what Canaanites believed about El & Helel or star gods or sea gods or whatever. Hebrews were a “Canaanite people” as well. Everyone came from Noah & his sons & their wives.
As far as the “book of enoch” it was a forgery (or pseudographia) written at the time that Babylonian and Hellenistic & pre-gnostic philosophies first became popular in Israel-Judea. Not all branches of early Christianity accepted the book either as scripture or for additional reading (except by Gnostics and those very influenced by Plato & Greek philosophy. Truth hurts), even though many of the ideas were acceptable to Christians in Syria, Rome, and Alexandria. You can tell me a whole lot more about the Christian writings discovered at Nag Hammadi.
Was the book of Enoch found at Nag Hammadi or at Qumran among the Hellenistic writings?
Maybe pagan theology and legends/myths are good for pagan kings or even Isaiah to taunt the king of Babylon with, but just because pagans came up with colorful, “exciting” and “out of this world” fictions, doesn’t mean we should incorporate their myths into our worship. Not if one truly loves God, Elohim, Yh-wh. Not if one wants to rise out of the primitive nature worshipping, star worshipping mindset. We come too far to invent new gods or re-invent old pagan gods. Well in America, these “new-agers” seeking enlightenment and heightened “spiritually” may find Enoch, Gnostic writing, Kabballah or Cabala, satan worship and old pagan gods interesting & “godly”, but that stuff ain’t for me. If you like Enoch, you might like Hinduism and their pantheon of gods (under one supreme Hindi god), but that stuff is too too mystic, too mind-blowing for me.
About David. Again your reply is too confusing. I am going to start asking for references and evidence, because it sounds too made up. Now I know the afterlife is not the same as the “before material death”; the part makes sense. But, if the “David reigning” is not the “David of old”, what happened to the “old David”? What percentage of the “Godly part” of “old David” remained or transformed into the “new David”? Why name the “old David” David and the “new David”? That question won’t matter in the afterlife, but why is scripture so unclear, when you interpret it?? When I read scripture, it all makes sense to me. I hope this is not like what we often say, “the devil is the author of confusion”?
I still want to know, that if Jesus is a “son of David” why is not Jesus reigning instead of David? Now I know the afterlife is different from the “before material death”, but then what relevance does what happens in this life have importance after a “transformation”? In other words, calling Jesus a new Adam, a new Moses, a new David is irrelevant. Or, Jesus as the new Adam and the new Moses and the new David, is being defined by the old. New wine poured into old skins or jars. It is like taking a few old, beat up cars to a car dealer, then trading them in to get a new car of the same make & model, and getting a sledge hammer and beating it so that it looks like the old cars, so that some can see the similarity; I see he is a new David. Otherwise, the people would say that he killed all the priests, like an enemy of God, destroyed any evidence and erased all memory of God, so that a new lord can come in and build anew from the ground up (like a successful dictator). No, the old needs to be kept around, so the new priests can say, “look here in verse 7, skip 8-10, and continue reading in verse 11 – always remember 7&11 – see we are still preaching what they used to”. But, the new is known by the failings of the old. And, some old-timers will say “old wine is best”.
Can we dispense with Jesus and go straight to the “new David”? Some think Jesus will reign over David, so does the son overshadow the father? Does Jesus make new David his lord or does new David bow to old Jesus? How is it that the father should call his son, his lord? There were many sons of David, who then is the “only” son of David? If Jesus is the new Adam, and the old Adam gets transformed to the new Adam or do we have 2 new Adams? Does one have precedence over the other? Was old Adam the first new Adam & he supersedes over Jesus the new Adam? Or is the last Adam greater in heaven? If Adam is transformed after Jesus becomes the new Adam, is the old Adam the new, new Adam and therefore the old, new, new Adam reigns over Jesus, the new Adam? If what is new was old before “the transformation”, is the new Adam actually the old Adam? Is old Adam (not born of a woman) therefore less sinful in his sins than the new Adam (born of a woman) in his sins?
Yehidia Shalom!
Scriptures says my servant David will reign over them forever. You are making a common mistake here to attribute the exclusivity of a name to a human person. First David’s name means something which we must understand to understand the Holy Text correctly. David means Beloved, Paul links Yahushuo to being the Son Beloved(David). In Revelation proper translation of the book of Revelation identifies the Messiah Resurrected with the race David meaning the true seed Beloved. Here YHWH is THE BELOVED giving birth by His Grace to a race of Elohim confirmed in Tehilim 82:
אַנִי־אָמַרְתִּי אֱלֹהִים אַתֶּם וּבְנֵי עֶלְיוֹן כֻּלְּכֶם׃ : Me I have said Elohim ye are or sons of Elyon
Only in the holy Knesset (here the Orthodox Church) can we become sons of Elyon. That is the New Covenant and why Yom Rishon is the day of worship for it celebrates the new creation. Saul-Paul was struck by the Power of the Resurrection and astonished by the new and penetrating Intelligence he received of Holy Scriptures who became alive in the Messiah. What was a shadow of the things to come, a kind of rehearsal became source of immense light and understanding. My brothers still see Paul as a traitor but they failed to see the transformative power of the Resurrection. Without the Resurrection Christianity is a lie. those are the words of Paul the Pharisee who became the greatest Apostle of the ancient world.
What proves Christianity is the Resurrection and the transformative power in the lives of those who receives the seed of Faith. Like a little grain it grows to a majestic tree bearing many fruits for Tikun Olam for it is written:
”22 And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. 3 And there shall be no more curse, but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it, and His servants shall serve Him. 4 They shall see His face, and His name shall be on their foreheads. 5 There shall be no night there: They need no lamp nor light of the sun, for the Lord God gives them light. And they shall reign forever and ever.
6 Then he said to me, “These words are faithful and true.” And the Lord God of the holy prophets sent His angel to show His servants the things which must shortly take place.
7 “Behold, I am coming quickly! Blessed is he who keeps the words of the prophecy of this book.”
Now concerning all your questions of who is who and the new and the old. I will gave a word of advice: humble yourself in front of the LORD for only those who are like little child will enter the Kingdom of the Heavens. You are like someone wanting to put the Ocean in a bottle… Can you bear all the Wisdom, the Intelligence, the Mystery of all He does and accomplish in His Providence?
I only have time now for a quick reply to your last paragraph. My advice is that you also need to humble yourself. Being a child is ok, but a child is also more accepting of lies and fantasies. A child fears many things that are often imaginary. fear is ok, but if reasonable, it is only the very beginning of wisdom, not the end. When I was a child I thought as a child, but there will come a time when we put childish things behind us and grow. That is scary, but don’t imagine pleasant, but unreal fantasies to calm you down just to be at peace and feel a false sense of security. The child sleeps and plays (to learn); the adult protects and provides. Yes, peace can come in imagined worlds that you created. You speculate too much, which shows that you are not really at peace as a child or you imagine your wisdom is greater than the Father’s.
In a worldly way I can say that “life is too short” to want to “bottle the Ocean”. And what good is bottled up ocean? Perhaps you were foolish enough to once think that; or still do at times? I look around and it is good. But there is more, do not fear it my child. Yes, I can bear all the Wisdom and the Intelligence; God knows what I can bear and I can call if I weaken or limit my self. Several times in the Torah, God commands, or invites, us to “Be Ye Holy as I am Holy”. Be Holy; do not fear my simple child that you may fail; your Father will pick you up. If you feel lost, cry out and He will run to you. “Mystery is mystery (by definition is unknowable,) and it will remain mystery, so why deal with the unknowable (until the future), when Life is all around you, with so very much unknown that you can know. Childish awe and wonder that is real before your eyes.
Monsieur, you keep citing Ezekiel. In fact in one of your comments you cited Ezekiel 37:21-28. In this passage, the prophet describes an era when the Jewish people will be gathered back to the land, united as one people who will follow the mitzvot of the Torah. they will dwell in peace, the Temple will be restored, and the whole world will know Hashem. During this era a descendant of King David (the Messiah) will rule over the nation of Israel.
Fact number one: Jesus is not a descendant of King David on his father’s side, since we don’t know who his father was (possibly a Roman soldier). Tribal lineage is passed through the father.
Fact number two: Jesus never reigned as king over Israel, united or otherwise.
Fact number three: During Jesus’s non-reign over the Jewish people, all those beautiful things described in Ezekiel did not take place. They have never yet taken place. This prophecy has yet to be fulfilled.
Conclusion: Jesus is not the Messiah.
Shalom to all! I have addressed this before and no one was able to respond to it:
Sharbano and Dina interpretation of Isaiah 53 does not hold. They have invented a way to divert from the obvious which the holy Text gives with no need of interpretation. They say that the suffering servant is ‘Israel’ than let us replace all the He in the holy Text by the word ‘Israel’ and let us check if it makes sense:
”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.
8
He was taken from prison and from judgement,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.
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.”
”For the transgressions of My people He was stricken”
If Israel was the HE of Isaiah 53 why the prophet says ” My people”
”For the transgressions of My people (Israel) He(Israel) was stricken”
You see how absurd is your false interpretation!!
Hi Lion,
There are almost 1000 comments on this page. I have written in this comments section extensively on Isaiah 53. I would like to show you, first, why Isaiah 53 cannot possibly be talking about Jesus before I explain the traditional Jewish interpretation. It is too much for me to ask you to read nearly 1000 comments, so I will try to find my own comments and copy and paste what I’ve written into a new comment. This will take some time, so I ask for your patience.
Eliyahu There is an entire section on this blog showing the emptiness of the Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53 – read it and enjoy the light. You will find it on the right hand corner in the list that is entitled “categories”
I find it interesting that previously you focused on the Hebrew yet here you want to use the KJV. Does Hebrew write it as “My people”.
Mr Lion, they believe that ‘ my people’ are the gentile nations who were cruel to Jewish people. They believe the speaker ( through the mouth of Isaiah) are kings ,the nations and that Is 53 is a type of future report of us gentiles ( me) admitting that Israel suffered because of us
( because our iniquities ).
Eric, it’s not a question of belief but what the text says. The last few verses of chapter 52 give the context and identify the speaker. We believe what the text says. You believe your theology and you twist the text to support it.
Dina, I rely on the sense in the message the text carries. And this is a message that goes along with God’s plan of redemption testified by life of jesus and his resurrection. Your interpretations doesn’t hold water. I am aware of the nation ‘s suffering and I already explained in my previous messages that the servant in that chapter is not portrayed as suffering for his own sins and contrasts the rest of the nation. Is 59 along with other chapters and prophetic books shows you that Israel is included in ‘all those who went astray’ for whom the servant suffers.
Hi Monsieur L.,
Below are my copied and pasted comments showing why Jesus cannot possibly be the subject of Isaiah 53, even if the subject is the Messiah. This is going to be a very long comment!
For the sake of argument let’s say I accept your argument that Isaiah 53 refers to the Messiah. Then the question becomes, is it referring specifically to Jesus?
Let’s look at this verse by verse, starting with the end of chapter 52:
Behold, My servant will succeed; he will be exalted and become high and exceedingly lofty. Just as multitudes were astonished over you, [saying,] “His appearance is too marred to be a man’s, and his visage to be human,” so will the many nations exclaim about him, and kings will shut their mouths [in amazement], for they will see that which had never been told to them, and will perceive things they had never heard.
This passage describes someone perceived to be so ugly as to be subhuman. This person, extraordinarily repulsive in the eyes of the nations, will then shock them to the very core of their being by his success, by his exaltation.
Jesus was never perceived as bad-looking in the eyes of the nations.
The prophet says that the kings and nations will be shocked and amazed by the servant’s exaltation. Consider that two billion Christians worship Jesus, Muslims revere him as a prophet, Hindus respect him–that’s about half the people on this planet–how can you say that this is talking about Jesus? He’s the last person who will shock the kings and nations by his exaltation.
To strengthen my point, the narrator in this passage describes the subject as being characterized by his ugliness (“his appearance is too marred to be a man’s, and his visage to be human,” further along “without such visage that we could desire him,” “as one from whom we would hide our faces”). A few hours’ suffering on the cross hardly fits this description. Besides, hundreds of thousands were crucified by the Romans, so there is nothing special, nothing unique, about Jesus’s brief suffering.
Because he only suffered at the very end of his life for a few hours, you cannot say that Jesus is characterized by his suffering. For these reasons, the subject of this passage cannot be Jesus.
So the servant in the previous chapter is perceived as subhuman, and in this chapter is perceived as nothing special. But not only that, everyone also hates him and isolates him (he was despised and isolated from men). Furthermore, he is “a man of pains and accustomed to illness”–this is a man who is ACCUSTOMED to suffering. He suffers a lot–not just a one-time event at the end of his life.
But according to your scripture Jesus wasn’t hated or isolated. Your scripture claims that during his lifetime, he “grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man” (Luke 2:52) and that “the child grew up healthy and strong. He was filled with wisdom, and God’s favor was on him” (Luke 2:40). A picture of health, strength, and popularity–a far cry from the descriptions of Isaiah 53.
Your scripture is also full of descriptions of Jesus preaching up and down the country in the synagogues followed by massive crowds. He draws huge crowds wherever he goes. That’s not exactly a description of a man “despised and isolated from men.”
And after his death, with two billion followers who adore him and a couple of billion people who, while not Christian, respect him and his teachings, Jesus is still the most popular and respected human being on the planet . Again, a far cry from someone who is despised and isolated from men.
Therefore, he is the last person who will astonish the kings and nations when he will be exalted, as you believe, at his second coming.
Thus far, I have argued that Jesus is not characterized as “a man of pains and accustomed to illness”; nor was he “despised and isolated from men.”
I shall now examine a few more passages and show that they cannot be talking of Jesus.
Verse 7: He was persecuted and afflicted, but he did not open his mouth; like a sheep being led to the slaughter or a ewe that is silent before her shearers, he did not open his mouth.
Was Jesus silent in the face of his death sentence? In Christian scripture we see contradictory accounts. In one account he is silent; in others he defends himself.
Verse 8: He had been removed from the Land of the Living, an affliction upon them that was my people’s sin.
Hebrew readers of the Bible recognize the expression “the Land of the Living” to refer to the Land of Israel. Jesus was never removed from the Holy Land.
Verse 9: He submitted himself to his grave with wicked men and in his deaths with the wealthy for a crime that he did not commit and no deceit in his mouth.
This is the opposite of the description of Jesus’s end in Christian scripture. He was killed with the wicked (the robbers) and buried in the grave of a wealthy man.
“No deceit in his mouth”–Jesus insisted at his trial that he was open about his teachings, but numerous times we find him teaching secretly, telling people not to repeat what they had seen or been taught, or teaching in parables so only his inner circle would understand. This is deceitful.
I would like to point out two more reasons the servant does not match the description of Jesus. One is that the plural form is used twice in this passage.
In verse 8, “an affliction upon THEM that was my people’s sin.” The word “lamo” is plural. In all but one of the other places that the word “lamo” appears in the KJV it is correctly translated as plural. It is a plural word.
In verse 9, the word “b’mosav” means in his DEATHS. It is a plural word. This is as clear and plain as day to this Hebrew speaker.
My second point: The servant is promised the reward of long life and offspring. You insist that the long life is eternal life and the offspring is metaphorical children. However, the Hebrew uses the very specific term “live long days” which in the Bible never means eternal life, and it uses the very specific word “zerah” which means only physical, biological offspring. The Hebrew has a word for children that can be either literal or metaphorical: “banim.” That is not the word used here.
For all of these reasons, even if the subject of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, it cannot be Jesus.
Dina, you are repeating the same mistake by saying ” for the sake of argument let’s say I accept your argument that Isaiah 53 refers to the Messiah. Then the question becomes, is it referring specifically to Jesus?” Then you will use arguments that Isaiah 53 is about plural servant. Well, then what speaks for you that Is 53 might be about any Messiah? Nothing! So why to even start like that? : for the sake of argument….”
Eric, that’s a fair point. It was an error of consistency on my part to include the plural/singular argument in my explanation. Let’s just ignore that point for now, then. Okay?
As you can see, it’s fine to admit that you made a mistake. I am waiting for you to admit your error about the word “holy” and to admit that you made a false statement about Rashi, albeit unknowingly, even if you don’t concede that it changes anything.
Dina, I will finish discussing “holy ‘ etc and other points some other day. Too busy today and I don’t want to write in a hurry.
Eric, it doesn’t take a long time to say, “You’re right, I made a mistake.” But go ahead and take your time. I just want to know that you are a good person who has enough courage and humility to acknowledge when you’re wrong even on a very small point. To my very great disappointment, I have not seen any sign of that.
Another thing still not resolved for you; that you keep repeating in your arguments;
Verse 9: He submitted himself to his grave with wicked men and in his deaths with the wealthy for a crime that he did not commit and no deceit in his mouth.”
You say that this is the opposite of the description of Jesus’s end in Christian scripture. He was killed with the wicked (the robbers) and buried in the grave of a wealthy man.
Did really the opposite happened???
“he SUBMITTED himself to the grave with the wicked ” is expressing his WILLINGNESS to die, that he was still submissive to the death on the cross that was usually appointed to the criminals If it was just about a place ‘grave’ where you put the body, you would not have SUBMISSION expressed as criminals didn’t have to decide where they put their body after they died. “… and in his death with the wealthy” – he was buried in a rich man’s tomb.
So much opposite happened. I see… I just never got the answer how that verse perfectly fits the nation if you want to support your interpretation. I would have to repeat my whole message I already wrote to address all your points.
Eric, I am going to give you the traditional Jewish explanation, God willing. Please, I ask for your patience.
Hi Eric,
I’ve been meaning to get back to Isaiah 53 for a good long while, but I got sidetracked by conversations on other topics with you and others.
In this comment I’m going to explore which explanation is supported by Tanach, the Jewish one or the Christian one. We’ve already discussed context, and I have shown that Christians have wrenched this passage out of context, especially in identifying the subject and the narrator.
Christians understand that Isaiah 53 is a prophecy fulfilled by Jesus. Jesus is the despised and rejected subject of the passage, who is vindicated by those Jews who do recognize that Jesus suffered and died for their sins. In the end, Jesus is exalted and rewarded for his righteousness.
Does the Bible support this explanation?
Let us examine each element of the Christological view.
The Messiah will be rejected and despised by his own people. Does the Bible support this element? No!
There is no passage in Tanach that corroborates this element.
The Messiah’s role is to suffer and die to redeem mankind from sin and death. Does the Bible support this element? No!
There is no passage in Tanach that corroborates this element.
The Jews will recognize that the Messiah that they rejected suffered and died for their sins. Does the Bible support this element? No!
There is no passage in Tanach that corroborates this element.
God will reward the Messiah by raising him back to life and giving him metaphorical offspring. Does the Bible support this element? No!
There is no passage in Tanach that corroborates this element.
There is not a single passage in the whole entire Hebrew Bible that supports the Christian idea that the Messiah must suffer and die to redeem mankind from sin and death, that he will be despised and forsaken by his own people, and that one must accept him as his lord and savior to achieve eternal salvation.
Even Mitch Glaser acknowledged this fact in his book The Gospel According to Isaiah 53:
“Before you venture forward in this pilgrimage through Isaiah 53, it is essential to know that no other prophesy in the entirety of the Old Testament Scriptures explicitly links the death of the Messiah with his work of atonement” (page 29).
The most important doctrine in Christianity, the doctrine of salvation, hinges on only one highly disputed passage.
And make no mistake, this passage is not nearly as clear and obvious as some Christians would like to believe.
Walter Brueggenan, Professor of Old Testament at Columbia Theological Seminary, has this to say about this most famous Christian proof text:
“It is important to recognize that there is a significant scholarly line of argument that concludes this poem [Isaiah 53] will not bear the theological freight familiarly assigned to it, and that its theological claims are rather minimal…One must recognize a certain dis-ease about making a maximal theological interpretation (a large Christian inclination) on what are at least unstable critical grounds.”
Reputable Christian sources–not some “weird Christian scholars”–agree with the traditional Jewish understanding of this passage, such as the following:
1. “The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah” by Christopher R. North, Oxford University Press 1948, has at least 50 Christian scholars taking this approach
2. The New Interpreters Study Bible
3. Harper Collins Study Bible
4. New English Bible -Oxford Study Edition
If this passage were crystal clear and its Christological meaning so obvious, then all Christians would be in agreement over its meaning. The existence of a dispute disproves the notion of clarity.
Yet the whole Christian faith is pinned on one disputed passage in the Hebrew Bible.
Does the Hebrew Bible support the Jewish interpretation?
Jews maintain a different interpretation according to the plain meaning of the text, which is the primary meaning and is not superseded by midrashic interpretation. For this reason I am leaving midrashic interpretation out of the discussion.
According to the plain meaning of the text, this passage is about the messianic era, but it is not about the Messiah. It is a prophecy that will be fulfilled when the Messiah comes. This prophecy is about God’s servant, Israel, who is despised and isolated by the nations of the world. The nations had assumed that Israel suffered for her own sins and that her suffering justified them, proving that they, not Israel, had God’s favor. But when Israel is exalted, the nations will be shocked and amazed that the one that they had thought was rejected really suffered because of their own crimes of persecution against Israel. Israel will finally be vindicated in the eyes of the nations.
Let us examine each element of Isaiah 53, and let us see if the Bible supports each element with corroborative passages.
At the end of Chapter 52, the prophet describes Israel’s exaltation after a long period of oppression. Does the Bible support this? Yes!
Isaiah 45:25, 49:23, 60:1-3, 60:14-15, 61:6-7,9, 62:2-3, 62:11-12; Zephaniah 3:19-20; Malachi 3:12; Nachum 2:2
The world will be shocked and astonished at the vindication of God’s servant, Israel. Does the Bible support this element? Yes!
Micah 7:15-16; Isaiah 41:11, 66:8; Jeremiah 16:19
The Jewish people are despised and rejected. Does the Bible support this element? Yes!
Isaiah 60:41-15; Lamentations 1:11; Ezekiel 16:5, 34:28-29, 35:5-6; Isaiah 49:13
The suffering of Israel is described as illness and wounds. Does the Bible support this element? Yes!
Jeremiah 30:12-13,17; Hoseah 6:1; Isaiah 30:26; Micah 1:9; Isaiah 1:5-6.
The nations of the world thought that Israel was rejected by God. Does the Bible support this element? Yes!
Jeremiah 50:7; Psalm 94: 5,7
The people of Israel suffered because of the wickedness and cruelty of the nations. Does the Bible support this element? Yes!
Jeremiah 2:3, 10:25; Zechariah 1:15; Zephaniah 2:10; Psalm 79:4-7; Psalm 94:3-5
The Jews are lead to their deaths like lambs to the slaughter. Does the Bible support this element? Yes!
Psalm 44:12-21
The Jewish nation was exiled from Israel (the land of the living). Does the Bible support this element? Yes!
Psalm 52:7; Psalm 116: 3, 8-9; Psalm 142:6; Ezekiel 32: 23-24, 25-27, 32
God’s servant is not deceitful. Does the Bible support this element? Yes!
Zephaniah 3:13-20
God rewards His servant, Israel, with a fruitful and long life. Does the Bible support this element? Yes!
Deuteronomy 11:21, 28:11, 30:5, 30:19-20; Jeremiah 3:13-16, 23:3; Isaiah 65:20; Zechariah 8:4, 10:8; Ezekiel 36:37
In the end, the Jews will bring light to the world by teaching them about God.
Isaiah 49:3,6; Deuteronomy 4:5-6; Exodus 19:5-6; Zechariah 8:13, 8:23; Isaiah 55:5; Genesis 28:14; Micah 4:2; Malachi 2:7; Isaiah 60:3; Isaiah 61:6; Habakkuk 2:14
Israel intercedes for the nations. Does the Bible support this element? Yes!
Jeremiah 29:7
Who has built a stronger case for their interpretation of Isaiah 53? It’s a slam dunk!
(With thanks to Rabbi Michael Skobac for providing me with references.)
Dina, I am on vacation right now, I will just respond to that old one; sorry it’s long as I had to go through all the points;
You didn’t defend your Jewish interpretation of is 53 . You presented facts known about God’s plan for Israel but they do not mean the Messiah couldn’t fulfill his redemptive role in Is 53 .
You relay on similarities and then you reserve a certain event only to the nation. An example; suffering, exaltation of a servant. Not only a nation is the one that suffered but so are mentioned individuals that will be included in God’s exaltation. Even Jeremiah said that about himself that he was led like a lamb to the slaughter” . But because he said that it doesn’t mean Is 53 is about him! Suffering is not just part of a nation as a group of people but singular servants.
The way you excluded the Messiah from his redemptive role is by replacing yourself in his position which simply doesn’t make sense. Not only Jesus fulfills all words spoken about him in Isaiah while you do not;
the bible doesn’t support the statement of you justifying and healing others due to Israels oppression.
It doesn’t support the statement of you submitting yourself to the grave with the wealthy.
It doesn’t support the statement of being afflicted just because of others wickedness but also because of Israels sin.
It doesn’t support the statement of your oppression benefiting the world.
anyways , back to some of your points;
“The Messiah will be rejected and despised by his own people.
“The Jews will recognize that the Messiah that they rejected suffered and died for their sins.”
Does the Bible support this element? No!”
So first some questions; Does the bible support the statement that gentiles will trust in a false Messiah?? No, so according to your definition, if something it’s not there, it can’t be happening.
And also there is the other way; there are things in the bible that are not mentioned but clearly happened. So does it mean every thing will be there presented like we expected? But anyways it is there , only not the way YOU WANT to see it.
Is 53 would give you answers All the “No’s” you presented are only due to your interpretation that excludes the redemptive role the Messiah and replaces him with the nation like I said before. And if you try to fit all the verses from Is 53 to the nation , they do not work. Of course there are similarities and the facts that can be possible for both ; the Messiah and the nation, but looking at the whole text it doesn’t fit to the nation.
“The Messiah’s role is to suffer and die to redeem mankind from sin and death.”
The servant in Is 53 clearly justifies others , which means to claim a person ‘not guilty’ . Where there is no guilt , death doesn’t need to hold you forever. And this is what Jesus proved. And this is what God showed is in Genesis. It is sin that brought death.
You said the Tanah doesn’t support that. It doesn’t support that due to the way you see it. You see the suffering in Is 53 just as a result of oppression that doesn’t lead to redemption ( the type Jesus brought) but it leads to some type justification ( you can’t even explain what type). There is also no logical explanation in Jewish interpretation of that justification. I read so many! You all skip the most important message in the v 11.that justification is by carrying ‘ their iniquities” . JPS updated Jewish translation even puts it that way; “ My righteous servant makes the many righteous , it is their punishment that he bears” v.11 Words speak roe themselves so clearly here. And Jesus accomplished what it’s said ; he justified us by carrying our iniquities. And the nation suffered also for their own sins so it can justify others.
Does Tanah support the fact of the nation JUSTIFYING others?
No, no such thing because there really isn’t.
“God will reward the Messiah by raising him back to life and giving him metaphorical offspring. “
There is no metaphorical offspring, but children of faith. All Abraham’s children are children of faith!
And God proved the fact; He rose Jesus back to life. If the servant in Is 53 is mentioned to pour his soul for death, being in the grave and then we read he will have life- there has to be first resurrection for all that to happen. And Jesus proved it .
As far as Mitch Glaser and his statement that
“Before you venture forward in this pilgrimage through Isaiah 53, it is essential to know that no other prophesy in the entirety of the Old Testament Scriptures explicitly links the death of the Messiah with his work of atonement” (page 29).
What is wrong with that? There is ONLY one place in the entire bible that the Messiah will ride on a donkey entering Jerusalem. There is only ONE place in the entire bible that lists the name he will be called; Mighty God, Eternal Father, etc. And many others events like that just mentioned in ONE place in the prophets. Does it mean it is less reliable because of that?
“The most important doctrine in Christianity, the doctrine of salvation, hinges on only one highly disputed passage.”
And your rejection of jesus hinges on Deuteronomy which doesn’t allow ( or at least foretells) resurrection of the false prophet, yet you still deny it.
And when it comes to salvation; it doesn’t hinges on only one passage but on Jesus life testimony and fulfillment of the words spoken by many prophets and words in NT including all epistles .
.
The list of names you provided , I can provide you with another that doesn’t depute it and there are also those disputable ones that see fulfillment of events in is 53 possible both for the nation and the Messiah . And the fact that the disputable ones can’t deny seeing Jesus fulfilling some passages speaks for the fact that despite common suffering between the Messiah and the nation, the Messiah plays the redemptive role which doesn’t exclude Israel from what it is written that they suffered and will be also exalted.
“If this passage were crystal clear and its Christological meaning so obvious, then all Christians would be in agreement over its meaning. The existence of a dispute disproves the notion of clarity.”
You know how many things can be found among Jews that they would not agree upon together? This is common with every group of people. And by the way you are leaving midrashic interpretation out of the discussion. That is one example of what I was talking about. And how many saw messianic message in Is 53 at least in some passages?? They are not made up but even Jews clearly saw that the events in Is 53 were not just relating to the nation.
“The nations had assumed that Israel suffered for her own sins and that her suffering justified them, proving that they, not Israel, had God’s favor.”
The bible says ; Israel suffered for her own sins. But the bible doesn’t say that the nation’ suffering justifies anybody! It is like saying that your suffering ( due to your sin) justifies our sin.
“v.8 says that the servant suffered through the sin of my people who deserved punishment” So who are those who deserved punishment? All.
Also the Bible says Israel in God’s eyes deserved punishment that’s why was exposed to the enemy and suffered. All are shown guilty.! That leaves one righteous servant messiah to pay for all as all deserved punishment.
“The suffering of Israel is described as illness and wounds. Does the Bible support this element? Yes!”Jeremiah 30:12-13,17; Hoseah 6:1; Isaiah 30:26; Micah 1:9; Isaiah 1:5-6.
Yes, Jeremiah and others tell you that wounds and illness are usually associated with suffering.
Only the ‘illness and wounds” in Is 53 are not in the same relation what the above examples you listed. Is 53 says; the servant bears our “ills” and our “pains” he bears our suffering. And how can you carry our suffering after we caused you too suffer??? And how through your wounds we are healed? Healing comes only from God after you repented, not because somebody suffered.
“The people of Israel suffered because of the wickedness and cruelty of the nations. Does the Bible support this element? Yes!Jeremiah 2:3, 10:25; Zechariah 1:15; Zephaniah 2:10; Psalm 79:4-7; Psalm 94:3-5”
But it also says if suffered because of their own sin ,too, thus needs redemption and it is among those who went astray..
“God’s servant is not deceitful”
Is the servant in is 53 deceitful? What a weird statement!
“God rewards His servant, Israel, with a fruitful and long life. Does the Bible support this element? Yes!”Deuteronomy 11:21, 28:11, 30:5, 30:19-20; Jeremiah 3:13-16, 23:3; Isaiah 65:20; Zechariah 8:4, 10:8; Ezekiel 36:37
Does it mean a singular servant can’t follow the same promise?
As far as the verses you listed .Jeremiah 3:13-16 supports repentance! It supports the call for turning from other gods to the living God. You put Zechariah 8;4 and other verses as the answer to Is 53. Long life is a characteristic mark in messianic times indeed . But In Is 53 the servant is described as pouring his soul to death and in the grave . So for him any long life already means eternal life as it has to be proceeded by resurrection ( back from dead to life). And Jesus proved that.
All the other statements you presented do not exclude the redemptive role the God’s – Messiah servant played, either.
“ the prophet describes israel’s exaltation after a long period of oppression” Is 52
;
God promised the redemption, and exaltation of His people after they return to Him’. That looks like in the end times;
“Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God, and David their king, and they shall come in fear to the Lord and to his goodness in the latter days. “ Hosea 3;4-5
As far as freedom from oppression and exaltation – even jesus’ the sermon on the mount contains the message a promise of being comforted after longing for justice, peace etc.
So does it exclude an individual servant from being lifted up after he suffered? Most prophets suffered, and the bible doesn’t list them separately and they all are part of the nation. You make it as a the only applicable to the nation and link it with Is 53 where there is no place for a particular one servant.
“The Jewish nation was exiled from Israel (the land of the living).”
According to also other places with “In the land of the living”, we see the meaning ALSO used as referring to “ in this world” place opposed to the grave, which is the place of the dead.; ( and you didn’t list those I found them)
Is 38;10-11
“I said, “In the prime of my life
must I go through the gates of death
and be robbed of the rest of my years?”
I said, “I will not again see the Lord himself
in the land of the living;
no longer will I look on my fellow man or be with those who now dwell in this world. “
In Ps 116;8-9 David says’ you have delivered me from death (…) I shall walk before the Lord in the Land of the Living.
Job 28;13 “But where can wisdom be found? And where is the place of understanding? 13″Man does not know its value, Nor is it found in the land of the living. The deep says, ‘It is not in me’; And the sea says, ‘It is not with me.’ “
“Israel intercedes for the nations. Does the Bible support this element? Yes!”
As if nobody else could do that? What does it prove?
Jeremiah 29:7 Also does Jeremiah speak for all people ?
The message is a call to pray but it doesn’t mean all nation is interceding. And if people do that you have individuals, groups . Isaiah was interceding, Jeremiah was interceding, Jesus was interceding., he was even telling others to pray for the enemy So what’s the problem?
“The Jewish people are despised and rejected”
That includes many individuals among the nation. If that can speak about every single Jew, so if includes Jesus. How many prophets were rejected,? They have the same thing in common.
“The people of Israel suffered because of the wickedness and cruelty of the nations.”
So again suffered different individuals. And also the bible clearly says Israel suffered because of their own sin, which is mentioned throughout Isaiah , but the servant in Is 53 is not mentioned as a sinner not even once, not even guilty of anything.
“The nation of the world thought that Israel was rejected by God”
You listed Jeremiah 50;7
“Whoever found them devoured them; their enemies said, ‘We are not guilty, for they sinned against the LORD, “ That verse shows the enemies justifying their wrong actions while hurting Israel. They do not say that God rejected you.
Ps 94;5-7 also doesn’t say the enemies believe you are rejected. It shows their ignorant attitude thinking that God doesn’t see anything so they think they can do wrong.
While coming to Is 53 it says” we accounted him plagued smitten and afflicted by God. But he was wounded because of our sins(…)”
The speaker clearly identifies the reason the servant suffered after thinking the REASON was DIFFERENT. If you cause somebody to suffer you would know it is your action right away . But the speaker saw the servant suffering NOT KNOWING BEFORE it was because if his sin. He thought if was because of God ( as God’s judgment). Then he realizes if was due to peoples sinful nature. That’s why the nation doesn’t fit here. Jesus fits here as we didn’t first understand why he had to suffer but learned later that it was due to our sins , for our sins., which all goes together with the servant ‘ justifying others by carrying their guilt v 11.
“The world will be shocked at the vindication of God’s servant, Israel”
The verses you listed show defeat of Israel’s enemies.
And that vindication is due to/ thanks to the servant who will first lift everything up. ( Is 49) and who will justify others by being their guilt offering.( Is 53) And who will bring forth justice ( Is 42) We know that the Messiah plays a redemptive role at his coming and Israel’s deliverance. He will be exalted the same way for what he has done. Even NT says confirms all the events and doesn’t deny Israel’s deliverance.
………………………………………
In the end, the Jews will bring light to the world by teaching them about God.
The question is what Jews?
Isaiah 49:3,6 it doesn’t talk about the nation but the same servant raising tribes of jacob from Is 42 which is the Messiah. How do we know that? He will bring fort the justice to the nations and be LIGHT TO THE NATIONS Is 42;1-8 ( who? The servant messiah) the same way as it is spoken in chapter 49;6 ( SERVANT BEING LIGHT TO THE GENTILES). That also goes together with is 11;10 ( being a standard for peoples , nations shall seek his counsel and his resting place will be glorious”
So all who know what his teaching is about can teach others. Those who know that he is the light can be the light for others.
Then you will be a blessing Zechariah 8:13,
Isaiah 55:5; 60;3 all because of glory of God that will be dwelling with his people. But why not now yet? You rejected your Messiah.
Really Eric
“You relay on similarities and then you reserve a certain event only to the nation.”
THIS is Xtianity in a nutshell. Once again, BEGIN at the start of ch.52 to see what the narrative is all about. Furthermore, Show us even one place where the term “messiah” is used. What you have FAILED to grasp and ultimately UNWILLING to grasp is the historical nature of that chapter. It’s history in a nutshell, compacted in a short narrative. As it is with most all Xtians they cannot bear to look at Xtianity, the Church, and Jewish history. It’s not a pretty picture. It’s not only the suffering Perpetrated by that church but also the anti-semitism that went along with it. It is the Totality of ALL that history that the Nations exclaim in astonishment. Your own arguments have literally shown we are Not in that time as yet. It has Yet to be completed.
Unbelievable, Eric. Seriously, if you wanted to prove the moon was made of cheese…
This is a lot to go through and will take me some time. I might not get to it until after my son’s Bar Mitzvah (second half of August). Thanks for your patience.
Best,
Dina
A couple other points. Do you Really think that the prophecy of riding on a donkey is that important. Do you Really think that Is significant. Do you Know how Many people rode donkeys in those days. Not only That the fulfillment was a fabrication. A prophecy is meaningless when a person says “let’s fulfill the prophecy by acquiring a donkey”. You should notice that prophecy takes place After conquering the enemies.
Are you aware that “Mighty G-d” is Hezekiah’s name. In any event, those names are the one’s who; “called his name Sar-Shalom”. It’s quite obvious in Hebrew, without deceptive intent of translators.
Dina and Sharbano Peace!
When you read all Isaiah we see that Israel can be personified. It is not to be taken as a people alone but can be applied to the Messiah also.
Actually read Isaiah 53 to non-Jews or regular Jews without saying that it is Scriptures and they will say that you are reading a Christian depiction of the Christ. How can you explain this?
Blessings!
When that was tried it was done in a deceptive manner.
Of course that’s nothing new. Most Western countries have been Xtianized. Most people also think that Adam and Chava were cursed, but this isn’t true either.
Hi Sharbano!
Adam and Hawah (p.s. vav in the ancient hebrew was spelled like our ‘w’) were banished from Paradise and they wept their banishment. They were corrected by YHWH who love them still as the merciful Father teaching his children to obey him.
Peace!
And WHERE do you know Ancient Hebrew From?. What do you know of the Hebrew language? Is it Xtian Hebrew or Strong’s Hebrew.
One could say that those listeners know little either about Isaiah or the gospels or both. One could also say that by reading (to bible illerates (?) or others), much of the detail of the story is lost and that even by ordinarily reading the text (especially when one reads out of context and one is easily persuaded by their own confirmation bias), one overlooks the historical context, the nuances in the stories, and the discrepancies or contractions between the stories. One cannot ignore the fact that gospel writers were copying from scripture, such as parts of Isaiah 53, and using that scripture to validate and justify their story. One cannot ignore the fact that the gospel & NT letters writers even contradict each other and even at times their ownselves in order to tell (and sell) their story. If you search in the posts above, you will find references to and facts about the studies of some well-known and very credible Christian scholars, who study carefully, intensely, & usually unbiasedly scriptures, who would very much disagree with your interpretations and that of your uninformed listeners.
CP, Christians and ignorant Jews living in a thoroughly Christianized environment, growing up with Christian culture, are going to hear any Christian proof text read out of context as Christological. Nothing mysterious there.
How do you explain the fact that Orthodox Jews never understand it that way?
Let me guess…
Oh, yes, they’re controlled by their rabbis, who tell them what to believe!
And also, they’re spiritually blind! We must pray for them that the veil be lifted from their eyes!
CP,
Is it any wonder that the ignorant do not know how to interpret scripture? Are we to appeal to the understanding of the unstudied?
Jim
Christian Paul I address this question in Contra Brown – please read it
good words, I have a whole book of testimonies like that. There was no way they saw themselves as the healers of the world in Is 53 but the Messiah, without a christian help.
Haven’t you Yet started the read from the beginning of 52. I find it quite informative that a person is unwilling to read an Entire section. You were Quite adamant when it comes to the parable of Jsus in Luke. You decried not taking in the context of a messianic age. Are you that selective, where context Only applies when You want it to. This too is speaking of a future time. That, I’m sure you would concur.
I have mentioned this before and likewise it was ignored. There have been quite a few Xtians who have realized the evils Xtianity, the church and its people, have perpetrated upon the Jewish people. These same Xtians have went To the Jews And, in the name of their Xtian forefathers, asked for forgiveness from these Jews. Their repentance to the Jew, as they said of themselves, gave them a sense of healing from that realization of Jewish suffering at the hands of Xtianity. They understood it was done by the hands of fellow Xtians and it was the sin of those Xtians that committed those acts.
Without a background of history how can a person understand a text. How can You relate to a Rabbi Akiva who had his skin scraped off, yet recited the Shema, Or, not so long ago of a young girl, about 12 I think, who chose to be burnt at the stake reciting Shema rather than become a Xtian. When WE read Isaiah, we read it with all those who suffered at the hand of Xtianity in mind. Suffering that includes all kinds, from mere expulsions to outright murder. We remember the suffering at Tisha b”Av and the reading of Kinnot on a yearly basis. Understand the Kinnot and Understand the Jew.
Eric, Sharbano wrote to you that “You were Quite adamant when it comes to the parable of Jsus in Luke. You decried not taking in the context of a messianic age. Are you that selective, where context Only applies when You want it to.”
You should take his words to heart and be as zealous to guard the words of the Torah from being ripped out of context as you are about your precious NT. You go around quoting the Torah out of context frequently, then get righteously indignant when we do so (according to you).
We had a discussion about this a while ago. I showed you that you quoted Psalm 41:10 out of context. It cannot be talking about a sinless Jesus, because in 41:5 the subject talks about his sinning. I showed you that you quoted Psalm 69:22 out of context. It cannot be talking about a sinless Jesus because in verse 6 the subject talks about his folly and guilty acts.
Your response was shockingly absurd. You told me that of course not every verse in the OT is talking about Jesus, but just a verse here and verse there contain prophecies about him. This is ridiculous because I wasn’t picking out passages anywhere from the Bible to show you that the verses were out of context. I only provided the passage from which you plucked the verse in order to show you the context.
In chapter 22, the subject does not change from verse 5 to 10. The subject in verse 5, if you read it in context, is the same subject as in verse 10. In chapter 69, the subject in verse 6, if you read it in context, is the same subject as in verse 22.
So tell me why it’s okay for you take verses out of context from our Scripture but get all huffy when you perceive that we’ve taken verses out of context from your scripture.
I would like to know how you can defend this double standard and this dishonest practice.
And if you can’t defend it, then if you read Isaiah 53 in context, you will see how ridiculous your interpretation becomes. If you go back to Isaiah 52, you will see that it provides the context. As soon as you can accept what the context is telling you–that the narrator is the kings and nations of the world expressing their shock at the exaltation of God’s servant Israel (who is so identified multiple times throughout Isaiah)–then the Jewish meaning (the plain meaning) becomes crystal clear.
Sharbano, “You were Quite adamant when it comes to the parable of Jsus in Luke. You decried not taking in the context of a messianic age. ”
What is your problem with the parable in Luke? Explain!!!
It’s rather interesting how you are deflecting the point made and only responding to the similarity.
Sharbano;You want me to look to the narrative. But why don’t you follow the same rule when it comes to chapter 42 verse 1-9? If you did you would notice that also the Messiah is set as a light to the world ( mainly) and you would read about his restoration- role in these verses. The same restorative role is repeated in chapter 49 in which the one who is the light to the world will also have it’s share in suffering and will be exalted. There is a dispute among Jewish translations whether that chapter doesn’t talk about isaiah as the redemptive role described there doesn’t fit the nation. ( the servant lifts up the ruins of Jacob) They agree that even though the servant is referred to as Israel in v 3 , it doesn’t exclude talking about the task an individual servant carries. ( in this case they believe it is Isaiah, christens see that it is the servant messiah)
Back to Is 42;2, it says ” he shall teach the true way to the nations” (who? the servant Messiah) . Why would he have to teach if you are already the light? He is the one mentioned responsible for establishing the true way on the earth” v 4. And the islands are awaiting HIS teaching.
That chapter tells you to whom belongs the restorative role . Who is the source of it. The chapter 49 confirms it.
You keep telling me about chapter 52 and it’s narrative. Yes, I kept reading it many times and most of the text focuses on God’s coming redemption. There is barely a line that would not be talking about it! So the message in chapter 53 about redemptive role of the messiah doesn’t ‘jump out’ of the narrative and it isn’t something not relating to the message in the previous chapter. It shows you how the servant contributed to our salvation.
What is different between the servant nation from the previous chapters and the servant spoken in chapter 53?
The servant is not portrayed as the one who deserved ANY punishment at all. He is portrayed as a willingly carrying iniquities of others WHO deserved it.
Focus on reading the text and try to ANALYZE every line if that speaks of the nation.
According to your interpretation; we ( the nations) are guilty ( we went astray) v.6 and God desired to inflict you v10 ( with cutting you off the land of the living) v.8 for OUR sins.
” for he was cut off from the land of the living through the sin of my people who deserved punishment” JPS Tanakh Jewish translation.
According to Art Scroll Tanah we have the same message;
v.8 tells us that you had been removed from the land of the living , because of ‘ my people’s sin”. ( the nations) So we sinned and God punished you taking you from your own land.
Where does it say in the whole bible that you have to pay for OUR mistakes and for OUR mistakes God would remove you from your OWN land???? Impossible!
You said you see Is 53 through the eyes of suffering of your nation from the hands of those who claimed to be Christians. I know the suffering is true but does the chapter talk about this type of suffering?
What and who is the reason you were cut off from the land of the living ( Israel) ?
Was it through the iniquities of the Christians? Or is it because of the Romans?
When the persecution of the Jews started during ( by so called Christians) you were already cut off from your own land. Yet Isaiah clearly says you were cut off from the land of the living through the sin of my people who deserved punishment”. For that to make sense the nations speaking in Is 53 should have to be only Romans. But that is not the case.
Second thing; according to your interpretation we the nations think ( or thought) you were afflicted by God v. 4 and then we will realize it was because of our iniquities ( us being mean to you. ) How does THIS make any sense? If anybody is oppressing you he is aware of his own crimes, he is aware he is the one causing you to suffer, not God. When people come to jesus they realize he suffered for them ( although they didn’t directly participate in his suffering) . That brings repentance and they turn back to God. That brings them healing of which Isaiah is talking about.
You are consistent in one thing, diverting the subject.
Isaiah 60:1-4
Arise! Shine! for your light has arrived, and the glory of Hashem shines upon you . For, Behold, darkness may cover the earth and a thick cloud may cover the kingdoms, but upon you Hashem will shine, and His glory will be seen upon you. Nations will walk by your light and kings by the brilliance of your shine. Lift up your eyes all around and see, they are all assembling and coming to you; your sons will arive from afar and your daughters wll be raised at their side.
14-15
The sons of your oppressors will go to you submissively, and all who scorned you will prostrate themselves at the soles of your feet; they will call you ‘City of Hashem, Zion of the Holy One of Israel’. Instead of your being forsaken and despised, without wayfarers, I will make you into an eternal pride, a joy for generation after generation.
61:6-7,9
And you will be called ‘priests of Hashem’; ‘ministers of our G_d will be said of you. You will eat the wealth of nations and will pride yourselves in their glory. Instead of your shame which was double and disgrace which they would bemoan as their portion; therefore, they will inherit a double portion in their land, and eternal gladness will be theirs.
Their offspring will be known among the nations, and their descendants amid the peoples; all who see them will recognize them, that they are the seed that Hashem has blessed.
62:2-3,7-8
Nations will perceive your righteousness and all the kings your honor; and you will be called by a new name, which the mouth of Hashem will pronounce. Then you will be a crown of splendor in the hand of Hashem and a royal diadem in the palm of your G-d.
Do not give Him silence, until He establishes and until He makes Jerusalem a source of praise in the Land. Hashem has sworn by His right hand and by His powerful arm.
Micah 7:15-16
As in the days when you left the land of Egypt I will show it wonders. The nations will see and be ashamed of all their unavailing power; they will place a hand over their mouth; their ears will become deaf.
They will lick the dirt like the snake and like creatures that crawl on the ground; they will tremble from their places of confinement; they will fear Hashem our G-d and be afraid of you.
Sharbano, Do we deny that God will exalt his people?No!
The question is who are His people? Why is He not ruling there yet? Why can’t He be a king over them yet and rule among them??? Until His people are listening !!! This call is throughout the whole OT Then redemption comes, then God comes.
Your words do not refute the plan of redemption God showed in the book of Isaiah concerning his servant who willingly carries our quilt .
What about answering the points in my message? How does’ being cut off the land of the living’ due to Christians ‘ sin / oppression make sense?
“For he had been removed from the land of the living, an affliction upon them that was my people’s sin.”
Are you telling me that Xtians over all these centuries didn’t afflict the Jews.
I posted this before and you ignored it then.
Let’s go back a little ways to see the groundwork that is laid. If we start in Is 52:3
“For thus says G-d. You have been sold for nothing and shall be redeemed for free”.
The Jewish people were Not “sold ” into captivity but were sent there because of their sins. Thus, ransom is not needed to buy them back -only repentance can set them free.
52:4) For thus says the L-rd G-d: Originally, My people went down to Egypt to sojourn there and Assyria oppressed them for no reason.
The Egyptians had no justified cause to enslave the Jewish people, who had only come to sojourn in the land. But even if their very presence as foreigners sparked prejudice, what excuse did the Assyrians have. They came from far away to oppress the Jews, simply out of maliciousness.
52:9-12) Break out in song, together, ruins of Jerusalem! For G-d has consoled His people and redeemed Jerusalem! G-d shall reveal His holy arm before All The Nations and All Ends of the Earth shall see the salvation of our G-d. Get away, Get away Get out of there! They are defiled – do not touch them! Get out of their company, purify yourselves, you who bear G-d’s vessels! But you shall not leave in haste, nor go in flight, for G-d is going before you and the G-d of Israel is your rear guard.
We are seeing the final stage for what is being brought down in ch 53. All will then see that Jewish salvation was only a supernatural “holy ” act of G-d. Those nations remaining, the “ends of the earth “, having endured the pre-Messianic era, will take part in the Jewish salvation. They are told to move on quickly, leaving the exile, to get away from the “defiled nations “, to purify themselves of the gentile culture and values, for the “vessels ” are G-d Teachings and prayer. To purify the hearts of all foreign beliefs as to prepare to approach G-d. Even though they go out quickly they will not leave as escapees, as when leaving Egypt. Then it was the Egyptians who pursued them. But when the nations left accept G-d, they will, instead bring them to Him as their “tribute “. There will be no need for haste, as in Egypt, for His Presence will be evident in your “fore and your rear “. It will be manifest throughout the world.
52:15) so shall many nations talk about you and kings will open their mouths, for they shall see more than what was told to them and witness what they never heard.
And as the nations were once stunned by the Jewish people’s degradation, some even questioning their humanness, shall they all be stunned by the Jewish people’s ascension and will all be talking about it. Even kings will open their mouths in amazement, not believing what they see with their eyes, for they shall witness that Israel’s greatness is even more than what the prophets foretold. The Groundwork has been laid, and NOW we have a speaker who is Now talking.
53:1) Who would have believed what we heard and for whom G-d’s arm was revealed?
The nations shall witness “things not told to them ” 52:15, for who among them would have believed it anyway, even what they were told, they disbelieved. And who would have believed that G-d would “reveal His arm ” (as done in Egypt) to bring down the mightiest nations in favor of such an insignificant people?
Who would have believed that the Jewish people, so downtrodden in this world, would merit the redemption of G-d’s arm? But who would have believed that they would have ever left Egypt, when they were in a similar situation.
53:2) He sprouted before himself like a shoot, like a root in arid land, having no form or beauty. When we beheld him without appearance, how could we have found him pleasing?
Who would have believed that the Jewish people would sprout so instantaneously, “before themselves “, before they themselves were ready – like a shoot taking root in the desert. It is as if one minute they are in exile’s desert and the next, flourishing.
Who would have believed that the Jewish people, who had been so uprooted from their Land and cut off from their source of sustenance, would suddenly begin to grow once again. Their existence in exile has Not been in G-d’s grace, say the nations, but out of their (the nations) own good will. They were as vulnerable as a shoot in the desert.
53:3) Despised and shunned by men, a man of suffering, and plague-stricken. We hid our faces from him; contemptible, we did not regard him.
The Jewish people were so despised by the nations that no one wanted to be near them. Their company was shunned by all. They were chased in exile from one place to another because no one wanted them near. They were looked upon as less than human and no one even wanted to behold them. They were avoided as if they were plague-stricken. The Jewish people, indeed, became ill from maltreatment, but received no mercy from their beholders, because they were so despised. All a person needs to do is read the history of anti-Semitism throughout the centuries and this is evident.
53:4) But, indeed, it was our illness which he bore and our pains that he suffered, yet we considered him afflicted, G-d stricken and tortured.
(The nations and their Kings are Still speaking here) But when the nations will come to realize what falsehoods they believed in, they will attribute Jewish suffering to gentile sins and not to those of the Jewish people. They sinned in their treatment, as did the Assyrians. Instead of seeing the Jewish people as G-d stricken, (which is how the church saw Jews until Israel came into existence), they will see them as their scapegoat.
Whereas they once saw them as lacking in human qualities, in wisdom and ethics, they will now see that this character “illness ” was not inherent (as Germany thought) but imposed by circumstances, the circumstances which they, the nations, imposed upon them. And whereas once they tortured them “in G-d’s Name “, claiming they are G-d stricken, now they will admit that the torture was, indeed, all gentile imposed.
53:5,6) He is afflicted by our transgressions, oppressed by our sins. He was chastised so that we should have peace and with his wound we shall be healed. We all went astray like sheep, each one going his own way. But G-d met the sins of us, all upon him.
All of the earth’s nations (who are left) will then admit how they have strayed from the truth. Each of them may have gone his own way – Western civilization, Eastern civilization, and within them, each nation unique, but on persecuting the Jewish people they all agreed. Each of them claimed their religion was “The Truth “, as did each of each religion’s countless sects. But whereas once they all invalidated the Jewish faith, they will all now proclaim the falsehood of their former beliefs. They will proclaim how they all persecuted the Jewish people, following the dictates of their leaders like sheep. Yet, this will not absolve them of responsibility, for “each one went his ‘own’ way “, acting for his own benefit.
53:7) Oppressed and afflicted, he does not open his mouth; Like a lamb brought to the slaughter does not open his mouth, like a ewe is dumb before her fleecers.
The Jewish people were oppressed bodily, like a lamb being taken to the slaughter. One doesn’t have to stretch the imagination but only look at the images of the Holocaust to see it clearly. They were afflicted and fleeced like a ewe by the confiscation of their belongings. But both things they endured silently, as do the sheep and the ewe.
They also endured the gentiles’ religious torments, the “debates ” sponsored in the ‘name of truth “. But whereas the gentiles were backed by authority and power, the Jew was silenced even when he proved himself right. Who can argue with authority. This, too, they accepted with silent endurance and went to the stake with the faith on their lips.
53:8,9) He was taken from confinement and from judgment – who can speak about this generation? He was cut off from the land of the living, the sins of my people have brought a plague upon them. He accepted burial among the wicked and in his death among the rich, although he had done no violence nor spoken any deceit.
Who can speak about what each generation went through in the confinement and judgment of exile. The Jewish people had always been ready to give up their lives for G-d, to accept whatever devilish “deaths ” the powerful “rich and wicked ” decreed upon them and to buried wherever they would be thrown. Accused of being wicked themselves and of amassing wealth unscrupulously, they were slaughtered mercilessly as the wicked would be slaughtered and their riches looted in their deaths. Even in death, their graves were desecrated and dug up in search of buried treasures. But they had done no violence to deserve such fate, their only ‘sin’ was that they refused to apostatize and speak a faith of deceit.
53:10) But G-d chose to crush him and make him ill. If he considers himself culpable, he shall see offspring and live long. G-d’s cause will prosper through him
Although the Jewish people in exile maintained their faith, they were not free of sin. So they suffered and were “crushed ” to atone for their sins. It was G-d who made them ill. Yet, G-d’s intention was not to destroy them only to make them ill. His intention was that they seek Him from their pain and merit to hasten Redemption. But to do this they must confront their sins, to “consider themselves culpable “. They will then “see their offspring ” return to the Land and remain there for a “long time “. They will never be exiled again. All nations, then, will also serve G-d, when the Jewish people’s mission, G-d’s purpose, will end in success. The mission to proclaim G-don earth.
53:11) He will see the fruits of his misery and be satisfied. My righteous servant, with his wisdom, will make many righteous and will bear their sins.
In the End, the Jewish people will see the meaning of all that they went through, the “fruits of their misery “. They will see how it all was for their refinement and this knowledge will satisfy them. And with this knowledge, this wisdom, they will teach many nations and bring them all back to G-d.
And the truly righteous among them will see fruit in their misery even while still in exile: Their faith in the Future allays all pain in the present and satisfies them even now.
But the greatest misery that they suffer in exile is the burden of their own sins. This they see and realize themselves. But despite their own sins, they remained faithful to G-d and that very faith brought deep satisfaction, even though they were materially wanting. It helped them remain righteous to G-d even when they were burdened with the nations’ “sins “, their torture.
53:12) Therefore I shall give him a portion with many and he shall split booty with mighty ones. For he exposed himself to death and let himself be counted among transgressors, whereas he bore the sins of many and prayed for the transgressors.
Because the Jewish people were always ready for martyrdom, to “expose themselves to death ” because they bore the nations’ branding of them as “transgressors ” when, in truth, they bore their sins and prayed for them. G-d will return their Land to them, giving them rule over “many ” and the booty of “mighty ” nations.
There’s a story about when the Jews were under a terrible dictator and suffered greatly They poured out their soul and prayed to G-d to rid them of this dictator. Their prayers were answered and they rejoiced. The person who replaced him was much much worse of a dictator then the previous was. This time their prayer was that this man live a very long time.
Isaiah then continues on with ch 54 when the Redemption is taking place.
Sharbano, “For he had been removed from the land of the living, an affliction upon them that was my people’s sin.”
Are you telling me that Xtians over all these centuries didn’t afflict the Jews.”
Who is ignoring the message? Is the verse in Isaiah talking about centuries of oppression that removed you from the land of the living? Or was it long before pseudo-christian persecution during the Roman empire when Jews lost their land??? Do you really believe you were removed from your land due to Christian oppression??? Your view is COMPLETELY OPPOSING YOUR TORAH . Torah gives you the answer why you were cut off Ezekiel 39;23 . and history tells you it happened before co called false Christians put any hand on you . During the time when true Christians were also persecuted by those who cut you off from your own land.
IIs 52:3
“For thus says G-d. You have been sold for nothing and shall be redeemed for free”.
“only repentance can set them free. “
That’s why Jesus is calling everybody to repentance!
52:9-12) Break out in song, together, ruins of Jerusalem! For G-d has consoled His people and redeemed Jerusalem!
And then He shows you how He redeemed His people through his righteous servant Messiah. Until repentance comes and sins are removed there is no redemption.
Of course Jewish salvation was only a supernatural “holy ” act of G-d. That ‘s why Jesus comes and tells all to accept what God gives us freely; His salvation. And our purifying comes by repentance and turning back to God. And Israels greatness will be all God’s people who turned back to Him, not just Jews because they are Jews. Zeph 3;11-13
Your conclusion is Is 53 repeats the history of Jews. Isaiah is telling you by what work the righteous servant will be able to ‘heal’ others and make many righteous. Precise analyze of the text tells you that.
Your interpretation of verse 1 is your adjustment. God referred to His servant Messiah in the same way; Jer 23;5, 33;15, Is 11;1 starting like a little, sampling and branch to a glorious king at the end. Besides Israel started as a significant people who were given law and God’s rules .
53v.3 is about suffering so was Jesus at his execution, changed beyond human resemblance.
53:4) But, indeed, it was our illness which he bore and our pains that he suffered, yet we considered him afflicted, G-d stricken and tortured.
According to you those who are guilty ( us )they will attribute Jewish suffering to gentile sins( which means us gentiles) as if those who hate you weren’t aware of their own hate and actions now. If I was to hurt somebody I would not say it was God who beat a person but I would be aware it was ME. So your explanation has NO sense.
Also v.4 is not talking about your ‘sickness’ as lack of wisdom, etc as the servant carries OUR suffering and OUR ills in that verse.
53:5,6) . “He was chastised so that we should have peace and with his wound we shall be healed.”
According to what you wrote you pay for us , not for your own sins. We are the sinners and God is sticking you because WE ARE sinners. We are mean to you and then God let ‘s us persecute you because we are just sinners who went astray . And then we even benefit from it! Wow what a theory! Marvelous nonsense!
53:7) Oppressed and afflicted, he does not open his mouth; Like a lamb brought to the slaughter does not open his mouth, like a ewe is dumb before her fleecers.
Jews didn’t submit themselves to deaths, unless they had no choice , no escape where they perished. You give some examples of individuals who chose death that is not what the Isaiah is talking about.
Jesus submitted himself willingly into the hands of his opponents to die for us. He had a choice to run away, to ask is father for the protecting angels. He didn’t have to do anything for us if he didn’t want.
v.8 you skipped the main thoughts; being cut off from the land of the living through the sin of the people who deserved punishment. This has no support to be about the nation and no sense whatsoever. I explained it at the beginning.Then you are trying to adjust the rest with you speculations.
v.9 “With the rich in his death has NOTHING TO DO WITH GETTING PEOPLES TREASURY FROM THEIR GRAVES!!!!! The treasures were already stolen and not put with you to the graves with a righteous remnant!
Jesus dies as a wicked one with the wicked ones and is buried in a rich man’s tomb!
53:10) But G-d chose to crush him and make him ill. If he considers himself culpable, he shall see offspring and live long. G-d’s cause will prosper through him
You said; “Although the Jewish people in exile maintained their faith, they were not free of sin.”
Yes, and they still consider themselves as those who did not go astray…. If they were not free of the sin so what’s the difference between the other unrighteous Jews who also weren’t free of the sin??? One doesn’t differ from the other.
You said “ It was G-d who made them ill. Yet, G-d’s intention was not to destroy them only to make them ill. “
But Isaiah tells you the servant dies.
Also why are you blaming others for persecuting you if it was God’s will????? And according to Isaiah you are supposed to be quiet and not complain about that; like a lamb not opening a mouth. You are contradicting yourself in your interpretation.
You say It was God who made them ill but then WE THE NATIONS WILL REALIZE IT WAS NOT GOD BUT US SINNERS BEING MEAN TO YOU! You are contradicting yourself again!
Jesus fulfills the words exactly as it is’ he makes himself an offering for guilt; for a reason explained in the next v 11
“my righteous servant makes the many righteous . It is THEIR punishment that he bears” NOT HIS OWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
53:11) “He will make many righteous and will bear their sins. “ Like it says .
But you say;
I”n the End, the Jewish people will see the meaning of all that they went through, the “fruits of their misery “. They will see how it all was for their refinement and this knowledge will satisfy them. And with this knowledge, this wisdom, they will teach many nations and bring them all back to G-d.”
So far for thousands of years it didn’t work. Both persecutors from the past are dead and those Jews who suffered as well.
53:12) so did pray Jesus for those who were crucifying him.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
We do not have to look for interpretation when it comes to Jesus fulfilling that chapter. His life is a testimony all what Isaiah spoke about.
v1 starting up as not too significant to end up like a glorious exalted king, suffers for us, carries our sickness ( sins) , endures our suffering what we deserved, wounded because of our sins, not his own, heals us physically and spiritually by restoring our relationship with God, carries guilt of us all, submits himself to that punishment, doesn’t protest or run away, dies for sin of those who deserved it, dies with the wicked buried in a rich man’s tomb, his life without falsehood and no done injustice, confirmed by God raising him back to life , reason for submissive punishment; to make himself offering for quilt, promised to see next generations and promised long life- risen back to life. will make many righteous by the punishment that he bore for them, will be given portion with many, prayed for the sinners.
If Jsus is calling everyone for repentance then there is NO need for him if and when they Do repent. Find a place where Tanach speaks of G-d asking for Israel to return to Him and in that same place says you must believe in a human redeemer. Therefore just because Jsus calls for this doesn’t him any different than the many others.
You take from Is 59:9-12 and then say “He redeemed His people through messiah”. Well, the text there says No Such Thing. You are putting words in G-d’s mouth that isn’t there. What the text Does say is that Hashem (L-rd) will redeem His people. When G-d DOES decide to use someone He is explicit in that declaration. The example is when G-d delivers Israel from the Babylonian exile. He says, My messiah, Cyrus, will accomplish this. G-d doesn’t mince words. Furthermore, Hashem says HE will redeem with NO mention, at all, of “My Servant”.
According to Xtian doctrine the references regarding a sapling from David cannot apply to Jsus. He is supposed to have been born from a virgin, meaning he had no earthly father, let alone David. Those references are in a context that speaks to a physical offspring of David. A branch has to grow From that root, otherwise it has no relationship To the root.
By no stretch can 3,4 be about an execution. What does having sickness and illness to do with an execution. If 53 is such an accurate representation of his death by execution why wouldn’t it just Say So. As has been repeated many times, how can one grasp an understanding of Jewish experience throughout this time without knowing anything of it.
As was mentioned in 52, as an example, Assyria oppressed them without cause. Throughout these times not a generation has passed where the nations didn’t oppress and afflict the Jewish people. Just as with Assyria, This, is the sin the nations committed. Just as it says in 40:2, the people paid double for their sin. I made mention of this before but you only saw a part of it.
14And the children of your oppressors shall go to you bent over, and those who despised you shall prostrate themselves at the soles of your feet, and they shall call you ‘the city of the Lord, Zion of the Holy One of Israel.’
15Instead of your being forsaken and hated without a passerby, I will make you an everlasting pride, the joy of every generation.
It’s not just that Israel will be exalted, which 53 speaks of, but how the nations Treated Israel, ‘the Children of the oppressors and those who despised you”.
It doesn’t say anything about willingly submitting to death. Being oppressed and afflicted has NO comparison to an execution.
It’s not a contradiction, unless you believe G-d isn’t in control. You could learn a lot by studying what happened in Egypt with Israel. Did G-d immediately redeem Israel from Egypt. He could have done so without Any plagues upon the Egyptians. Just as the Egyptians did to Israel with the enslavement so too the nations have done all this time. The rest I addressed earlier.
According to Isaiah Israel is to be quiet and not complain? How can you even come to such a conclusion. Since it says in Genesis that the woman will suffer pain in childbirth does that mean it is incumbent to do so.
Your ending statement requires you to replace the existing words with your own and thereby saying it’s about Jsus. “carries our sickness (sins). Heals physically. Then why are there Xtian doctors. They shouldn’t be needed.
You haven’t made the case at all.
Many Christians see Jesus throughout the “OT” or “Hebrew Bible”. Therefore, they blind themselves to much of God’s revelation in those pages. According to the NT, many people, thousands, excitedly came to hear him speak. But according to the NT, Jesus “turned them off” with his many pagan, non-Torah, ideas that even Galileans said that “he was too hard to follow. Even his own hand-picked disciples are pictured often as “dense” and found him too confusing and difficult to understand. According to the NT & church legends, Jesus wrote nothing & left no clear record of what he believed or taught. He often quoted the writings of others as if they were his words. And NT writers often quote (often incorrectly and out of context), the words of others, since “his testimony” requires others; his “evidence” is words. And, Jesus didn’t even have the “last word” on “his own words”. A lot of his words or “his revelation” is according to later writers “John” (whoever he was) and Paul or later other church leaders, who are often unknown and hardly credible.
“God’s plan of salvation” or “redemption” has little similarity with the prior revelation of Jewish prophets; it has little based on Tanach and much on various pagan and hellenized beliefs, such as human (or “divine being”) sacrifice, or divine “son of a god” (polytheism), etc. Since much of the problems of Jews in the 1st century c.e. came after “many Jews believed in Jesus”, the most likely cause of the “diaspora” and/or the continual “exile of Jews” might be that many Jews believed in Jesus & many still do. Jesus” prophecies about “the end coming soon” or “his kingdom coming very soon”, even in the “lifetime of some of his followers” living in the early to mid 1st century” failed miserably. Jesus was not successful until Rome “romanized Jesus”.
Why did Jesus fail & why hasn’t “his kingdom” come yet? Might be because most Jews rejected much of his non-Torah based teachings? Perhaps he was unwise to have based “God’s plan” on his personal beliefs, rather than on Torah and Tanach? Perhaps because he practiced witchcraft by cursing a tree because it followed “God’s plan for trees”, rather than holding to the lust in his eyes for fruit (like Eve and Adam)? Perhaps because he imagined God as a man & made God a liar? Perhaps because he imagined an evil creation & then put this “devil” on the same level as God, as a “bad god” beside God where “none are beside God?
yedidiah, Why his kingdom hasn’t come yet? Ask yourself a question why God’s kingdom has not yet come with God reigning on earth like it will be in messianic kingdom? There is something wrong with God’s promise or rather with people?
There is a difference between Jesus and God. Jesus is a myth and God has always reigned. Or perhaps, Jesus did not understood God & God’s Kingdom. Jesus was ineffective, since he not only failed to persuade the people he “supposedly was sent to persuade”, but his prophecies that were supposed to happen “soon” (no matter what most Jews believed or did), did not happen. Jesus and his disciples were “people”, so yes, you can conclude that there was something wrong with those people. So why make excuses for Jesus, as some NT writers plainly did, because of the error of Jesus & his people? Why follow a man or myth who gave us nothing of what God promised? Or, nothing that people could not do on their own without faith in Jesus?
On the one hand, many Christians believe God is “being held hostage” by his own creations (his “angels and ‘the devil'”). And on the other hand, because most Jews (and many non-Jews) find little or no reason to believe in Jesus (and his cohort the devil?) and who prefer to believe in their God (the God of the “Jewish” Bible), many Christians believe that “Jesus and/or their God” is effectively being held hostage by “Jews” and their God. But, there are “Kingdom-minded people” slowly “repairing the world” & leading us out of the dark ages that were largely brought about by followers of Jesus.
Yedidiah ” (…) but his prophecies that were supposed to happen “soon” (no matter what most Jews believed or did), did not happen.
compare with
Is 56;1″Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is NEAR to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.”
When did Isaiah said these words? Long before Jesus said his. Are Jews still waiting for it?
Unreliable prophecy as it has not happened SOON or YET???? God used that phrase all th time to the events thousand years ahead.
You keep forgetting that the prophet is talking about the “real world” that he and his audience were actually living through. Time and time and time again you keep dismissing the historical context of the book and try to read it only as metaphor about the future or selectively as your “proof” of your opinions about Jesus. Rather than see the real historical personages and the real events in Isaiah (or in other books or in Psalms, etc), you read the text as if the author was only “daydreaming” or “fortune telling” or having a vision that had no relevance to his life or to his audience’s life, except how a few selected verses (often taken out of context or quoted or translated incorrectly) could be used 5-600 years later as background, justification, or so called “evidence” for those who wrote stories about a so-called “messiah” of whom there was no real evidence that he ever existed except on paper or papyrus. Isaiah 56:1 is a poor example of the point you were trying to make. And your attempt at an example does not explain why the character in the gospels got it so wrong about his “soon”, which was not vague, but quite specific, (“some of those standing…”) nor a general promise. So wrong that some NT writers had to apologize or “make excuses” to the followers of their messiah.
Peace to you Yehidiah!
Anti-Christian prejudice is like anti-Semitic prejudice. Both are based on misconceptions. The Messiah did succeed his mission to bring redemption from the bondage of sin and salvation from the world in lust. He established his Church in Orthodoxy to be a beacon to the world. More than that as the ark of Noah preserved everybody in it from the flood also the Church as an ark of Noah preserved those in it from the flood of confusion and disbelief.
You can not dear Yehidiah know Orthodox Christianity for you never been in the Orthodox Church. You never saw the beauty of her divine liturgy nor contemplated the power of the Resurrection nor commune to the holy mysteries of life eternal nor have true fellowship with the brethren nor taste the wisdom of the Saints nor saw the love in action.
Blessings to you! Thank you and pray for me a sinner!
You made a lot of assumptions about me without any real knowledge about me, which is showing that you engaged in prejudice. You had no need to try to use a “person attack”; that was making a fallacious argument (actually, no argument), which was a poor rebuttal and which provided no defense and which offered no truth. You offered no proof of any “anti-Christian prejudice” on my part, since I am “Christian and I am no semite”. A Christian is a person who holds certain beliefs and that is a different type of category of person from a “semite”. Which “Messiah” were you talking about? I have heard of none who established any church, especially not “his Church in Orthodoxy”, nor one who offered “her divine liturgy”. Your example of the “ark of Noah” was a poor. You seem to have a poor understanding of that story & it may contradict what you might believe, since it was “no beacon calling others to come aboard” and because the human passengers were either selected or just had a familial relationship to one who was selected. No choice based on beliefs or actions for most of the passengers (most of whom were animals presumably randomly selected for “salvation”).
I am extremely “pressed for time” right now, so I will “come back” and address more clearly some of what appears to be errors in your thinking or beliefs that raise more questions than “provide answers” (such as, how can one truly commune with “mysteries” when mysteries are “things” one does not understand and which could be false, evil, and un-Godly?).
Peace to you Yehidiah!
Only God knows you, far from me to judge you. And if I did please receive my excuses. Thank you!
I am waiting for your response. Many blessings to you!
CPall: One would expect that a “messiah” would be “anointed”, rather than one who his followers simply asserted “he was anointed” or one who would pridefully declare himself to be anointed.
Many people “parrot” what others say without examining the validity of what was said. They don’t question what is said and they may wind up speaking or writing what is nonsense or is contradictory to what they may really believe. The “Orthodox” church was not the original “church”. And there have been and still are different varieties of “the orthodox”. By claiming to be orthodox (having the right beliefs), one is essentially claiming that many, if not most, Christians over the last 1600 years, have the “wrong beliefs”. Thus, they are still “bound to sin” & they practice & spread falsehoods.
I have a poetic spirit, but I would not say something like “taste the wisdom if the saints….” That would seem to suggest those who “eat the flesh…& drink the blood of Jesus…” are indeed cannibals or vultures. Jesus allows them to dwell in their confusion and has failed to free them from their pagan, primitive, or heathen nature.
By saying there are Saints, you are effectively disagreeing with most people who do not preach or who do not believe that one is “saved by works”, or that, one is rewarded by quantity or quality of what a person does.
By saying that you are still a sinner, you seem to be saying that you are still very far from rightness or from sainthood and that you are still very much “bound to sin”.
Supposedly, God cannot “stand before sin”, but “he could walk among sinners”. Some people say that there was a “gap between sinful man” and God that only Jesus (who some Christians say was God or a “son” of a monotheistic god), but supposedly some people could “walk with God” and that same God could face a wiley serpent and a sinful man & woman and that God could speak with a murderer. And that same God could call some people righteous & could expect & could command that “sinful” people should be Holy as He was Holy. None of those Righteous, nor those who God thought could (despite their “fallen” nature) be Holy & could be a part of a “nation of Priests”, were told about Jesus and none belonged to the “Orthodox” church.
Pingback: Study Notes and References | 1000 Verses – a project of Judaism Resources
I know that most the time, nearly all the time i believe I am a good person. Actually I know I am a good person I can stand here and be confident in saying I am a good person. It is just incredibly bad timing that we crossed paths like we did because my posts and what I said is a very very rare occur acne if not one of only 2-3, and the whole time I wrote what I wrote I had a knotted stomach and thinking WTF am I doing, ahh stuff it, no one reads this shit hardly anyway, this won’t offend anyone well u may find this hard to believe it slightly offended me but I still went ahead with it. U must think what a joke but I am telling the truth. It was a really rare and stupid part of my normal life. That’s the truth my friend!