The New Testament witness, which you used as proof in a conversation with me yesterday.
Reasons Jews Reject Jesus
- Thread starter Wrangler
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The New Testament witness, which you used as proof in a conversation with me yesterday.
Johann
Well-Known Member
Isaiah 53
Bs"d -------According to Christianity, the whole chapter of Isaiah 53 and the last verses of chapter 52, from verse 13, are talking about Jesus. Why do they think so? Because the NT says so, and because it fits so nicely with the Christian story about a suffering messiah. And what proof do the
I am against the links you provided-since I'm familiar with that reasoning.
Johann
Well-Known Member
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
Eliyahu613
Active Member
Bs"d
But the Quran says the suffering servant in Isaiah is Muhammed.
So if you want to prove something in the Tanach, then bring proof from the Tanach.
Can you do that?
Eliyahu613
Active Member
What does that have to do with me or the messiah?
The NT does that.
Eliyahu613
Active Member
Off the top of my head -> Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews.
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
Eliyahu613
Active Member
Bs"d
What does the NT saying that the suffering servant is the messiah have to do with me or the Tanach?
Eliyahu613
Active Member
Bs"d
Isaiah 9:2-7 "2 The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined. 3 Thou hast multiplied the nation, thou hast increased its joy; they rejoice before thee as with joy at the harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. 4 For the yoke of his burden, and the staff for his shoulder, the rod of his oppressor, thou hast broken as on the day of Mid'ian. 5 For every boot of the tramping warrior in battle tumult and every garment rolled in blood will be burned as fuel for the fire. 6 For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace". 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this."
Please take notice of the fact that Isaiah is talking in the past tense: "The people who walked in darkness have seen a great light; those who dwelt in a land of deep darkness, on them has light shined.|
"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government is upon his shoulder, and his name was called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."
These are things which had happened already in the days of Isaiah.
If, despite these facts, you still want to apply these verses to JC, than read verse 5, 6, and 7, and see that JC didn't do any of those things. He never ruled on the throne of David, he never had any government on his shoulders, and there never was endless peace over his kingdom.
The same holds true for the verses 6 and 7: "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace". 7 Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, upon the throne of David, and over his kingdom, to establish it, and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and for evermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this."
All of this doesn't hold true for JC; he never had any government on his shoulder. And also here is spoken in the past tense: "A child is born, a son is given. But most translations give it in the future tense. For instance the RSV, NIV, NAS, ESV, KJV, NIRV, the all say; "His name will be called ....", future tense. However, in the Hebrew text this too is past tense: "His name was called ...." The Hebrew expression here is "wayikra". That is the first word in the book of Leviticus. And all the previously mentioned translations there say: "And the Lord called Mozes ..." Past tense. Exactly the same the word. Isn't that weird? Exactly the same word is used in Genesis 5:1; "And God called the light 'day'" Called. Past tense. Nobody argues with that one. But why then, in Isaiah 9, is it suddenly changed to future tense? The answer is simple: The past tense doesn't fit with the Christian theology, and therefore the Bible translations are corrupted and twisted to fit the Christian religion. Just like that. There is only one solution for this problem: Take a course in Biblical Hebrew. It is more easy then it looks. Then your eyes will be opened and the Christian deception will stare you in the face. And yes, I do sympathize with the poor misguided Christians whom are being led astray by their clergy by means of twisted and corrupted Bible translations. That's the reason why I fulfill my duty of being a light unto the nations and uncovering the Christian deception.
"Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end" "There will be no end", future tense. And this too is WRONG. It is in the Hebrew present tense. I found only one translation which is correct here, and that is Young's Literal Translation.
Why all this stress on the tenses? Isaiah spoke about a king who was living in his days, and therefore JC is out. The king that Isaiah speaks about is Hezekiah, the son of Achaz who got from Isaiah the sign about the young woman (no, not the virgin) who was pregnant and gave birth to the son Immanuel.
The Talmud explains that under the rule of the God fearing Hezekiah the Jewish kingdom rose to great heights, and that's why he was entitled to those impressive titles.
Because of the fact that the name of the son is "Mighty God", (or "God is Mighty", both are possible translations) and "Eternals Father", the Christians deduce that the boy spoken about must have been God.
HOWEVER, a name is only that; a name. A name is not a description of the bearer of that name. An example: Buffalo Bill was not a buffalo. The indian chief Sitting Bull was not a bull.
Many times people in the Bible have in their name the word "God", or the name of God, but that doesn't mean that those people are God. For instance; in Exodus 6:23 is spoken about a man called "Elazar". That means "God is helper", or "Helping God". But that doesn't mean that that man was God.
Exodus 6:24; "Elkanah", that means "God acquired", or "acquiring God". II Samuel 22:19; "Elchanan"; "God is merciful", or "Merciful God". But these men were not God, just like the the child in Isaiah 9 wasn't God.
Apart from that, the Hebrew words "El gibor", in Christian Bibles translated with "Mighty God", can have a different meaning. "El" can mean "God", but it can also mean "judge", "leader", or "mighty man". In Exodus 4:16 God says to Moses that he will be of an elohiem for his brother Aharon. ("elohim" is the longer form of the word "el") This doesn't mean that Moses was a God for Aharon and Aharon started to worship his brother, it meant that Moses would be the leader of Aharon.
In Exodus 21:1-6 is spoken about a slave who after the normal period of servitude ended, doesn't want to leave his master. In that case the owner has to take him to court, where the slave will make a statement that he doesn't want to leave his master, and that he will serve his master until his death. The Hebrew text there says that his master must take him to the "elohim". There the NAS, ASV, ESV, NRSV, RSV, YLT, they all say that his master must take him "to God". However, his master doesn't take him for a ride to heaven, but takes him to the courthouse. Therefore the NIV, KJV, TNIV, and the NIRV, they all say that the master must take him to "the judges".
Even so in Isaiah 9 the word "El" does not necessarily mean "God". Therefore the text in Isaiah 9 is in no way a proof that the child spoken about was God.
You know from reading the Hebrew Bible that God calls many people elohim / theos. The messiah is greater than all of them. It shouldn’t surprise you that God would also call the messiah elohim / theos.
What I’ve learned about you from you is that you don’t believe there are more than about half a dozen passages of scripture in the Hebrew Bible which even speak about the messiah, and none of those are passages where God calls anyone elohim / theos. I think that’s an important thing for people to understand about you.
Behold
Well-Known Member
The Quran' also teaches that drinking camel urine is good for you.
Had any lately @Eliyahu613 ??
The Quran teaches also, that if an infidel will not submit to Islam, then they are to be taught why they must on the edge of a sword.
So, has a muslim tried that with you yet @Eliyahu613 ?
Recently in Israel, about 1500 Jews, who would not ever submit to the Devil's "prophet", were slaughtered, and the "Quran" is very happy that they died violently.
Are you?
Now also... notice the greatest distinction between the false concept that is the "Islamic God" as related to the REAL GOD who is the Father of Jesus THE Christ...
Its this..
"allah", demands that you give your sons to HIM... and they are busying dying for Him right now, to try to earn His fake "paradise."
Whereas..
GOD, the Father of Jesus....>Gave His SON for you, so that by this sacrifice of Jesus on The Cross, (God's only begotten Son) you can be forgiven all your sin, and God will become your Spiritual Father.
See that? That is God's LOVE and Mercy being offered to you....That is God offering you, to become a part of His eternal family.
This is why Jesus died for YOU, on the Cross. @Eliyahu613
Eternally Grateful
Well-Known Member
Can you tell me what BS's means?
For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.
You can not claim this is past tense.
1. It is all spoken of in future tense
2. It says his kingdom will never end.. What kingdom on earth has never ended
3. It says he will establish the throne of David forever. Again, what king has done this?
4. It says the lord WILL perform this
NayborBear
Active Member
Oh! Con'traire Con'traire!
Some of these people in here may not understand.
But? (I guess I really shouldn't be though) I'm surprised YOU don't understand "things" concerning "The Government" of the Kingdom of God as well as the Kingdom of Light.
For THIS IS The "Government" that Yeshua Hamashich bares on His shoulders. As in: "No One comes UNTO the FATHER, but by ME!"
The Apostle Paul explains it pretty well in his explaining the SPIRIT of God and diversities/applications (or offices aka governmental structure/s which should be classified AS "Government") of the Spirit of God.
Yeshua explained this to Nicodemus in John 3. Saying one must be born again OF the Spirit AND Water (woman) to even SEE the Kingdom of God!
Johann
Well-Known Member
Not so-
Isa 9:6 (5) For unto us a yeled is born, unto us ben is given; and the misrah (dominion) shall be upon his shoulder; and Shmo shall be called Peleh (Wonderful), Yoetz (Counsellor), El Gibbor (Mighty G-d), Avi Ad (Everlasting Father), Sar Shalom (Prince of Peace).
Isa 9:7 (6) Of the increase of his misrah and shalom there shall be no ketz (end), upon the Kisse Dovid, and upon his kingdom, to strengthen it, and to support it with mishpat and with tzedakah from henceforth even ad olam (forever). The Kinat Hashem Tzva'os will fulfill this.
Isa 53:1 Who hath believed our report? And to whom is the Zero'a Hashem [Yeshayah 52:10] revealed?
Isa 53:2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a Shoresh (Root, Shoresh Yishai, Moshiach, Yeshayah 11:10, Sanhedrin93b) out of a dry ground; he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire [Chaggai 2:7] him.
Isa 53:3 He is despised and chadal ishim (rejected by men); a man of sorrows, and acquainted with suffering; and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
Isa 53:4 Surely he hath borne our sufferings, and nasah (carried [Vayikra 16:22; Yeshayah 53:12)] our sorrows; yet we did esteem him stricken, [i.e., like a leper is stricken] smitten of G-d, and afflicted [see verse 8 below].
Isa 53:5 But he was pierced [Yeshayah 51:9; Zecharyah 12:10 Sukkah 52a, Tehillim 22:17 Targum Hashivim] for our transgressions, he was bruised mei'avonoteinu (for our iniquities); the musar (chastisement) (that brought us shalom [Yeshayah 54:10] was upon him [Moshiach]; and at the cost of his (Moshiach's) chaburah (stripes, lacerations) we are healed.
Isa 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own derech (way; see Prov 16:25); and Hashem hath laid on him [Moshiach] the avon (iniquity, the guilt that separates from G-d) of us all.
Isa 53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a seh (lamb; see Shemot 12:3) to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
Isa 53:8 He was taken from prison and from judgment; and who of his generation declared? For he was cut off [ Dan_9:26 ; Lev_17:10 ] out of Eretz Chayyim [this refers to the mot of Moshiach Ben Dovid, see Isa_53:12 ] mipesha ami (for the transgression of my people [Yisroel]) -nega (plague cf Psa_91:10 ) lamo ([fell] on him [i.e., Moshiach; in light of Psa_11:7 and Job_22:2 we are warranted in saying the suffix is a singular, "him," not "them". Cf Gen_9:26-27 ; Deu_33:2 ; Isa_44:15 ; also compare 1Ch_21:17 ]).
Isa 53:9 And he made his kever (grave) with the resha'im, and with the oisher (rich man; see Mt 27:57-60) bemotayv (in his deaths, intensive plural should be translated singular, death); because he had done no chamas (violence), neither was any mirmah (deceit) in his mouth. T.N. We stray as sheep; we return in Moshiach as children (zera); the Techiyas HaMoshiach (Resurrection of Moshiach) predicted in v. 10 [Dead Sea Scrolls Isaiah Scroll says Moshiach "will see the light [of life];" see also the Targum HaShivim]
Isa 53:10 Yet it pleased Hashem to bruise him; He hath put him to suffering; when Thou shalt make his nefesh an asham offering for sin, he (Moshiach) shall see zera [see Psalm 16 and Yn 1:12 OJBC], He shall prolong his yamim (days) and the chefetz Hashem (pleasure, will of Hashem) shall prosper in his [Moshiach's] hand.
Isa 53:11 He [Hashem] shall see of the travail of his [Moshiach's] nefesh, and shall be satisfied; by knowledge of him [Moshiach] shall Tzadik Avdi ["My Righteous Servant," Moshiach, Zecharyah 3:8, Yirmeyah 23:5; Zecharyah 6:11-12, Ezra 3:8 Yehoshua, Yeshua shmo] justify many (Ro 5:1); for he [Moshiach] shall bear their avon (iniquities).
Isa 53:12 Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his nefesh unto mavet (death); and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he nasah (Lv 16:22, carried) (like the Yom Kippur scapegoat) the sin of many, and made intercession [did the work of a mafgi'a, intercessor] for the transgressors [see Lk 23:34 OJBC].
J.
Johann
Well-Known Member
Very easy-but first-are you Muslim or Orthodox Judaism-or not sure what you really are?
The Early Rabbis and Isaiah 53
Some of the first written interpretations or targums (ancient paraphrases on biblical texts) see this passage as referring to an individual servant, the Messiah, who would suffer. Messianic Jewish Talmudist, Rachmiel Frydland, recounts:
Our ancient commentators with one accord noted that the context clearly speaks of God’s Anointed One, the Messiah. The Aramaic translation of this chapter, 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 locum).2
We find the same interpretation in the Babylonian Talmud:
What is his [the Messiah’s] name? 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.” (Sanhedrin 98b)
Similarly, in an explanation of Ruth 2:14 in the Midrash Rabbah it states:
He is speaking of the King Messiah: “Come hither,” draw near to the throne; “and eat of the bread,” that is, the bread of the kingdom; “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.”
The Zohar, in its interpretation of Isaiah 53, points to the Messiah as well:
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 transgression of the law; as it is written, “Surely our sicknesses he has carried.” (Zohar II, 212a)
The early sages expected a personal Messiah to fulfill the Isaiah prophecy. No alternative interpretation was applied to this passage until the Middle Ages. And then, a completely different view was popularized by Jewish commentator Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Itzchaki), who lived one thousand years after Jesus.
Last edited:
Johann
Well-Known Member
Rashi and the Perception of Isaiah 53 in the Middle Ages
Rashi believed that the servant passages of Isaiah referred to the collective fate of the nation of Israel rather than a personal Messiah. Some rabbis, such as Ibn Ezra and Kimhi, agreed. However, many other rabbinic sages during this same period and later objected to Rashi’s interpretation. These rabbis—including Maimonides—realized the inconsistencies of Rashi’s views and would not abandon the original messianic interpretations.
The objections these rabbis put forth to Rashi’s view were threefold: First, they showed the consensus of ancient opinion. Second, they pointed out that the text is grammatically in the singular tense throughout. For example, “He was despised and rejected … he was pierced for our transgressions … he was led like a lamb to the slaughter.” Third, they noted verse eight of chapter 53. This verse presents some difficulty to those who interpret this passage as referring to Israel:
By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? (Isaiah 53:8)
But, were the Jewish people ever “cut off from the land of the living?” Absolutely not! God promises that Israel will live forever:
If this fixed order [the sun to shine by day, the moon and stars to shine by night, etc.] departs from before me, declares the Lord, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever. (Jeremiah 31:36)
Likewise, this interpretation makes nonsense of the phrase, “for the transgression of my people he was stricken,” since “my people” clearly means the Jewish people.
Continue--
Rashi believed that the servant passages of Isaiah referred to the collective fate of the nation of Israel rather than a personal Messiah. Some rabbis, such as Ibn Ezra and Kimhi, agreed. However, many other rabbinic sages during this same period and later objected to Rashi’s interpretation. These rabbis—including Maimonides—realized the inconsistencies of Rashi’s views and would not abandon the original messianic interpretations.
The objections these rabbis put forth to Rashi’s view were threefold: First, they showed the consensus of ancient opinion. Second, they pointed out that the text is grammatically in the singular tense throughout. For example, “He was despised and rejected … he was pierced for our transgressions … he was led like a lamb to the slaughter.” Third, they noted verse eight of chapter 53. This verse presents some difficulty to those who interpret this passage as referring to Israel:
By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? (Isaiah 53:8)
But, were the Jewish people ever “cut off from the land of the living?” Absolutely not! God promises that Israel will live forever:
If this fixed order [the sun to shine by day, the moon and stars to shine by night, etc.] departs from before me, declares the Lord, then shall the offspring of Israel cease from being a nation before me forever. (Jeremiah 31:36)
Likewise, this interpretation makes nonsense of the phrase, “for the transgression of my people he was stricken,” since “my people” clearly means the Jewish people.
Continue--
Similar threads
