If Jews Are The Chosen People Of The Christian Faith Then Why Don't Jews Believe In The Divinity Of Jesus? (Isaac, differences)

[gospelsaves]

Originally Posted by Walter Greenspan

According to Missionary Claims and Jewish Responses:

53:5 "But he was wounded from (NOTE: not for) our transgressions, he was crushed from (AGAIN: not for) our iniquities."

Whereas the nations had thought the Servant (Israel) was undergoing Divine retribution for its sins (53:4), they now realize that the Servant's sufferings stemmed from their actions and sinfulness. This theme is further developed throughout our Jewish Scriptures - see, e.g., Jer. 50:7; Jer. 10:25. ALSO: Note that the Messiah "shall not fail nor be crushed till he has set the right in the earth" (Isa. 42:4).

I've heard this claim that Isaiah was supposedly talking about the nation and not a specific person. But if you follow that viewpoint and look at the entire passage of scripture....it just makes no sense.

Isaiah 53:1-12

Isaiah 53
1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.

4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

Over and over again the word "he" is used. You take verses like "He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him." and try to apply that to a nation...it just makes no sense.
Or "he was despised, and we held him in low esteem." can a nation have low esteem? I makes no sense if he is talking as a whole about Isreal.

[Walter Greenspan]

Originally Posted by gospelsaves

... it just makes no sense.

Really?


Isaiah 53

Christian Claim: The Christian Bible mentions Isaiah 53 in three places:

- Luke 22.37
- Acts 8.32-33
- 1 Peter 2.22

This chapter in Isaiah has been established by Christians as the "suffering servant" chapter. To Christians, it is an explicit prophecy of Jesus, who suffered for the sins of others on the cross. It allegedly contains several key indicators that leave no doubt in Christian minds as to its reference to Jesus.

Jewish Refutation: While Christians believe their case for Isaiah 53 representing Jesus is absolutely supported by the verses, a more careful and serious reading of Isaiah 53 will inevitably support no such belief.

Isaiah 53 in the broader scope of the Tanach tells us of a nation that suffered at the hands of others for many years. It tells of a people stricken by G-d with famine and disease, and a people who continued on and on without ever abandoning its heritage completely. It is the story of how the nations bruised and scarred that people, for they thought it was right to do so. Yet they were astonished in the end to find out how wrong they were. Only in the era of Israel's final redemption did the nations begin to understand how all of Israel's suffering was on their behalf. Israel represented the peoples of the world before G-d and was punished in their stead, for their sins. It was Israel's job to see to it that the world became a place where G-d was welcomed among all. They were to be a light unto the gentiles (Isaiah 42.6, Isaiah 60.3), and when they failed to be that, they were held responsible for the nations' failures.

The Jewish view of Isaiah 53 is supported extensively in several ways. The following paragraphs contain some of the more outstanding reasons why the Jewish view of Isaiah 53 is in complete harmony with the Jewish scriptures. There are more reasons for such, but a more complete examination of this issue is beyond the scope of this FAQ. For a more comprehensive presentation of the Jewish view of Isaiah 53 in accordance with the Jewish scriptures, you are invited to read Michoel Drazin's book "Their Hollow Inheritance: A Comprehensive Refutation of Christian Missionaries" at his website.

1 - For one thing, the "servant" spoken of in Isaiah 53 was already identified throughout the book of Isaiah. Would G-d suddenly change his subject for one chapter within the book of Isaiah? The rational individual would answer in the negative.

Isaiah 41.8: "But thou, Israel, art My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham My friend."

Isaiah 41.9: "Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art My servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away."

Isaiah 43.10: "You are My witnesses, says the Lord, and My servant whom I have chosen ..."

Isaiah 44.1: "But now hear, O Jacob, My servant, and Israel, whom I have chosen."

Isaiah 44.21: "Remember these things, O Jacob and Israel, for you are My servant. I formed you, you are My servant, O Israel, you will not be forgotten by Me."

Isaiah 45.4: "For the sake of My servant, Jacob, and My chosen, Israel, I call you by your name ..."

Isaiah 48.20: "Go forth from Babylon, flee from Chaldea, declare with a shout of joy, proclaim it, send it forth to the end of the earth, say: 'The Lord has redeemed His servant, Jacob'."

Isaiah 49.3: "And He said to me: 'You are My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified'."

2 - The following verse eliminates Jesus as the subject of Isaiah 53

Isaiah 42.19: "Who is blind but My servant, or deaf as My messenger, whom I send? Who is blind as My dedicated one, or blind as the servant of the Lord?"

If we accept that the chapters leading up to Isaiah 53 are consistent in their message, Isaiah 42.19 poses a dilemma for any Christian who wants to call Jesus the servant of G-d in reference to Isaiah's prophecies.

3 - Chapter 53 in Isaiah contains an abundance of indicators that incontrovertibly invalidate Jesus as the subject. Here follow some such indicators:

(a) Isaiah 53.3: "A man of pains and acquainted with disease ..."

In the Christian Bible, Jesus was not said to have been afflicted with any disease, and the only time he could have felt any pain was on the cross. Isaiah 53.3 is referring to pain that is continuous and which spans a lifetime, for the entire chapter speaks of a matter that took place over time, and not an isolated event.

(b) Isaiah 53.7: "And opened not his mouth, like a lamb that is led to the slaughter ... yea, he opened not his mouth."

This could not have been referring to Jesus due to the following Christian Bible verses:

Matthew 27.46: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice saying, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani'? that is to say, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me'?"

Matthew 26.39: "And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed saying, 'O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt'."

According to these verses, the Christian Bible recorded that Jesus did not go so willingly to his death, and did speak out in protest against it.

(c) Isaiah 53.9: "Although he had done no violence ..."

In the Christian Bible, it is recorded that Jesus was indeed violent:

Matthew 21.12: "And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves."

(d) Isaiah 53.10: "To see if his soul would offer itself in restitution ..."

Was it possible that the Christian god would not offer itself for the good of all of mankind? Was the Christian god testing the Christian god?

(e) Isaiah 53.10: "That he might see his seed, prolong his days ..."

Even though the Christian Bible claims that Jesus did offer his soul for restitution, Jesus had no offspring, and his days were not prolonged.

(f) Isaiah 53.12: "Therefore, I will divide him a portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty ..."

Would the Christian god's reward for offering himself to himself be a mere portion among the great? Who were the other "greats" who were to share the reward with him? Were they equal to him? And if he receievd a portion, then wasn't the one distributing it greater than he?

Thus, it is clear from the proofs presented above that Isaiah 53 has nothing to do with Jesus. It makes far better sense when the subject of that chapter is Israel, who as a nation watched its seed carrying on from generation to generation despite attempts by the nations to destroy it. Israel suffered the sins of all, for they were G-d's model people affected by every wrong that occurred in the world. Israel is and always has been G-d's chosen servant, and there is no other.

Deuteronomy 7.6: "For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy G-d; the Lord thy G-d hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Him, above all people that are upon the face of the earth."


* Isaiah 55.3

"Incline your ear and come unto Me, hear and your soul shall live, and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David."

Christian Claim: Acts 13.34 translates the last part of that verse as follows: "I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David." The author of Acts claims that that verse speaks of Jesus, who was allegedly raised from the dead by G-d and was not left to decay.

Jewish Refutation: The Hebrew for that verse indicates no such thing. It says: "ve'echresoh lochem bris" ("and I will make a covenant with you"), whereby "lochem" is "you" in the plural form. G-d was not speaking to the messiah, but to those of Israel, who will obey His word. He tells them that He has appointed one from David's lineage as their future king.

Isaiah 55.3 makes no mention of anything having to do with the avoidance of decay in a grave.


Source: Isaiah (Yeshayahu)

[Walter Greenspan]

This Suffering Servant, too.

[gospelsaves]

Originally Posted by Walter Greenspan

This Suffering Servant, too.

Yeah I've heard all those points before. And I can point to each one of those scriptures and show how I see Jesus in all of those. So we will just have to agree to disagree my friend

So what are your thoughts on the meaning of the names I mentioned in Genisis 5?

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by gospelsaves

Well that is not exactly an explaination. How exactly do you explain the meaning of those names then?

Or how even do you explain Isaiah 53:5:
"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."

You are really trying to take selective names and string together into some type of secret message? That's funny. And misguided. I guess that's your idea of something being "Clearly" demonstrated in the Torah? Word games, and selective name lists with secret messages? All very CLEAR, eh?
On top of that - you're using some incorrect name definitions. Even the biblical authors were quite creative with some of their name etymologies.

Take Moab and Ammon, for instance - do their names REALLY mean what the biblical author claims they mean, from the Lot's Daughter story? No - they don't. The etymologies are fanciful, and are meant to poke cruel fun at the Moabites and Ammonites by implying that their very names are indicative of their "incestual" origin.

First, let's look at the famous Isaiah passage. Go to your Bible, and read the entire chapter, then read the rest of the "Suffering Servant" passages in Isaiah. Then realize that not once - ever - is the word Messiah mentioned, or even hinted at. In fact - Israel is sometimes the "Suffering Servant". The non-precise identity of the "Suffering Servant" is what prevents it from being 100% applied to any individual or nation. Yet you are claiming it's a reference to Jesus, merely because a NT author thought so. Nice. And he was using the LXX as his base of operations, not the Hebrew. Stop misquoting Bible verses out of context. No reputable biblical scholar living today (or for the past couple hundred years, for that matter) would see in this passage even the slightest reference to Jesus.

Second, name etymologies. Learn Hebrew - don't parrot what you find on a conspiracy site. Then broaden your horizon and learn Akkadian, or Ugaritic, so you can have an even better idea of how Hebrew roots worked, and where they originated from. Or do you believe Hebrew was the first language? I hope you don't say yes - for in that case, I will know it's hopeless to even converse with you. You will be too far gone in conservative nonsense if you cling to that folly.

1- adam = human, or humanity. NOT man, or male. It's a wordplay on the Hebrew for soil, which is adama. Get it? In the 2nd Creative Account, adam is taken from adama. This little joke is an example of "folk etymology", or an "etiology". George W. Coats, in Genesis, with an Introduction to Narrative Literature, writes that an etiology may be explained as "a narrative designed in its basic structure to support some kind of explanation for a situation or name that exists at the time of the storyteller" (1983). A "folk etiology" is one that is not based on sound data, but is a people's explanation of something - a tradition. Many folk etymologies are highly innacurate (Moab, Ammon) but make for interesting reading.
Anwyays - even in Genesis 1 (the 1st Creative Account) the word adam is used to describe the creation of both male and female adam. So clearly, it does not mean "male". A point against your strange little theory. I hope that doesn't screw it up too badly...

Further information from cognates in other Semitic languages (and older ones, at that) reveal a striking confirmation of this definition.
Ugaritic (an older relative of Hebrew, which shares many similarties) has 'adm, which means "humans". It can also mean "red soil" with a slightly different vocalization. The verb 'DM brings us "to be red" and is used to indicate how women rogued their facem in the G form. Akkadian gives us a little more information with adāmu - an older form than Ugaritic.
Of course - this might all be unintelligible to some, and for that I beg forgiveness. But it certainly helps get at a meaning, which most Bible translations have been translating correctly now for about a hundred years. Only an older, or faulty, translation will think that adam means "male", or simply" a man".

Need I go on? There's other names in that list, and I'm sure we could have some fun with the meanings you provide, as well. As far as it stands now - you must at least alter your "secret message" a little bit, for the beginning word, anyways.

What's interesting is the word order in your little puzzle - does it match Hebrew word order in a sentence? Or does it match English word order? Because if the latter - that certainly would be ODD! And if you don't understand why that would be a problem (a secret message intended ONLY for English Speakers?), then I don't know what to tell you. LOL

[Walter Greenspan]

Originally Posted by gospelsaves

So what are your thoughts on the meaning of the names I mentioned in Genisis 5?

I'll yield to brooklynborndad on that.

[Howest2008]

More proof that American High Ranking Christian have evil intent toward the Jewish People of the world.

An Obama Hanukkah memory: 'Get Israel whatever it needs. Now.' - Washington Jewish Week - Online Edition - Rockville, MD

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by Walter Greenspan

I'll yield to brooklynborndad on that.

You didn't like my explanation of adam? Or am I not conservative enough for your taste heh heh!
Ah well - everyone's a critic. Surely you have a link for these names, Walter, among your wealth of links you constantly throw up!

[Walter Greenspan]

Originally Posted by Howest2008

More proof that American High Ranking Christian have evil intent toward the Jewish People of the world.

An Obama Hanukkah memory: 'Get Israel whatever it needs. Now.' - Washington Jewish Week - Online Edition - Rockville, MD

Has Obama Lost the Jews?

More Bad News for Obama and the Left on the Jewish Vote

[-Lucy-]

Originally Posted by Walter Greenspan

Has Obama Lost the Jews?

More Bad News for Obama and the Left on the Jewish Vote

OMG.

Obama is one of the most Israeli/Jewish friendly president in the U.S.

Jewish people should be greatful and happy that they live in freedom country, being accepted in America (& Canada) and worship their religion and faith freely, without almost any anti-semitic problems/issues anywhere.

USA supports Israel 100%, and they are the main reason Israel is a nation. America gives Israel billions of dollars every year of tax payers money, and yet they are still Anti-America and hates us
Instead of feeding our poor people here, we give Israel the money, and there's no thanks for it for the Jewish people.

Worst of all, they deny the God what 80% of Americans believe in, yet they are still accepted in our society and live like kings without worrying about anything.

Please, stop with this hatred.

BTW I don't think that 1.7-2% of the votes would really help out deciding a president in America.
What about the 98% that are not Jews?