Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You keep making sensationalistic, and confrontational claims. The fact of the matter is that who Isaiah 53 refers to has been debated among the Jews through out history. As Messianic Jew Dr. Michael L. Brown states,
'It is impossible, both contextually and logically, for Isaiah 53 to be speaking of the people of Israel. Rather, the text clearly speaks of one individual, and as many rabbis recognized through the ages, that individual was the Messiah.' [Bolded mine]
'For the last thousand years, religious Jews have often interpreted Isaiah 53 with reference to the people of Israel, but that has by no means been the consensus interpretation, and it is not the interpretation of the Talmudic rabbis. So, for example, the Targum interprets the passage with reference to the Messiah---as a warring, victorious king, even to the point of completely twisting the meaning of key verses---while the Talmud generally interprets the passage with reference to the Messiah, or key individuals (like Moses or Phineas), or the righteous.' [Michael L. Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, p. 49]
Dr. Brown goes on to note that although Rashi, Ibn Ezra, and Radak interpreted Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel, other Jewish leaders such as Moses ben Nachman held to the ancient tradition of the Talmudic rabbis that Isaiah 53 refers an individual, rather than the nation. He has much more to say about it, but the above is enough to show that various interpretations of Isaiah have been held among Jewish rabbis.
Some of Dr. Brown's lectures concerning this are available on YouTube. Shown below is part of a lecture in which he addresses the objection that Isaiah 53 speaks of the people of Israel, not Jesus.
In this next video, Dr. Michael Rydelnik, Dr. Michael Brown, Dr. Walter Kaiser, and Dr. Darrell Bock discuss the issue of who the servant is in Isaiah 53.
Now it is true that certain passages do refer to Israel as the righteous servant. But it is equally true that other passages refer to an individual as the righteous servant. And many rabbis through the ages, have viewed Isaiah 53 as referring to the Messiah.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard1965
You've been corrected on this before, Mike...
Try correcting Dr. Michael Rydelnik, Dr. Michael Brown, Dr. Walter Kaiser, and Dr. Darrell Bock. Then try correcting those Jewish rabbis' who said that Isaiah 53 referred to the Messiah. And then try correcting Philip who in answering the Ethiopian eunuch who had asked him the meaning of the passage he was reading which was Isaiah 53, began to tell him about Jesus in answer to his question. See Acts 8:26-35. He preached Jesus from Isaiah 53.
No, I have not been corrected. And certainly not by you. Based on your many past postings, your reply to this is anticipated. But I'll not spend any time going back and forth with you. We're done. People can read what I have already posted and can take it or leave it.
I just got through specifically stating the fact that the Jewish rabbis have had different interpretations regarding Isaiah 53.
But there is certainly a definitive and correct view of Isaiah 53.
And worry about your own maturity, or lack thereof. Don't attempt to make an issue out of mine. We're done.
To Richard 1965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555
Try correcting Dr. Michael Rydelnik, Dr. Michael Brown, Dr. Walter Kaiser, and Dr. Darrell Bock. Then try correcting those Jewish rabbis' who said that Isaiah 53 referred to the Messiah. And then try correcting Philip who in answering the Ethiopian eunuch who had asked him the meaning of the passage he was reading which was Isaiah 53, began to tell him about Jesus in answer to his question. See Acts 8:26-35. He preached Jesus from Isaiah 53.
No, I have not been corrected. And certainly not by you. Based on your many past postings, your reply to this is anticipated. But I'll not spend any time going back and forth with you. We're done.
Mike is done with anyone who doesn't agree with him. Moderator cut: Trying to avoid a fight ... gotta catch my breath.
Last edited by mensaguy; 11-02-2015 at 10:14 AM..
Reason: Hoping a fight doesn't start.
The people that are to referred to now as Jews ARE NOT the people of the book, they have migrated there to the area they are in and are acting like they are the original decadents. Nothing of Deut 28 looks like it has applied to the people we call Jews now, as none of those curses have ever applied to them.
Revelations shows what Jesus says of these people as well.
Revelation 3:9 (KJV) 9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
The same unbelievers who rejected Jesus as the Messiah should not be the people you are trusting your faith with. The same folks who say G-D, when the OT mentions the name of God (YHWH) 7000 times, so its clear they were using and saying the name of God back then. The Talmud is rubbish and just oral traditions, THE SAME ONES Jesus constantly had to correct them on, that they were putting the traditions of man before the commands of God like the example in Matt 15.
Matthew 15:3(KJV)
3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Isiah 53 is very clear it was Jesus, unless you have a hardened and stubborn heart like many do towards Jesus.
Isaiah 53(KJV)
53 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root 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 him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
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 soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
This post is NOT anti Semitic, but the actual truth on how alot of Judaism is now. If Jews can come on here constantly trying to tell Christians their belief in Christ is in vain or the OT is false and only the Tanakh is true, it makes God look weak and that he cant even protect his own word.
True believers know Jesus was the Messiah that died on the cross for their sins and if they repent and follow him, they will get eternal life. If you are still waiting for Jesus to come, you are blind and will be blinded again when he returns.
The bible clearly states, how if you rejected Jesus the 1st time, you will easily accept the Antichrist instead.
John 5:43 (KJV)
43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
The people that are to referred to now as Jews ARE NOT the people of the book, they have migrated there to the area they are in and are acting like they are the original decadents. Nothing of Deut 28 looks like it has applied to the people we call Jews now, as none of those curses have ever applied to them.
Revelations shows what Jesus says of these people as well.
Revelation 3:9 (KJV) 9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
The same unbelievers who rejected Jesus as the Messiah should not be the people you are trusting your faith with. The same folks who say G-D, when the OT mentions the name of God (YHWH) 7000 times, so its clear they were using and saying the name of God back then. The Talmud is rubbish and just oral traditions, THE SAME ONES Jesus constantly had to correct them on, that they were putting the traditions of man before the commands of God like the example in Matt 15.
Matthew 15:3(KJV)
3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
Isiah 53 is very clear it was Jesus, unless you have a hardened and stubborn heart like many do towards Jesus.
Isaiah 53(KJV)
53 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root 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 him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.
4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
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 soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.
This post is NOT anti Semitic, but the actual truth on how alot of Judaism is now. If Jews can come on here constantly trying to tell Christians their belief in Christ is in vain or the OT is false and only the Tanakh is true, it makes God look weak and that he cant even protect his own word.
True believers know Jesus was the Messiah that died on the cross for their sins and if they repent and follow him, they will get eternal life. If you are still waiting for Jesus to come, you are blind and will be blinded again when he returns.
The bible clearly states, how if you rejected Jesus the 1st time, you will easily accept the Antichrist instead.
John 5:43 (KJV)
43 I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.
Even though Israel ceased to exist as a nation when it was destroyed in A.D. 70 and the Jews were dispersed among the nations of the world, there has always remained a few Jews in the land. And many of the Jews have indeed returned to the land from the nations to which they were scattered. There has to be a nation Israel in existence before the seven year Tribulation can begin because the Tribulation will begin with the signing of a peace treaty with Israel (the covenant with the many in Daniel 9:27) by the antichrist (the man of lawlessness in 2 Thess. chapter 2). The Jews (many of them) are now in Israel in a state of unbelief. But as a result of the judgments of the Tribulation they will recognize that Jesus is the Messiah that they rejected at His first coming.
Excerpt:
Historical Jewish Presence in Israel
Introduction
Jews have lived in the land of Israel for nearly 4000 years, going back to the period of the Biblical patriarchs (c.1900 BCE). The story of the Jewish people, Israel, its capital, Jerusalem, and the Jewish Temple there, has been one of exile, destruction and rebirth. In its 3000 years of history Jerusalem has been destroyed 17 times and 18 times reborn. There has always remained a Jewish presence in the land of Israel and in Jerusalem, and the Jewish people as a whole always dreamt of returning to and rebuilding it.
As for the Tanakh, it simply follows the Masoretic text which was produced around the 7th century A.D. At times it agrees with the Dead Sea scrolls which are about a thousand years older than the Masoretic text, and at other times it doesn't. The Masoretic text is simply one text. At times the so called 'Christian Old Testament' follows the Masoretic text, and at other times it follows the Septuagint which also precedes the Masoretic text as well as the Christian era. Contrary to the claims of some, the 'Christian Old Testament' doesn't rewrite the Tanakh which again follows the Masoretic text, it simply at times follows a different text.
Last edited by Michael Way; 11-02-2015 at 12:14 PM..
... As for the Tanakh, it simply follows the Masoretic text which was produced around the 7th century A.D. At times it agrees with the Dead Sea scrolls which are about a thousand years older than the Masoretic text, and at other times it doesn't. The Masoretic text is simply one text. At times the so called 'Christian Old Testament' follows the Masoretic text, and at other times it follows the Septuagint which also precedes the Masoretic text as well as the Christian era. Contrary to the claims of some, the 'Christian Old Testament' doesn't rewrite the Tanakh which again follows the Masoretic text, it simply at times follows a different text.
The Tanakh is an extension of the Torah. For you to type it was written AFTER any of the Christian Bibles is beyond all historical fact and gives you zero credibility in anything you type. It would take a secular atheist around five minutes to disprove your statement. You really need to halt any of your revisionist statements in regards to Judaism as you have no clue in relation to what you are typing. It's strongly advised that you study the foundations of the Tanakh which has commentary on it dating back to what is known as the Zugot Period around 500 BCE which wasn't so great but the Tannaim Period starting circa 10 CE had much better commentary on it. Read up and get educated.
As for the Tanakh, it simply follows the Masoretic text which was produced around the 7th century A.D. At times it agrees with the Dead Sea scrolls which are about a thousand years older than the Masoretic text, and at other times it doesn't. The Masoretic text is simply one text. At times the so called 'Christian Old Testament' follows the Masoretic text, and at other times it follows the Septuagint which also precedes the Masoretic text as well as the Christian era. Contrary to the claims of some, the 'Christian Old Testament' doesn't rewrite the Tanakh which again follows the Masoretic text, it simply at times follows a different text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pruzhany
The Tanakh is an extension of the Torah. For you to type it was written AFTER any of the Christian Bibles is beyond all historical fact and gives you zero credibility in anything you type. It would take a secular atheist around five minutes to disprove your statement. You really need to halt any of your revisionist statements in regards to Judaism as you have no clue in relation to what you are typing. It's strongly advised that you study the foundations of the Tanakh which has commentary on it dating back to what is known as the Zugot Period around 500 BCE which wasn't so great but the Tannaim Period starting circa 10 CE had much better commentary on it. Read up and get educated.
I'll put it this way which will make it clearer. The Jewish Tanakh that the Jews read today is the Masoretic text. And the Masoretic text was produced by the Masoretes during the period between the 7th and 10th centuries A.D. The oldest complete copy of the Masoretic text still extant dates to the tenth century A.D.
When people say that the 'Christian Old Testament' is different from the Jewish Tanakh, they are actually saying that the 'Christian Old Testament' is different from the Masoretic text. When the claim is made by people such as yourself that ''For the NT to flow correctly, the OT had to be re-written so that it flows in the direction of the NT.'' (post 12 of this thread), the claim is being made that the 'Christian Old Testament' rewrote what is said in the Masoretic text. Yet there are much older traditions than the Masoretic text such as the Pe****ta (Pets hitta), the Latin Vulgate, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
The Masoretic text while agreeing in many places with the much older Dead Sea Scrolls, disagrees with the Dead Sea Scrolls in other places. Both the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint which is a Greek translation of a Hebrew text are much older than the Masoretic text. The Hebrew text from which the Septuagint was translated is much older than the Masoretic text. In some places the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with the Masoretic text while in other places the Dead Sea Scrolls agree more closely with the Septuagint. When the New Testament writers quoted the Old Testament they more often quoted the Septuagint.
The Tanakh which the Jews read today is the Masoretic text. But the Masoretic text is but one Hebrew textual tradition. There are much older textual traditions. The 'Christian Old Testament' did not rewrite the Tanakh. If the 'Christian Old Testament' disagrees with the Masoretic text at some point, it simply means that at that point the 'Christian Old Testament' is based on a different textual tradition.
Isaiah 53 in the 'Christian Old Testament' is nearly identical with the Great Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls. If the claim is made by someone that Isaiah 53 in the 'Christian Old Testament' disagrees with the Tanakh, then what is actually being said is that Isaiah 53 of the 'Christian Old Testament' agrees with the Great Isaiah Scroll of the Dead Sea Scrolls against the Masoretic text. Again, the Dead Sea Scrolls are much older than the Masoretic text which is the textual tradition of the Tanakh that Jews read today.
The question then becomes, How much does the Masoretic text of Isaiah 53 actually disagree with the Dead Sea Scrolls? Reading both provides the answer.
Here is the Great Isaiah Scroll. In the link click on the scroll. A much bigger scroll will come up. Then simply move your cursor over the scroll and then click in order to get the English translation. You must click for each individual verse.
Here is the Great Isaiah Scroll. In the link click on the scroll. A much bigger scroll will come up. Then simply move your cursor over the scroll and then click in order to get the English translation. You must click for each individual verse.
While I feel sure that Post #4 reflects scholarship of the highest level, the Jewish Encyclopedia is perhaps equally authoritative:
“The very form of his punishment would disprove those claims in Jewish eyes. No Messiah that Jews could recognize could suffer such a death; for “He that is hanged is accursed of God” (Deut.xxi, 23), “an insult to God” (Targum, Rashi). How far in his own mind Jesus substituted another conception of the Messiah, and how far he regarded himself as fulfilling that ideal, still remain among the most obscure of the historical problems.”
7 Jewish Encyclopedia, Jesus – Crucifixion at 166.
Paul, who knew at least a bit about Judaism, referred to the cross as a scandal and a stumbling-block to the Jews – for precisely the reason stated above.
My post was pretty much Theology 101. I don’t purport to have expertise (or even interest, frankly) in the nuances of Judaism. The OP referred to the Old Testament, the text of which is regarded as authoritative by Biblical scholars of all stripes (i.e., including nonbelievers). Whatever point Post #4 is making is lost on me, at least in the context of affecting the gist of my post. Biblical scholarship is rock-solid; as soon as anyone starts making esoteric arguments based on mainstream Biblical scholarship being flawed, I’ll have to admit my eyes quickly glaze over.
Regarding the “pierced” issue, the OP is simply wrong: “In the Dead Sea Scrolls, which predate most other Hebrew texts by over a thousand years, the term is unmistakably ‘pierced.’ In addition, the oldest Syriac, Vulgate, Ethiopic, and Arabic versions also go with ‘pierced.’ The same is true in the Septuagint, the first Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which was completed approximately 200 years before the birth of Christ.” “Pierced” is a perfectly legitimate and accepted translation.
Psalm 22 wasn’t "changed centuries after Jesus was crucified” to fit a Christian agenda. (Apparently the Tanakh follows the Masoretic texts, and some of the language - including the "pierced" verse in Psalm 22 - is different, but frankly so what? I read Psalm 22 in the Tanakh out of curiosity and have no problem viewing it as referring to Jesus. More to the point, the authors of all four Gospels, as well as the author of the Jewish-centric Letter to the Hebrews, quote from Psalm 22. They certainly weren't unfamiliar with Judaism and they certainly weren't writing centuries after Jesus.)
There are some instances, such as Genesis 3:16, where I do believe some Christians stretch the interpretation past the breaking point in order to find references to Jesus. But even there, they aren't altering the text - they are simply (IMHO) stretching the interpretation. Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 are not in this category at all.
Many posters on this forum have an obvious (too obvious to be effective, in fact) axe to grind with Christianity and apparently think they are embarrassing or shocking Christians with "clever" material such as the OP. Their efforts will seldom withstand the mildest scrutiny and are unlikely to impress anyone with even a Sunday School level of understanding. I can find fringe scholars to support almost anything I want to say in almost any area of study, but the mainstream Christian understanding of the OT is far too well-established for fringe arguments to cause any waves.
So opinions on this are split. Even among rabbis there are some who feel this is a reference to Jesus, while others feel it is not and they provide cogent explanation for why they do not believe Isaiah 9:6-7 is referring to Jesus.
What Rabbis believe it to be a reference to Yeshua?....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
