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.
"Babylonian Talmud which preceded Rashi by hundreds of years shows that many Jews understood Isaiah 53 to be Messianic,"
But you cannot supply facts, so we (as a law court would) must reject your claim as an assertion without evidence.
And please present the writings of Philip which state that the suffering servant referred to Jesus.
Are you dense, or simply being dishonest? The fact is that the Babylonian Talmud which precedes Rashi by hundreds of years, and which I gave a link to, shows that many Jews interpreted Isaiah 53 as Messianic.
And I have provided the facts in post #182 that the servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53 cannot be Israel. But you are unwilling to read it and be objective about it.
And once again, you ask for something which has already been provided. You've asked where Jesus said that Isaiah 53 applied to Him, and now you ask for where Philip states where Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus. I did that in the very first post of this thread. Once again, you are simply trolling for the sake of barking 'nuh uh.'
You've asked where Jesus said that Isaiah 53 applied to Him, and now you ask for where Philip states where Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus.
RESPONSES: We don’t know what Jesus said since the Gospels were written 40 or more years after his death by non-witnesses.
But using stories they heard about him and trying to support their new religions belief systems very early Christians evolved or created different versions stories some of which were written down by the Evangelists and became our Gospels. Later on, copyists did more damage by altering early scriptures to support differing beliefs. (For example, read Mark 8 and Matthew 16 concerning Peters "profession of faith").
Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS
"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God, risen and living now in his church and coming again to judge all men. Their authors did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy. They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities' experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith."
That’s why the New Testament has Jesus born twice, crucified twice, and riding one vs. two animals when entering Jerusalem.
Do you know how to tell just stories from history?
Yet many readers such as myself may be interested in the basis of your statement that the Apostle Phillip claimed that Jesus said he was the suffering servant. What is your source?
“The gospel's title (Gospel of Philip) appears at the end of the Coptic manuscript in a colophon; the only connection with Philip the Apostle within the text is that he is the only apostle mentioned (at 73,8). The text proper makes no claim to be from Philip, though, similarly, the four New Testament gospels make no explicit claim of authorship. The Gospel of Philip was written between 150 AD and 350 AD, while Philip himself lived in the first century, making it extremely unlikely to be his writing. Most scholars hold a 3rd-century date of composition.”
Ehrman, Bart (2003). Lost Christianities. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. xi–xii.
Not everything one reads in a bible or religious book is historically accurate. One should learn how to consider the evidence. It is doubtful that Jesus was born twice (Matthew vs Luke), was crucified twice (John vs Matthew Mark and Luke), or sent for and rode two animals when entering Jerusalem so he could fulfill a “prophecy.” (Matthew vs Mark, Luke, John)
Remember. Gullibility is not a virtue. Historical accuracy is.
Last edited by Aristotles child; 07-21-2017 at 12:51 PM..
RESPONSES: We don’t know what Jesus said since the Gospels were written 40 or more years after his death by non-witnesses.
But using stories they heard about him and trying to support their new religions belief systems very early Christians evolved or created different versions stories some of which were written down by the Evangelists and became our Gospels. Later on, copyists did more damage by altering early scriptures to support differing beliefs. (For example, read Mark 8 and Matthew 16 concerning Peters "profession of faith").
Excerpted from A Concise History of the Catholic Church By Father Thomas Bokenkotter, SS
"The Gospels were not meant to be a historical or biographical account of Jesus. They were written to convert unbelievers to faith in Jesus as the Messiah of God, risen and living now in his church and coming again to judge all men. Their authors did not deliberately invent or falsify facts about Jesus, but they were not primarily concerned with historical accuracy. They readily included material drawn from the Christian communities' experience of the risen Jesus. Words, for instance, were put in the mouth of Jesus and stories were told about him which, though not historical in the strict sense, nevertheless, in the minds of the evangelists, fittingly expressed the real meaning and intent of Jesus as faith had come to perceive him. For this reason, scholars have come to make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith."
That’s why the New Testament has Jesus born twice, crucified twice, and riding one vs. two animals when entering Jerusalem.
Do you know how to tell just stories from history?
Yet many readers such as myself may be interested in the basis of your statement that the Apostle Phillip claimed that Jesus said he was the suffering servant. What is your source?
“The gospel's title (Gospel of Philip) appears at the end of the Coptic manuscript in a colophon; the only connection with Philip the Apostle within the text is that he is the only apostle mentioned (at 73,8). The text proper makes no claim to be from Philip, though, similarly, the four New Testament gospels make no explicit claim of authorship. The Gospel of Philip was written between 150 AD and 350 AD, while Philip himself lived in the first century, making it extremely unlikely to be his writing. Most scholars hold a 3rd-century date of composition.”
Ehrman, Bart (2003). Lost Christianities. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. xi–xii.
Not everything one reads in a bible or religious book is historically accurate. One should learn how to consider the evidence. It is doubtful that Jesus was born twice (Matthew vs Luke), was crucified twice (John vs Matthew Mark and Luke), or sent for and rode two animals when entering Jerusalem so he could fulfill a “prophecy.” (Matthew vs Mark, Luke, John)
Remember. Gullibility is not a virtue. Historical accuracy is.
The New Testament does not have Jesus born twice, or crucified twice. AND YOU ARE NOT GOING TO TURN THIS THREAD INTO A DEBATE ON THE ACCURACY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
And once again, you ask what the source of Philip's statement is concerning how Isaiah 53 is about Jesus when I've already told you that the very first post on this forum gives the source. Read the post as I told you to do and stop wasting my time with your nonsense and dishonesty.
that’s why the new testament has jesus born twice, crucified twice, and riding one vs. Two animals when entering jerusalem.
do you know how to tell just stories from history?
[...]
not everything one reads in a bible or religious book is historically accurate. One should learn how to consider the evidence. It is doubtful that jesus was born twice (matthew vs luke), was crucified twice (john vs matthew mark and luke), or sent for and rode two animals when entering jerusalem so he could fulfill a “prophecy.” (matthew vs mark, luke, john)
remember. Gullibility is not a virtue. Historical accuracy is.
Quote:
originally posted by mike555 the evidence for the nth time has been presented in post #182. Either read it, and do so objectively, or stop wasting my time.
And posting that quote from outreachjudaism doesn't negate the fact that the babylonian talmud which preceded rashi by hundreds of years shows that many jews understood isaiah 53 to be messianic, as did the apostle philip, a jew who lived during the first century and stated that it referred to jesus.
Quote:
rbbi1: Another fact: A fragment of isaiah in the dead sea scrolls that was translated and released to the public about 20 years ago, showed that the "son of g-d" was known to them at that time, which means that phrase was removed before 800 ad, the age of the oldest copy. I saw a microfilm copy of the original in a room filled with weeping rabbis. It made world headlines, and the scholar, it was said, had a million dollar bounty on his head and went into hiding over it for awhile. Peace
Some do say there really is a serpent seedline which has survived with centuries of evolution claiming to be at a higher state of consciousness than those who know who their Lord and Savior is the one as in spoken of in Isaiah 53.
The same one has other characters it may become just to make it look as if there are more than just one aic that cointelpro is having a real encounter with those who are going to call out the cake he has candle-made for his feasts.
Upon the souls of men of making a dollar bill work way better for itself that it must have more and more and create disharmony and disarray and interruptions of service that if it can't have it then no one else will either let us eat.
It is the same story that has gone on elsewhere although it will continue to deny same that all is in one's mind that you haven't caught its real grasp yet that is an entertainer ever funny or just obnoxious who spreads the dis-ease.
There is a real Egyptian hell making itself ready how the scriptures are built around two tablets of stone both sides of the heart right as left the mind gets conquered by the mere fact there are 10 Commandments for all of eternity.
Are you dense, or simply being dishonest? The fact is that the Babylonian Talmud which precedes Rashi by hundreds of years, and which I gave a link to, shows that many Jews interpreted Isaiah 53 as Messianic.
And I have provided the facts in post #182 that the servant of the Lord in Isaiah 53 cannot be Israel. But you are unwilling to read it and be objective about it.
And once again, you ask for something which has already been provided. You've asked where Jesus said that Isaiah 53 applied to Him, and now you ask for where Philip states where Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus. I did that in the very first post of this thread. Once again, you are simply trolling for the sake of barking 'nuh uh.'
I have read it. That's why I quoted it. As already clearly shown in post #182 the Babylonian Talmud which was compiled between the 3rd and 5th centuries understands Isaiah 53 to be Messianic and not referring to Israel. Ignoring that fact doesn't negate it..
I read it and it says no such thing...You are being dishonest again, Mike...Lying for Jesus?...
Act 8:26 But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, “Arise, and go toward the south to the way that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza. This is a desert.”
Act 8:27 He arose and went; and behold, there was a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was over all her treasure, who had come to Jerusalem to worship.
Act 8:28 He was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah.
Act 8:29 The Spirit said to Philip, “Go near, and join yourself to this chariot.”
Act 8:30 Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
Act 8:31 He said, “How can I, unless someone explains it to me?” He begged Philip to come up and sit with him.
Act 8:32 Now the passage of the Scripture which he was reading was this, “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter. As a lamb before his shearer is silent, so he doesn’t open his mouth.
Act 8:33 In his humiliation, his judgment was taken away. Who will declare His generation? For his life is taken from the earth.”
Act 8:34 The eunuch answered Philip, “Who is the prophet talking about? About himself, or about someone else?”
Act 8:35 Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture, preached to him about Jesus.
Act 8:26 But an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, “Arise, and go toward the south to the way that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza. This is a desert.”
Act 8:27 He arose and went; and behold, there was a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was over all her treasure, who had come to Jerusalem to worship.
Act 8:28 He was returning and sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah.
Act 8:29 The Spirit said to Philip, “Go near, and join yourself to this chariot.”
Act 8:30 Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
Act 8:31 He said, “How can I, unless someone explains it to me?” He begged Philip to come up and sit with him.
Act 8:32 Now the passage of the Scripture which he was reading was this, “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter. As a lamb before his shearer is silent, so he doesn’t open his mouth.
Act 8:33 In his humiliation, his judgment was taken away. Who will declare His generation? For his life is taken from the earth.”
Act 8:34 The eunuch answered Philip, “Who is the prophet talking about? About himself, or about someone else?”
Act 8:35 Philip opened his mouth, and beginning from this Scripture, preached to him about Jesus.
Mike555 said:
Quote:
Philip states where Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus.
You provided the passage and it says nothing like what Mike claimed...
i have read it. That's why i quoted it. As already clearly shown in post #182 the babylonian talmud which was compiled between the 3rd and 5th centuries understands isaiah 53 to be messianic and not referring to israel. Ignoring that fact doesn't negate it.
from post #182
the babylonian talmud consists of jewish documents which were compiled during the time between the 3rd and 5th centuries. Sanhedrin 98b understands isaiah 53 to refer to the messiah, though the rabbis' disagree on who the messiah is.
rab said: The world was created only on david's account .24 samuel said: On moses account;25 r. Johanan said: For the sake of the messiah. What is his [the messiah's] name? — the school of r. Shila said: His name is shiloh, for it is written, until shiloh come.26 the school of r. Yannai said: His name is yinnon, for it is written, his name shall endure for ever:27 e'er the sun was, his name is yinnon.28 the school of r. Haninah maintained: His name is haninah, as it is written, where i will not give you haninah.29 others say: His name is menahem the son of hezekiah, for it is written, because menahem ['the comforter'], that would relieve my soul, 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.
the various schools disagree on who the messiah is, but they agree that isaiah 53 is referring to the messiah. Who is the messiah according to them? Some say his name is shiloh. Some say his name is yinnon. Some say his name is haninah. Some say his name is menahem. The rabbis said his name is 'the leper scholar.
But they all agree that isaiah 53 is referring to the messiah, not to israel.
Again, if you had actually read post #182 you would have seen that the contrasts between israel as the servant of the lord and the servant of the lord to whom isaiah 53 refers makes it impossible for israel to be the servant of the lord in isaiah 53.
Many jews who deny that jesus is the messiah deny the messianic nature of isaiah 53 while other jews who deny that jesus is the messiah nevertheless recognize isaiah as messianic as the babylonian talmud shows. And many jews have recognized that jesus is the messiah because of isaiah 53. And that is a fact of history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by richard1965
i read it and it says no such thing...you are being dishonest again, mike...lying for jesus?...
As anyone can plainly see, the Babylonian Talmud - Sanhedrin 98b gives a Messianic interpretation to Isaiah 53.
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.
Evaluating the historicity of scripture
