Did Jesus say he was God???

[Yanni]

I have no idea where my question was answered in that passage. Let's try this again. What is the actual meaning of Isaiah 53:10? Why will he "bear the iniquities"? If it's supposed to be a representation of the Jews themselves as opposed to a description of the Moshiach, why are they a guilt offering?

Read this also. This is very brief and doesn't describe this issue at length, as the other link I gave you does.

Christianity claims that Isaiah chapter 53 refers to Jesus, as the "suffering servant."
In actuality, Isaiah 53 directly follows the theme of chapter 52, describing the exile and redemption of the Jewish people. The prophecies are written in the singular form because the Jews ("Israel") are regarded as one unit. Throughout Jewish scripture, Israel is repeatedly called, in the singular, the "Servant of God" (see Isaiah 43:8). In fact, Isaiah states no less than 11 times in the chapters prior to 53 that the Servant of God is Israel. When read correctly, Isaiah 53 clearly [and ironically] refers to the Jewish people being "bruised, crushed and as sheep brought to slaughter" at the hands of the nations of the world. These descriptions are used throughout Jewish scripture to graphically describe the suffering of the Jewish people (see Psalm 44). Isaiah 53 concludes that when the Jewish people are redeemed, the nations will recognize and accept responsibility for the inordinate suffering and death of the Jews.


Why Jews Don't Believe In Jesus

 

[Shermana]

Read this and your questions will most probably be answered: Isaiah 53: The Suffering Servant.

What a funny translation and explanation of verse 10.

(10) God desired to oppress him and He afflicted him. If his soul would acknowledge guilt, he would see offspring and live long days, and God’s purpose would succeed in his hand.

That's a great way to get around the idea of calling him a Guilt offering, change the wording. Nice job Aish. Very honest of them. It would be honorable of them to actually admit what it actually says and try to describe the varying views.

This is a clear example of what "Rabbinicists" will do when they have a difficult passage, it's not much different than what the Christians do. At the very least, it can possibly say "If he renders a guilty offering", but the wording indicates that he himself is the guilt offering.

 

[Yanni]

What a funny translation and explanation of verse 10.
That's a great way to get around the idea of calling him a Guilt offering, change the wording. Nice job Aish. Very honest of them. It would be honorable of them to actually admit what it actually says and try to describe the varying views.

This is a clear example of what "Rabbinicists" will do when they have a difficult passage, it's not much different than what the Christians do. At the very least, it can possibly say "If he renders a guilty offering", but the wording indicates that he himself is the guilt offering.

I don't see what the problem is here. I looked up an authentic English translation of that verse and it correctly translates the word "Nafsho" as "his soul." The Hebrew word "Nefesh" means soul. Why do you have a problem with this? Besides, the article already made it clear that the entire passage is referring to the Israelites, and not one specific man. So Jesus is automatically excluded from the passage.

 

[Shermana]

Did you just totally dodge the "Guilt offering" issue 3 times in a row?

 

[Jensen]

"Blah blah blah you're not a Jew blah blah angels don't mate with humans blah blah". Well guess what, the same account in Enoch of the fallen Angels mating with the daughters of man to produce giants is accounted for by much of the early Jewish literature, and is an accepted position among Rabbis. Do you think it simply means "the children of Cain"?

Isn't it possible that the fallen angels are human, and were believers and the sons of God, sons of Seth, that were tempted and had relationships with the non believers, heathens, the daughters of Cain?

just a thought.

 

[Jensen]

I asked for a Talmud excerpt where it claims that the "Sons of god" who produced the giants were merely sons of Cain....(why would mortals produce giants?)

And I don't see why this concept would be considered "Pagan", especially considering so much early Jewish literature that appears to confirm it. Who defines what 'pagan' is in this sense? Are these Angels being worshiped?

They weren't giants in size, but giant in their authority here on earth, men of renown, meaning men of importance.

 

[Yanni]

Isn't it possible that the fallen angels are human, and were believers and the sons of God, sons of Seth, that were tempted and had relationships with the non believers, heathens, the daughters of Cain?

just a thought.

Actually, you're on the right track. The great Jewish philosopher Ramban (Nachmanides) wrote a rather lengthy explanation of this whole topic. He explain (in short) that the first humans on Earth, namely Adam and his first few descendants, had somewhat super-human height and strength, both physically and spiritually, since they were not the product of human relationships; they were created directly by God "from the dust of the Earth" (we're really referring to Adam and Eve over here; the Ramban's explanation is rather difficult to elaborate on on this forum). These first humans were giants in both stature and spirit. Over some time, their descendants had positions of authority (sometimes in Scripture, the Hebrew word "Elo-him" refers not only to God, but anyone in a position of power and prestige), such as judges and lords. They were supposed to be closest to God due to their high positions and they were lured by the daughters of man (this phrase is not to be taken literally, that the ones lured were not man; they were just not man on the same level as other men, and hence they were called by a title that raised them above the common title of "man"). The word Nephilim, according to Ramban, literally means "the fallen ones," and refers to those judges and lords who "fell" from their lofty levels by being seduced by immorality, and hence throughout the generations, these judges and lords were called "the Nephilim," or "the fallen ones." He derives his explanation from the Oral Torah, which explains the vagueness of the Written Torah. For example, the Torah commands that Jewish men, from the age of 13 and on, must wear Tefillin. However, the Written Torah doesn't specify how they're supposed to be made, nor what they are even supposed to look like. The Oral Law, which was also taught to Moses directly by God, and subsequently to the Jewish People by Mount Sinai, explains exactly what the specifics of Tefillin are. The Written and Oral Torah are dependent on each other.

 

[Yanni]

Did you just totally dodge the "Guilt offering" issue 3 times in a row?

No, because it's not an issue. We have an Oral Torah that was taught to the Jewish People on Mount Sinai by God and Moses that explains the Written Torah. Without the Oral Law, mistakes in understanding vague texts are bound to happen. The notion that this passage is referring to one man (the Messiah) was never taken into account, because it was never taught to the Jewish People, for the simple reason that it is referring to the Jewish People in the singular, as one unit, as it does in various other passages in Tanach. Hence, the Oral Law, which God Himself taught to us at Mount Sinai, teaches us that this passage is referring to the Jewish People as one unit and not to a specific individual.

 

[Shermana]

No, because it's not an issue. We have an Oral Torah that was taught to the Jewish People on Mount Sinai by God and Moses that explains the Written Torah. Without the Oral Law, mistakes in understanding vague texts are bound to happen. The notion that this passage is referring to one man (the Messiah) was never taken into account, because it was never taught to the Jewish People, for the simple reason that it is referring to the Jewish People in the singular, as one unit, as it does in various other passages in Tanach. Hence, the Oral Law, which God Himself taught to us at Mount Sinai, teaches us that this passage is referring to the Jewish People as one unit and not to a specific individual.

That works, just say it's not an issue.

 

[Shermana]

They weren't giants in size, but giant in their authority here on earth, men of renown, meaning men of importance.

So when the Spies went to see the "Remnants of the Giants" they merely said they were "Grasshoppers" compared to them because of how majestic they thought they were. Maybe they had really nice clothes.The reason the Israelites were afraid to fight them was because of their "authority".

And "Og" who was King of the "Authority Giants" just HAPPENED to be very tall.

 

[Yanni]

That works, just say it's not an issue.

I think I'm starting to understand why your title is "heretic." (No offense).:sarcastic

 

[Shermana]

I think I'm starting to understand why your title is "heretic." (No offense).:sarcastic

That also works, make it ad hominem instead of answering.

 

[Yanni]

That also works, make it ad hominem instead of answering.

I answered you...I said there was no issue. YOU may have an issue with insecurity. I am perfectly secure in my statement that it's not an issue for ME, because of the precise argument I made in earlier posts.

 

[Shermana]

I answered you...I said there was no issue. YOU may have an issue with insecurity. I am perfectly secure in my statement that it's not an issue for ME, because of the precise argument I made in earlier posts.

So not only do you dodge the issue by saying that it's not an issue, but then you say I have insecurity issues. You say you made precise arguments in other posts, I must be missing them.

 

[Yanni]

So not only do you dodge the issue by saying that it's not an issue, but then you say I have insecurity issues. You say you made precise arguments in other posts, I must be missing them.

I don't understand why you think I'm dodging the issue. I'm not dodging anything. To my clear understanding, there is no issue whatsoever with verse 10. Do you want to try again and explain to me what the issue is?

 

[Shermana]

I don't understand why you think I'm dodging the issue. I'm not dodging anything. To my clear understanding, there is no issue whatsoever with verse 10. Do you want to try again and explain to me what the issue is?

It says that this person who you claim will represent Israel as a whole, will "render a guilt offering", not just "guilt", and can be read as "Rendered as a Guilt Offering". If you think that this person only represents the totality of Israel as a whole, what is the Moshiach to begin with? Do you not believe he is going to exist one day?

 

[Yanni]

It says that this person who you claim will represent Israel as a whole, will "render a guilt offering", not just "guilt", and can be read as "Rendered as a Guilt Offering". If you think that this person only represents the totality of Israel as a whole, what is the Moshiach to begin with? Do you not believe he is going to exist one day?

You're making a mistake. Let me make something clear: the entire passage that verse 10 is in is speaking of the Jewish People as a single unit. There is no individual representing the totality of the Jewish People. It simply refers to the Jewish People in the singular, as Scripture does in many instances, such as King Solomon's Song of Songs, where the Jewish People and God are considered husband and wife (God being the husband and the Children of Israel being His wife). It's about a loving relationship, and that's all.
Now, regarding the Mashiach, all he will do is become king over the Jewish People, reestablish the Jewish Homeland under Torah leadership, and perfect the world with the knowledge of God. He is NOT going to die for anybody's sins, and he is NOT going to bear the iniquity of the Jewish People. This Christian concept has no basis in Judaism whatsoever. God will end all suffering and death (together with the resurrection of the dead), and God will "slaughter" (figuratively) the evil inclination and subsequently end all sin. The literal meaning of "mashiach" means "anointed one." All Jewish kings and priests were "anointed" into God's service. Mashiach does NOT mean "savior," or any similar term. He will simply be annointed as king and represent the Jewish People as their sovereign under the laws of the Torah and under God.

 

[look3467]

Where does it say that the Father has to sacrifice himself?

Because of:
The traditions, the law of Moses and all the laws added unto (some 700 or so) makes it an impossibility for any human soul to reach a status of perfection, such as like God.

Therefore, in the genesis account, the conclusion is that in the creative design of the "living soul" the soul becomes separated (Dead) from God once that soul acquires knowledge of Good and Evil, making the "living soul" as "one of us"= gods.

Gods with a lower case "g" equates with a lesser god or a god in it's own right with powers only of choice between what is good and what is evil.

What it all means is that mankind of itself can not perform works of righteousness for the salvation of its own soul save the righteousness of God be granted us.

In order for God the Creator to give us the privilege of becoming as like Him (In His image) we must be subjected to a world of vanity (the evil conponent, which compromises all that the eye can see and feel) verses the spiritual component of all things spiritual.

That means that God sacrifices us (The whole of mankind) to the state of eternal death unless He Himself offers a solution and saves mankind.

His solution comes in the form of one body prepared as an offering for the whole of mankind that must be offered up by God selective people.

Hence the condemnation of blasphemy by the high priests and the carrying out of the sentence of punishment and death by the Roman government of that "God's prepared body", concludes the implication of both the selected people of the Father and the Heathens of the world.

That scene equates with Abraham's offering of Issac (Mankind) to a sacrifice of death, verses instead the God given offering (Ram in the bush) as a substitute for Issac death. (Meaning us as a whole of humanity).

The nation of Israel therefore has no blame in the matter simply because, as like Abraham, they were obedient in the exercise of carrying out the sacrifice.

Hence Jesus' making the statement "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" tops God's offering to mankind as His solution to the death matter, thus liberating (Issac)all of mankind without exceptions as the righteous works of God.

If you can picture it and believe it as presented, then all else becomes argumentative and as a means to arriving at the truth, which I might add, can only be recognized via spiritual means.

There is neither Greek nor Barbarian, bond or free, Jew or gentile, righteous nor unrighteous, circumcised nor uncircumsized, God in Jesus has concluded "all" under sin and worthy of saving "all" as one, under one sacrifice.

Based on what I have presented, does that not all make sense when we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves, love our enemies as our selves making of us all brothers and sisters ?

Blessings, AJ

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Love neighbor as self and love enemies is in connection to four Greek words for love:

'Agape' love is love based on principle. We do not have to have warm brotherly love [philia'] for enemies. We do not have to have [storge] warm family love for enemies, and sexual love [eros] we do not have for enemies.

So 'biblical love' as defined at 1st Cor [13vs4-6] does not necessarily make us all brothers.
Also, the selfish distorted form of love described at 2nd Tim [3vs1-5,13]
is in sharp contrast to godly love and Jesus new commandment of John [13vs34,35].

 

[Shermana]

Because of:
The traditions, the law of Moses and all the laws added unto (some 700 or so) makes it an impossibility for any human soul to reach a status of perfection, such as like God.

Therefore, in the genesis account, the conclusion is that in the creative design of the "living soul" the soul becomes separated (Dead) from God once that soul acquires knowledge of Good and Evil, making the "living soul" as "one of us"= gods.

Gods with a lower case "g" equates with a lesser god or a god in it's own right with powers only of choice between what is good and what is evil.

What it all means is that mankind of itself can not perform works of righteousness for the salvation of its own soul save the righteousness of God be granted us.

In order for God the Creator to give us the privilege of becoming as like Him (In His image) we must be subjected to a world of vanity (the evil conponent, which compromises all that the eye can see and feel) verses the spiritual component of all things spiritual.

That means that God sacrifices us (The whole of mankind) to the state of eternal death unless He Himself offers a solution and saves mankind.

His solution comes in the form of one body prepared as an offering for the whole of mankind that must be offered up by God selective people.

Hence the condemnation of blasphemy by the high priests and the carrying out of the sentence of punishment and death by the Roman government of that "God's prepared body", concludes the implication of both the selected people of the Father and the Heathens of the world.

That scene equates with Abraham's offering of Issac (Mankind) to a sacrifice of death, verses instead the God given offering (Ram in the bush) as a substitute for Issac death. (Meaning us as a whole of humanity).

The nation of Israel therefore has no blame in the matter simply because, as like Abraham, they were obedient in the exercise of carrying out the sacrifice.

Hence Jesus' making the statement "Father forgive them for they know not what they do" tops God's offering to mankind as His solution to the death matter, thus liberating (Issac)all of mankind without exceptions as the righteous works of God.

If you can picture it and believe it as presented, then all else becomes argumentative and as a means to arriving at the truth, which I might add, can only be recognized via spiritual means.

There is neither Greek nor Barbarian, bond or free, Jew or gentile, righteous nor unrighteous, circumcised nor uncircumsized, God in Jesus has concluded "all" under sin and worthy of saving "all" as one, under one sacrifice.

Based on what I have presented, does that not all make sense when we ought to love our neighbor as ourselves, love our enemies as our selves making of us all brothers and sisters ?

Blessings, AJ

Too bad that actually goes against what Jesus actually says.

Do you know what "Righteousness" means? Why is everyone judged according to their works?