How and why did you reject christ?

[BilliardsBall]

Thats the sort of argument and evidence I wpuld expect of a post-modern, literary critical theory sort or thing. You ask what he meant amd provide speculation. That isnt the hard linguistic evidence provieed by Harel. You dont even bring up other instances where the same word appears, or the fact we are talking about what may be an extinct animal (similar to the auroch bull found in Hebrew lore/unicorn found in the Bible).
And, no, it is not surprising Jews reject Christian beliefs, interpretations, and opinions regarding the Jewish religion. Christianity is, after all, radically different in many ways, blasphemously different in some places, and because it is possible for me to learn (of this I am sure) of many more Hebrew words still that Christian Bibles got wrong.

You've missed the point in your "understanding" of the linguistics involved. The original text lacks vowels, some added a vowel to make it "like a lion at my hands and feet", some "they pierced my hands and feet". Execution similar to a crucifixion is called "hanging" in the OT. No one bit or nipped at King David's extremities and the obvious choice in Psalm 22, which is entirely descriptive of Messiah Jesus, is "pierced". Jesus even quoted this Psalm, first thing on the cross.

Jews choose a different vowel than Messianic Jews or Gentile Christians--because there are implications.

PS. I DID describe 15 other appearances of the Hebrew word in the LXX text. ALL OF THEM ARE ABOUT DIGGING THINGS, NOT LIONS.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your reply to Harel13 did not refute him.

Here is a better quote of Isaiah 53:10
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to crush him by disease; to see if his soul would offer itself in restitution, that he might see his seed, prolong his days, and that the purpose of the LORD might prosper by his hand:

**
See new reply to Harel today.

So, what disease did Israel have in 53:10? And if Israel is the point of 53, how did Israel's stripes heal Israel (by His stripes, we are healed, verse 5)?

How did Israel take up Israel's pain (verse 4)? It's self-recursive nonsense to read the chapter this way. You'll have to go to a rabbinic "Israel suffers for the Gentiles too", which makes Isaiah's OUR statements nonsensical, but still includes the subset of Israel's need! Another example: "Like one from whom people hide their faces he was despised, and we held him in low esteem."

So, Israel held Israel in low esteem? That makes no sense--nor is it something any self-respecting Jew would do!

**
By the way, you've made comments that it's not right to say Hebrew patriarchs and others foreshadowed the Messiah. Yet Jews for Judaism in an attempt to explain away Psalm 22, makes the entire Psalm a foreshadow of Esther:

For example, Psalm 22 is about David and his tribulations. David faced many difficulties including a revolt led by one of his own sons. Reading the psalms one is struck by David’s expressions of emotion concerning these difficulties and his unwavering faith that God would always stand by him. Although the psalm addresses David’s hardships, the midrash finds a hint to Esther in the words of this psalm. To understand what relationship the midrash is pointing out, we must look at the psalm itself. In this psalm, David covers three subject areas: (1) That enemies surrounded him (for example, in verse 8, 13, and 14). (2) His depression in feeling abandoned (verses 2, 3). (3) His strong faith and calls to praise God (verses 5-6, 24-27). The midrash sees reflected here the same emotions that Esther must have felt when faced with the destruction of her people. Although she was queen, she felt surrounded by those who would kill her. She is fearful and depressed as she stands in the hall waiting to see if the king will extend his staff and accept her (and not kill her). By attributing these emotions to Esther, the midrash is showing that the psalm has a universal aspect that applies to many people in many situations. We see similarities between the life situation of a biblical character and another person. The verses that refer to this biblical personage can be applied metaphorically to the other person who is in the same situation. We see this with Esther, who was in a similar position to that of David in Psalm 22. Thus, verses are applied to other people because of the similarities of their situation but always as metaphor. Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik writes: “Rabbi Joshua ben Levi quoted a verse from Psalm 22, the famous prayer of an individual in distress, forsaken and abandoned: ‘My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?” This psalm reflects the cry of total despair, the shriek of a frightened, lonely child who has suddenly discovered that his or her mother is gone. According to our tradition, Esther recited this psalm on her way to the inner court of Ahasuerus. In a word, it is the psalm of a person who has lost almost all hope and, out of the depths of despair, petitions the Almighty.

Let's be frank, it's common to say X foreshadows Y, as long as it's not Yeshua HaMashiach we're talking about. So we ought to address the pieces of foreshadow and type that touch every bit of Tanakh. How do you explain the over 100 comparisons between Joseph and Jesus, for example?

**
Don't fear Yeshua, who said, "Think not that I am come to destroy Tanakh: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."

 

[Harel13]

You are well read and highly intelligent

I think you're also intelligent but are caught up in these Christian twistings of the Tanach, which is unfortunate. It's one thing to believe in the truth of Christianity. It's another thing to twist up the Tanach to suit Christianity's needs. I don't think you'll find all Christians doing this.

But we still have issues with lions--they, like all large carnivores (or football defenders) go for the torso/big parts of the body. Even if extinct Judean lions were different from modern lions, who bit KING DAVID's hands and feet? Why would we recognize something so inherently nonsensical, even as metaphor?

Why is it nonsensical? The verse doesn't say "Lion bit my hands and feet", it says "they were like a lion at my hands and feet" - these enemies were like a lion - not that there was an actual lion there (although earlier in his life, David did fight a lion (and a bear)). It's a metaphor. כארי means "like a lion".

The Septuagint recognizes a vowel choice

The seemingly extra Alef? Is that what you're referring to? There aren't vowels in Hebrew (that's why Jewish and non-Jewish pronunciations of Biblical names often differ drastically. For example, Jews say "Bil'am" while non-Jews say "Balaam"). What we're looking at is, from the Septuagint's perspective, two consonant mistakes - that's a lot, for one word. That's a view that I find hard to swallow, especially considering that the seemingly misspelled word is an actual, viable word that even appears in other places in the Tanach.

Why are you ignoring my statement that without a verse fragment of Psalm 22, most of the whole Psalm is Messianic, and was hinted at by Yeshua, who declared verse 1 on the cross?

I didn't feel a need at the time to reply to that.
As you insist:
It is said in a midrash that Esther said this verse as she was approaching Achashverosh's throne room. Not everyone who says that verse expects people to infer that they are the person in that Psalm. Some people say verses when they die. It's become Jewish practice to say the Shema before death, like Rabbi Akiva did (also tortured to death by the Romans). Even if Jesus expected his followers to infer from his dying words that he believed he was the subject of Psalm 22: a. there really isn't any concrete evidence that Jesus was the messiah. b. David himself had some harsh things happen during his lifetime - I see no problem, therefore, to stay with the classic understanding that this psalm therefore is about David himself and is not meant to be messianic. c. it could still be argued to be messianic but not in the classic sense - as all kings are anointed, all kings are meshichim, and therefore, it is messianic as a psalm talking about one of these meshichim - King David.

Why ignore my statement that hundreds, even thousands, of other Tanakh verses point to Yeshua as Messiah/King/G_d?

Because I disagree with that notion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You've missed the point in your "understanding" of the linguistics involved. The original text lacks vowels, some added a vowel to make it "like a lion at my hands and feet", some "they pierced my hands and feet". Execution similar to a crucifixion is called "hanging" in the OT. No one bit or nipped at King David's extremities and the obvious choice in Psalm 22, which is entirely descriptive of Messiah Jesus, is "pierced". Jesus even quoted this Psalm, first thing on the cross.

Jews choose a different vowel than Messianic Jews or Gentile Christians--because there are implications.

PS. I DID describe 15 other appearances of the Hebrew word in the LXX text. ALL OF THEM ARE ABOUT DIGGING THINGS, NOT LIONS.

Harel accounted for all of that and went above and beyond to provide additional evidence to support his claims. A piece of evidence you propose is nothing more that add a literal approach in what is there instead of acknowledging alternatives, such as behaviors of a now extinct species, or even metaphorical langauge. But pointing out it seems odd in that translation (which was demonstrated by Harel to be absent in other translations) isn't actual evidence there is a problem with it. Myself, I see it as metaphor, as even though its not something a lion we know would do, and though its not the worst they can do, its still an incredibly powerful image.

 

[February-Saturday]

The problem of evil and "fire and brimstone" preaching. By the time I finally found esoteric and mystical interpretations of Christianity that actually made sense to me, I had already become a Satanist after a very lengthy and personal spiritual journey.

At this point, it seems rather silly to convert back. If I was to become a Christian at all, I'd become a Gnostic Spiritualist, but I have no real incentive to make that change and even if I did then I'd have to resolve a number of theological disagreements.

So right now, I mostly reject Christ because the rejection of Christ is sort of inherent to Cainite Satanist beliefs. I see him as an emissary of the Old Testament God, who I see as the demiurge, and I hold an interpretation of Gnostic practice that's incompatible with most modern forms of Christian Gnosticism.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I think you're also intelligent but are caught up in these Christian twistings of the Tanach, which is unfortunate. It's one thing to believe in the truth of Christianity. It's another thing to twist up the Tanach to suit Christianity's needs. I don't think you'll find all Christians doing this.

Why is it nonsensical? The verse doesn't say "Lion bit my hands and feet", it says "they were like a lion at my hands and feet" - these enemies were like a lion - not that there was an actual lion there (although earlier in his life, David did fight a lion (and a bear)). It's a metaphor. כארי means "like a lion".

The seemingly extra Alef? Is that what you're referring to? There aren't vowels in Hebrew (that's why Jewish and non-Jewish pronunciations of Biblical names often differ drastically. For example, Jews say "Bil'am" while non-Jews say "Balaam"). What we're looking at is, from the Septuagint's perspective, two consonant mistakes - that's a lot, for one word. That's a view that I find hard to swallow, especially considering that the seemingly misspelled word is an actual, viable word that even appears in other places in the Tanach.

I didn't feel a need at the time to reply to that.
As you insist:
It is said in a midrash that Esther said this verse as she was approaching Achashverosh's throne room. Not everyone who says that verse expects people to infer that they are the person in that Psalm. Some people say verses when they die. It's become Jewish practice to say the Shema before death, like Rabbi Akiva did (also tortured to death by the Romans). Even if Jesus expected his followers to infer from his dying words that he believed he was the subject of Psalm 22: a. there really isn't any concrete evidence that Jesus was the messiah. b. David himself had some harsh things happen during his lifetime - I see no problem, therefore, to stay with the classic understanding that this psalm therefore is about David himself and is not meant to be messianic. c. it could still be argued to be messianic but not in the classic sense - as all kings are anointed, all kings are meshichim, and therefore, it is messianic as a psalm talking about one of these meshichim - King David.

Because I disagree with that notion.

Why were people growling or threatening the King's hands and feet, do you think? Have you had someone threaten your four hands and feet before? Please tell me more.

You write about "Christian" abuses of scripture. Are you aware that all 12 NT authors were Jews? That 2/3 of the NT was penned by a rabbi? That most of the NT is midrash? That 65% of Revelation is simply quoting OT verses, etc.? That the word "Christian" means "follower of Christos" and that "Christos" is the Greek way of saying "Mashiach", so that the first Christians were simply Messianic Jews?

Even though the Hebrew manuscripts that say “lion” outnumber the manuscripts that say “pierced,” the older Hebrew manuscripts, and manuscripts in other languages that predate most of the Hebrew manuscripts, strongly argue for “pierced” being the correct reading. Those who argue for “lion” typically claim that “pierced” is a corruption, inserted by Christians, in an attempt to create a prophecy about Jesus. However, the fact that there are many manuscripts that predate Christianity that have the “pierced” reading disproves this concept. In fact, it is more likely that the “lion” reading in the Masoretic Hebrew text is the corruption, as the Masoretic manuscripts predominantly date to the 3rd and 4th centuries AD, after Christianity was established, giving the Jews a reason to conceal what the Hebrew Scriptures predict regarding Jesus Christ. Source: What is the correct translation of Psalm 22:16? | GotQuestions.org

The same source disagrees with your consonant statement: "All that separates the two Hebrew words is the length of an upright vowel stroke," one of my earlier points.

"There isn't any concrete evidence that Jesus was the Messiah." Are you referring to:

* the NT, a sizable volume written by 12 teams of Jewish writers/scribes?

* the Tanakh's prediction that the Jewish Messiah will be sought by the Gentiles, with 1/3 of the world Christian and 1/3, Muslim, who say Jesus is sinless, a prophet and the Lord of Judgment Day?

* the hundreds of prophecies, mishnahs and logical proofs offered in the NT scriptures?

* the fact that Daniel 9 predicts the Messiah would die for the sin of the world on Pesach, 30 AD?

* etc.

 

[Harel13]

Why were people growling or threatening the King's hands and feet, do you think? Have you had someone threaten your four hands and feet before? Please tell me more.

a. It does not say "growling".
b. It's an expression that means that he was surrounded from all sides and was trapped in a tight position.

You write about "Christian" abuses of scripture. Are you aware that all 12 NT authors were Jews?

Heretic Jews. So? What's your point?

That most of the NT is midrash?

Abuse of Midrash. Again, what's your point?

simply Messianic Jews?

Followers of a false messiah. Again, what's your point?

Even though the Hebrew manuscripts that say “lion” outnumber the manuscripts that say “pierced,” the older Hebrew manuscripts, and manuscripts in other languages that predate most of the Hebrew manuscripts, strongly argue for “pierced” being the correct reading. Those who argue for “lion” typically claim that “pierced” is a corruption, inserted by Christians, in an attempt to create a prophecy about Jesus. However, the fact that there are many manuscripts that predate Christianity that have the “pierced” reading disproves this concept. In fact, it is more likely that the “lion” reading in the Masoretic Hebrew text is the corruption, as the Masoretic manuscripts predominantly date to the 3rd and 4th centuries AD, after Christianity was established, giving the Jews a reason to conceal what the Hebrew Scriptures predict regarding Jesus Christ. Source: What is the correct translation of Psalm 22:16? | GotQuestions.org

I'd appreciate actually seeing the sources themselves mentioned here.
The only source that might - just might - be viable is the Dead Sea Scroll, however: a. Something people often don't take into account is the Jewish Halacha of burying useless texts that have holy names written on them. Useless means corrupted, ruined, partially destroyed, etc. If this particular scroll was found in the ground or in a cave, it may very well have been put there because it was corrupted and deemed worthless. b. We still hardly know anything about the Essenes and the Qumranites. Some Christians claim that they were connected to early Christians. For all we know, they preferred the corrupted text.

The same source disagrees with your consonant statement: "All that separates the two Hebrew words is the length of an upright vowel stroke," one of my earlier points

Then the person who answered knows nothing about Hebrew. Not my problem.

* the NT, a sizable volume written by 12 teams of Jewish writers/scribes?

* the Tanakh's prediction that the Jewish Messiah will be sought by the Gentiles, with 1/3 of the world Christian and 1/3, Muslim, who say Jesus is sinless, a prophet and the Lord of Judgment Day?

* the hundreds of prophecies, mishnahs and logical proofs offered in the NT scriptures?

* the fact that Daniel 9 predicts the Messiah would die for the sin of the world on Pesach, 30 AD?

* etc.

None of these.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Harel accounted for all of that and went above and beyond to provide additional evidence to support his claims. A piece of evidence you propose is nothing more that add a literal approach in what is there instead of acknowledging alternatives, such as behaviors of a now extinct species, or even metaphorical langauge. But pointing out it seems odd in that translation (which was demonstrated by Harel to be absent in other translations) isn't actual evidence there is a problem with it. Myself, I see it as metaphor, as even though its not something a lion we know would do, and though its not the worst they can do, its still an incredibly powerful image.

It's an incredibly dense image, respectfully. Who has attacked your hands and feet? Why not just David's feet? "Watch out man, I think the four of them are about to go for your hands and feet, bro!"

Was he on all fours on the ground? Did His enemies lie down on the ground to growl at his feet? Or did anyone try to bite David's feet?

Being fair-minded, you'll want to see my latest reply to Harel, and the evidence on this page also: What is the correct translation of Psalm 22:16? | GotQuestions.org

 

[BilliardsBall]

a. It does not say "growling".
b. It's an expression that means that he was surrounded from all sides and was trapped in a tight position.

Heretic Jews. So? What's your point?

Abuse of Midrash. Again, what's your point?

Followers of a false messiah. Again, what's your point?

I'd appreciate actually seeing the sources themselves mentioned here.
The only source that might - just might - be viable is the Dead Sea Scroll, however: a. Something people often don't take into account is the Jewish Halacha of burying useless texts that have holy names written on them. Useless means corrupted, ruined, partially destroyed, etc. If this particular scroll was found in the ground or in a cave, it may very well have been put there because it was corrupted and deemed worthless. b. We still hardly know anything about the Essenes and the Qumranites. Some Christians claim that they were connected to early Christians. For all we know, they preferred the corrupted text.

Then the person who answered knows nothing about Hebrew. Not my problem.

None of these.

Of course! EVERY Christian translator, and the Jews who wrote the earliest extant texts, ALL knew NOTHING of Hebrew. That has to be it. Why couldn't I see it before?

And of course it's a metaphor, they "surrounded me from all sides, I was trapped by their surrounding my hands and feet." THIS is your explanation? Do you think it works better as metaphor, "it was like I was trapped by the hands and feet," or as literal "they trapped my hands and feet"?

Thousands of protesters in recent weeks were "kettled" by American police, who would surround them by cutting off, say, four intersections on all four sides of their streets, penning them in until after curfew, then arresting them for violating curfew! I've cried some and prayed hard about the violence on both sides this month, for sure. I've read a book on policing and read dozens of reports from the scene, none of which said,

"The cops surrounded us man, they trapped us all by our hands and feet, you know, like on our four sides!"

There's no Hebrew or Tanakh idiom to match your Psalm 22 "metaphor" that I know of. I will probably still worship Yeshua if that's the best you have here.

Tanakh says the Gentiles will pursue Mashiach and Jesus has 2/3 of the world to date. THAT's my point.

Tanakh says our enemies would scatter us if we rejected the "prophet like Moses" and the second diaspora started in 70 AD then 110 AD, just when Yeshua said it would, with the destruction of the Temple. THAT's my point.

"I don't know who Mashiach is, but I know the 900 midrashim of the NT are all false, because 12 teams of Jews went crazy at once," isn't working for me. Is it really working for you?

Yeshua says--though it is remnant now of us who might trust in Him--that we Jews have two blessings in Him, two covenants. Get blessed, bruchah!

 

[Harel13]

Of course! EVERY Christian translator, and the Jews who wrote the earliest extant texts, ALL knew NOTHING of Hebrew. That has to be it. Why couldn't I see it before?

I didn't say that. When scribes copy texts, they sometimes make mistakes. If that's the case, then there's no reason to blame the copies used by the Qumranites/Essenes.

And of course it's a metaphor, they "surrounded me from all sides, I was trapped by their surrounding my hands and feet." THIS is your explanation? Do you think it works better as metaphor, "it was like I was trapped by the hands and feet," or as literal "they trapped my hands and feet"?

Thousands of protesters in recent weeks were "kettled" by American police, who would surround them by cutting off, say, four intersections on all four sides of their streets, penning them in until after curfew, then arresting them for violating curfew! I've cried some and prayed hard about the violence on both sides this month, for sure. I've read a book on policing and read dozens of reports from the scene, none of which said,

"The cops surrounded us man, they trapped us all by our hands and feet, you know, like on our four sides!"

Metaphor? It's an expression he used to describe the situation he was in.
I don't know why you think bringing a modern day example will make sense considering this is ancient Hebrew, in an ancient context.

I will probably still worship Yeshua if that's the best you have here.

As mentioned many posts ago, I'm not trying to bring you back to Judaism, as proselytizing is not allowed here.

because 12 teams of Jews went crazy at once,

I think you mean, a team of 12 Jews, not 12 teams of Jews.
But do you really want examples of more crazy Jews who followed false messiahs? Heck, even sane Jews followed false messiahs.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's an incredibly dense image, respectfully. Who has attacked your hands and feet? Why not just David's feet? "Watch out man, I think the four of them are about to go for your hands and feet, bro!"

Was he on all fours on the ground? Did His enemies lie down on the ground to growl at his feet? Or did anyone try to bite David's feet?

Thats what would expect literary analysis based on critical theory that lacks scant evidence and is nothing more than a speculative suggestion.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

Why did you reject christ after having a genuine personal relationship with and his god?

Did you have a conversation with him (if you had a genuine relationship with christ before) and told me hey, see ya? or had a deep talk of departure?

If you had a genuine relationship with the christian god directly, the same questions.

Many people reject christianity, but I'm wondering if they had a relationship with christ, how did they reject christ and/or his god. There is a difference.

For me, I never had a relationship with christ's father. Never believed he existed. Christ, I can kinda understand, because he was a human flesh and blood. That, and I do believe in spirits (say of my loved ones), so this wasn't too hard to "get." The more I worshiped, the less I worshiped. It was an intense feeling of "this isn't right for you." Then I say and thought about what my priest said to me before I went to RCIA. "Maybe you should wait." Now, if Churches want you to come to church and be saved, what priest would ask you to wait first?

So, however you define it, I said in so many words "hey, jesus. I know you're important to people. I can't believe in human sacrifice. (I feel its wrong to worship 'you' as a person/flesh/however defined). This is my last actual Mass.

That's it.

I'm more open than most since I really have nothing to hide about my spiritual life. I did read a native american quote (I posted it somewhere). The author of this book asked her chief if she can use his words in her book. He says, "Of course you can use them. They are not my words, but of god". (Context please)

Why did you reject christ after having a genuine personal relationship with and his god?

I reject Christianity but not Jesus.
But no, we cannot have "relationships" with dead people.

I accept Jesus as a Prophet of God/Satan.
I regard the Christ and the Antichrist to be one and the same; Jesus.
Jesus is the/an antichrist to the Jews, and the Christ to the Christians.
He serves a role in history, mainly eschatological roles.
So far his role has been to bring hell on earth (Catholicism/Protestantism).

He will "return" and spit in the face of those who worshiped him. He will dispel the illusions about him, he will strike terror into the hearts of those that call themselves "Christians".

 

[IndigoChild5559]

**
See new reply to Harel today.

So, what disease did Israel have in 53:10? And if Israel is the point of 53, how did Israel's stripes heal Israel (by His stripes, we are healed, verse 5)?

Look up the term "Vicarious suffering." The faithful remnant of Israel suffers for Israel at large.

By the way, you've made comments that it's not right to say Hebrew patriarchs and others foreshadowed the Messiah. Yet Jews for Judaism in an attempt to explain away Psalm 22, makes the entire Psalm a foreshadow of Esther:

Two Jews, three opinions. I stand by what I said.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

A legend is a "legend", and thats what it is.

Anyway, the Septuagint was therised to be originally only the Torah and it was later the rest of the OT was translated into Greek. But a translation being better or worse has to be judged by the translation itself.

Peace.

You judge the competency of a translation by comparing it to the original language text.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I reject Christianity but not Jesus.
But no, we cannot have "relationships" with dead people.

I accept Jesus as a Prophet of God/Satan.
I regard the Christ and the Antichrist to be one and the same; Jesus.
Jesus is the/an antichrist to the Jews, and the Christ to the Christians.
He serves a role in history, mainly eschatological roles.
So far his role has been to bring hell on earth (Catholicism/Protestantism).

He will "return" and spit in the face of those who worshiped him. He will dispel the illusions about him, he will strike terror into the hearts of those that call themselves "Christians".

But you didn't reject him, so I don't see how this relates to the question?

 

[firedragon]

You judge the competency of a translation by comparing it to the original language text.

Nope.

 

[halbhh]

Why did you reject christ after having a genuine personal relationship with and his god?

Practically less than 1% or 2% I think have done that.

Instead, far more typical, as myself as a teen, was to leave because the people in a church were judgmental and/or not loving.

In other words, some portion well up close to 95% or 98% I think reject a congregation or church generally, as distinct from Christ (whom sometimes is not known well: not well enough to have learned much He said).

It's usually missing good things -- "love one another" and "Do not judge." (Christ's actual and often unknown central teachings about how to live here on Earth) -- that many feel are missing from a church. That's why they leave, as people report in surveys.

How many would leave a place where they had a lot of friends they loved? Only for moving to go to college or a new job, really.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I didn't say that. When scribes copy texts, they sometimes make mistakes. If that's the case, then there's no reason to blame the copies used by the Qumranites/Essenes.

Metaphor? It's an expression he used to describe the situation he was in.
I don't know why you think bringing a modern day example will make sense considering this is ancient Hebrew, in an ancient context.

As mentioned many posts ago, I'm not trying to bring you back to Judaism, as proselytizing is not allowed here.

I think you mean, a team of 12 Jews, not 12 teams of Jews.
But do you really want examples of more crazy Jews who followed false messiahs? Heck, even sane Jews followed false messiahs.

12 teams--have you read any of the New Testament? Most of the epistles start with X and X or with Scribe Y . . . Luke starts with "I'm an eyewitness and interviewed fellow eyewitnesses . . . "

Can you explain your interpretation? How do people behave "like a lion" at your hands and feet? For example, I've had people growl or threaten me or my person or my bank account, not my hands or feet.

By the way, do you this passage, also from Isaiah?

Shall a woman forget her sucking child, from having mercy on the child of her womb? These too shall forget, but I will not forget you. טוהֲתִשְׁכַּ֚ח אִשָּׁה֙ עוּלָ֔הּ מֵֽרַחֵ֖ם בֶּן־בִּטְנָ֑הּ גַּם־אֵ֣לֶּה תִשְׁכַּ֔חְנָה וְאָֽנֹכִ֖י לֹ֥א אֶשְׁכָּחֵֽךְ:
Behold on [My] hands have I engraved you; your walls are before Me always.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Thats what would expect literary analysis based on critical theory that lacks scant evidence and is nothing more than a speculative suggestion.

And speaking as someone who is a co-chair at English conferences including literary analysis, it helps when someone gives you a counter example. You're simply saying you don't like my style of analysis, but without providing your own. So please tell me:

* What kinds of lions attack hands and feet?

* Why is the word used the other 15 times in the Hebrew Bible as dug/pierced?

* When you surround someone per the text, are you planning to attack their hands and feet only?

* If I say, sure, "like a lion at His hands and feet," do you not recognize that Jesus's hands and feet were assaulted, when He was surrounded by Gentiles, per Psalm 22?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Look up the term "Vicarious suffering." The faithful remnant of Israel suffers for Israel at large.

Two Jews, three opinions. I stand by what I said.

Who is the faithful remnant and how are they faithful?