How in the world can ANYBODY think the Jews and Christians have the same god, that Jesus is messiah?

[metis]

I'm not sure comma placement is going to help your case, here?

Pele yôëtz ël GiBôr áviyad sar-shälôm

(miracle advise god powerful everlasting ruler peace)

Is a name declaration, is it not? Sorry for the hamfisted transliteration. So how can you add verbage mid-stride like that to completely alter the meaning of the original hebrew?

I have to admit, I've not seen it rendered in this way you've presented. Please let me know your source so I can look closer at it.



Okay. I'm fine with this because much of OT prophecy relates to the Jews at the time, but clearly point forward as well, to later time, such as end times (dual fulfillment -- for example Jeremiah 50). But let's be honest here: this passage has mixed tense, lending the reader to probably, I don't know, flip a coin about which direction to go in? It's not a mystery why Judaism would opt for the past/present approach and Christianity would reach toward the future. But let's see the transliteration?

waT'hiy haMis'räh al-shikh'mô

(therefore come to pass the empire/government hung from the neck/shoulder)

It's clearly forward facing. It cannot be understood any other way.

Thus, you'd have the task of identifying exactly who this is speaking of at the time, if it were present/past tense. It seems the Judaism/Rabbinic mindset would say Hezekiah? At least, that's my experience here. But, I don't know, though, it's probably a bad idea to name any man "everlasting." And, well... Mighty God? Don't you consider it heresy? (Hezekiah does not mean "Mighty God" afterall -- it means God is my strength, or maybe God strengthens?)

Exacerbating this slippery slope is the fact of age -- Hezekiah was middle aged when Isaiah would begin his work. I'm not sure a child born would refer to a middle aged man? The age overlap alone poses problems to that theory.

But sticking to tense, as I read the chapter wholly, this verse leads in pretty well to the point Isaiah was making working up to it, and closes well with the future tenses after it. Meaning, I'm not sure he's actually talking about someone who was just born or already born. It's tough the changeover in tense seems to happen right in the first words of verse 6 here, but I don't think you can read it strictly as past/present tense, considering the text around it.

If we stand back from an individual tree so as to look at the forest, this can sometimes help to clarify the direction a particular narrative was taking. So, with that in mind, let's look at what the book of Isaiah is about in general: We didn't follow God's Law closely enough, we were punished by being invaded by the Syrians, we learned our lesson, and needed to follow the Law more carefully.

This is not at all an usual theme in the Tanakh, so how is it that this theme somehow points in the direction of Jesus and Christianity, the latter of which chose not to follow most of the Law? Why would God demand we follow the Law but somehow then switch His allegiance to a group that mostly doesn't? Even if one claims that Jesus followed the entire Law, a conjectural conclusion to say the least based on certain verses, this still is a moot point since the church still walked away from the Law as we see in Acts and Paul's epistles and the history of Christianity thereafter.

 

[Katzpur]

If you have a body, you can't see behind you, where your eyes don't see. You can't hear beyond a certain distance. You need to eat, sleep, excrete. You need to breathe. You have physical needs.

You seem to be equating physical with mortal. They are not the same. How does your God see at all without eyes?

Size... If you are too big, you can't fit in some spaces. If you are too small, you can't reach things that are beyond your height.

But why would you need to fit anywhere or reach anywhere, if you could, solely through your power alone, accomplish whatever fitting or reaching might accomplish.

Simple physical existence is limited. And if you are above the need for organs that supply the five senses to your brain, or any other physical needs, you have no limits.

Again, physical is not the same thing as mortal.

I'm surprised that you don't understand this.

And I'm surprised you think that God would have any needs, regardless of His appearance. If you think that there is anything that would override His omnipotence, then perhaps you don't see him as omnipotent in the first place.

 

[Akivah]

Sorry for the hamfisted transliteration. So how can you add verbage mid-stride like that to completely alter the meaning of the original hebrew? I have to admit, I've not seen it rendered in this way you've presented. Please let me know your source so I can look closer at it.

Hello Catch22

You should be aware that every Christian biblical verse that purports to be from the Jewish bible to provide support for the Christian idol has either been mistranslated, ripped out of context, or completely made up.

Here is a link to an in-depth analysis of this particular verse.

http://www.thejewishhome.org/counter/Isa9_56.pdf

 

[catch22]

This isn't about comma placement though. It is about the grammar of the sentence and the sensibility of the author. The text reads "and he called his name" but doesn't identify the He unless you see that the descriptors which have in otgher places been used for a particular "He" (God) refer to God here. Thus, " and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name"

Nothing is being changed midstride.

Sure: Yeshayahu - Chapter 9 - Tanakh Online - Torah - Bible

First, thank you for your reply. And I will read this source, thanks.

Try, "va'tehi hamisra al shichmo" and it is the government is on his shoulder. It is present tense. No other way to see it.

Is this what is written down, though?

Also, can we say there is really tense in ancient, prophetic hebrew, as we understand tense today? Or were there perfects (completed actions, or actions foreseen completed) and imperfects (incomplete)? If this is the case, the written word found in the DSS/Masoretic texts are going to appear as prophetic perfect, similarly to Isaiah 5:13.

The text is said to be ABOUT Hezekiah/Chizkiyahu, not that he is the speaker. Since everlasting and mighty God don't refer to Hezekiah, there is no question.

This I know, I didn't mean to imply he was the one doing the talking. The issue here is who is the child born referenced by Isaiah in this passage? And the long string of the name, I have no impression from any ancient source from which to derive scripture that the name list has anything to do with God the way you are presenting it, nor do I think any honest scholar does, either. I don't expect a writer in the ancient world to have such fumbling use of his own language to re-assign names with a different subject mid-sentence. There's just no language there to make a case for it. It's a clear declaration for the child's name.

I mean "A child has been born to us, a child has been given to us, authority is on his shoulders, his name is called BY THE WAY GOD IS THE AWESOME COUNSELOR AND MIGHTY GOD AND EVERLASTING FATHER: ruler of peace."

It doesn't work with the words written down (for example, see: http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah#9:6). If you just read the hebrew as it's written, it makes a lot more sense structurally and grammatically. This isn't even an issue of debate among scholars. I'm not sure why we are stuck on this point. A better case would be the exact meaning of the various names/titles the child is called (such as ruler, not prince, of peace -- Elgibbor as a name demonstrating the likeness of God within a person, etc).

The translators of the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah render it in a way that varies, but yet is still fairly similar, to the 16th century KJV and virtually all manuscript based variation of the Holy Bible.

In other words, the text reference you are using unfairly alters the meaning of the passage as far as I can tell.

So Hezekiah wasn't born in the past? Your argument that he was middle aged only corroborates the tense of the text and invalidates any claim that this is a future prophecy.

But that's not even the point. The point is why talk about things to come from Assyria (Chapter 9 verses 2-4), then start talking about Hezekiah being born, when uh, he was already alive? Then apply prophetic perfect to him, when he was already alive, middle aged, and in control of the government about the time Isaiah might have written it. Then, continue on through the remainder of chapter 9 with prophetic perfects?

He certainly wasn't a ruler of peace. And His son fell into apostasy making sacrifices to molek, so I mean, some prophet Isaiah is, huh?

It just doesn't make sense. I question this passage references only Hezekiah (if it references him at all, that is). I am willing to understand it in a dual fulfillment sense, that at the time people would understand it to be Hezekiah, but there's really more there to it to make one wonder what else Isaiah might be on about. The naming thing is merely another demonstration it has nothing to do with him individually, because yeah, you don't call a person Everlasting Father or Mighty God -- and I cannot accept the explanation Isaiah is suddenly shifting attributes to God mid statement when the subject of the statement is the child. It makes no logical sense, and there's nothing in the OT-Hebrew, DSS, or Masoretic texts to justify that position.

"A child is born a child is given to us, authority is on his shoulders, and he is called: <name declaration>"

It's a simple sentence, why add so much complexity if it isn't there in any of the ancient scrolls?

If we stand back from an individual tree so as to look at the forest, this can sometimes help to clarify the direction a particular narrative was taking. So, with that in mind, let's look at what the book of Isaiah is about in general: We didn't follow God's Law closely enough, we were punished by being invaded by the Syrians, we learned our lesson, and needed to follow the Law more carefully.

This is not at all an usual theme in the Tanakh, so how is it that this theme somehow points in the direction of Jesus and Christianity, the latter of which chose not to follow most of the Law? Why would God demand we follow the Law but somehow then switch His allegiance to a group that mostly doesn't? Even if one claims that Jesus followed the entire Law, a conjectural conclusion to say the least based on certain verses, this still is a moot point since the church still walked away from the Law as we see in Acts and Paul's epistles and the history of Christianity thereafter.

If you're going to do this for the book of Isaiah, why not do it for the Bible as a whole? For example (very brief):

I made man. Man messed up. I tried to discipline them. I even started over with the only righteous people I could find. Still, they constantly reject me and fall into idolatry, sin... Clearly, they aren't getting it. Man cannot uphold my laws, after all this. But, I'm not going to flood them again, I'm not going to give up on them yet... I'll fix this situation with a Savior.

Granted this is very simplistic -- but more depth adds more basis for it, not the opposite (at least, in my opinion). Christians do this, this is why it makes sense to us.

Law, law, law. What good is Law to God if in man's heart he cannot obey it? If in even his actions, throughout his life, he will surely disobey it? How many sacrifices should you make before you realize you will die condemned under the law?

It might be unfair to say Christians walked away from the law. We just weren't under it anymore, it was fulfilled, and something else was introduced. I know that's rough for the follower of Judaism to hear, but that's kind of what the whole Bible is about. Israel cannot uphold God's laws, and in the end, Israel is unrepentant about that. Though, is God not good to Israel in all of that? It's no surprise God's further interactions with Israel would fall similarly on deaf ears (as throughout all of the OT, as you even point out), and probably why the gentiles enter the scene. Do you think God wants to do the same dance for all eternity?

It's the whole point of this thread, ultimately. Same God? The question shouldn't be if God is the same, so much as it should be: can man acknowledge who God really is?

 

[catch22]

Hello Catch22

You should be aware that every Christian biblical verse that purports to be from the Jewish bible to provide support for the Christian idol has either been mistranslated, ripped out of context, or completely made up.

Here is a link to an in-depth analysis of this particular verse.

http://www.thejewishhome.org/counter/Isa9_56.pdf

Thanks for that. There are mistranslations, yes. The goal is to ascertain which is most authentic to the original writings. I'll have to look at your source, it will take me some time.

Blessings.

 

[BilliardsBall]

When you start with that translation, you end up with a particular understanding. Try this one: "For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace." "
This text does refer to a human, but to a human who had already been born. This is not about a future messianic figure. The descriptions are of God, not the person.

You are the first apologist I've encountered who admits the passage says the mighty G_d, but perhaps, since this is "a human who had already been born" you might tell us who the PRINCE OF PEACE was who had been born when Isaiah was preaching.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't think very many Christians have a lot of academical interest in the accuracy of the claims of their own religion.

Their main, most frequent motivation when that subject is raised seems to be to attain a degree of certainty that there is a single beacon of hope and guidance for all of humanity and that it will somehow be clear enough to heal any serious disagreements.

The very reason why the two major proselitist monotheisms (Christianity and Islam) are so wildly popular (entirely out of proportion to the merits of their religious doctrines, IMO) is, from all appearances, their promise of allowing believers relief from the stress of having to carefully measure the worth of religious claims and conflicting directives. Instead, they allow and even encourage those so inclined to just get attached to a specific group and trust that it is correctly guided.

Unfortunately, that is a naive, dangerous hope. For those lacking in religious courage, those more inclined to attempt to redefine meanings and perceptions than to learn from their experiences, it often leads to all-out lying, even to themselves. Acknowledging the subtleties and oversimplifications of their faiths may be just too painful, even unthinkable for them.

The Bahai Faith suffers a lot from it as well, which is a shame, for the basic idea of a religion that attempts to be respectful to its predecessors and learn from them is a worthy one. Yet it, too, has fallen prey to the temptation of lying about and misrepresenting that which it claims to want to honor.

TLDR: There is a conflict between the quests for truth and confort. Many people end up choosing confort at various degrees of expense of truth, and it turns out that the monotheistic proselitist faiths pretty much embrace that as a means of expansion.


Edited to add: as for their respective deities, I just don't see how one can seriously believe that conceptions of deity unite even Judaism or Christianity, let alone both.

The same is just as true of Islam and the Bahai Faith, although I suspect and hope that it may be a bit less so for Sikhism.

Deity conceptions are simply way too personal to ever be capable of uniting believers. It takes actual practice and some sort of effort at reaching out and understanding and acknowledging others for such union to happen in any sort of meaningful way.

Your comments sound informed but the first sentence, since every born again Christian I know is fascinated by the accuracy of the Bible's truth claims. Even those who go apostate from the faith have usually done so because they are researching the Bible evidences, albeit down the wrong rabbit holes.

It is not as you wrote a naïve, dangerous hope to trust in Jesus "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." Indeed, He Himself is the blessed hope.

 

[rosends]

First, thank you for your reply. And I will read this source, thanks.



Is this what is written down, though?

Also, can we say there is really tense in ancient, prophetic hebrew, as we understand tense today?

As biblical text were always understood. Then and now. Your claim was about tense. Tense is as tense is. If my understanding is in error, why is yours any more authoritative?

This I know, I didn't mean to imply he was the one doing the talking. The issue here is who is the child born referenced by Isaiah in this passage? And the long string of the name, I have no impression from any ancient source from which to derive scripture that the name list has anything to do with God the way you are presenting it, nor do I think any honest scholar does, either.

So every Jewish scholar for the last 2000 years is dishonest. OK...

I don't expect a writer in the ancient world to have such fumbling use of his own language to re-assign names with a different subject mid-sentence. There's just no language there to make a case for it. It's a clear declaration for the child's name.

Of course it isn't fumbling unless you start without a working knowledge of the language involved. I find your mistranslation to be fumbling and embarrassingly bad. Go figure.

I mean "A child has been born to us, a child has been given to us, authority is on his shoulders, his name is called BY THE WAY GOD IS THE AWESOME COUNSELOR AND MIGHTY GOD AND EVERLASTING FATHER: ruler of peace."

Well, how about "a child has been born to use and X calls his name...". You don't like it but that's what it means.

It doesn't work with the words written down (for example, see: http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah#9:6). If you just read the hebrew as it's written, it makes a lot more sense structurally and grammatically.

well, that's a specious argument as you don't read the Hebrew.

This isn't even an issue of debate among scholars.

is that because all the Jewish explanation for 2000 years isn't from "scholars"? It becomes simple when you deny the authority of certain "scholars."

The translators of the Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah render it in a way that varies, but yet is still fairly similar, to the 16th century KJV and virtually all manuscript based variation of the Holy Bible.

except the ones I post which must, therefore be wrong, right?

In other words, the text reference you are using unfairly alters the meaning of the passage as far as I can tell.

as far as I can tell, the text you quote is not at all related to the Hebrew.

But that's not even the point. The point is why talk about things to come from Assyria (Chapter 9 verses 2-4), then start talking about Hezekiah being born, when uh, he was already alive? Then apply prophetic perfect to him, when he was already alive, middle aged, and in control of the government about the time Isaiah might have written it. Then, continue on through the remainder of chapter 9 with prophetic perfects?

I think you misunderstand the role of the prophet within Judaism. When you start with a stilted understanding of what a prophet does, you end up with messed up interpretations.

He certainly wasn't a ruler of peace. And His son fell into apostasy making sacrifices to molek, so I mean, some prophet Isaiah is, huh?

there was peace in his time. Should I start quoting other text to support that? I can, you know.

It just doesn't make sense.

To you. And yet to Jews for2000 years, it has. Crazy. All Jews must be wrong?
I question this passage references only Hezekiah (if it references him at all, that is).

It makes no logical sense, and there's nothing in the OT-Hebrew, DSS, or Masoretic texts to justify that position.

I*'ll make a list of exegetes from the last 1000+ years whom you can inform of that. They seem to disagree.

"A child is born a child is given to us, authority is on his shoulders, and he is called: <name declaration>"

It's a simple sentence, why add so much complexity if it isn't there in any of the ancient scrolls?

There isn't when you try to explain it using a flawed translation. It really is that simple. Start with error, end with error. Learn the original and you will see that it isn't as you present.

If you're going to do this for the book of Isaiah, why not do it for the Bible as a whole? For example (very brief):

I made man. Man messed up. I tried to discipline them. I even started over with the only righteous people I could find. Still, they constantly reject me and fall into idolatry, sin... Clearly, they aren't getting it. Man cannot uphold my laws, after all this. But, I'm not going to flood them again, I'm not going to give up on them yet... I'll fix this situation with a Savior.

Do what? deny what the text actually says because I allow some guys in 1611 to tell me meaning based on their agenda? I'll pass. I prefer an idea of God in which God makes and keep promises and covenants and doesn't have to give laws that man can't keep and then change. Feel free to believe in a mortal and fallible God. That isn't for me. Feel free to invent a notion of "savior". I don't need it.

Granted this is very simplistic -- but more depth adds more basis for it, not the opposite (at least, in my opinion). Christians do this, this is why it makes sense to us.

Have fun with that. It stands outside Jewish text and theology.

Law, law, law. What good is Law to God if in man's heart he cannot obey it? If in even his actions, throughout his life, he will surely disobey it? How many sacrifices should you make before you realize you will die condemned under the law?

Well, we can obey. What good is a speed limit if everyone drives 70 on the highway? I might be accused as breaking God's law and I will certainly have to repent or pay for my sins, but I hope not to be condemned under the law and certainly won't be subject to your erroneous understanding.

It might be unfair to say Christians walked away from the law. We just weren't under it anymore, it was fulfilled, and something else was introduced. I know that's rough for the follower of Judaism to hear, but that's kind of what the whole Bible is about. Israel cannot uphold God's laws, and in the end, Israel is unrepentant about that. Though, is God not good to Israel in all of that? It's no surprise God's further interactions with Israel would fall similarly on deaf ears (as throughout all of the OT, as you even point out), and probably why the gentiles enter the scene. Do you think God wants to do the same dance for all eternity?

you walked away from that which you were never obligated to follow. You may not want to hear it, but there you go.

 

[rosends]

You are the first apologist I've encountered who admits the passage says the mighty G_d, but perhaps, since this is "a human who had already been born" you might tell us who the PRINCE OF PEACE was who had been born when Isaiah was preaching.

Here:
"… called his name: The Holy One, blessed be He, Who gives wondrous counsel, is a mighty God and an everlasting Father, called Hezekiah’s name, “the prince of peace,” since peace and truth will be in his days."

 

[metis]

If you're going to do this for the book of Isaiah, why not do it for the Bible as a whole?

Because the "N.T." takes on a different tone from the Tanakh.

Law, law, law. What good is Law to God if in man's heart he cannot obey it? If in even his actions, throughout his life, he will surely disobey it? How many sacrifices should you make before you realize you will die condemned under the law?

The Law has variable penalties for many infractions and it never states that if one violates one Law he violates all of them. Use some logic here: if you violate a civil law by jay-walking, should you be given the death penalty since you believe breaking one is to break all?

It might be unfair to say Christians walked away from the law. We just weren't under it anymore, it was fulfilled, and something else was introduced. I know that's rough for the follower of Judaism to hear, but that's kind of what the whole Bible is about...

They did walk away from it, so I'm hardly being "unfair". Nor is the Bible "entirely about" the Law being "fulfilled" by anyone.

Israel cannot uphold God's laws, and in the end, Israel is unrepentant about that.

Ever hear of Yom Kippur? Any idea what's that about? Ever look up the word "forgive" and its variations in a concordance to actually see what the Tanakh states about God forgiving us? Ever stop and think about God stating in the Tanakh that the Law is "forever" and "perpetual", and that anyone who tells others that the Law need not be followed is to be considered a "false prophet"?

Logically, why would God give us the Law, punish us if we didn't obey it, and then supposedly turn around and say that it's not important after all? What kind of "god" tells us that these Laws must be followed if they're not that important to be followed whereas they can be just discarded?

Anyhow, you can believe in whatever you want to believe, but your use of stereotyping along with the distortion of what's actually found in the Tanakh makes your opinions above totally worthless to me, so write what you want.

 

[catch22]

As biblical text were always understood. Then and now. Your claim was about tense. Tense is as tense is. If my understanding is in error, why is yours any more authoritative?

It doesn't make me more of an authority. Sorry if I came off that way.

I don't know if prophetic perfect and tense are the same thing, but certainly related... it's really a different way to think about things, depending on what's being conveyed, I suppose (Japanese has a tendency to go with perfect/imperfect as well, which can be weird to germanic speakers).

So every Jewish scholar for the last 2000 years is dishonest. OK...

No, I just think at some point there was probably an obvious shift in viewing this as messianic or not. What about:

JPS (1917)
Targum Jonathan
The Babylonian Talmud
Midrash Rabbah
Iggereth Teman
Ibn Ezra
Targum Isaiah
Sanhedrin 94a
LXX?

Of course it isn't fumbling unless you start without a working knowledge of the language involved. I find your mistranslation to be fumbling and embarrassingly bad. Go figure.

Well, how about "a child has been born to use and X calls his name...". You don't like it but that's what it means.

well, that's a specious argument as you don't read the Hebrew.

No, I don't speak, read, or understand hebrew in any good capacity. If I did, I wouldn't be talking to you and others about it and asking for explanations, would I? And if you don't speak hebrew or read it fluently, why should I listen to you or anything you say?

Okay, before you respond to that, I understand that word order in hebrew isn't as deterministic as it is in english or other languages. On the other hand, passive and active verb usage in even english can similarly greatly change the structure of a sentence -- it's meaning too. I honestly wasn't interested in a conversation on syntax at all, but then you rendered the passage in a strange way, lending different meaning from even the masoretic texts, and here we are.

I, more or less, just want to understand why you render the meaning into english completely differently than anything I'd seen before. Believe it or not: my faith does not rest on Isaiah 9:5/6. If it's about some one else, then okay. If it's been re-rendered to obscure it's actual meaning, then I'd like to know. So far, that really seems to be obvious to me. "You don't speak the language" works on me, sure, but it doesn't work on all the scholars and rabbis I've thus far provided, does it?

Dr. James D. Price has this to say about this particular topic, please see the following link for excerpts on his responses. It's pretty complete.

Bible Commentary: Isaiah 9:6

is that because all the Jewish explanation for 2000 years isn't from "scholars"? It becomes simple when you deny the authority of certain "scholars."

I cited some jewish teachers/teachings above. They seem to agree this passage is messianic. It'd be an interesting study to see the divide on passages over time (maybe around 1611, but I think much later, probably post 1948). I have no knowledge of this, and am too tired to dig into it now, but I'd wager to say there'd be some divide about this thereabouts.

except the ones I post which must, therefore be wrong, right?

as far as I can tell, the text you quote is not at all related to the Hebrew.

Not necessarily, but I'm not sitting here shoving the KJV at you as authority, either.

I think you misunderstand the role of the prophet within Judaism. When you start with a stilted understanding of what a prophet does, you end up with messed up interpretations.

It's fair to say that, I suppose. You'd have to demonstrate my incorrect view, I guess. We can start by you defining prophets within Judaism.

Feel free if you want to pursue this aside.

there was peace in his time. Should I start quoting other text to support that? I can, you know.

To you. And yet to Jews for2000 years, it has. Crazy. All Jews must be wrong?

See my list above. Plenty say it's messianic. The JPS Tanakh is interesting. It seems to agree with me, not you. Who translated that? Jews.

There isn't when you try to explain it using a flawed translation. It really is that simple. Start with error, end with error. Learn the original and you will see that it isn't as you present.

I believe the Price citation above negates this. Is the JPS flawed (1917/1985), too, or does it just hurt your case?

Do what? deny what the text actually says because I allow some guys in 1611 to tell me meaning based on their agenda? I'll pass. I prefer an idea of God in which God makes and keep promises and covenants and doesn't have to give laws that man can't keep and then change. Feel free to believe in a mortal and fallible God. That isn't for me. Feel free to invent a notion of "savior". I don't need it.

Have fun with that. It stands outside Jewish text and theology.

Try not to get butthurt, please. The older Dead Sea Scrolls from the Israel Museum in Jerusalem seem to agree with me, not you. Word order, etc, etc.

See the Price citation, again...

Well, we can obey. What good is a speed limit if everyone drives 70 on the highway? I might be accused as breaking God's law and I will certainly have to repent or pay for my sins, but I hope not to be condemned under the law and certainly won't be subject to your erroneous understanding.

you walked away from that which you were never obligated to follow. You may not want to hear it, but there you go.

No, not my understanding. You are subject to your own erroneous understanding though, and ultimately the consequences of that.

Because the "N.T." takes on a different tone from the Tanakh.

Fair enough, but that doesn't really say anything. So take what I said up to the savior part, and just read Malachi 4, I guess.

The Law has variable penalties for many infractions and it never states that if one violates one Law he violates all of them. Use some logic here: if you violate a civil law by jay-walking, should you be given the death penalty since you believe breaking one is to break all?

What does civil law have to do with God's law? You say God is no man and cannot be, but reason as a man concerning God.

What separates you from God? The little infractions, the big infractions? Any and all infractions?

Little rocks matter, no?

They did walk away from it, so I'm hardly being "unfair". Nor is the Bible "entirely about" the Law being "fulfilled" by anyone.

Ever hear of Yom Kippur? Any idea what's that about? Ever look up the word "forgive" and its variations in a concordance to actually see what the Tanakh states about God forgiving us? Ever stop and think about God stating in the Tanakh that the Law is "forever" and "perpetual", and that anyone who tells others that the Law need not be followed is to be considered a "false prophet"?

When is the last time you gave sufficient sacrifice, by law? You sure you have atonement?

Or is it like a 2,000 year IOU? Honest question.

Logically, why would God give us the Law, punish us if we didn't obey it, and then supposedly turn around and say that it's not important after all? What kind of "god" tells us that these Laws must be followed if they're not that important to be followed whereas they can be just discarded?

I don't know, the kind of God who demands you only make sacrifice to atone your sins at His temple, and then throws it down? Why would God setup such an impossible scenario for you?

Nothing was discarded, fulfillment isn't discarding. Galatians 3 is helpful here.

The law is eternal and perpetual, sure, because God is eternal. But you make a mistake thinking because one wouldn't be subject to it (that is, under it), it would somehow no longer be divine or eternal. Dare I use an example...? Seems futile, but why not. You mentioned jaywalking. What if you had a jaywalking pass for life you were awarded by the president, that gives you a free pardon for jaywalking no matter how many times you violate it? Does jaywalking cease to be? For you, kind of, but it's still a law, it's still there. It just doesn't affect you anymore. You are no longer... under it?

More accurately, you have been given grace to circumvent it.

Anyhow, you can believe in whatever you want to believe, but your use of stereotyping along with the distortion of what's actually found in the Tanakh makes your opinions above totally worthless to me, so write what you want.

I'm not the only one making stereotypes, if you could entertain that notion. Your understanding of Christianity is shaky, at best, as you demonstrated above.

I might ask questions and not be easily convinced and go round and round a bit, but, it's a debate forum, isn't it? I honestly am here to learn.

Blessings, and thank you so much for your time.

 

[rosends]

No, I just think at some point there was probably an obvious shift in viewing this as messianic or not. What about:

JPS (1917)
Targum Jonathan
The Babylonian Talmud
Midrash Rabbah
Iggereth Teman
Ibn Ezra
Targum Isaiah
Sanhedrin 94a
LXX?

Instead of listing them because someone else made a claim, maybe you could look them up and see what is actually said. The king in Judaism IS a messiah. Each anointed King. Hezekiah included. That the TY references "messiah" in its interpretation of the passage alludes to the talmudic understanding that the child born at that time, Hezekiah had the potential to be the FINAL messiah. In fact, Sanhedrin (which is on your list) explains,

"L'Marbeh ha'Misrah ul'Shalom Ein Ketz" - why is the 'Mem' in "l'Marbeh" written closed (i.e. like a final Mem)?

(b) Answer: Hash-m wanted to make Chizkiyah Mashi'ach, and Sancheriv (would have fulfilled the prophecy of) Gog and Magog. Midas ha'Din protested:

1. David sang so many praises to You, but You did not make him Mashi'ach. You did great miracles for Chizkiyah (wiping out Sancheriv's great army overnight, curing Chizkiyah and prolonging the day), he did not sing Shirah. Will You make him Mashi'ach?!

2. (The closed Mem represents the closure of Hash-m's intention, or that Hash-m wanted to cease Yisrael's affliction, or that because Chizkiyah's mouth was closed, it did not happen.)

Textual explanation in Judaism exists on 4 levels simultaneously and often, people enjoy relying on the level called "drash" because it injects deeper, mystical and often messianic ideas. But there is a rule in Jewish textual explanation, ein mikra yotzei midei peshuto, "no biblical text loses its literal meaning." (Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat 63a). When one moves to a deeper level, one may not discard the simple explanation. So the elements which lend themselves ALSO to a messianic (future) read have to coexist with the simple textual understanding. This is why the Iggeret Teiman, in the sentence after the one dealing with Isaiah, says that Psalms 2:7 has a messianic component as well even though the text clearly is about something else on the superficial level.

And just as an aside, most religious Jews sneer at the 1917 JPS for its language and its tendency to import ideas from non-Jewish translations.

No, I don't speak, read, or understand hebrew in any good capacity. If I did, I wouldn't be talking to you and others about it and asking for explanations, would I? And if you don't speak hebrew or read it fluently, why should I listen to you or anything you say?

OK, but I do. So that means you should.

Okay, before you respond to that, I understand that word order in hebrew isn't as deterministic as it is in english or other languages. On the other hand, passive and active verb usage in even english can similarly greatly change the structure of a sentence -- it's meaning too. I honestly wasn't interested in a conversation on syntax at all, but then you rendered the passage in a strange way, lending different meaning from even the masoretic texts, and here we are.

Understanding a biblical passage requires looking at grammar, syntax, and the trope (musical cantillation marks) and then putting it in the context of Jewish explanations from thousands of years ago. Your translation looks bizarre and strange to me. The question isn't about the masoretic text -- I can cut and paste the Hebrew -- it will agree with the DSS Hebrew or any other text's Hebrew. The question is about how to translate and understand the Hebrew. You might want to read R. David Kimchi's parsing of the verse. Interestingly, the Vilna Gaon explains the whole section is about Hezekiah, but shows how each name actually refers to him which is what one talmudic opinion later on 94 does as well (in fact, the talmud recounts how he has 8 names and his name isn't even really Hezekiah! So if one wants to import the talmud's "translation" then one would need to see the 8 words as distinct names, not 4, and would come up with a very different sounding and reading verse. Is that what you and Price endorse?).

I, more or less, just want to understand why you render the meaning into english completely differently than anything I'd seen before. Believe it or not: my faith does not rest on Isaiah 9:5/6. If it's about some one else, then okay. If it's been re-rendered to obscure it's actual meaning, then I'd like to know. So far, that really seems to be obvious to me. "You don't speak the language" works on me, sure, but it doesn't work on all the scholars and rabbis I've thus far provided, does it?

I didn't render it that way. That is the way it has been understood within Judaism, among those who speak the language and study the texts for thousands of years.

Dr. James D. Price has this to say about this particular topic, please see the following link for excerpts on his responses. It's pretty complete.

Bible Commentary: Isaiah 9:6

I find what he does intellectually dishonest. He "quotes" the Talmud as if the talmud made a grammatical/syntactical statement which agrees with his position. It doesn't. It simply (in Hebrew) reprints half the verse and says "etc". So there is no "translation" there. And where it refers to the plethora of names it explicitly says they relate to Hezekiah so to say it makes a semantic messianic point and yet ignore its explicit claim to Hezekiah is dishonest as well.

I cited some jewish teachers/teachings above. They seem to agree this passage is messianic. It'd be an interesting study to see the divide on passages over time (maybe around 1611, but I think much later, probably post 1948). I have no knowledge of this, and am too tired to dig into it now, but I'd wager to say there'd be some divide about this thereabouts.

As shown, some seem to agree that it is ALSO messianic (future) but some don't, and there are loads of others which say it isn't at all.

It's fair to say that, I suppose. You'd have to demonstrate my incorrect view, I guess. We can start by you defining prophets within Judaism.

A prophet's job is to send a message to the people, not tell the future. The message was very often about that specific time and circumstance. So why talk about Hezekiah? Because he was the one right there and then who would be the subject of God's message. You can start with this Judaism 101: Prophets and Prophecy

See my list above. Plenty say it's messianic. The JPS Tanakh is interesting. It seems to agree with me, not you. Who translated that? Jews.

I won't comment on the particular people (though the institutions they represented were not Orthodox Jewish ones) but I will present a quote about the process:

"The committee wanted its new Bible to be in the best English possible, and this, they felt, was to be found in the Protestant Revised Version, which was based on the King James Version. Its members agreed to use the Revised Version, and to “remove all un-Jewish and anti-Jewish phrases, expressions, renderings, and usages…” "

They adapted the protestant bible. 'nuff said.

I believe the Price citation above negates this. Is the JPS flawed (1917/1985), too, or does it just hurt your case?

Yes. It is flawed.

Try not to get butthurt, please. The older Dead Sea Scrolls from the Israel Museum in Jerusalem seem to agree with me, not you. Word order, etc, etc.

Try not to get lost. The question isn't about the Hebrew text. The texts match with what I am using. The issue is the interpretation. And I'm not sure why you bring in some notion of "butthurt." I am unfamiliar with the concept. If you are an expert in that, please explain it to me.

No, not my understanding. You are subject to your own erroneous understanding though, and ultimately the consequences of that.

As are you.

 

[Harmonious]

You seem to be equating physical with mortal. They are not the same. How does your God see at all without eyes?

I don't know, to be honest. But with a body, one can't see with one's eyes closed. God has no body, and therefore can SEE all, and has no need for sleep or slumber.

But why would you need to fit anywhere or reach anywhere, if you could, solely through your power alone, accomplish whatever fitting or reaching might accomplish.

So what is the point of having arms, if one isn't using them to reach? The fact is that they are also a limitation, as they can only go so far. Unless you are imagining a character like the X-Men, who have super powers, but look (mostly) like normal people. In which case, you are playing with science fiction, not reality.

And this, of course, has no relevance to me.

Again, physical is not the same thing as mortal.

If you say so. Which you seem to do. I don't.

And I'm surprised you think that God would have any needs, regardless of His appearance. If you think that there is anything that would override His omnipotence, then perhaps you don't see him as omnipotent in the first place.

Taking away God's Omnipresence would perforce take away God's Omnipotence.

Again, this is only theoretical.

Because you have your beliefs, that is well and good. They just don't connect with mine, because you believe that God was, at one point, in a mortal (he was killed) physical body.

I don't believe that God ever was, isn't, nor ever will be physical.

I don't understand why you are trying to convince me that I should believe as you do.

 

[metis]

What does civil law have to do with God's law?

I used it as an example whereas a parallel can be drawn. Common sense alone should suggest that we don't go to the max on punishment for every single violation. Since the Tanakh attaches specific penalties, it's rather obvious and logical that God did not feel that if one violates one Law that all are violated.

What separates you from God? The little infractions, the big infractions? Any and all infractions?

Maybe nothing separates us from God unless we intend to separate ourselves. It's like as a good parent when our child disobeys, we don't just discard him/her like a piece of garbage. Do you really think that God treats us like garbage and throws us away if we violate a Law? The Tanakh clearly states that God can and will forgive if we go to Him, ask for forgiveness, and try and correct any wrong we've done.

When is the last time you gave sufficient sacrifice, by law? You sure you have atonement?

If you had checked a concordance and looked up "forgive" and its variations, you would have seen that most of the time it didn't relate to the Temple sacrifices.

I don't know, the kind of God who demands you only make sacrifice to atone your sins at His temple, and then throws it down? Why would God setup such an impossible scenario for you?

Who said God threw it down? T'was the Romans.

The law is eternal and perpetual, sure, because God is eternal. But you make a mistake thinking because one wouldn't be subject to it (that is, under it), it would somehow no longer be divine or eternal.

I can't make heads nor tails what you're trying to say here.

I'm not the only one making stereotypes, if you could entertain that notion. Your understanding of Christianity is shaky, at best, as you demonstrated above.

I taught Christian theology (to adults, btw) for 14 years, not including teaching a comparative religions course for two additional years. But if it helps to boost your own ego up at someone else's expense, then maybe your motive here is less than admirable. And using stereotypes, as you have done, is a form of lying that we even warn children not to do. I have not stereotyped you, nor other Christians, nor Christianity as a whole, so you're simply not telling the truth.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Here:
"… called his name: The Holy One, blessed be He, Who gives wondrous counsel, is a mighty God and an everlasting Father, called Hezekiah’s name, “the prince of peace,” since peace and truth will be in his days."

You mean like when there were invasions in Hezekiah's day or when Hezekiah said, "Ah, God will judge my descendants but at least I will have peace in my days..."

No. And the government was ALREADY on Hezekiah's shoulders. And please admit the passage does not use the name Hezekiah in Hebrew.

 

[rosends]

You mean like when there were invasions in Hezekiah's day or when Hezekiah said, "Ah, God will judge my descendants but at least I will have peace in my days..."

No. And the government was ALREADY on Hezekiah's shoulders. And please admit the passage does not use the name Hezekiah in Hebrew.

The text speaks of the authority being on his shoulder. Present tense. Additionally, I never claimed the passage used the name Hezekiah in Hebrew. It doesn't use any name. Please admit it doesn't make any mention of Jesus, and that the government was never on his shoulder, and that there was no peace during his time.

 

[Muffled]

And this is based on what exactly? Please provide evidence that's beyond just someone's opinion, including yours.

Today's Judaism mostly deals with both a belief in God and the necessity of trying to follow the Law as best as possible, and this was true before Jesus' time, during Jesus' time, and today. So, exactly how is it that we supposedly contain a "lot of misinformation"? Please provide some examples of this "misinformation".

I believe the major piece of misinformation is that Jesus isn't the Messiah but I have to admit that comes from talking to individual Jews not going to any official source.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm literally just straight curious. Not only is this a belief, it's a common one despite the two deities being inherently contradictory in nature and Jesus fulfilling little to NONE of the messianic prophesy. Not to mention the whole idea of Christ contradicts Judaism, and Christianity has blatantly perverted the Hebrew texts. If the deities are suppose to be the same, as Christianity seems to believe, as in they worship the Hebrew god, isn't the religion absolute pure blasphemy?

Jesus, from all we know, was certainly Jewish, as were his mother, father, sisters and brothers. So, if he is anybody's messiah, wouldn't it be safe to assume that he was the Jewish Messiah foretold in the scriptures?

 

[metis]

I believe the major piece of misinformation is that Jesus isn't the Messiah but I have to admit that comes from talking to individual Jews not going to any official source.

I'm really not clear on what you're saying here. As Jews, we generally do not believe that Jesus fulfilled the messianic predictions, so how does this relate to "misinformation", or is your use of the term a reference to something else?

 

[Muffled]

I believe current day Christians have a lot of misinformation.
I believe that God would never lower or limit Himself by becoming corporeal. As a matter of fact, it is a tenet of my faith, as part of my belief system.
I believe you are dead wrong, and I, through Judaism, have a rewarding and fulfilling relationship to God.

I would posit that you don't know enough about Judaism to make that judgment call.

I believe I am sure of it.

I believe this is an unjustified belief simply because you wish to believe it.

I believe you do but people don't have one way relationships to other peoople because it wouldn't be a relationship at all.

I believe it is quite likely that I don't but from my experience of talking to Jews I haven't found one with a relationship with God.