Isaiah 53 and Human Sin

[BilliardsBall]

There seem to be two ways of understanding Isaiah 53 in the context of sin:

1) Jesus paid for human sin
2) A righteous remnant of Israel/Jewish people atones for sin

Is there a passage(s) in Tanakh that describes how sin may be atoned for without an animal sacrifice (not punishment or repayment but actual atonement)?

Is there a passage(s) in Tanakh that describes how a human may atone for another human's sin?

Thank you.

 

[ChristineM]

Is this a repeat of your.

Jews: Isaiah 53 and Sin

But for humans?

 

[blü 2]

There seem to be two ways of understanding Isaiah 53 in the context of sin:

1) Jesus paid for human sin
2) A righteous remnant of Israel/Jewish people atones for sin

Is there a passage(s) in Tanakh that describes how sin may be atoned for without an animal sacrifice (not punishment or repayment but actual atonement)?

Is there a passage(s) in Tanakh that describes how a human may atone for another human's sin?

Thank you.

Ahm, Isaiah 53 is about the "Suffering Servant", the nation of Israel, and has nothing to do with messiahs or Jesus.

If you have any doubt about it, ask your Jewish friends ─ it's their book, after all.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Ahm, Isaiah 53 is about the "Suffering Servant", the nation of Israel, and has nothing to do with messiahs or Jesus.

If you have any doubt about it, ask your Jewish friends ─ it's their book, after all.

It makes no sense to say the nation of Israel is the servant, not Jesus.

We would then have statements within akin to "Because Israel was unfaithful, Israel atoned for Israel's sin."

 

[blü 2]

It makes no sense to say the nation of Israel is the servant, not Jesus.

It's made perfect sense for millennia to the people who wrote it, and to generations of clear-thinking Christian scholars ever since the Enlightenment.

And given an historical Jesus, it makes no sense to say that the Jewish leadership should have recognized him as a Jewish messiah ─ since a real messiah's first job would be to restore the political independence of the Jewish people by getting rid of Rome.

And it makes no sense to say that Jesus is mentioned or "foretold" anywhere in the Tanakh. The result of his ministry has been two millennia of relentless, rapacious and frequently murderous Christian antisemitism, for a start.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It's made perfect sense for millennia to the people who wrote it, and to generations of clear-thinking Christian scholars ever since the Enlightenment.

And given an historical Jesus, it makes no sense to say that the Jewish leadership should have recognized him as a Jewish messiah ─ since a real messiah's first job would be to restore the political independence of the Jewish people by getting rid of Rome.

And it makes no sense to say that Jesus is mentioned or "foretold" anywhere in the Tanakh. The result of his ministry has been two millennia of relentless, rapacious and frequently murderous Christian antisemitism, for a start.

1) Early sources (non-Messianic Jewish sources) absolutely saw Isaiah 53 as Messianic

2) The real Messiah's job was redemption--it was astonishing for Jesus to say He'd come to rescue Israel from its sin rather than Rome--you are taking modern Jewish (anti-NT) thought and looking at ancient Judaism with their presentist lens--Jewish people reject hundreds of Messianic prophecies to reduce Messiah to a conquering warrior rather than a redeemer AND a warrior on His Return

3) I agree regarding Christian antisemitism--I was DEFINITELY unwilling to become a Christian knowing this, however, once I realize non-born again Rome (mostly) was the inquisitions/crusades and also killed millions of born agains, and once I realized biblically speaking it's individuals trusting Messiah rather than religious groups (who can be cultic, anti-semitic)...

4) Please recall I'm a Jewish Christian and certainly entitled to understand Tanakh without you telling me "those Jews understand it better than you"

 

[blü 2]

1) Early sources (non-Messianic Jewish sources) absolutely saw Isaiah 53 as Messianic

2) The real Messiah's job was redemption--it was astonishing for Jesus to say He'd come to rescue Israel from its sin rather than Rome--you are taking modern Jewish (anti-NT) thought and looking at ancient Judaism with their presentist lens--Jewish people reject hundreds of Messianic prophecies to reduce Messiah to a conquering warrior rather than a redeemer AND a warrior on His Return

3) I agree regarding Christian antisemitism--I was DEFINITELY unwilling to become a Christian knowing this, however, once I realize non-born again Rome (mostly) was the inquisitions/crusades and also killed millions of born agains, and once I realized biblically speaking it's individuals trusting Messiah rather than religious groups (who can be cultic, anti-semitic)...

4) Please recall I'm a Jewish Christian and certainly entitled to understand Tanakh without you telling me "those Jews understand it better than you"

They do, I'm afraid. They're still Jews, without the NT's lead in their saddle bags.

And even the better kind of Christian scholarship knows that Isaiah 53 is about the nation of Israel as 'the Suffering Servant'.

 

[BilliardsBall]

They do, I'm afraid. They're still Jews, without the NT's lead in their saddle bags.

And even the better kind of Christian scholarship knows that Isaiah 53 is about the nation of Israel as 'the Suffering Servant'.

Again as I just wrote you:

Early sources (non-Messianic Jewish sources) absolutely saw Isaiah 53 as Messianic!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There seem to be two ways of understanding Isaiah 53 in the context of sin:

1) Jesus paid for human sin
2) A righteous remnant of Israel/Jewish people atones for sin

Is there a passage(s) in Tanakh that describes how sin may be atoned for without an animal sacrifice (not punishment or repayment but actual atonement)?

Is there a passage(s) in Tanakh that describes how a human may atone for another human's sin?

Thank you.

Isaiah 53 is not about the messiah. It is not the job of the messiah to be a sin sacrifice.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Isaiah 53 is not about the messiah. It is not the job of the messiah to be a sin sacrifice.

1) Ancient Jewish thought was that is was indeed the role--we see the questions asked of Yeshua if He was the suffering Ben-Yoseph and not just the Kingly Ben-David.

 

[Left Coast]

Again as I just wrote you:

Early sources (non-Messianic Jewish sources) absolutely saw Isaiah 53 as Messianic!

Which ones? Link?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

1) Ancient Jewish thought was that is was indeed the role--we see the questions asked of Yeshua if He was the suffering Ben-Yoseph and not just the Kingly Ben-David.

Jewish scholarship has rejected the whole "ben Joseph, ben David" idea.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Jewish scholarship has rejected the whole "ben Joseph, ben David" idea.

Yes, post-Christian era Jewish scholarship has--while the ben Joseph, ben David concept was a part of thought in the Hillel period/Yeshua period!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes, post-Christian era Jewish scholarship has--while the ben Joseph, ben David concept was a part of thought in the Hillel period/Yeshua period!

Jewish scholars played around with the idea and utlimately rejected it. It is only Christians today who make this claim.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Jewish scholars played around with the idea and utlimately rejected it. It is only Christians today who make this claim.

Redacted to:

Nearly EVERY Jewish scholar said and WROTE Isaiah 53 was Messianic (and Isaiah 7 and countless other passages) before a whole bunch of Jews got "saved" and then everyone back pedaled.

Eventually even the great one wrote an article of faith--you know the one I mean--Ha Shem is so careless than He put echad in the Shema where he meant yachid, and then things went downhill from there.

The irony? A bunch of Gentiles are crowding into the Kingdom to sit with Abraham and Sarah for an oneg while many of us will be escorted outside of the meeting.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Redacted to:

Nearly EVERY Jewish scholar said and WROTE Isaiah 53 was Messianic (and Isaiah 7 and countless other passages) before a whole bunch of Jews got "saved" and then everyone back pedaled.

Eventually even the great one wrote an article of faith--you know the one I mean--Ha Shem is so careless than He put echad in the Shema where he meant yachid, and then things went downhill from there.

The irony? A bunch of Gentiles are crowding into the Kingdom to sit with Abraham and Sarah for an oneg while many of us will be escorted outside of the meeting.

Again, there are ideas that got played around with in the past, but which were ultimately rejected. No Jewish scholar today says that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Again, there are ideas that got played around with in the past, but which were ultimately rejected. No Jewish scholar today says that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus.

Which is self-evident (I'm aware of the stance). So now we have:

1) Ancient Jewish sages said Isaiah and many other passages foretold King Messiah

2) Modern non-Messianic Jews reject all such passages as non-Messianic

You see what happened there, I think.

It's so obvious that Jesus is known as Wonderful Counselor, Prince of Peace, Mighty God, Son Born to Us, Eternal Father that it MUST be Hezekiah--or we'll all go crazy and become Messianics. You understand how Messianic Jews know Jesus as Eternal Father who was born a Son. But we have trouble with "eternal" Hezekiah as father and son, or a wonderful counselor--who was counseled by Isaiah and not vice versa, etc.

It's so obvious that Isaiah's Servant Songs are about Yeshua " " .

Etc. until hundreds of plain Messianic passages are trivialized.

All that remains? He will help us understand Torah, promote Israel and help make world peace... which leads to the Hebrew scriptures' many warnings about the Anti-Messiah making a covenant with us, a covenant of death!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Ancient Jewish sages said Isaiah and many other passages foretold King Messiah

Your wording makes it sound like there was some sort of consensus. There was not. If you ever read the Talmud, you will find there are a great many topics that at one time had many different opinions, as the opinions that lost are recorded there. This is one of those cases. We went through a time where different ideas were floated around about Isaiah 53. After the age of discussion a consensus was reached that it was NOT about the messiah.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your wording makes it sound like there was some sort of consensus. There was not. If you ever read the Talmud, you will find there are a great many topics that at one time had many different opinions, as the opinions that lost are recorded there. This is one of those cases. We went through a time where different ideas were floated around about Isaiah 53. After the age of discussion a consensus was reached that it was NOT about the messiah.

Redacted to:

After Yeshua's movement grew in popularity, Jewish sages moved in subsequent centuries to take hundreds of direct prophecies of Jesus to say NONE of them are Messianic in context. At this point, the gyrations grow absurd, so that Hezekiah is granted some years and becomes an eternal father, is prophesied over when a young teen to say to us he as a son was ALREADY given, makes him the wonderful counselor although Isaiah counseled him not vice versa, and that he is the prince of peace because only 185,000 Assyrians invaded, forcing him to build a siege tunnel to divert water from the Gihon Spring--into the Pool of Siloam, where Rabbi King Messiah commanded a blind man to wash to receive his SIGHT because He is Eternal Father, Mighty God, Prince of Peace and Wonderful Counselor, the Son who still has God's government upon his shoulders--where King Hezekiah's shoulder are now dust.

 

[Harel13]

Redacted to:

After Yeshua's movement grew in popularity, Jewish sages moved in subsequent centuries to take hundreds of direct prophecies of Jesus to say NONE of them are Messianic in context. At this point, the gyrations grow absurd, so that Hezekiah is granted some years and becomes an eternal father, is prophesied over when a young teen to say to us he as a son was ALREADY given, makes him the wonderful counselor although Isaiah counseled him not vice versa, and that he is the prince of peace because only 185,000 Assyrians invaded, forcing him to build a siege tunnel to divert water from the Gihon Spring--into the Pool of Siloam, where Rabbi King Messiah commanded a blind man to wash to receive his SIGHT because He is Eternal Father, Mighty God, Prince of Peace and Wonderful Counselor, the Son who still has God's government upon his shoulders--where King Hezekiah's shoulder are now dust.

You know, this was the exact era when the Canon debates took place among Jewish sages. Wouldn't it have been smarter to just decide that Isaiah et al aren't holy texts and be rid of them entirely? But Isaiah et al do not even warrant the slightest mention in these debates (we find mentions of debates surrounding Ezekiel, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Esther and Ben Sirach. No Isaiah or Zechariah or whatever). Could it possibly be that it never even occurred to the sages that these works had absolutely anything to do with the J-man?