Isaiah 53 and Human Sin

[Tinker Grey]

I'm sorry, I find that a bizarre statement...

So you never forgive the stranger who cuts you off in traffic?

I find that a bizarre statement.

 

[rosends]

A delusion doesn't have evidence; it has ideas that can't be shown.

Yes -- and your claim that you spoke to God and are an archangel is a delusion.

I Believe we can show the origins of an idea of two Messianic figures in the Bible, they are not specifically saying a phrase 'Messiah ben Joseph'...

So you can't find it in the text and need to interpret. Funny, that is what the rabbis did -- in fact, if not for the rabbinic understanding, you would have no idea of a "messiah ben joseph" and yet you discount what the rabbis say about their interpretation.

Claiming other people's experiences are not evidential, with no case files to assess any of it, is delusional.

So you see anyone's claim as therefore evidential. I guess Islam is valid, Raelianism is valid, and David Berkowitz's dog actually spoke to him.

Actually you justified you had an opinion about it, you didn't detail where the Bible texts stipulates the ideas..

Like I've heard Rabbinic Jews basically saying it is about other nations being startled by the tortured Jews, which then causes the nations to recognize God.

I can understand them misquoting Isaiah 52:15, thinking the 'Kings startled' is about them being seen Suffering by the nations, as they are the 'My Servant' they think is none defined; so then they've declared the none defined 'My Servants' in Isaiah about them...

What is commonly called 53:1 starts with a plural noun (that which WE have heard). When you have a reference to an antecedent, you need to trace back and see what the subject is (in this case, one would go back and look for a plural noun to be the "we" of that noun-construct). If you go back a single verse, to the "end" of the previous chapter (the chapter breaks are not a Jewish idea) you clearly have an identified plural (kings). The previous verse introduces the idea and then the text takes the voice of those kings and speaks in their first person about what is confusing them. This is explicit in the Hebrew text. There is no misquoting here. It is a function of the words that are actually there. If you want a breakdown, I threw one together here. Note -- this is not about interpretation. It is about using the specific words and word forms and connecting verses that are placed together.

Without them recognizing the Psalms were a backbone of the Jewish life; thus it is more than likely, Isaiah 52:10-14 was inspired to continue what David uttered many times of calling himself the 'My Servant', and specifically in Psalms 89:19-21 & Psalms 89:3...

So here we have a few unproven claims.
1. in what way and via what proof can you say that Psalms were a backbone of Jewish life, especially at the time of Isaiah? I showed you the lack of real overlap in the language but you haven't addressed that.
2. According to who or what is something "more than likely"? That's your agenda speaking.
3. Many people are called "servant" during the course of various biblical texts. The difference is that in Isaiah, itself, the nation is called the servant. So ignoring this and claiming a connection to a different text is spurious at best and intellectually dishonest.

I'm sorry, I find that a bizarre statement...

Don't apologize for your ignorance, just make an attempt to learn. Look through the biblical text and show me where the nation repented in the story of the Golden Calf. Moses prayed on their behalf and God relented. There are others, of course, but start here. The people complained and made God angry a number of times. Plagues were sent, other nations attacked, the people complained to Moses and he prayed. Did they change? No, they went and complained again. Even during the stories in the book of Judges, the people stray, are punished, cry for a judge to fight. The judge arises, fights on behalf of the people, and wins. Then it happens again. No mention
repentance by the people.

If you choose not to learn, you move into the realm of willful ignorance which is not a great place to be.

 

[wizanda]

So you never forgive the stranger who cuts you off in traffic?

I'll generally forgive even that, eventually...

In my opinion.

 

[wizanda]

Yes -- and your claim that you spoke to God and are an archangel is a delusion.

So lets be logical: you do not know if my personal experiences happened?

Plus you don't even know a majority of the details of my case, where you've decided to therefore assume that where I believe I fulfil Biblical prophecy is wrong, with no real knowledge on the topic.

Yet you're going to follow religious texts, where you didn't even meet the person, and yet accept that as right.

yet you discount what the rabbis say about their interpretation.

I don't discount anything if possible; I'd always rather examine case files, then miss something major, and look stupid later.

My problem with their comprehension is, I believe it was prophesied that the Messiah re-establishes a Messianic kingdom, whilst correcting the Rabbi's failures.

In Zechariah 11:15-17 I believe it to be about the Rabbis making the religion about themselves, rather than the Messiah's teachings.

Where in Ezekiel 34 & Jeremiah 23 they are removed for feeding themselves, whilst not leading people to the Messianic prophecies.

"messiah ben joseph"

The reason for using this terminology in the first place is to link your Rabbinic ideas, with what I understand to have happened scripturally.

Yet really it is more complex than that, as I believe all Biblical, and all religious naming, has been done specifically by the Source of reality (God), to the point we can see this is the Matrix - if we're really focused.

So you see anyone's claim as therefore evidential. I guess Islam is valid, Raelianism is valid, and David Berkowitz's dog actually spoke to him.

I've got Raelianism's book on my shelf, and found some of it fascinating concepts; which are accurate in lots of places, yet like many religions, they start adding ideas after.

Islam makes an interesting commentary on the scriptures; where it was trying to interlink previous Middle Eastern religions into a clearer form of Monotheism - by worshipping only the Source of reality (Ala Ilah = God Most High = El Elyon), and not the Divine Council as demigods.

I'll read up on David Berkowitz's dog... As we need case files to make a case.

What is commonly called 53:1 starts with a plural noun (that which WE have heard).

Many times within the 18 years of online debate, when I've looked up Isaiah 53:1, I'd hear, "Go look it up..." and eventually realized what that means - each word can be word searched using Strongs numbers as an indexing system; where I believe it can be shown that the prophets use poetic scatting.

When we do this, we can see that Isaiah 53:1 having the word belief, and then the word for 'rumour, news, report', makes far more sense, when it is speculative to have a Rumour, as then it emphasizes it is something hard to believe.

Thus in my understanding, it is addressing, 'who'd have believed this rumour?'

If we then word search H8052 (Rumour), we can see in Isaiah 28:9-19, it goes from 'Rumour' to 'Rumour', where verse Isaiah 28:20-21 calls it a 'Bed' of 'Adultery'.

Ezekiel 7:26 confirms these ideas, when it says 'Rumour upon Rumour'.

1. in what way and via what proof can you say that Psalms were a backbone of Jewish life, especially at the time of Isaiah?

Because we can show detailed paraphrased concepts interlinking the prophets; it then makes sense, that they'd know the Psalms - to be able to paraphrase them.

2. According to who or what is something "more than likely"?

What makes it more 'likely' should be based on percentages...

Like we can show the reasons you listed the verses in Isaiah to make a case, is because you believed the terminology ' My Servant' in Isaiah 52:13 was random; yet Bible software can show the paraphrasing in Isaiah 52:10-14 & Psalms 89:19-21.

Plus as we add to the percentages of does that make a logical sum; we can show multiple other aspects, that make more sense with David as the Messiah.

The difference is that in Isaiah, itself, the nation is called the servant.

Israel is called a 'servant' in places, and some refer to a Messianic figure as well.

No mention
repentance by the people.

I think our comprehension of repentance is very different; you're citing people being documented as not repenting... Whereas I understand that individually we all have to repent at our death.

In my opinion.

 

[rosends]

So lets be logical: you do not know if my personal experiences happened?

I know with the same certainty of opinion that you have about whether they happened. Your opinion is that they did and I know that my opinion is that they didn't. Mine is backed by both the science of "NDT's" and the religious understanding of the role of God and angels. Since your supposed experience doesn't comport with my theology's explanation of the divine (hierarchy etc) then you couldn't have had the experiences you think you had. QED.

Plus you don't even know a majority of the details of my case, where you've decided to therefore assume that where I believe I fulfil Biblical prophecy is wrong, with no real knowledge on the topic.

Except I have knowledge of the prophecies of the bible and you keep getting them wrong.

Yet you're going to follow religious texts, where you didn't even meet the person, and yet accept that as right.

Which text is a person again?

I don't discount anything if possible; I'd always rather examine case files, then miss something major, and look stupid later.

My problem with their comprehension is, I believe it was prophesied that the Messiah re-establishes a Messianic kingdom, whilst correcting the Rabbi's failures.

In Zechariah 11:15-17 I believe it to be about the Rabbis making the religion about themselves, rather than the Messiah's teachings.

Where in Ezekiel 34 & Jeremiah 23 they are removed for feeding themselves, whilst not leading people to the Messianic prophecies.

See all this "I believe"? That's wonderful. Feel free to believe. But your belief does not correlate with what he text says -- it is a fanciful invention of yours based in your interpretations. Zechariah isn't about "rabbis" and making the religion anything. That simply isn't in the text -- you pull out a couple of verses and decide that they, in a vacuum mean what you want them to mean. That's dishonest.

The reason for using this terminology in the first place is to link your Rabbinic ideas, with what I understand to have happened scripturally.

So you are adopting the rabbinic idea and then running away with it as it suits you.

Yet really it is more complex than that, as I believe all Biblical, and all religious naming, has been done specifically by the Source of reality (God), to the point we can see this is the Matrix - if we're really focused.

Oh boy...the "Matrix"? Off the rails.

I've got Raelianism's book on my shelf, and found some of it fascinating concepts; which are accurate in lots of places, yet like many religions, they start adding ideas after.

and all completely factual because they believe what they claim to be factual so you have to accept them as being factual. Right?

When we do this, we can see that Isaiah 53:1 having the word belief, and then the word for 'rumour, news, report', makes far more sense, when it is speculative to have a Rumour, as then it emphasizes it is something hard to believe.

I'm not sure what word in the Hebrew you think you are translating. Tell me the Hebrew and how, from its root, you got to your conclusion.

Thus in my understanding, it is addressing, 'who'd have believed this rumour?'

The Hebrew is מִ֥י הֶאֱמִ֖ין לִשְׁמֻעָתֵ֑נוּ which means "who believes what we have heard?" There is no "news" or "rumor" there. Strongs has "something {heard} that {is} an announcement". Brown/Driver/Biggs has
"report, news, rumour

a. report, news, tidings

b. mention"

You can also check the Aramaic (b'sortana) and look at Jastrow and Klein Isaiah 53:1 and see that it means "that which was heard.

The Ibn Ezra (In Isaiah 28) defines it as
Doctrine.

Ezekiel 7:26 confirms these ideas, when it says 'Rumour upon Rumour'.

No, the translation you have decided on is confirmed by your own decision to use that word. The Ezekiel text simply means "bad news."

Because we can show detailed paraphrased concepts interlinking the prophets; it then makes sense, that they'd know the Psalms - to be able to paraphrase them.

Except you haven't. You made a claim about certain overlapping words and I showed how that was a spurious claim.

What makes it more 'likely' should be based on percentages...

But you have no percentages to work with -- just your own belief and opinion.

Like we can show the reasons you listed the verses in Isaiah to make a case, is because you believed the terminology ' My Servant' in Isaiah 52:13 was random; yet Bible software can show the paraphrasing in Isaiah 52:10-14 & Psalms 89:19-21.

See, this shows that you don't read. Who said it was "random"? I said it was explicitly identified within the text. I also showed how it wasn't paraphrasing anything by looking at the words and phrases. You have done nothing but repeat your claim over and over.

Plus as we add to the percentages of does that make a logical sum; we can show multiple other aspects, that make more sense with David as the Messiah.

No, you add more errors and wishful thinking. David was a messiah, and there will be a messiah in the future, from the house of David. That's it.

Israel is called a 'servant' in places, and some refer to a Messianic figure as well.

Well, in your opinion, of course...

I think our comprehension of repentance is very different; you're citing people being documented as not repenting... Whereas I understand that individually we all have to repent at our death.

But textually, God forgave the nation before their death and in fact, didn't wipe them out as a punishment even though there is no textual evidence that they repented.

 

[wizanda]

That simply isn't in the text -- you pull out a couple of verses and decide that they, in a vacuum mean what you want them to mean.

I believe we could list with references why Zechariah 11 was Messianic, and prior to the destruction of the 2nd temple, as line by line it interlinks with other chapters by paraphrasing.

Who said it was "random"? I said it was explicitly identified within the text.

As I understand, you've shown that most cases of 'my Servant' are identifiable by the sentence structure... Some can not be Israel, as they redeem Israel:

Isaiah 49:6 And He said, It is but a little thing that You should be My servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to bring back the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You for a light to the nations, to be My salvation to the end of the earth.

Oh boy...the "Matrix"?

Sorry should have defined the Matrix being the idea: we can understand this reality comes from God, where everything around us can be understood as mathematics - like a universal symphony.

Therefore the religious texts are all there purposefully.

and all completely factual because they believe what they claim to be factual so you have to accept them as being factual. Right?

I hardly do boolean answers, of having to define things, as 'true, false, & null'... I've generally got open variables, where everything can be graded on how well it adds up overall.

In my opinion.

 

[dybmh]

.

As I understand, you've shown that most cases of 'my Servant' are identifiable by the sentence structure... Some can not be Israel, as they redeem Israel:

Israel redeems the tribes of Jacob. Israel is the righteous remnant.

Isaiah 49:6 And He said, It is but a little thing that You should be My servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to bring back the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You for a light to the nations, to be My salvation to the end of the earth.

See here ^ The tribes of Jacob are not identical to the preserved ones of Israel.

 

[rosends]

I believe we could list with references why Zechariah 11 was Messianic, and prior to the destruction of the 2nd temple, as line by line it interlinks with other chapters by paraphrasing.

No, you could list things that you want to believe are messianic. There are plenty of links in Zechariah, but not to what you want to link them to.

As I understand, you've shown that most cases of 'my Servant' are identifiable by the sentence structure... Some can not be Israel, as they redeem Israel:

Sigh. No. In many cases, the servant is identified by explicit naming. In other cases, the method is by connecting (servant = chosen, nation = chosen, servant = nation). The only issue of "structure" to employ is by tracing the pronouns, but that isn't sentence structure -- it is context based and grammatical.

Isaiah 49:6 And He said, It is but a little thing that You should be My servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to bring back the preserved ones of Israel; I will also give You for a light to the nations, to be My salvation to the end of the earth.

Yes, in this chapter, most commentators see the servant as Isaiah, the prophet. Some see him as the servant but also as a representative of the entire nation making the servant BOTH the prophet and the nation. But no where in 49:6 is there any reference to "redeem". The next verse, 49:7 identifies God as the redeemer. That's all based directly from the words in the verses. Should I go through them verse by verse?

 

[wizanda]

Israel redeems the tribes of Jacob.

In my understanding the Lord promised to become the Messiah in the Song of Moses (Exodus 15:2), and thus the Lord brought us Salvation (H3444)...

Not sure how Israel can redeem us, when the supposed Israel being referred to, has forgotten the Rock of their Salvation (Deuteronomy 32:15).

you could list things that you want to believe are messianic.

I believe I could show why Zechariah 11 is Messianic, and show where I fulfilled Messianic prophecy prior to Judgement Day; yet currently based on our conversations online over the last 18 years, I feel God is right to delete many of you from existence for rejecting the standards required within the scriptures.

Since it appears all you want to do is debunk our statements, when I believe I can prove to be the return of King David, Yeshua, and now Zion/Zan here before Armageddon; where it is a bit pointless me trying to get you to honour individual aspects of the scriptures, when you don't take on board the overall conversation taking place...

So we're clear, I believe Isaiah 28:11-13 is being fulfilled in this conversation, prior to the end of humanity, and you're arguing you know more.

But no where in 49:6 is there any reference to "redeem". The next verse, 49:7 identifies God as the redeemer.

I understand YHVH Elohim to imply the Lord of Creation of the Divine Beings/Avatars, who promised it would be the King over our people, and to redeem our people...

That same Messianic figure was placed into Yeshua, and now I've been given the name of the Creator Divine Being in many of the world's religious texts as one (Zechariah 14:9), to fulfil prophecy globally as the Messiah.

Many try to debunk our sentiments, and I'm trying to fix the religious comprehension issues; so that the Source of reality (El Elyon) doesn't need to delete you all as prophesied.

In my opinion.

 

[rosends]

I believe I could show why Zechariah 11 is Messianic, and show where I fulfilled Messianic prophecy prior to Judgement Day; yet currently based on our conversations online over the last 18 years, I feel God is right to delete many of you from existence for rejecting the standards required within the scriptures.

That's a great thing to believe. You will satisfy your own opinion that way.

Since it appears all you want to do is debunk our statements, when I believe I can prove to be the return of King David, Yeshua, and now Zion/Zan here before Armageddon; where it is a bit pointless me trying to get you to honour individual aspects of the scriptures, when you don't take on board the overall conversation taking place...

Yes, I do repeatedly debunk your statements and you have yet to rebunk them. Either way, they are mired in bunk.

So we're clear, I believe Isaiah 28:11-13 is being fulfilled in this conversation, prior to the end of humanity, and you're arguing you know more.

Well, I'm arguing that you know less. You are trying to separate 11-13 from its context as part of a conversation in the chapter. Verse 14 makes it clear that the people spoken to are the government, and yet I'm not the government, and you aren't the prophet, and all of this was written to refer to specific moments during the life of the prophet Isaiah.

I am reminded of a line from the TV show Family Guy:

"Well, according to paragraph 7, sentence 3, word 8 of the Geneva Convention... "the"."

I understand YHVH Elohim to imply the Lord of Creation of the Divine Beings/Avatars, who promised it would be the King over our people, and to redeem our people...

So that's more of your personal opinion, unrelated to teh actual words of the text.

I am not concerned about "being deleted." That's not a thing.

 

[wizanda]

Verse 14 makes it clear that the people spoken to are the government, and yet I'm not the government, and you aren't the prophet

I agree you're not the government, and I'd like to talk to the religious leaders on here; all of this is online, so they can interact with us, if they want to recognize Messianic prophecy is happening before Judgement Day.

I am not concerned about "being deleted." That's not a thing.

Isaiah 8:21-22... Being removed from reality, is the same as being deleted.

all of this was written to refer to specific moments during the life of the prophet Isaiah.

I find this is why many Rabbinic Jews, don't get much of Messianic prophecies, as they've been taught a simplistic historical way of seeing all of it, when lots doesn't fit that way...

It would be like cutting the edges off the jigsaw puzzle, so it fits together simply, and then wondering why some bits are out of sequence.

In my opinion.

 

[rosends]

I agree you're not the government, and I'd like to talk to the religious leaders on here; all of this is online, so they can interact with us, if they want to recognize Messianic prophecy is happening before Judgement Day.

Maybe they recognize the proper prophecies and know you have them wrong.

Isaiah 8:21-22... Being removed from reality, is the same as being deleted.

And Is 8:21-22 doesn't mention being removed from reality.

I find this is why many Rabbinic Jews, don't get much of Messianic prophecies, as they've been taught a simplistic historical way of seeing all of it, when lots doesn't fit that way...

And this is why I know you don't understand Judaism.

 

[wizanda]

And this is why I know you don't understand Judaism.

I agree I don't get much of Rabbinic Judaism, and as far as I understand I'm sent before Judgement Day to warn them they've failed at accepting the Bible.

Thanks for answering for all of them.

And Is 8:21-22 doesn't mention being removed from reality.

They're chucked into outer darkness; which I believe implies removed.

Maybe they recognize the proper prophecies and know you have them wrong.

As far as I'm aware, the world is already anti-Christ's doctrine, and thus the chances of them having it right, would mean prophecy is wrong.

In my opinion.

 

[Muffled]

They missed that their allegorical Suffering Servant was really about something that was going to happen centuries later?

I'm familiar with Christian claims to that effect, but I see no biblical basis at all for them. The best I can say for them is, they're an attempted retrofit. All claims that Jesus is foretold in the Tanakh are attempted retrofits ─ as messiahs go, Jesus was never a civil, military or religious leader of the Jews, did not restore their political independence, famously resorted to violence against the lawful Jewish Temple traders when his real argument should have been with the Temple administration, and one enduring result of Christianity has been two millennia of rapacious and often murderous antisemitism.

What kind of Jewish messiah would do that? What kind of Jewish god would sent such a messiah? None, surely?

I believe the military aspect and deliverance arrive in the second coming. Jesus fulfills the events of Isaiah 53 in His first coming. It does not surprise me that what people want and what God wants are two different things.

 

[Muffled]

Genesis--Abraham and Issac.

Issac's question, where is the RAM for sacrifice?

Abraham's answer, God will provide HIMSELF, the Lamb.

The animal they found nearby, a RAM.

I believe He knew what He would do in the future and that is the reason He said it that way. As John the Baptist said: "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."

 

[Muffled]

But since tribal lineage is through the father then Mary's line doesn't matter.

Tribal lineage does not matter. God perceives it the way He wishes not the way man wishes.

 

[rosends]

I agree I don't get much of Rabbinic Judaism, and as far as I understand I'm sent before Judgement Day to warn them they've failed at accepting the Bible.

Thanks for answering for all of them.

No problem. Thanks for judging all Jews as uninformed.

They're chucked into outer darkness; which I believe implies removed.

They walk in darkness. They aren't chucked anywhere.

As far as I'm aware, the world is already anti-Christ's doctrine, and thus the chances of them having it right, would mean prophecy is wrong.

No, it would mean your understanding of what is prophecy and what the prophecy means is wrong.

 

[rosends]

Tribal lineage does not matter. God perceives it the way He wishes not the way man wishes.

God establishes rules for the world. Your claim would then be that God sets up rules and then arbitrarily shifts them without explanation?

 

[wizanda]

They walk in darkness. They aren't chucked anywhere.

Isaiah 8:22 'And they are driven (H5080) away into darkness.'

H5080
נדח
nâdach
A primitive root; to push off; used in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively (to expel, mislead, strike, inflict, etc.): - banish, bring, cast down (out), chase, compel, draw away, drive (away, out, quite), fetch a stroke, force, go away, outcast, thrust away (out), withdraw.

No, it would mean your understanding of what is prophecy and what the prophecy means is wrong.

I can question any different perspectives, and can show a case where I believe the prophecies are accurate, that the world has been deceived; you assuming the whole case is wrong, with no real understanding of what I'm talking about is illogical.

Thanks for judging all Jews as uninformed.

I'm not judging anyone individually; according to what I understand we're down near Hell, where the whole world has been deceived on purpose, thus it is more than likely they've already got errors.

For anyone to claim to be a modern day Jew, which generally includes Rabbinic concepts, and even as a Karaite Jew, they still don't take on board all of the other religious texts needed to make sense of the matter.

Thus we know they're uninformed, simply by their act of placing a limited religious label on themselves.

In my opinion.

 

[rosends]

Isaiah 8:22 'And they are driven (H5080) away into darkness.'

H5080
נדח
nâdach
A primitive root; to push off; used in a great variety of applications, literally and figuratively (to expel, mislead, strike, inflict, etc.): - banish, bring, cast down (out), chase, compel, draw away, drive (away, out, quite), fetch a stroke, force, go away, outcast, thrust away (out), withdraw.

If you check the Ibn Ezra, you wills ee that the root is actually for the word "scattered" not driven, and is an adjective, not a verb in this form. They are now in a state of not knowing -- unless you think they are literally sent where the sun don't shine. This is not a removal from being but a comment on their state of being. The Ibn Ezra, using the precise grammar sees it as meaning "Dimness of darkness is scattered about;"

See, knowing a root isn't enough. You have to parse the verse then put into the context of the chapter etc. For a look at some of the otehr forms and uses of this root, start here Klein Dictionary, נדח 1

I can question any different perspectives, and can show a case where I believe the prophecies are accurate, that the world has been deceived; you assuming the whole case is wrong, with no real understanding of what I'm talking about is illogical.

I can extrapolate from what I see. For example -- you are unfamiliar with Hebrew, and your English grammar is mediocre (you should have written "your assuming the whole case is wrong"). You also have written things which contradict the Jewish understanding, and you have used texts which have no value to Judaism. Therefore, I can be pretty certain that your conclusions (even ones I have not heard), predicated on these bases, are wrong. That's illogical?

I'm not judging anyone individually; according to what I understand we're down near Hell, where the whole world has been deceived on purpose, thus it is more than likely they've already got errors.

Right -- so you are judging the entire group because of a personal belief/opinion you have.

For anyone to claim to be a modern day Jew, which generally includes Rabbinic concepts, and even as a Karaite Jew, they still don't take on board all of the other religious texts needed to make sense of the matter.

Anyone claiming that to understand the bible and such one needs the texts of other religions, is being illogical.