Isaiah 53 and Human Sin

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

If you quote or summarize from a source, you really need to provide a citaion, such as a link to the webpage, in order to not plagiarize. It's not that big a deal, since you stated you were redacting something. But just its better to go the extra bit to stay within what is acceptable.

I really doubt what your source says. I don't think that the sages and rabbis changed what they were saying based on Christians coopting certain verses out of context. Honestly, the truth is that Jesus is simply irrelevant to Judaism.

You cannot get around the fact that the idea that Isaiah 53 applies to the messiah has been utterly rejected by Judaism.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Oh it makes "perfect sense". At least from a hard Christian perspective. Since Jesus failed all of the actual messianic prophecies those hard Christians had to invent their own. What better way that o quote mine one's own holy book? Who cares that the context always shows that it was not Jesus. When one has a need to believe one does not care about context.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

What are your reasons for wanting to remove Isaiah? The prophesied end of the first diaspora? The hope within for the nation of Israel? Of course they kept it, it's the Word of Ha Shem.

All the books you mentioned describe the Y-Man.

 

[BilliardsBall]

If you quote or summarize from a source, you really need to provide a citaion, such as a link to the webpage, in order to not plagiarize. It's not that big a deal, since you stated you were redacting something. But just its better to go the extra bit to stay within what is acceptable.

I really doubt what your source says. I don't think that the sages and rabbis changed what they were saying based on Christians coopting certain verses out of context. Honestly, the truth is that Jesus is simply irrelevant to Judaism.

You cannot get around the fact that the idea that Isaiah 53 applies to the messiah has been utterly rejected by Judaism.

I'm not getting around the fact, I'm EMPHASIZING it.

HUNDREDS of clear, plain Messianic verses have been doubly rejected by Judaism in this way, 1) They cannot be about Yeshua so 2) They cannot be about Messiah!

Note that in Hezekiah's case within Isaiah: 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 shoulders are now dust.

 

[Harel13]

What are your reasons for wanting to remove Isaiah? The prophesied end of the first diaspora? The hope within for the nation of Israel? Of course they kept it, it's the Word of Ha Shem.

I don't have reasons to remove Isaiah. I'm merely pointing out that your logic doesn't hold water. You are absolutely convinced of some sort of rabbinical mass conspiracy to hide the truth of the J-man from the world, yet the most practical way to have done it was not followed. We are, of course, speaking about an era where there were dozens of various texts floating around, all claiming to have been authored by prophets. The Church embraced most of these texts. Jews significantly less so. Would it not have been wiser to have simply rejected the supposedly Jesusian works for an even smaller canon? Or how about just removing the "problematic" verses?

But they didn't do any of that. Perhaps you believe that they were giant fools. I myself propose that they figured that a Jesusian interpretation of these verses was highly foolish because the traditional and more logical understanding was nowhere near that.

But, your call to keep creating these Isaiah 53 threads in hopes there will be a different outcome.

 

[blü 2]

HUNDREDS of clear, plain Messianic verses have been doubly rejected by Judaism in this way,

As I think I mentioned. if you were a 1st century Judean or Galilean Jew, you wouldn't have the slightest reason to think Jesus was a Jewish messiah. For a start he was never anointed by the Jewish priesthood, though that's what 'messiah' means, as you know. And he was never a civil, military or religious leader of the Jewish people.

Case closed.

Of course, he can be a Christian messiah with a totally new and different meaning to 'messiah', but that's an entirely different thing to your true, authentic Jewish messiah.

 

[Redemptionsong]

As I think I mentioned. if you were a 1st century Judean or Galilean Jew, you wouldn't have the slightest reason to think Jesus was a Jewish messiah. For a start he was never anointed by the Jewish priesthood, though that's what 'messiah' means, as you know. And he was never a civil, military or religious leader of the Jewish people.

Case closed.

Of course, he can be a Christian messiah with a totally new and different meaning to 'messiah', but that's an entirely different thing to your true, authentic Jewish messiah.

If you were Simon Peter, a first century Galilean Jew, you would say to Jesus, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' [Matthew 16:16]

The Jews closest to Jesus were able to witness to the truth and grace in the man, to the point that the flesh counted for nothing!

How can people who walk by the flesh be expected to witness to the truth of the Spirit? This is why Jesus responded to Peter by saying, 'flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee'.

P.S. John, the son of Zecharias the priest, baptised Jesus at the river Jordan. The anointing came from God.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I don't have reasons to remove Isaiah. I'm merely pointing out that your logic doesn't hold water. You are absolutely convinced of some sort of rabbinical mass conspiracy to hide the truth of the J-man from the world, yet the most practical way to have done it was not followed. We are, of course, speaking about an era where there were dozens of various texts floating around, all claiming to have been authored by prophets. The Church embraced most of these texts. Jews significantly less so. Would it not have been wiser to have simply rejected the supposedly Jesusian works for an even smaller canon? Or how about just removing the "problematic" verses?

But they didn't do any of that. Perhaps you believe that they were giant fools. I myself propose that they figured that a Jesusian interpretation of these verses was highly foolish because the traditional and more logical understanding was nowhere near that.

But, your call to keep creating these Isaiah 53 threads in hopes there will be a different outcome.

From Moses to Malachi, the prophets of God castigate Israel for its sinfulness. It should be apparent from reading the Tanakh that God could not find righteousness in the congregation of his people. Why, therefore, would the children of Israel be an acceptable sacrifice for sin?

In Numbers 21, the LORD sent venomous serpents into the camp of lsrael. What did Moses do to take away the sin?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Oh it makes "perfect sense". At least from a hard Christian perspective. Since Jesus failed all of the actual messianic prophecies those hard Christians had to invent their own. What better way that o quote mine one's own holy book? Who cares that the context always shows that it was not Jesus. When one has a need to believe one does not care about context.

Which prophecies did Jesus fail to fulfil? The ones that have yet to occur?

 

[Redemptionsong]

If you quote or summarize from a source, you really need to provide a citaion, such as a link to the webpage, in order to not plagiarize. It's not that big a deal, since you stated you were redacting something. But just its better to go the extra bit to stay within what is acceptable.

I really doubt what your source says. I don't think that the sages and rabbis changed what they were saying based on Christians coopting certain verses out of context. Honestly, the truth is that Jesus is simply irrelevant to Judaism.

You cannot get around the fact that the idea that Isaiah 53 applies to the messiah has been utterly rejected by Judaism.

In Sanhedrin 98b the Messianic name 'Leprous' is based on lsaiah 53. This is the reason for its application to the Messiah (an individual king Messiah).

According to Edersheim, lsaiah 53:10 is applied to Kingdom of the Messiah in the Targum.

 

[rosends]

In Sanhedrin 98b the Messianic name 'Leprous' is based on lsaiah 53. This is the reason for its application to the Messiah (an individual king Messiah).

According to Edersheim, lsaiah 53:10 is applied to Kingdom of the Messiah in the Targum.

Do you see Jeremiah 16:13 as a messianic prophecy?

BTW, the Targum of 53:10 says that the subject of 53 will see, during the messianic age, his offspring. As this section is the perception of the non-Jewish kings, it means that, according to the non-Jewish kings, the Jewish people, having served as the ones who suffer, earn the chance to see their offspring during the messianic age. The targum actually reinforces the idea that 53 is not about the messiah.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which prophecies did Jesus fail to fulfil? The ones that have yet to occur?

Sorry, he does not get a second chance. You might want to read this:

Jews for Judaism

 

[Redemptionsong]

Do you see Jeremiah 16:13 as a messianic prophecy?

BTW, the Targum of 53:10 says that the subject of 53 will see, during the messianic age, his offspring. As this section is the perception of the non-Jewish kings, it means that, according to the non-Jewish kings, the Jewish people, having served as the ones who suffer, earn the chance to see their offspring during the messianic age. The targum actually reinforces the idea that 53 is not about the messiah.

Yes, the subject of lsaiah 53 will see his offspring during the Messianic age. Why? Because the generation of the Messianic age are the righteous generation of the Messiah. [Psalm 22:30,31]

The reason lsrael is right to consider itself the first born Son [Exodus 4:22; Hosea 11:1] is because it derives its position from the head, the king of lsrael. But how can a people consider themselves the offspring of the Lord if they are not born of His Spirit?

 

[rosends]

Yes, the subject of lsaiah 53 will see his offspring during the Messianic age? Why? Because the generation of the Messianic age are the righteous generation of the Messiah. [Psalm 22:30,31]

So we agree that the subject of 53, the ones who are doing all the suffering on behalf of the sin of others is the generation of Jews. Great!

The reason lsrael is right to consider itself the first born Son [Exodus 4:22; Hosea 11:1] is because it derives its position from the head, the king of lsrael. But how can a people consider themselmes the offspring of the Lord if they are not born of his Spirit?

You are now muddying the water with weird phrases like "derives its position from the head" -- Israel's position as the son of God is because God said so. They can consider themselves as the offspring because, well, God said they are. As to "born of his Spirit" I have no idea what that means.

You didn't answer my question about the verse in Jeremiah, but I'm glad that you can agree that Is 53 is talking about the generation of Jews.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Sorry, he does not get a second chance. You might want to read this:

Jews for Judaism

I've read many of these web pages.

Here's the antidote:

 

[Redemptionsong]

So we agree that the subject of 53, the ones who are doing all the suffering on behalf of the sin of others is the generation of Jews. Great!

No. You misunderstand.

The only 'Righteous One' must act as the acceptable sacrifice. What is the point of an unrighteous people offering themselves as the suffering servant?

The righteous generation have yet to show themselves, so how can lsrael already be the righteous generation?

 

[Redemptionsong]

I might just add that the only truly 'Righteous One' is God Himself...which is why Christians understand the Messiah to be 'God with us'.

 

[rosends]

I've read many of these web pages.

Here's the antidote:

I watched 14 minutes of that before I couldn't watch any more. That was the silliest and dumbest thing I have seen recently. He strings together bizarre numerical theory with selective letter recombinations to make strange phrases that he then equates to other things. Nothing of any value there.

 

[Redemptionsong]

So we agree that the subject of 53, the ones who are doing all the suffering on behalf of the sin of others is the generation of Jews. Great!

You are now muddying the water with weird phrases like "derives its position from the head" -- Israel's position as the son of God is because God said so. They can consider themselves as the offspring because, well, God said they are. As to "born of his Spirit" I have no idea what that means.

You didn't answer my question about the verse in Jeremiah, but I'm glad that you can agree that Is 53 is talking about the generation of Jews.

I believe Jeremiah was prophesying the exile of the Jews, and (verses 14,15) their ingathering. They will know both His 'hand' and His 'might'.

 

[dybmh]

I've read many of these web pages.

Here's the antidote:

I didn't watch the entire video; however, I noticed that the presenter is mixing different methods of gematria for his derivation. As the number of methods increases, it becomes easy to force a predetermined outcome.