Isaiah 53 and Human Sin

[wizanda]

This is not a removal from being but a comment on their state of being.

At the resurrection in Matthew 8:12 they're literally kicked out of reality, for having already rejected the Messianic prophecies.

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

Zoroastrian text in my understanding prophesied Moses, and Yeshua; which is why the wise-men came from the east with gold, frankincense, and myrrh to fulfil their prophecy.

I'd also say that Dharmic texts came prior to that, and had prophetic ideas that were the basis of what the prophets put forward.

Things like the Sibylline Oracles, record that ever since Babylon, the corrupt leaders have caused the Jews to be bigoted, and so they don't know they're part of a global religious prophecy.

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

The texts stipulated their under a Curse by Moses, and the prophets... I'd say based on what many of us can clearly identify, many people agree it is accurate.

you have used texts which have no value to Judaism.

I believe that when John, Paul, and Simon are known to be by the Pharisees; it makes it clear, that Matthew, Mark, Luke, James, Jude, and Revelation are Jewish...

Where the Rabbinic ideas are another religion; that doesn't align with the Jewish prophecies in the Tanakh.

If you check the Ibn Ezra, you wills ee that the root is actually for the word "scattered" not driven

If we do a Bible word search with Esword, looking up H5080, we can see how the language was used... 'scattered' doesn't make sense in many of the occasions, driven fits more contexts.

In my opinion.

 

[rosends]

At the resurrection in Matthew 8:12 they're literally kicked out of reality, for having already rejected the Messianic prophecies.

Not a sueful text to use to try and explicate Jewish texts.
You then go to texts from a variety of world religions and state how you believe they relate. OK, but who cares? This is your opinion branching off of your opinion, all designed to substantiate your opinion. That's self-serving.

Where the Rabbinic ideas are another religion; that doesn't align with the Jewish prophecies in the Tanakh.

And this is the essence of your error. The ideas (including ones you have adopted) explained by the rabbis are the Jewish explanation of a text given to Jews and understood by Jews. You are looking at it from the outside and insisting you know better and that jews don't know their own texts.

If we do a Bible word search with Esword, looking up H5080, we can see how the language was used... 'scattered' doesn't make sense in many of the occasions, driven fits more contexts.

Words are used in different ways, in different forms, and in different contexts. Simply lifting a single meaning and insisting that the word must mean the exact same thing in all uses is foolish.

 

[wizanda]

OK, but who cares?

If you're conversing with the Universal Messiah, and you're quoting one cannon of texts before Universal Judgement Day; where then later if people could read back what you wrote, and if they were given the same opportunity, they'd most likely all say they cared.

Not a sueful text to use to try and explicate Jewish texts.

Unless we realized Matthew was Jewish, and most likely written in Hebrew to begin.

The ideas (including ones you have adopted) explained by the rabbis are the Jewish explanation of a text given to Jews and understood by Jews.

I'd say the Bible warns our leaders became brutish (Jeremiah 10:21) and that in Babylon (Jeremiah 25), they didn't heed the warnings of waiting 70 years, and took some of our people to Egypt.

Therefore the Messiah coming two thousand years ago in Zechariah 11, before the Destruction of the 2nd temple as Jeremiah 25 & Daniel 9 warns about; is because they'd divorce our people from the religion they were given.

Which is clear the religion has become confused since Babylon (Isaiah 46:9) - where YHVH Eloh is the same as saying the Avatar Bhagavan Brahma, and El Elyon is the same as Brahman.

The Source of reality is formless (El - H410), and that which has form is a manifestation (Eloh - H433).

In my understanding when adding a H in Ancient Hebrew, it implied the breath, the wind, etc... Something breathed into existence.

Words are used in different ways, in different forms, and in different contexts. Simply lifting a single meaning and insisting that the word must mean the exact same thing in all uses is foolish.

I stipulate a method of understanding what is stated, and the problem with a majority of Rabbinic Jews when addressing the texts, is they always think they have a better mechanism to study the texts.

Like saying get Esword Bible software, search by Strongs, which means a + version of the Bible you can download for free; it comes up with it as passages in the search box, where you can click any to go to the chapter, and each verse to examine it... Plus there is a dictionary, and the original languages on each word.

We can then look at multiple phrases across the search (H5080); which can then be used to see how the language was used over time, and how it was used in specific contexts, to examine its meanings.

In my opinion.

 

[rosends]

If you're conversing with the Universal Messiah, and you're quoting one cannon of texts before Universal Judgement Day; where then later if people could read back what you wrote, and if they were given the same opportunity, they'd most likely all say they cared.

Good thing I'm not, then.

Unless we realized Matthew was Jewish, and most likely written in Hebrew to begin.

So was "שירה" By Agnon So?

In my understanding when adding a H in Ancient Hebrew, it implied the breath, the wind, etc... Something breathed into existence.

Your understanding is wrong. Usually it signifies a change in gender. Biblically it invokes the idea of God's presence.

I stipulate a method of understanding what is stated, and the problem with a majority of Rabbinic Jews when addressing the texts, is they always think they have a better mechanism to study the texts.

Well, one based in knowing the texts in Hebrew and having the insight of the study of the texts in context. Crazy to think that a scholar of history and law understands the Constitution better than a Ukrainian cab driver who claims to be George Washington, with a dictionary.

 

[blü 2]

I believe the military aspect and deliverance arrive in the second coming. Jesus fulfills the events of Isaiah 53 in His first coming.

Isaiah 53 is in the past tense ─ it speaks of a person who has already done or undergone the things mentioned. The person is the Suffering Servant, and the Suffering Servant is a personification of the Jewish nation. The idea that it's about Jesus is an attempted Christian retrofit which abuses the actual meaning.

It does not surprise me that what people want and what God wants are two different things.

If God made Man in [his] own image, I find it inexplicable ─ in that case humans can only want what God designed them to want when [he] made them.

Given the bible is a source of information about God, what do humans do that God doesn't do?

 

[Muffled]

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

I believe the answer to that is yes. God does what He pleases. He is dynamic not stuck in an old book.

 

[Muffled]

Isaiah 53 is in the past tense ─ it speaks of a person who has already done or undergone the things mentioned. The person is the Suffering Servant, and the Suffering Servant is a personification of the Jewish nation. The idea that it's about Jesus is an attempted Christian retrofit which abuses the actual meaning.
If God made Man in [his] own image, I find it inexplicable ─ in that case humans can only want what God designed them to want when [he] made them.

Given the bible is a source of information about God, what do humans do that God doesn't do?

I believe "personification" is a about as lame an excuse for not believing God as one can use.

I believe a fit as 100% better than a misfit which is what Jews contend for.

I believe that qualifies as a retrofit. Men are evil because God wanted them to be and we know that because they are evil. There is not one chance in Hell that is true.

 

[rosends]

I believe the answer to that is yes. God does what He pleases. He is dynamic not stuck in an old book.

that would not be an idea of God I could respect, let alone worship.

 

[Harel13]

I believe the answer to that is yes. God does what He pleases. He is dynamic not stuck in an old book.

Would you be comfortable with a god who tells you that all you need to do to be saved and enter heaven is believe in him, Jesus, etc and having done all of these things perfectly, come up to be judged, and suddenly god pops up out of nowhere and says: "Whoops, changed my mind! You ain't going into heaven."?

 

[blü 2]

I believe "personification" is a about as lame an excuse for not believing God as one can use.

I believe a fit as 100% better than a misfit which is what Jews contend for.

I believe that qualifies as a retrofit. Men are evil because God wanted them to be and we know that because they are evil. There is not one chance in Hell that is true.

Hi Muffled! Thanks for brightening up my post!

The Suffering Servant is spoken of in the past tense ─ the sufferings have already happened.

As for the identity of the Suffering Servant, and my statement that it represents the Jewish nation, that's based on Christian and Jewish scholarship, not something I invented. Please feel free to check it out with your Jewish friends, for a start.

As for that personification as a justification for not believing in God, if I was so unclear as to give the impression that I was making such an argument, I apologize.

My argument is the one visible on the page in Isaiah: that identifying the Suffering Servant with Jesus is an attempted Christian retrofit, and (I add for clarity) would be so whether I believed in God or not.

(Just to be clear, the reason I don't believe in a real God is because as far as I can tell the only manner in which God ─ or gods, or supernatural beings generally ─ exists is as a concept or thing imagined in an individual brain, never as an entity with objective existence.)

 

[Muffled]

that would not be an idea of God I could respect, let alone worship.

I believe you are saying that God should be mindless. I would not respect a God like that.

 

[Muffled]

Would you be comfortable with a god who tells you that all you need to do to be saved and enter heaven is believe in him, Jesus, etc and having done all of these things perfectly, come up to be judged, and suddenly god pops up out of nowhere and says: "Whoops, changed my mind! You ain't going into heaven."?

I believe I would be. I am absolutely loyal to the sovereignty of God. After all He is my Lord and Savior.

 

[Muffled]

Hi Muffled! Thanks for brightening up my post!

The Suffering Servant is spoken of in the past tense ─ the sufferings have already happened.

As for the identity of the Suffering Servant, and my statement that it represents the Jewish nation, that's based on Christian and Jewish scholarship, not something I invented. Please feel free to check it out with your Jewish friends, for a start.

As for that personification as a justification for not believing in God, if I was so unclear as to give the impression that I was making such an argument, I apologize.

My argument is the one visible on the page in Isaiah: that identifying the Suffering Servant with Jesus is an attempted Christian retrofit, and (I add for clarity) would be so whether I believed in God or not.

(Just to be clear, the reason I don't believe in a real God is because as far as I can tell the only manner in which God ─ or gods, or supernatural beings generally ─ exists is as a concept or thing imagined in an individual brain, never as an entity with objective existence.)

i believe that is a copout. I believe if the shoe fits one can wear it and if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck. The Jewish version neither walks nor quacks like a real Messiah from Isaiah 53.

I believe that is contrary to reality. God does material things.

 

[blü 2]

i believe that is a copout. I believe if the shoe fits one can wear it and if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it is a duck. The Jewish version neither walks nor quacks like a real Messiah from Isaiah 53.

I believe that is contrary to reality. God does material things.

I approach these things as I'd approach any other ancient document, to place them in history by looking at what, when where, who and why. In my view the text can't support the Christian claims made of it, since as I said, the Suffering Servant is the nation of Israel and the Suffering Servant has already suffered ─ the depressing events are already in the past. You could say that having looked and been informed by the scholarship, both Jewish and Christian, I see no reason to disagree with it.

So part of me is offended by the transparent falseness of the Christian take.

But your view is different, and works for you, so we may as well leave things there.

 

[Harel13]

I believe I would be. I am absolutely loyal to the sovereignty of God. After all He is my Lord and Savior.

So he's your savior even when he tells you you're not saved, despite meeting the standards he defined as needed for salvation?

 

[Firenze]

Hi Muffled! Thanks for brightening up my post!

The Suffering Servant is spoken of in the past tense ─ the sufferings have already happened.

Hi. I would like your opinion of this claim that ancient Hebrew had no tenses. Thanx!

Why is Isaiah 53 written in the past tense?

 

[Harel13]

Hi. I would like your opinion of this claim that ancient Hebrew had no tenses. Thanx!

Why is Isaiah 53 written in the past tense?

I don't understand how someone can write an article on Biblical Hebrew without featuring a single word in Biblical Hebrew. To me this seriously undermines the linguistic authority of this person.

 

[blü 2]

Hi. I would like your opinion of this claim that ancient Hebrew had no tenses. Thanx!

Why is Isaiah 53 written in the past tense?

Well, we could cut to the chase and say that there has never been an authenticated example of supernatural foreknowledge ("prophecy"). We could add that the authors of the NT freely made their stories of Jesus fit parts of the Tanakh that each author liked to think was a prophecy of Jesus (and that examples include Matthew's virgin birth, tax census, 'massacre of the innocents' and entry into Jerusalem riding a foal and a donkey); and that no 1st century Jew would have recognized Jesus as a messiah, since he was neither a civil, military, or religious leader of the Jews, nor anointed by the Jewish priesthood; and that it's entirely incoherent that the Jewish God would send [his] chosen people a messiah whose legacy has been 2000 years of rapacious and frequently murderous Christian antisemitism.

 

[Firenze]

Well, we could cut to the chase and say that there has never been an authenticated example of supernatural foreknowledge ("prophecy"). We could add that the authors of the NT freely made their stories of Jesus fit parts of the Tanakh that each author liked to think was a prophecy of Jesus (and that examples include Matthew's virgin birth, tax census, 'massacre of the innocents' and entry into Jerusalem riding a foal and a donkey); and that no 1st century Jew would have recognized Jesus as a messiah, since he was neither a civil, military, or religious leader of the Jews, nor anointed by the Jewish priesthood; and that it's entirely incoherent that the Jewish God would send [his] chosen people a messiah whose legacy has been 2000 years of rapacious and frequently murderous Christian antisemitism.

Yeah, I'm with you on that. Just wondered about the 'no tenses in ancient Hebrew'. Is it true or just another lame apologetic?

 

[rosends]

I believe you are saying that God should be mindless. I would not respect a God like that.

You believe incorrectly. I'm saying God's mind is not like a human mind so our expectation that he can change it whenever he feels like it is more an expression of what WE would do than what God is.