Isaiah 53 and Human Sin

[Redemptionsong]

Jesus was not a Jewish messiah. He was never anointed by the Jewish priesthood (whereas 'anointed by the Jewish priesthood' is what 'messiah' means).

He was never a civil, military or religious leader of the Jews.

His purported messiah status is a Christian invention ─ the result of Jesus has been two thousand years of rapacious and often murderous Christian antisemitism, an absurd qualification for a Jewish messiah to have.

You could not have read my post because you keep repeating the same baseless claim.

Who anointed David to be king over Israel?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Yet again usage of quite a few words to contradict your prior statement. Kudos.

To claim contradiction you must demonstrate to me the contradictory statements.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I was not aware my deeds were any of your business.

The point l'm making is that we are all sinners!

Yet, you are claiming that we can be righteous without the Spirit of God!

 

[Harel13]

To claim contradiction you must demonstrate to me the contradictory statements.

There is no contradiction. Jesus was raised to life by the Spirit of the Father. Jesus Christ is now head of the Church, the body of Christ. Through Christ, the same Spirit continues to save even as we speak. The process of salvation, therefore, continues until the day of judgment.

Here you state that salvation is continuous.

All lsrael shall be saved, because Israel is the head (shepherd king) and his people. The shepherd king is already saved, and he is now rounding up his flock.

Whilst here you said that Israel=the shepherd king=already saved.

 

[Harel13]

The point l'm making is that we are all sinners!

In your opinion, of course. I note no apology for the abrupt rudeness.

Yet, you are claiming that we can be righteous without the Spirit of God!

I don't think I ever said anything of the sort. The thing is, we have very different understandings of what it means to be righteous and what it means to be pure. So far, your understanding appears to be entirely unrelated to verses from the first chapter of Isaiah. And that's fine - so long as you don't claim that your view is to somehow be gleaned from Isaiah via twisting and turning and doing cartwheels in the air.

 

[rosends]

Specifics are important, but so is consistency in the prophetic message. The use of repeated words and phrases is not careless, but meaningful.

Which is why I pointed out the repeated use of the words which indicate that the subject is the nation. You didn;t really address that. Instead you generalized "context" to include everything.

Take, for example, the anointing of a man with the Spirit of God. In lsaiah, there is repetition of the idea of the Spirit resting upon a man.

Ne careful though -- the use of words is not careless, but you just replaced "anointing" with "resting".

Torah Jews like to say that there are many kings and priests anointed by God.

Well, actually, the Torah says that.

Yet the imperfect all point to the perfect, and the perfect one is Christ.

That means nothing. The texts says what it says. Your decision about what something points to is pure invention.

In Isaiah 61, the Spirit of God rests upon a man. Torah Jews refuse to accept that this man is Christ, despite a consistent message throughout lsaiah.

Well, 61 begins in the first person who has had the spirit of prophecy rest on him (elsewhere, and I can give you verses, the spirit resting is a reference to prophecy and prophets are called "anointed ones"). And since this text is written from the first person of Isaiah, it is weird to insist that suddenly and out of no where, the first person perspective is that of an external character who is never actually named.

Isaiah 11:1 is, l hope we agree, unquestionably about the king Messiah.

That is one way to understand this verse, yes. Not the only way, but one of them.

Isaiah 11:2 tells us that that the spirit of the LORD 'shall rest upon him'.

If you subscribe to the rabbinic understanding of biblical Hebrew.

Isaiah 42:1, again, tells us about the king Messiah. 'I have put my spirit upon him', says God.

No it doesn't -- the subject is understood either to be the speaker (Isaiah, the prophet, upon whom the spirit of prophecy was given) or about the nation of Israel (compare the word "chosen" to Ps 135:4, and the identification of the servant as the nation in Is 45:4). So you jump to a conclusion erroneously and that allows you to say "again" when that isn't the case if you look at the words.

Isaiah 59:21. Again, referring to the king Messiah. 'My Spirit that is upon thee'.

Again, no. The reference could be to the prophet Isaiah, or to the people (cf Joel 3:1). Look at the words.

Then we come to lsaiah 61:1. The king Messiah speaks. 'The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me'.

No, he doesn't. That's your invention at work, again.

The Spirit of the Lord is determined to rest upon his chosen. The chosen one is the Messiah. Yet, remarkably, Torah Jews ignore the consistency of lsaiah's message and suggest that it's lsaiah himself claiming the anointing!

When you ignore the words and phrases, the use of "anointed" to refer to prophets, the idea that the spirit of prophecy rested on this prophet and, in future, on all Israel (who are called his chosen) and when you need to include a completely external character, you end up with a total mish mash. Remember, "The use of repeated words and phrases is not careless, but meaningful" so you should pay attention to it.

And you haven't.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Here you state that salvation is continuous.

Whilst here you said that Israel=the shepherd king=already saved.

In Christian theology, Jesus is raised as the firstfruits of the harvest. The rest of the body (believers) are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of his coming.

1 Corinthians 15:23. 'But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.'

 

[Harel13]

In Christian theology, Jesus is raised as the firstfruits of the harvest. The rest of the body (believers) are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of his coming.

1 Corinthians 15:23. 'But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.'

Are you unwilling to admit the contradiction?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That is untrue, since most sources I've read cite hundreds of prophecies. Where I differ is I'd cite THOUSANDS since there are countless type and shadow pictures of Yeshua in Tanakh, for example, you can search for "100 comparisons between Jesus and Joseph in Genesis".

What non-Messianic Jews are saying, by the way, isn't just "not about Messiah". What they are saying is where God gives literal, specific, timed, precise prophecies in Tankah (at this time next year, I will return and Sarah will have a son;, tomorrow that empire will conquer your empire; dogs will lick the blood of your descendants from your royal chariot, etc. hundreds of times) that simple, direct prophecies about Yeshua are redacted to bizarre metaphors about Israel, Hezekiah and other PAST events rather than prophesied events that occur after the prophecy. "To us a child is born, a son is given, and the government is upon his shoulders" is a prophecy most agree was made years after Hezekiah was born! It should at least be a son WAS given!

Sorry, I know this may be hard for you to accept, but the truth is that Jesus is an irrelevancy to Judaism. Indeed, the only time I talk about Jesus is online because Christians there bring him up.

I'm nor really concerned with Messianic Jews. They are apostates fro Judaism, Jews who have become Christian.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Which is why I pointed out the repeated use of the words which indicate that the subject is the nation. You didn;t really address that. Instead you generalized "context" to include everything.


Ne careful though -- the use of words is not careless, but you just replaced "anointing" with "resting".

Well, actually, the Torah says that.

That means nothing. The texts says what it says. Your decision about what something points to is pure invention.


Well, 61 begins in the first person who has had the spirit of prophecy rest on him (elsewhere, and I can give you verses, the spirit resting is a reference to prophecy and prophets are called "anointed ones"). And since this text is written from the first person of Isaiah, it is weird to insist that suddenly and out of no where, the first person perspective is that of an external character who is never actually named.

That is one way to understand this verse, yes. Not the only way, but one of them.

If you subscribe to the rabbinic understanding of biblical Hebrew.

No it doesn't -- the subject is understood either to be the speaker (Isaiah, the prophet, upon whom the spirit of prophecy was given) or about the nation of Israel (compare the word "chosen" to Ps 135:4, and the identification of the servant as the nation in Is 45:4). So you jump to a conclusion erroneously and that allows you to say "again" when that isn't the case if you look at the words.

Again, no. The reference could be to the prophet Isaiah, or to the people (cf Joel 3:1). Look at the words.

No, he doesn't. That's your invention at work, again.

When you ignore the words and phrases, the use of "anointed" to refer to prophets, the idea that the spirit of prophecy rested on this prophet and, in future, on all Israel (who are called his chosen) and when you need to include a completely external character, you end up with a total mish mash. Remember, "The use of repeated words and phrases is not careless, but meaningful" so you should pay attention to it.

And you haven't.

Isaiah 61 begins in the first person because the words must belong to the Messiah, already characterised by the fact that he will be the one on whom the Spirit of God rests [lsaiah 11:2].

This is confirmed by another of Isaiah's prophecies. In lsaiah 49:8 the LORD says, 'ln an acceptable time have l heard thee: and in a day of salvation have l helped thee: and l will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people ..'

In lsaiah 61:2 it says, ' the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD..'

Isaiah did not 'bind up the brokenhearted' as this was not his calling as a prophet. Nor would a prophet make such claims about himself!

Then we can turn to lsaiah 42:6,7 to be sure that chapter 61:1,2 is not spoken by lsaiah. In 42:6,7 it says, 'l the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.'

Isaiah was not made 'a covenant of the people'. The Suffering Servant is made 'a covenant of the people'. Only the Messiah is a light for the Gentiles, not lsaiah.

Who opens the eyes of the blind, and sets prisoners free? Not lsaiah.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Are you unwilling to admit the contradiction?

Yes, I've explained to you why it is not a contradiction!

The head is resurrected first, and the body follows.

 

[rosends]

Isaiah 61 begins in the first person because the words must belong to the Messiah,

See? You're doing it again. You decided that the words must belong to someone so you read them as if they belong to someone you have in mind. But the text doesn't work like that.

already characterised by the fact that he will be the one on whom the Spirit of God rests [lsaiah 11:2]

And you are basing it on some fantasy that the spirit rests only on the person you have in mind, but I showed you that the text doesn't actually say that.

This is confirmed by another of Isaiah's prophecies. In lsaiah 49:8 the LORD says, 'ln an acceptable time have l heard thee: and in a day of salvation have l helped thee: and l will preserve thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people ..'

49:7 and 8 say that God is speaking to the despised one whom he has chosen, using the word "chosen" which is the word textually used to refer to the nation of Israel. The words matter, right? Consistency is important, right? Well, the text is pretty clear in that regard, then.

In lsaiah 61:2 it says, ' the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of prison to them that are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD..'

Isaiah did not 'bind up the brokenhearted' as this was not his calling as a prophet. Nor would a prophet make such claims about himself!

Actually, it was -- he speaks of future redemption and the end of exile, speaking on behalf of God who is the healer of the broken heart (Psalms 147:3). I'm not sure why you would ignore a major part of Isaiah's aim.

Then we can turn to lsaiah 42:6,7 to be sure that chapter 61:1,2 is not spoken by lsaiah. In 42:6,7 it says, 'l the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles;
To open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison house.'

Isaiah was not made 'a covenant of the people'. The Suffering Servant is made 'a covenant of the people'. Only the Messiah is a light for the Gentiles, not lsaiah.

42:6-7 has God saying what he does. He is the first person "I". You can say either that the "you" is the nation, or that it is Isaiah who was made to establish the covenanted people (the word "livrit" seen as an infinitive verb). Either way, no Jesus.

Who opens the eyes of the blind, and sets prisoners free? Not lsaiah.

As a prophet, he proclaims to the people so that they open their eyes and he speaks on behalf of God who opens eyes. There is no Jesus in any of this, not even any specific messiah. You are really reaching and ignoring the text.

(if your modus operandi is going to be to ignore what I have posted and just make new claims instead of engaging with the points I raise, I don't see how this will be very fruitful)

 

[Harel13]

Yes, I've explained to you why it is not a contradiction!

The head is resurrected first, and the body follows.

Once again you are talking about some form of continuous salvation. This clearly contradicts your earlier statement that Israel=the shepherd king=already saved.

 

[blü 2]

Does "slightest reason" include raising people and Himself from the dead?

No eyewitnesses, no contemporary accounts within 20 years, no independent accounts. Do you believe Apollonius of Tyana was also a wandering miracle-worker? Could Simon Magus fly? Could you get useful statements about the future from the sybil of Delphi? The evidence for those things is at least as good as the evidence for the resurrection (a low bar indeed).

 

[blü 2]

You could not have read my post because you keep repeating the same baseless claim.

Which part of what I said are you declaring to be "baseless"?

Who anointed David to be king over Israel?

David was anointed by "the men of Judah" in Hebron, says 2 Samuel 2:4. You think that means all of them, or just their leaders? You think their religious leaders were nonetheless not involved? Really?

 

[Redemptionsong]

See? You're doing it again. You decided that the words must belong to someone so you read them as if they belong to someone you have in mind. But the text doesn't work like that.


And you are basing it on some fantasy that the spirit rests only on the person you have in mind, but I showed you that the text doesn't actually say that.

49:7 and 8 say that God is speaking to the despised one whom he has chosen, using the word "chosen" which is the word textually used to refer to the nation of Israel. The words matter, right? Consistency is important, right? Well, the text is pretty clear in that regard, then.

Actually, it was -- he speaks of future redemption and the end of exile, speaking on behalf of God who is the healer of the broken heart (Psalms 147:3). I'm not sure why you would ignore a major part of Isaiah's aim.

42:6-7 has God saying what he does. He is the first person "I". You can say either that the "you" is the nation, or that it is Isaiah who was made to establish the covenanted people (the word "livrit" seen as an infinitive verb). Either way, no Jesus.

As a prophet, he proclaims to the people so that they open their eyes and he speaks on behalf of God who opens eyes. There is no Jesus in any of this, not even any specific messiah. You are really reaching and ignoring the text.

(if your modus operandi is going to be to ignore what I have posted and just make new claims instead of engaging with the points I raise, I don't see how this will be very fruitful)

The notes in the JPS on lsaiah 42:1-9 are instructive. Commenting on verses 1-9, the commentator writes, 'The servant in this passage is parallel to, though not identical with, the ideal Davidic king described in ch 11; promises made to the king there are transferred to the whole nation here. Cf. 53:3 n; 60:1-22 n.; 62:25 n.'

This comment is, in my opinion, a balanced and unbiased attempt to understand the text. He can see that the Spirit of God rests upon the individual Messiah (lsaiah 11) whilst acknowledging the nation lsrael as 'the servant'.

This leads me to ask the question, ls the resting of the Spirit upon the individual Davidic king linked to the resting of the Spirit upon the nation of lsrael? In other words, can the nation receive the Spirit of God without the king being present?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Once again you are talking about some form of continuous salvation. This clearly contradicts your earlier statement that Israel=the shepherd king=already saved.

I view lsrael as both an individual and a nation. I understand the Messiah, lsrael, to be a head (king), and a body (people). The head is in heaven, already resurrected from the dead. The body is on earth, awaiting resurrection.

To describe Jesus, who was without sin, as 'saved', requires explanation. He took the sin of others upon himself. The Spirit of God, which rested upon him, left him when he bore the sin of others. Hence, Psalm 22:1. The soul of Jesus descended into sheol, but he was resurrected by the Spirit of God after three days and nights (as the sign of Jonah indicates ). Jesus' resurrection is the 'firstfruits' of the harvest, and all other believers must find life in his spiritual body.

This is how l see it. To me there is no contradiction between the head being resurrected ('saved'), whilst the body is still in the process of being saved. Salvation is not complete until the whole body becomes attached to the head! Then, as scripture says, All Israel shall be saved.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Which part of what I said are you declaring to be "baseless"?
David was anointed by "the men of Judah" in Hebron, says 2 Samuel 2:4. You think that means all of them, or just their leaders? You think their religious leaders were nonetheless not involved? Really?

Why are you ignoring the role of the prophet Samuel?

1 Samuel 16:13. 'Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward.'

So, who anointed David, with the LORD's approval? Was David made king of lsrael at the time of his anointing?

 

[blü 2]

Why are you ignoring the role of the prophet Samuel?

1 Samuel 16:13. 'Then Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren: and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward.'

Nothing there helps the pretense that Jesus is a Jewish messiah.

The passage you quote is about leaders of the Jewish people.

Jesus was never a leader of the Jewish people ─ not civil, not military, not religious.

His messiah status is totally a Christian invention.

 

[blü 2]

Why are you ignoring the role of the prophet Samuel?

Nothing in what you cite helps the pretense that Jesus is a Jewish messiah.

The passage you quote is about leaders of the Jewish people.

Jesus was never a leader of the Jewish people ─ not civil, not military, not religious.

His messiah status is totally a Christian invention.

One of very many.