Jewish Messiah

[IndigoChild5559]

Well, this is what the Scriptures say about his coming:

Is. 53

Isaiah 53 is not about the messiah. It is about Israel. Isaiah specifically identifies the servant as Israel:
Isaiah 41:8
But you, Israel, my servant,
Jacob, whom I have chosen,
you descendants of Abraham my friend,

 

[Eli G]

Isaiah 53 is not about the messiah. It is about Israel. ...

I don't agree. Remember: I am not a Jew and I don't have to agree with them.

 

[rosends]

But it is arrogance to decide what a Jewish text means if you aren't of the community to whom the text was given and addressed.

 

[rosends]

The thing is Jesus still has followers in the world while other Jews "Messiahs" that they (actual Jewish practitioners) followed in their own times, they are not more and most people don't even know they existed ...

So because the church was jammed down people's throats 1700 years ago that makes it valid. Got it.

So: What do modern Jews say about the Messiah they are expecting today? The only argument they have is that the Messiah was not Jesus and that's it?

And you say you have studied it? Maybe you should start with the questions and accept that you don't know things. The Jewish concept and discussions regarding the future Messiah, qualifications, expectations and implications are quite extensive so dismissing the thousands of pages and web sites which show that Jesus was not the Messiah and saying that a singular argument is "all they have" is really ignorant and insulting.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I don't agree. Remember: I am not a Jew and I don't have to agree with them.

And I'm not a Christian and do not need to agree with you The difference between you and I is that I offered up Isaiah 41:8 as proof. You have no evidence of your postiion. Just wishful thinking.

 

[Fool]

But it is arrogance to decide what a Jewish text means if you aren't of the community to whom the text was given and addressed.

but even the jews don't all agree either. you even makes this point about that jesus fellow leading folks astray. interesting

 

[rosends]

but even the jews don't all agree either. you even makes this point about that jesus fellow leading folks astray. interesting

The methodology of disagreement between Jewish scholars is complex and intricate. Cer sin ideas are outside an acceptable range.

 

[Fool]

The methodology of disagreement between Jewish scholars is complex and intricate. Cer sin ideas are outside an acceptable range.

but you implied no one outside of the culture could understand/grasp these ideas outside of judaism of today that wouldn't be judaism of 2000 years ago would it? so then is it something that transcends culture from todays version to 2000 yrs ago and more? and definitely a different culture prior to judah?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

but even the jews don't all agree either. you even makes this point about that jesus fellow leading folks astray. interesting

We actually do agree on a great many things, i.e. that Isaiah 53 is not about the messiah.

 

[rosends]

but you implied no one outside of the culture could understand/grasp these ideas outside of judaism of today that wouldn't be judaism of 2000 years ago would it? so then is it something that transcends culture from todays version to 2000 yrs ago and more? and definitely a different culture prior to judah?

Not 'grasp' but lay claim to a valid reading especially islf that reading contradicts that of people within. Why do you assume Judaism of today is s markedly different. On form there have been changes but they hav all been within parameters set over 2000 years ago.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't agree. Remember: I am not a Jew and I don't have to agree with them.

Bingo!

But while your right to Christian eisegesis is secure here, see zero respect the output.

 

[Fool]

We actually do agree on a great many things, i.e. that Isaiah 53 is not about the messiah.

the point is that everyone isn't going to agree on everything because of subjective experiences and knowledge. not everyone is at the same place in their development. whether jewish or not. obviously people agree on things but usually not 100%.

 

[Fool]

Not 'grasp' but lay claim to a valid reading especially islf that reading contradicts that of people within. Why do you assume Judaism of today is s markedly different. On form there have been changes but they hav all been within parameters set over 2000 years ago.

because cultures change as does the lingo. this is why dictionaries often use the term archaic in relationship. i didn't use the term markedly. obviously there are still similarities. a house is still a house in one age vs another but reading and understanding every definition of a word is not always the case. so one reader might have a bias towards a particular definition; where as another might be bias to different definition. this is typical in translation. being able to read and speak the language doesn't even mean there is necessarily an understanding.

I do agree that being a person who was raised in a language probably has a greater understanding but ..........i'm trying to learn Spanish. I recently had a native speaking, college educated teacher tell me that the word "cuestión" was not Spanish and then ask me if I spoke french. I didn't correct her but another professor told me that it was rarely used and the "pregunta" was more widely used. both mean the same thing.


Modern Hebrew, the only vernacular tongue based on an ancient written form, was developed in the 19th and 20th centuries.
https://web.library.yale.edu/catalo...uage in which most,century BC, at the latest.
II. Biblical Hebrew
https://web.library.yale.edu/catalo...uage in which most,century BC, at the latest.
The language in which most of the Old Testament was written dates, as a living language, from the 12th to the 2nd century BC, at the latest.

 

[rosends]

because cultures change as does the lingo. this is why dictionaries often use the term archaic in relationship. i didn't use the term markedly. obviously there are still similarities. a house is still a house in one age vs another but reading and understanding every definition of a word is not always the case. so one reader might have a bias towards a particular definition; where as another might be bias to different definition. this is typical in translation. being able to read and speak the language doesn't even mean there is necessarily an understanding.

I do agree that being a person who was raised in a language probably has a greater understanding but ..........i'm trying to learn Spanish. I recently had a native speaking, college educated teacher tell me that the word "cuestión" was not Spanish and then ask me if I spoke french. I didn't correct her but another professor told me that it was rarely used and the "pregunta" was more widely used. both mean the same thing.


Modern Hebrew, the only vernacular tongue based on an ancient written form, was developed in the 19th and 20th centuries.
https://web.library.yale.edu/cataloging/hebraica/about-hebrew#:~:text=Modern Hebrew, the only vernacular,the 19th and 20th centuries.&text=The language in which most,century BC, at the latest.
II. Biblical Hebrew
https://web.library.yale.edu/cataloging/hebraica/about-hebrew#:~:text=Modern Hebrew, the only vernacular,the 19th and 20th centuries.&text=The language in which most,century BC, at the latest.
The language in which most of the Old Testament was written dates, as a living language, from the 12th to the 2nd century BC, at the latest.

Now you are talking about the development of language - Hebrew has gone through many stages in its evolution. When we study, we make sure to study using the rules of Hebrew as it was, not the vocabulary and grammar that is current.

 

[Eli G]

But it is arrogance to decide what a Jewish text means if you aren't of the community to whom the text was given and addressed.

Who told you that the Hebrew Scriptures have anything to do with modern Jews? It is like saying that the Greek Scriptures belong to the Catholic Church... Both modern religious factions have wanted to appropriate what was never theirs. On the other hand: when you refer to Jews today, what are you talking about?

The current word "Jew" is as broad as the word "Christian"... Neither identifies the Jews of Biblical times or the Christians of the first century. Define terms before continuing to discuss empty things.

Also, stop using useless fallacies like the fallacy of authority. The Jews have no authority even over the Jews themselves, lol.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But it is arrogance to decide what a Jewish text means if you aren't of the community to whom the text was given and addressed.

Who told you that the Hebrew Scriptures have anything to do with modern Jews?

When you respond to a quote, its generally considered good form to have that response somewhat relevant.

 

[rosends]

Who told you that the Hebrew Scriptures have anything to do with modern Jews? It is like saying that the Greek Scriptures belong to the Catholic Church... Both modern religious factions have wanted to appropriate what was never theirs. On the other hand: when you refer to Jews today, what are you talking about?

Um, Jewish texts that have been part of the Jewish tradition for over 2000 years are still part of our life and culture. Who told you that Jewish scriptures don't belong to Jews? When I refer to Jews today, I refer to those who are Jewish according to Jewish law and who are part of the greater Jewish community.

The current word "Jew" is as broad as the word "Christian"... Neither identifies the Jews of Biblical times or the Christians of the first century. Define terms before continuing to discuss empty things.

The current word "Jew" is the word used to refer to those who descend from the nation of Judah (the southern kingdom) or who converted in to that nation via that nation's laws. It is used, textually, to refer to that group as early as the 4th century BCE.

Also, stop using useless fallacies like the fallacy of authority. The Jews have no authority even over the Jews themselves, lol.

Referring to authority isn't a fallacy necessarily. It is a valid appeal when the authority cited is actually an authority. If you deny people authority over themselves then there is nothing to discuss because know one knows anything. Good luck.

 

[Eli G]

Jews lost their way more than 2000 years ago.

Four centuries before Jesus they already were left without prophets ... so modern Jews are not even the shadow of the real thing. Remember: not prophet, no priests, no davidic king, no fulfilment of Moses' Law, no temple, no genealogies, , and a long etc. They don't even know what some old hebrew words in the Hebrew Scriptures mean with total certainty.

So, no. Leave your fairy tells for your children.

Have a good day.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Referring to authority isn't a fallacy necessarily. It is a valid appeal when the authority cited is actually an authority. If you deny people authority over themselves then there is nothing to discuss because know one knows anything. Good luck.

^ this

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Jews lost their way more than 2000 years ago.

Four centuries before Jesus they already were left without prophets ... so modern Jews are not even the shadow of the real thing. Remember: not prophet, no priests, no davidic king, no fulfilment of Moses' Law, no temple, no genealogies, , and a long etc. They don't even know what some old hebrew words in the Hebrew Scriptures mean with total certainty.

So, no. Leave your fairy tells for your children.

Have a good day.

---> ignore-list