Judaism vs Christianity: Second Coming of Messiah

[Harel13]

Jesus did that. Died and was buried as a criminal but in a rich man's grave. He gave His life as an guilt offering and in this way became a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek. (Psalm 110:4)

Please stay on topic. You brought up Isaiah 53, let's stick to that for the moment. What do you have to say about what I wrote?

His salvation comes because He gave up His innocent life, a life worthy of eternal life because He had not sinned and took our place and we are invited to share in the eternal life that He sacrificed.
As we get our eternal life from Him, He is our Father.

Why does that make him a father (or father-figure, as you suggest)?

 

[rosends]

I just said that because you seemed to be implying that before 1000 years ago there were other interpretations.

I said that a particular explanation was old. You then claimed there were others. If you have no others don't make that claim.

No not really, it is just that Jesus was chosen by God to be the Saviour of both gentiles and Jews.

Not at all. That's a bizarre and unsupported claim.

We are the ones who need to be saved. Saved from death that A@E brought into the world.
We can't pay the price for our own life let alone anyone else's.

No we don't. And even if we did, it would be God who "saves" us (whatever that means) and it wouldn't be through someone else's death.

Isn't that what both Jews and Christians do with what we call Messianic texts.

Mostly, Jewish understanding is driven by grammar and a consistency of language - not by isolating phrases, using translations and inserting anachronistic characters into the narrative.

When it comes to Messianic texts it does however seem to me that Judaism is not consistent in which ones it has chosen and which ones rejected.

Judaism is consistent and informed by context and language. Non Jewish interpretations seem to be selective and inconsistent.

 

[Brian2]

Why does that make him a father (or father-figure, as you suggest)?

Jesus gets His life from His Father, God, and we get our life from our Father, God, through Jesus.
That makes Jesus our Father also.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

God chose all of us to save the world.

We still can not yet become One people and until we can, we also never embrace the one God.

Regards Tony

 

[Brian2]

No we don't. And even if we did, it would be God who "saves" us (whatever that means) and it wouldn't be through someone else's death.

It is God who saves us, but why do you say that it would not be through someone else's death?

Mostly, Jewish understanding is driven by grammar and a consistency of language - not by isolating phrases, using translations and inserting anachronistic characters into the narrative.

Isn't the Messiah the one who is going to rule on David's throne forever and rule over the nations forever? If so, why do you reject scriptures as Messianic which tell us that.

Judaism is consistent and informed by context and language. Non Jewish interpretations seem to be selective and inconsistent.

It is true that it is hard to see the reasoning behind some of the prophecies that Christians say speak of the Messiah. I think sometimes it comes from the life of Jesus Himself and what He did and the gospel tellers knowing He was the Messiah because they were the witnesses for the resurrection and could see the things written out Him in the Hebrew scriptures.

 

[rosends]

It is God who saves us, but why do you say that it would not be through someone else's death?

Because that's how Judaism works. One person's death does not atone for the acts of another. There are situations you can cite where it appears that that is what is happening, but Judaism does not understand those situations in that way.

Isn't the Messiah the one who is going to rule on David's throne forever and rule over the nations forever? If so, why do you reject scriptures as Messianic which tell us that.

I don't know if he will rule forever, but not ever text which refers to an anointed figure ruling is about a future messianic age figure ruling.

It is true that it is hard to see the reasoning behind some of the prophecies that Christians say speak of the Messiah. I think sometimes it comes from the life of Jesus Himself and what He did and the gospel tellers knowing He was the Messiah because they were the witnesses for the resurrection and could see the things written out Him in the Hebrew scriptures.

So people later on found what they needed to find to justify their beliefs, stuff that before hand, they didn't find.

 

[Brian2]

Because that's how Judaism works. One person's death does not atone for the acts of another. There are situations you can cite where it appears that that is what is happening, but Judaism does not understand those situations in that way.

In the Law the sacrifice of animals atoned for sin. Christians see this as a forecast of what God was going to do later with the Messiah, the last sacrifice needed.
But one person's death cannot atone for the acts of another because the person who died has acts of His own to pay for with His own life.
If a person is sinless however it is another story, especially if God has decided to accept that sacrifice, redemption price.
I guess the sacrifice of Jesus is also seen as the Passover sacrifice and the slavery that we are freed from is the slavery to sin and death, where those who accept the sacrifice and hear and hearken to the words of Jesus have figuratively eaten the Passover lamb and have drunk the blook/life of Jesus and are in the New Covenant.
God accepts the death of His firstborn as substitute.
God was prepared to sacrifice His firstborn for us just as Abraham was prepared to sacrifice Isaac.

I don't know if he will rule forever, but not ever text which refers to an anointed figure ruling is about a future messianic age figure ruling.

Well I guess either David is going to literally rule forever or it is a prophecy about the Messiah,,,,,,,,,,,,or when it says someone is going to rule on the throne of David, that could be taken as meaning that the dynasty of David will last forever otherwise there are a number of people who will be ruling forever on the throne of David.

So people later on found what they needed to find to justify their beliefs, stuff that before hand, they didn't find.

Yes people found those things later because they knew what Jesus did and could see those things prophesied in the scriptures. The prophecies were hidden well and a lot of it just would not be necessarily associated with the Messiah without first knowing what the Messiah had done.
They are not all like that however, some are quite clear, to me at least, even if they may be double prophecies and have been associated with other people or events initially.

 

[rosends]

But one person's death cannot atone for the acts of another because the person who died has acts of His own to pay for with His own life.
If a person is sinless however it is another story, especially if God has decided to accept that sacrifice, redemption price.

No, under Jewish law, and according to the textual doctrine, a man dies for his own sin. No vicarious atonement through the death of any other person is mentioned.

I guess the sacrifice of Jesus is also seen as the Passover sacrifice and the slavery that we are freed from is the slavery to sin and death, where those who accept the sacrifice and hear and hearken to the words of Jesus have figuratively eaten the Passover lamb and have drunk the blook/life of Jesus and are in the New Covenant.
God accepts the death of His firstborn as substitute.

But Jesus could not have been a sacrifice, he was not offered AS a sacrifice, and the Passover sacrifice has nothing to do with sin. So "seeing" his death in any particular way is not clear seeing.

God was prepared to sacrifice His firstborn for us just as Abraham was prepared to sacrifice Isaac.

First, others are listed as God's firstborn.
Second, "prepared" if equated with Abraham, means "didn't." So if Jesus wasn't 'sacrificed' to make it parallel with the Abraham case, then any of the results of the sacrifice never happened.

that could be taken as meaning that the dynasty of David will last forever

Yes, in that case, predicting a singular "messiah" is flawed.

 

[Brian2]

No, under Jewish law, and according to the textual doctrine, a man dies for his own sin. No vicarious atonement through the death of any other person is mentioned.

A vicarious atonement through death of another person could be seen as an extension of the animal sacrifices.
Christians see Isa 53 as about a vicarious atonement through the death of another person.

But Jesus could not have been a sacrifice, he was not offered AS a sacrifice, and the Passover sacrifice has nothing to do with sin. So "seeing" his death in any particular way is not clear seeing.

Jesus knew what God wanted Him to do,,,,,,,,,to be obedient unto death,,,,,,,,and knew that it would lead to His death on a cross. Jesus is the one who offered Himself in that way and knew that God was going to make His life an offering for sin (Isa 53:10)
We see Jesus as the priest forever after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4) because of this and because He is making intercession for the transgressors now (Isa 53:12)

First, others are listed as God's firstborn.
Second, "prepared" if equated with Abraham, means "didn't." So if Jesus wasn't 'sacrificed' to make it parallel with the Abraham case, then any of the results of the sacrifice never happened.

While Abraham and Isaac were on their way to the sacrifice site, Mt Moriah I think, Abraham told Isaac that the Lord would provide the sacrifice. He was right and Abraham named the place "The Lord will provide" and it says that to this day it is said that on the mountain of the Lord it will be provided. (Gen 22:8,14)
God said that through his offering and because Abraham had obeyed Him then all the nations of the earth would be blessed. (Gen 22:18)
Through Jesus obedience as the sacrificer and as the sacrifice all the nations of the earth have been blessed because of this Jew and really because of all faithful Jews. Jesus is the sacrifice that the Lord provided.
It is interesting that the journey took 3 days to the place of sacrifice and in that time Abraham thought of Isaac as dead, then on the third day the sacrifice of Isaac was stopped and so he was then figuratively resurrected from death on the third day.

Yes, in that case, predicting a singular "messiah" is flawed.

To have many people on the throne of David forever is not a sensible option.
To see those places as applying to the one person seems like the best option imo.
To see those places as pointing to the survival forever of the throne of David is a true option, but it would make it more true imo if the prophecies are pointing to the one person.
Ezek 37:24,25 tells us that it is going to be one person, God's servant David.
Christians just see this David as the name God used to refer to the Messiah.
We also see some prophecies and writings about and by David as prophecies about the Messiah, since we see David as a type of the Messiah the King,,,,,,,,,,,,,just as we see Moses as a type of the Messiah the prophet and maybe Joshua as a type of the Messiah the priest, and all 3 are in the one person, the Messiah.

 

[rosends]

A vicarious atonement through death of another person could be seen as an extension of the animal sacrifices.

an extension? So just an invention demanded by theology but not supported by text. OK.

Christians see Isa 53 as about a vicarious atonement through the death of another person.

Yes, they have to. I mean, that isn't what it says, but whatever.

Jesus is the one who offered Himself in that way and knew that God was going to make His life an offering for sin (Isa 53:10)

Except that's not what Isaiah says.

We see Jesus as the priest forever after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4) because of this and because He is making intercession for the transgressors now (Isa 53:12)

Jesus was not a priest of any sort. You can "see" whatever you want to see even if it isn't there.

God said that through his offering and because Abraham had obeyed Him then all the nations of the earth would be blessed. (Gen 22:18)

Actually, 22:16 does not say that anything came through the offering, but through Abraham's willingness to offer. Therefore there was no sacrifice.

in that time Abraham thought of Isaac as dead,

really? Show me. According to what I'm reading, Abe walked with Isaac and his servants for three days, then saw the location from afar, and continued with Isaac and had a conversation with Isaac -- something which one does not generally do with a dead person.

To have many people on the throne of David forever is not a sensible option.

Why not? There already were many on the throne. That's how dynasties work.

To see those places as pointing to the survival forever of the throne of David is a true option, but it would make it more true imo if the prophecies are pointing to the one person.

So the throne will be forever and THEREFORE there will only be one person on it? That makes MORE sense to you?

Ezek 37:24,25 tells us that it is going to be one person, God's servant David.

So not Jesus. Got it. Just a resurrected David, forever. Not as a "type" but as a named individual. Thanks.
Wait, you want to see David as a "type" so you can have the text be read by your theology as pointing to someone not there? Oh. Weird.

And Moses was not a messiah. Neither was Joshua.

 

[Harel13]

Jesus gets His life from His Father, God, and we get our life from our Father, God, through Jesus.
That makes Jesus our Father also.

And you see that where exactly in Isaiah 53?

 

[Brian2]

And you see that where exactly in Isaiah 53?

I don't see it in Isa 53.
In Isa 53 the servant has children and I was trying to explain how that might work.

 

[Harel13]

I don't see it in Isa 53.
In Isa 53 the servant has children and I was trying to explain how that might work.

Fascinating. So in your view, the singular servant has to be a singular man, literally, while the fatherhood aspect has to be metaphorical. Absolutely fascinating. Don't know how you get around that.

 

[Brian2]

Fascinating. So in your view, the singular servant has to be a singular man, literally, while the fatherhood aspect has to be metaphorical. Absolutely fascinating. Don't know how you get around that.

If Christians get life from Jesus then why is the fatherhood aspect metaphorical.
Christians are a new creation with our spirit joined to the spirit of Jesus and this will be completed at the resurrection with an immortal and incorruptible body.

 

[Harel13]

If Christians get life from Jesus then why is the fatherhood aspect metaphorical.

It means that you believe that the fatherhood referred to here is not biological. Typically the term "father" and related terms refer to biological relations. If you ascribe a different meaning, it means that you don't read it literally.

 

[Brian2]

an extension? So just an invention demanded by theology but not supported by text. OK.

Taking Isa 53 as being about the one Jew, the text supports a vicarious sacrifice.
By extension I meant that the sacificial Laws were pointing to what Jesus did to atone for sin.

Yes, they have to. I mean, that isn't what it says, but whatever..

That is what Isa 53 says. How can it not be what it says when there are Jewish Rabbis who say Isa 53 as Messianic and referring to vicarious atonement.

Except that's not what Isaiah says..

What did he say?

Jesus was not a priest of any sort. You can "see" whatever you want to see even if it isn't there.

He was not a Levitical priest but what makes a priest. David offered sacrifice and so he did the job of a priest and was punished for it like Saul had been.

Actually, 22:16 does not say that anything came through the offering, but through Abraham's willingness to offer. Therefore there was no sacrifice.

That's right. The real offering of the firstborn was with Jesus. Because of Abraham the Jewish race was born and the Messiah came from his descendants and all nations were blessed. Jesus was willing to sacrifice Himself and did so, He was the one promised to Abraham, the one that the ram in the bush represented.

really? Show me. According to what I'm reading, Abe walked with Isaac and his servants for three days, then saw the location from afar, and continued with Isaac and had a conversation with Isaac -- something which one does not generally do with a dead person.

What I said is that Abraham, for 3 days thought of Isaac as the sacrifice who would die.
On the third day the sacrifice was stopped and so it was a symbolic resurrection of Isaac in the eyes of Abraham.
It is interesting that Abraham told the servants that they (Abraham and Isaac) would come back to them. Isaac had been the one that God promised would be the firstborn and continuation of Abraham's seed so Abraham seems to have expected something, maybe that God would resurrect Isaac.

Why not? There already were many on the throne. That's how dynasties work.

If you think that people are going to live and die on into eternity then OK but I see the time spoken of as a time after the resurrection and when death will cease.

So the throne will be forever and THEREFORE there will only be one person on it? That makes MORE sense to you?

Yes and especially since that is what the scriptures say it will be.

So not Jesus. Got it. Just a resurrected David, forever. Not as a "type" but as a named individual. Thanks.
Wait, you want to see David as a "type" so you can have the text be read by your theology as pointing to someone not there? Oh. Weird.

I see all the passages about the future King as referring to the one person, the Messiah.
If you see Ezek 37:24,25 as literally referring to David then I guess you think Isa 9:7 literally refers to Hezekiah (even if he is not mentioned in the text)
Maybe you think God will be sitting on the throne.
Zech 14:9 On that day the LORD will become King over all the earth— the LORD alone, and His name alone.
I just see all these as referring to the Messiah, the one who will be sitting on the throne of David.
He will be appointed the firstborn of God, higher than the Kings of the earth. (Psalm 89:27)
He receives His Kingdom from God when He goes from the earth to heaven after death. (Dan 7:13,14)

And Moses was not a messiah. Neither was Joshua.

I don't remember any oil but I think I remember the Spirit of God in the choosing and anointing of Moses to do what he did. He was a prophet who brought in a Covenant and ruled over the Jews.
Both Zerubbabel and Joshua seem to have both been anointed by God (Zech 4:14)
The Priesthood and Kingship was going to be united in the one person, the Messiah.
Zech 6:13Behold the man whose name is Branch. From his place he will branch out and he shall build the temple of the Lord. Yes, he shall build the temple of the Lord. He shall bear the glory and shall sit and rule on his throne. So he shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.” (Zechariah 6:13).

 

[Brian2]

It means that you believe that the fatherhood referred to here is not biological. Typically the term "father" and related terms refer to biological relations. If you ascribe a different meaning, it means that you don't read it literally.

It is fatherhood even if it is not typical fatherhood in a biological sense. There was "typically" not much call to use those terms in anything but biological sense but the term Father is used at Isa 9:6 and Psalm 89:24-27 and many in the scriptures are called sons of God.

 

[rosends]

Taking Isa 53 as being about the one Jew, the text supports a vicarious sacrifice.

Which should be proof enough that it isn't about one Jew, as God already came out clearly against vicarious and human sacrifice. Of course, if you read from before 53 (the chapter breaks are artificial and a late addition) you would understand WHO is speaking and why that person's assessment and point of view taints you reading)

By extension I meant that the sacificial Laws were pointing to what Jesus did to atone for sin.

Again, you "extend" to make something up whcih isn't there.

That is what Isa 53 says. How can it not be what it says when there are Jewish Rabbis who say Isa 53 as Messianic and referring to vicarious atonement.

No, there are rabbis who were of the opinion that certain ideas within 53 can be seen as ALSO messianic in their hints. And can you show me one who says that 53 points to vicarious sin atonement?

What did he say?

Well, he didn't mention Jesus and did mention that the character in the verse saw his children. Jesus had children?

He was not a Levitical priest but what makes a priest.

Being of the line of Aaron.

David offered sacrifice and so he did the job of a priest

No, in the biblical texts, many individuals were expected to offer sacrifices, not just priests.

and was punished for it like Saul had been.

Saul was punished because of his behavior with Agag. Because of it, he was killed and lost the monarchy. David was not killed in battle and the monarchy stayed with his family.

That's right. The real offering of the firstborn was with Jesus. Because of Abraham the Jewish race was born and the Messiah came from his descendants and all nations were blessed. Jesus was willing to sacrifice Himself and did so, He was the one promised to Abraham, the one that the ram in the bush represented.

Abraham's offering of Isaac had nothing to do with firstborns so you have totally confused things. The ram in the bush didn't represent anything of the sort, and because of the ram, you have proof that Isaac wasn't sacrificed so any connection to Isaac is lost.

What I said is that Abraham, for 3 days thought of Isaac as the sacrifice who would die.

No, what you said was "in that time Abraham thought of Isaac as dead," but he didn't.

On the third day the sacrifice was stopped and so it was a symbolic resurrection of Isaac in the eyes of Abraham.

No, it was a literal saving of Isaac from being killed. You have to invent and impute an emotion in order for this to work. Totally unfounded.

It is interesting that Abraham told the servants that they (Abraham and Isaac) would come back to them. Isaac had been the one that God promised would be the firstborn and continuation of Abraham's seed so Abraham seems to have expected something, maybe that God would resurrect Isaac.

In that case, it is clearer that Abraham expected that Isaac would NOT be killed because God promised him already that through Isaac a nation would be started, so he had faith the God wasn't lying. He therefore never would have thought of Isaac as dead.

I see all the passages about the future King as referring to the one person, the Messiah.
If you see Ezek 37:24,25 as literally referring to David then I guess you think Isa 9:7 literally refers to Hezekiah (even if he is not mentioned in the text)

Yes, but the descriptors in 9:6 connect to other descriptions in other places (chck out Chron 30-32 among others). Nothing in this connects to anyone named Jesus.

I don't remember any oil

Because there wasn't and this is what makes someone a messiah.

but I think I remember the Spirit of God in the choosing and anointing of Moses

Show me.

He was a prophet who brought in a Covenant and ruled over the Jews.
Both Zerubbabel and Joshua seem to have both been anointed by God (Zech 4:14)

This doesn't make someone a messiah

The Priesthood and Kingship was going to be united in the one person, the Messiah.

Actually forbidden under jewish law -- 2 different tribes, by design.

Zech 6:13Behold the man whose name is Branch. From his place he will branch out and he shall build the temple of the Lord. Yes, he shall build the temple of the Lord. He shall bear the glory and shall sit and rule on his throne. So he shall be a priest on his throne, and the counsel of peace shall be between them both.” (Zechariah 6:13).

"He shall build the Temple of the LORD and shall assume majesty, and he shall sit on his throne and rule. And there shall also be a priest seated on his throne, and harmonious understanding shall prevail between them.”"
you need a better translation

 

[Harel13]

It is fatherhood even if it is not typical fatherhood in a biological sense. There was "typically" not much call to use those terms in anything but biological sense but the term Father is used at Isa 9:6 and Psalm 89:24-27 and many in the scriptures are called sons of God.

We are now focusing on Isaiah 53. As you yourself have admitted, nowhere in that chapter is it stated that the fatherhood aspect there is not to be taken literal, but as an expression referring to a relationship with a deity. This is an understanding you interject into the text.
My question is, why is it, according to you, that the servant is literally a single entity, whilst the fatherhood aspect is not biological, i.e., not the literal meaning of fatherhood

 

[Brian2]

We are now focusing on Isaiah 53. As you yourself have admitted, nowhere in that chapter is it stated that the fatherhood aspect there is not to be taken literal, but as an expression referring to a relationship with a deity. This is an understanding you interject into the text.
My question is, why is it, according to you, that the servant is literally a single entity, whilst the fatherhood aspect is not biological, i.e., not the literal meaning of fatherhood

It is because the servant died and rose from the dead to eternal life, the firstborn from the dead. People don't get married and have children in heaven.
Why do you see the servant as literally Israel but do not see the places where Israel is said to die and get buried as literal?