The Suffering Servant in Jewish Kabbalah.

[IndigoChild5559]

That's right It was completely God's choice & method to have an individual head up the building.

We apparently have very different views on what God does and doesn't do. God didn't come down from heaven and build the Temple. No one had to tell Ezra to spearhead rebuilding the Temple. No one had to tell the returning Jews to get behind that endeavor.

And again, two examples don't form a pattern.

 

[John D. Brey]

When I was in graduate school and learning about how human beings often mistakenly infer patterns based on few instances, the professor did the following example. She had a paper shopping bag, and pulled out a yellow ball. Then she pulled out another yellow ball. Then she pulled out yet another yellow ball. Then she asked us, "What do you think I'll pull out next." We of course all said, "A yellow ball." She then pulled out a blue block.

Her example is proof of the fallacy of inductive logic. And to say that, seems yawn-worthy. But it's far from it. The fundamental difference between Christian and Jewish theology centers around how the two ideologies are circumscribed by that most fundamental of all fallacies. Though probably no one in your classroom appreciated it, when she pulled that blue block out of that shopping bag, she was criticizing the very way every student in that classroom believed they came to acquire the knowledge that allowed them to be sitting in the classroom of that high brow institution. Our foolish belief in the fallacy of inductive logic is why every one of us should be institutionalized.



John

 

[BrokenBread]

We apparently have very different views on what God does and doesn't do. God didn't come down from heaven and build the Temple. No one had to tell Ezra to spearhead rebuilding the Temple. No one had to tell the returning Jews to get behind that endeavor.

And again, two examples don't form a pattern.

The scripture is replete with the Almighty ordering anything of paramount importance on the Temple Mount.
Not just to build but to destroy as well.
It is not even arguable.
It all comes from the mouth of God.
It is not just my view it was Jeremiah's view that God is in total control both to build and to destroy the Temple by means of a single named personality long before me.
Namely Nebuchadrezzar who was able to leave his mark on the Temple Mount only for the reason that God chose him to do it .
I am surprised with this obvious unrest of yours with God having total control over the events upon Temple Mount.
I'm not sure what it is suggestive of coming from a religious person.
Let's just cut to the chase, do you believe that there is another sovereign now pulling the strings to allow the Islamic worship that takes place upon the Temple Mount today, or do you believe that it is God allowing it to take place ?


Jer 25:7
Yet ye have not hearkened unto me, saith the LORD; that ye might provoke me to anger with the works of your hands to your own hurt.

Jer 25:8
Therefore thus saith the LORD of hosts; Because ye have not heard my words,

Jer 25:9
Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the LORD, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof, and against all these nations round about, and will utterly destroy them, and make them an astonishment, and an hissing, and perpetual desolations.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I am surprised with this obvious unrest of yours with God having total control over the events upon Temple Mount.

I'm not sure why you find this so surprising. All one has to do is look at history to realize that God does not intervene in the choices people make. God did nothing to stop the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. God did nothing to stop the Holocaust. There is no reason to think that anything other than human effort will ever result in the Temple being rebuilt.

 

[BrokenBread]

I'm not sure why you find this so surprising. All one has to do is look at history to realize that God does not intervene in the choices people make.

He did Intervene with David's choice.
David's choice was to build a house for God ,but God said no to his choice.

God desired it's destruction & intervened in His choice for Nebuchadrezzar being the club He would use to destroy the Temple.
Jeremiah 25:9
"Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the LORD, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant...
.....And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."


God identifying Nebuchadrezzar as "my servant" in this Temple destruction.
A servant having no "Choice" to make by the way, that is why they are called a servant.
Given that the building of the next Temple will be the fulfillment of God's prophecy to culminate with the people of the nations streaming to Jerusalem to seek the Messiah in His Temple there, & the Temple being this important to God why would you think God would be any less the determining factor He has been ?
It is God who has determined that Islamic Mosques and Islamic worship will take place on the Temple Mount this very day after all.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

He did Intervene with David's choice.
David's choice was to build a house for God ,but God said no to his choice.

I think you are confusing a teaching story with history.

 

[BrokenBread]

I think you are confusing a teaching story with history.

Not sure what you mean by that ?
Is it that you believe David to be a mythical figure ?
Or are you speaking about something else ?
Please explain ?

 

[shunyadragon]

Central to Isaiah chapter 53 is the concept of the suffering servant. The idea of the suffering servant could be considered ground-zero concerning the centering-message (the transcendental-signifier) of the entire chapter. This makes the concept of the suffering servant of the utmost importance since if Isaiah 53 is crucially important in the deciphering of the rest of scripture, and if the suffering servant is the crux of Isaiah 53, then the conception of this suffering servant is like the delta, the alpha and omega, the conceptual fecundation, the crossroad if you will, from which the rest of the Tanakh (and thus the New Testament) sprout.



John

Yes, this interpretation of the scripture may result as you describe for those that believe, but the problem remains that his is a stretch of interpretation that may not have any meaning in the context of the original text.

The suffering servant may refer in general to the diaspora, Moses, Isaiah, the Promise of the Messianic Kings of Israel, or maybe King Cyrus, or multiple future Messianic prophets..

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not sure what you mean by that ?
Is it that you believe David to be a mythical figure ?
Or are you speaking about something else ?
Please explain ?

We know that David actually existed. I forget what it is, but we have an archeological find with the words "House of David" inscribed on it. So that's not the question.

Rather, the question is, how do you know which stories about a historical figure actually happened and which are legends? I mean, do YOU believe that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree?

 

[BrokenBread]

We know that David actually existed. I forget what it is, but we have an archeological find with the words "House of David" inscribed on it. So that's not the question.

Rather, the question is, how do you know which stories about a historical figure actually happened and which are legends? I mean, do YOU believe that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree?

For me the verification comes first and foremost from God's ability to never shy away from the ugly human nature as well as the good that His Spirit promotes in us.
In the case of David if the intent is to concoct legend making stories about a hero for the nation Israel like David , why would you include a story depicting him as a adulterer and a murderer ?
Why would you include a story about Moses being a murderer ?
If legend status creation is what you are after in your story making?
Accordingly there is no "Cherry Tree" aspect of "Legend" making seen in God squashing Daivd's hopes to build the Temple because he is " bloody man"
This is God speaking.

The story of George Washington and the Cherry Tree, on the other is a typical example of man's timeless penchant for using a lie to promote & puff himself up.
We were recently treated to a modern day version of the Cherry Tree incident when the recently defeated VP candidate attempted to puff himself up by claiming he carried weapon into a war zone when it was shown he never did any such thing and he then was forced to admit the lie by saying it was a case of himself using " bad grammar" ( Tim Walze) lol.
This is the flesh speaking.
Not quite as creative a man made story as , " yes I smoked marijuana , BUT I NEVER INHALED" ( Bill Clinton) but still worth a laugh.

The motives and the ideals of bringing heaven down to earth are contained in the truth of God's Words.
It has properties possessed by no human fabricated story designed to create "legend"
The Word of God is Living my friend.
It is instinct with the life of it's Divine source, from which it is never divorced.
It's promises can never fail , it's threatenings never prove idle.
It has within itself a living , quickening, life communicating force.

Kind Regards

 

[IndigoChild5559]

For me the verification comes first and foremost from God's ability to never shy away from the ugly human nature as well as the good that His Spirit promotes in us.
In the case of David if the intent is to concoct legend making stories about a hero for the nation Israel like David , why would you include a story depicting him as a adulterer and a murderer ?
Why would you include a story about Moses being a murderer ?

Very good question. I have often considered this. Here is the best answer I have to date:

Have you noticed how the protagonists in TV shows are quite different today than back, say, the 70s? Back then, the good guys were totally good, and the bad guys were just bad. But today, writers give flaws to their good guys, and create narratives that explain the creation of a bad guy out of trauma. Why do you think this change has occurred?

I suspect, although I'm not sure, that it has to do with people today simply demanding a more sophisticated, more believable story. We want our fiction to be more like real life. It is a culturally based change in preference. So my guess is that the authors of the Bible stories shared something of that cultural preference, that desire for the myths and legends to be more realistic and believable.

But that's just me thinking.

The story of George Washington and the Cherry Tree, on the other is a typical example of man's timeless penchant for using a lie to promote & puff himself up.

I have no clue where you are going with this. The cherry tree legend wasn't written by Washington, so it in no way is his effort "to promote and puff himself up." It was a folktale that almost certainly evolved for two reasons:
1. Societal admiration of George Washington as an honest person.
2. A moral fiction to teach children not to lie.

 

[BrokenBread]

I suspect, although I'm not sure, that it has to do with people today simply demanding a more sophisticated, more believable story. We want our fiction to be more like real life. It is a culturally based change in preference. So my guess is that the authors of the Bible stories shared something of that cultural preference, that desire for the myths and legends to be more realistic and believable.

But that's just me thinking.
.

So your thinking is that God is okay with lies being represented as His Word of truth in scripture, as long as they are "more realistic and believable." lies ?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So your thinking is that God is okay with lies being represented as His Word of truth in scripture, as long as they are "more realistic and believable." lies ?

Wait... You think fiction is lies? So, when Jesus uses the fictitious story of the Good Samaritan to teach the moral that we should reach out in compassion to all regardless of ethnicity, you look upon that as a lie?

 

[BrokenBread]

Wait... You think fiction is lies? So, when Jesus uses the fictitious story of the Good Samaritan to teach the moral that we should reach out in compassion to all regardless of ethnicity, you look upon that as a lie?

So if the story of Nebuchadrezzar destroying the Temple and taking the nation captive was just a fictitious teaching story, but not a lie, does that still mean Nebuchadrezzar destroyed the Temple ?

Jeremiah 25:9
"Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the LORD, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant...
.....And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So if the story of Nebuchadrezzar destroying the Temple and taking the nation captive was just a fictitious teaching story, but not a lie, does that still mean Nebuchadrezzar destroyed the Temple ?

Jeremiah 25:9
"Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the LORD, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant...
.....And this whole land shall be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."

The destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar is historically verified by documents outside the Bible, such as the Babylonian Chronicles, as well as by archeological evidence in Jerusalem.

 

[BrokenBread]

The destruction of the Temple by Nebuchadnezzar is historically verified by documents outside the Bible, such as the Babylonian Chronicles, as well as by archeological evidence in Jerusalem.

You forgot to specify that the detail of Nebuchadrezzer destroying the Temple under the guise of being God's "servant" while not being a lie was nevertheless completely fictitious and added only to teach a moral lesson.

Jeremiah 25:9
"Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the LORD, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant...

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You forgot to specify that the detail of Nebuchadrezzer destroying the Temple under the guise of being God's "servant" while not being a lie was nevertheless completely fictitious and added only to teach a moral lesson.

Jeremiah 25:9
"Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the LORD, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant...

I don't know what to say at this point, BrokenBread. I have addressed this with you up one side and down the next. I believe my remarks have been very clear. How you can continue to not understand my points, and to continue to bring up irrelevancies is beyond me.

 

[BrokenBread]

You forgot to specify that the detail of Nebuchadrezzer destroying the Temple under the guise of being God's "servant" while not being a lie was nevertheless completely fictitious and added only to teach a moral lesson.

I don't know what to say at this point, BrokenBread. I have addressed this with you up one side and down the next. I believe my remarks have been very clear. How you can continue to not understand my points, and to continue to bring up irrelevancies is beyond me.

I am only making application of what you have claimed about God to a passage of scripture.
You said that, "God does not intervene in the choices people make" ( IndigoChild5559 )

All one has to do is look at history to realize that God does not intervene in the choices people make.

The verse I applied your claim to clearly identifies Nebuchadrezzer as being God's servant who has been assigned a task by his task Master, God.

Jeremiah 25:9
"Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the LORD, and Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, my servant...

By definition the relationship of God and His Servant is not one in which the "servant" has the option
Either the passage is a true account of the transaction between God and servant in the destruction of the Temple or as you further claimed it is an instance of biblical "fictitious" story telling .

You think fiction is lies? So, when Jesus uses the fictitious story of the Good Samaritan to teach the moral that we should reach out in compassion to all regardless of ethnicity, you look upon that as a lie?

So Which is it the account of God commanding His servant Nebuchadrezzer , fictitious story ?
Or a true account ?