The suffering servant of isaiah 53

[Ben Masada]

Well, either you are referring to the Jewish people as an ethnic group or as a group of believers. My friend fell i the former category but not in the latter category. I would seriously doubt that a group of Jews was ever in the light and certainly Jesus did not find them in the light.

Jews as a people, not individually, are as light for the world, according to Isaiah and Jesus.

Jesus said to the Jews in his Sermon of the Mount: "You are the light of the world." (Mat. 5:14) Then, Muffled came and said that certainly Jesus did not find the Jews to be the light of the world. In other words, Muffled is denying Jesus' own words as if Jesus was lying. What are we to make of this? Be careful, because if Jesus was Christ, and you are contradicting him, you could be acting as an antichrist. To contradict is to be against, and against is the same as "anti." You ought to think about this.

Ben:

 

[AK4]

Jews as a people, not individually, are as light for the world, according to Isaiah and Jesus.

Jesus said to the Jews in his Sermon of the Mount: "You are the light of the world." (Mat. 5:14) Then, Muffled came and said that certainly Jesus did not find the Jews to be the light of the world. In other words, Muffled is denying Jesus' own words as if Jesus was lying. What are we to make of this? Be careful, because if Jesus was Christ, and you are contradicting him, you could be acting as an antichrist. To contradict is to be against, and against is the same as "anti." You ought to think about this.

Ben:

Jesus was not refering to the jewish people as "the light". He was referring to all those there, jews and non jews, who were to be converted and believe on Him later as the light. As for the jews and non jews who dont believe, especially the jews He says this---

John 8:38-45 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: F19 for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Now to say that Jesus was only referring to only the jews as the light contradicts so many more scriptures also Old and New Testament. Jesus taught more than just jews. He taught the multitudes in Syria and all around the area that had non jews in it to.

 

[Ben Masada]

Jesus was not refering to the jewish people as "the light". He was referring to all those there, jews and non jews, who were to be converted and believe on Him later as the light. As for the jews and non jews who dont believe, especially the jews He says this---

John 8:38-45 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. 39 They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham. 40 But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham. 41 Ye do the deeds of your father. Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. 42 Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. 43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: F19 for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Now to say that Jesus was only referring to only the jews as the light contradicts so many more scriptures also Old and New Testament. Jesus taught more than just jews. He taught the multitudes in Syria and all around the area that had non jews in it to.

You are assuming and trying to fabricate what was in Jesus' mind
when you know you can't. When he delivered that sermon that day, all he knew was that he was speaking to a crowd of Jews. He knew that according to Isaiah 42:6, Israel had been given as light unto the nations. He was speaking to Israel that day.

Ben:

 

[Muffled]

Jews as a people, not individually, are as light for the world, according to Isaiah and Jesus.

Jesus said to the Jews in his Sermon of the Mount: "You are the light of the world." (Mat. 5:14) Then, Muffled came and said that certainly Jesus did not find the Jews to be the light of the world. In other words, Muffled is denying Jesus' own words as if Jesus was lying. What are we to make of this? Be careful, because if Jesus was Christ, and you are contradicting him, you could be acting as an antichrist. To contradict is to be against, and against is the same as "anti." You ought to think about this.

Ben:

You are in error; Jesus is not speaking to Jews in general but to His disciples who have the light becasue He is with them and will continue to have the light becuase He will be in them. Mat 5:1 ¶ And seeing the multitudes, he went up into the mountain: and when he had sat down, his disciples came unto him:
2 and he opened his mouth and taught them, saying

Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

 

[Ben Masada]

You are in error; Jesus is not speaking to Jews in general but to His disciples who have the light becasue He is with them and will continue to have the light becuase He will be in them. Mat 5:1 ¶ And seeing the multitudes, he went up into the mountain: and when he had sat down, his disciples came unto him:
2 and he opened his mouth and taught them, saying

Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

And you are speaking totally our of Logic. Picture this in your mind: Jesus sees a multitude of Jews and climbs up the Mount of Beatitudes to deliver his most famous sermon; perhaps he waits a little till the crowd get acommodated down the mountainside, and at the moment they are all ready to listen to him, he decides to speak into the ears of the disciples. You surely must be joking, because I am sure you a little more intelligent than that.

 

[sojourner]

You are assuming and trying to fabricate what was in Jesus' mind
when you know you can't. When he delivered that sermon that day, all he knew was that he was speaking to a crowd of Jews. He knew that according to Isaiah 42:6, Israel had been given as light unto the nations. He was speaking to Israel that day.

Ben:

That particular quotation is wholly Matthean -- not found in Q, not found in Mark.

The second part: "No one lights a lamp...is found in Thomas, and so that part of the saying, corroborated in Mark and Luke, is probably authentic. But not the "You are the light of the world" part.

Knowing what we know about Matthew -- that he was concerned with the identity of the Church as the true Israel, I'd have to say that he added the statement in question to the original quotation. And, if he did (which is fairly obvious), then it's referring to the Church, and not the Jews. I don't think your theory holds any water here.

 

[Ben Masada]

That particular quotation is wholly Matthean -- not found in Q, not found in Mark.

The second part: "No one lights a lamp...is found in Thomas, and so that part of the saying, corroborated in Mark and Luke, is probably authentic. But not the "You are the light of the world" part.

Knowing what we know about Matthew -- that he was concerned with the identity of the Church as the true Israel, I'd have to say that he added the statement in question to the original quotation. And, if he did (which is fairly obvious), then it's referring to the Church, and not the Jews. I don't think your theory holds any water here.

What you are doing with the first gospel is digging contradictions. It's okay with me. I am well aware with the contradictions of the NT. One more just enhances my finds.

 

[sojourner]

What you are doing with the first gospel is digging contradictions. It's okay with me. I am well aware with the contradictions of the NT. One more just enhances my finds.

I'd really like to know where the contradiction lies in my post.:cover:
And I don't know what you're saying about "the first gospel." I referenced Matthew, not Mark.

 

[Muffled]

And you are speaking totally our of Logic. Picture this in your mind: Jesus sees a multitude of Jews and climbs up the Mount of Beatitudes to deliver his most famous sermon; perhaps he waits a little till the crowd get acommodated down the mountainside, and at the moment they are all ready to listen to him, he decides to speak into the ears of the disciples. You surely must be joking, because I am sure you a little more intelligent than that.

How in the world can you think that your assumptions ought to take the place of an eyewitness report? It is your own mindset that sees this as a teaching for the multitude just because it is famous today. The multitude wasn't ready for this deep a teaching and Jesus would have just been casting his pearls before swine which isn't something He feels obliged to do. I do not believe that Jesus is an egotistical person who seeing a crowd feels He has to preach. He is God is the flesh and as such always has His own agenda and only changes it, if it is convenient because of His love for us.

 

[Muffled]

That particular quotation is wholly Matthean -- not found in Q, not found in Mark.

The second part: "No one lights a lamp...is found in Thomas, and so that part of the saying, corroborated in Mark and Luke, is probably authentic. But not the "You are the light of the world" part.

Knowing what we know about Matthew -- that he was concerned with the identity of the Church as the true Israel, I'd have to say that he added the statement in question to the original quotation. And, if he did (which is fairly obvious), then it's referring to the Church, and not the Jews. I don't think your theory holds any water here.

As much maligned as Matthew is for tring to tie in events to old testament prophecy, I still think it is outrageous to suggest that Matthew made things up. It could simply be that Matthew remembered this statement better because it did tie into prophesy and because he was writing at a time when the church had become the light of the world. As for reasonability goes it fits in with the statements by Jesus in John that He is the light of the world and also when He breathed on the disciples and told them to receive the Holy Spirit.

 

[sojourner]

As much maligned as Matthew is for tring to tie in events to old testament prophecy, I still think it is outrageous to suggest that Matthew made things up. It could simply be that Matthew remembered this statement better because it did tie into prophesy and because he was writing at a time when the church had become the light of the world. As for reasonability goes it fits in with the statements by Jesus in John that He is the light of the world and also when He breathed on the disciples and told them to receive the Holy Spirit.

It could be, but I doubt it. The author of Matthew did not know Jesus.
Please don't mush the message by trying to tie Matthew in with John. Matthew and John came from two different communities, and wrote with different agendas. Statements in Matthew must be consistent with other statements in Matthew.

Why is it outrageous to think that Matthew "made things up?" He made up the geneaology. The gospel writers made things up all the time.

 

[Ben Masada]

I'd really like to know where the contradiction lies in my post.:cover:
And I don't know what you're saying about "the first gospel." I referenced Matthew, not Mark.

I know that Mark was written first. When I say the first gospel, I am referring to the order they were set up in the NT.

 

[Ben Masada]

How in the world can you think that your assumptions ought to take the place of an eyewitness report?

Ben: None of the writers of the gospels was an eyewitness of anything about Jesus. Then, they started appearing after 75 CE and up to the end of the First Century. Besides they were all written by Hellenistic Gentiles with a very poor knowledge of what being Jewish is.

It is your own mindset that sees this as a teaching for the multitude just because it is famous today.

Ben: I can see that your mindset is to speak whithout knowledge of your own NT. Read Matthew 7:28. "As Jesus finished his discourse, the CROWDS were left spellbound at his teaching." It sounds a multitude to me.

The multitude wasn't ready for this deep a teaching and Jesus would have just been casting his pearls before swine which isn't something He feels obliged to do.

Ben: Yes, he said that. But if you can think, you will figure out whom he had in mind if he was speaking to the Jews. (Mat. 7:6)

I do not believe that Jesus is an egotistical person who seeing a crowd feels He has to preach.

Ben: But of course the crowd knew that the Nazarene would be delivering that sermon that day. He needed to explain to the Jews about his position with regards to the Law, which by the way was his main point.

He is God is the flesh and as such always has His own agenda and only changes it, if it is convenient because of His love for us.

Ben: Now, I am sorry but this is idolatry, because there is no such a thing as Greek Mythology in Judaism. Don't forget, Jesus was a religious Jew, and you are only distorting the image of His Faith in the eyes of the world by inserting Hellenistic innovations into it.

 

[sojourner]

Besides they were all written by Hellenistic Gentiles with a very poor knowledge of what being Jewish is.

I thought we already covered this. Did you forget to take your consolation prize with you?

Read Matthew 7:28. "As Jesus finished his discourse, the CROWDS were left spellbound at his teaching." It sounds a multitude to me.

"Mulititudes" does not = Jewish religious authorities. In fact, according to Matthew, "multitudes" = poor, disenfranchised and downtrodden outsiders.

I am sorry but this is idolatry, because there is no such a thing as Greek Mythology in Judaism.

You're forgetting that Jesus was at odds with the Judaic religious authorities. His message fundamentally opposes the sort of Judaism they practiced.

 

[gnostic]

Matthew's is definitely not the oldest gospel in the NT. Mark's is.

The way the bible ordered the gospels doesn't mean they were composed in that order, chronologically.

 

[Ben Masada]

I thought we already covered this. Did you forget to take your consolation prize with you?

"Mulititudes" does not = Jewish religious authorities. In fact, according to Matthew, "multitudes" = poor, disenfranchised and downtrodden outsiders.

You're forgetting that Jesus was at odds with the Judaic religious authorities. His message fundamentally opposes the sort of Judaism they practiced.

You are right about having covered a lot of things here. That's where the frustrations of this posts can give. People repeat the same questions over and over again like a broken record. What can I do if not to answer over and over the same things?


Jesus had all kinds of Jews listening to him that day. What are you talking about?

Perhaps your Hellenistic Jesus was at odds with the Jewish leaders, not the Jewish Jesus I am talking about. And the pseudonym of your Hellenistic Jesus must have been Paul because he was the one who had a grudge against the Jewish leaders of having banned him from Israel and never allowed him to build a church in Israeli soil.

 

[Ben Masada]

Matthew's is definitely not the oldest gospel in the NT. Mark's is.

The way the bible ordered the gospels doesn't mean they were composed in that order, chronologically.

Yes, we are aware of that. Mark was written soon after the Jewish War of 70 CE, Luke was writen in the year 75 CE, Matthew was written in the year 85 CE and John between 95 and 100 CE.

 

[sojourner]

You are right about having covered a lot of things here. That's where the frustrations of this posts can give. People repeat the same questions over and over again like a broken record. What can I do if not to answer over and over the same things?


Jesus had all kinds of Jews listening to him that day. What are you talking about?

Perhaps your Hellenistic Jesus was at odds with the Jewish leaders, not the Jewish Jesus I am talking about. And the pseudonym of your Hellenistic Jesus must have been Paul because he was the one who had a grudge against the Jewish leaders of having banned him from Israel and never allowed him to build a church in Israeli soil.

We know that Matthew certainly portrays Jesus as being at odds with the religious authorites, and it really is a big issue for Mark -- both of whom were Jewish writers.
Q is an obviously Jewish source, too -- from which the passage in question comes.

BTW...when and why was "Jewish Jesus" crucified, again?

 

[Ben Masada]

We know that Matthew certainly portrays Jesus as being at odds with the religious authorites, and it really is a big issue for Mark -- both of whom were Jewish writers.
Q is an obviously Jewish source, too -- from which the passage in question comes.

BTW...when and why was "Jewish Jesus" crucified, again?

None of the gospel writers was Jewish. A Jew would never write so much Hellenistic stuff. See what I mean by repeating. You guys force me into this by never getting to the point.

Was the question just to provoke me or have you forgotten?

 

[sojourner]

None of the gospel writers was Jewish. A Jew would never write so much Hellenistic stuff. See what I mean by repeating. You guys force me into this by never getting to the point.

Was the question just to provoke me or have you forgotten?

The theological thrust and literary cues in the documents will not bear you out on this, at least for Q, Mark and Matthew.