Zone1 Explaining Jesus to a Jew

[Red Front]

OK, great. Step one is we can agree that there is no mention of a messiah in Isaiah 53. Except that there is, and it doesn't refer to Jesus.


Not exactly -- David was a messiah in that he was anointed. In other cases the term "David" (or Son of David) is used as a generic term for an anointed king.

No it isn't.

Really? You are looking at Isaiah 53 as if it is a discrete section. But chapter headings are a later and Christian innovation. The Jewish texts had no chapter divisions. Here is some helpful information (using your chapter headings)
The word-root for servant (ayin-vet-dalet) is used many times in various forms in Isaiah. The text identifies the following servants:
Isaiah, himself (20:3, 49:6)
Elyakim (22:20)
The Nation (24:2)
Servants of Chizkiyahu (37:5)
David (37:35)
Israel -- 9 times (either immediately or by linked pronouns) between 41 and 52.

So yes, among others, the servant IS identified as Israel. No Jesus mentioned. In fact, no mention of the messiah as a servant. The closest is the reference to people by name who were anointed.

The word root for messiah (mem-shin-chet) is used in Isaiah to refer to
anointing a shield (21:5)
Koresh (45:1)
Isaiah (61:1)

References to David include
The house of David (7:2)
The chair of David (9:6)
The tent of David (16:5)
The city of David (22:9)
The merciful acts of David (55:1)

How you can, from all this, see any conenction to Jesus is inexplicable.

I'm not sure where in Daniel 7 you read that, or why you think it matters.

OK, great. Step one is we can agree that there is no mention of a messiah in Isaiah 53. Except that there is, and it doesn't refer to Jesus.

It doesn't explicitly refer to the Messiah, but that doesn't imply that the suffering servant isn't the Messiah. Non-believing Jews assert that the suffering servant is the nation of Israel, yet Israel is nowhere mentioned in Isaiah 53 as the suffering servant. Actually, if the Israelites keep Torah, they shouldn't go through that suffering, and if they do it's due to not keeping the Torah. The redeemer is the Messiah who is the second Adam, keeping the Torah perfectly he earns the position of being the new head of humanity and its savior.

Not exactly -- David was a messiah in that he was anointed. In other cases the term "David" (or Son of David) is used as a generic term for an anointed king.

You ignored all of the passages I cited earlier, showing how the name of David is used as a symbolic moniker for the Messiah. Here they are again:

• Jeremiah 30:9 : "But they shall serve YHWH their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them."
• Ezekiel 34:23-24: "And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd. And I, YHWH, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them. I, YHWH, have spoken."
• Ezekiel 37:24-25: "My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your ancestors lived. They and their children and their children's children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever."
• Hosea 3:5: "Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek YHWH their God, and David their king, and shall come in fear to YHWH and to his goodness in the latter days."

The above clearly demonstrates that the name of David is a symbolic, metaphorical name of the Messiah.

No it isn't.

Yes, it is. Then you respond again "No it isn't" and I respond "Yes it is", and you say "No it's not" and I say "Yes" and you say "No" and I say "Yes definitely" and you say...ad infinitum.

Really? You are looking at Isaiah 53 as if it is a discrete section. But chapter headings are a later and Christian innovation. The Jewish texts had no chapter divisions. Here is some helpful information (using your chapter headings)
The word-root for servant (ayin-vet-dalet) is used many times in various forms in Isaiah. The text identifies the following servants:
Isaiah, himself (20:3, 49:6)
Elyakim (22:20)
The Nation (24:2)
Servants of Chizkiyahu (37:5)
David (37:35)
Israel -- 9 times (either immediately or by linked pronouns) between 41 and 52.

In the beginning, you claimed that the Messiah or Jesus isn't mentioned in Isaiah 53, and I agree, he not explicitly mentioned in Isaiah 53. You yourself were arguing from a position that assumes chapter 53 exists and now due to you realizing the precarious position you placed yourself in, completely delete the chapters from the book of Isaiah, contending that the book of Isaiah identifies Israel as the servant, as well as the prophet Isaiah and David. You conveniently moved the signpost from chapter 53 to the whole book of Isaiah. Nice try, but Christians aren't going to fall for such shenanigans.
Yes, indeed the whole book of Isaiah explicitly identifies several people as "servants". However, nonetheless, the deeper meaning of Isaiah 53 is that the Messiah will suffer, redeeming all of humanity, if not all of God's creation. He is the Second Adam and the new head of creation. You don't have to believe it, but that's the truth and Christians know that. You will only see this reality if you are drawn by the Holy Spirit to see it, otherwise, the veil will remain over your eyes.

So yes, among others, the servant IS identified as Israel. No Jesus mentioned. In fact, no mention of the messiah as a servant. The closest is the reference to people by name who were anointed.

David is mentioned by name but in several passages in the Hebrew Bible, that name actually means Jesus the Messiah.

The word root for messiah (mem-shin-chet) is used in Isaiah to refer to
anointing a shield (21:5)
Koresh (45:1)
Isaiah (61:1)

References to David include
The house of David (7:2)
The chair of David (9:6)
The tent of David (16:5)
The city of David (22:9)
The merciful acts of David (55:1)

How you can, from all this, see any conenction to Jesus is inexplicable.

There are also Messianic verses in the book of Isaiah, that are of the Messiah. The Messiah is Jesus Christ, Yehoshua Ben Yoseph. The Jew who split time. That is our Lord and King, the Savior of our souls.

I'm not sure where in Daniel 7 you read that, or why you think it matters.

In Daniel 7, the Bar Nasha is both the remnant of Israel and the Messiah. Both. So for the sake of argument, let's assume that Isaiah 53 is referring to the nation of Israel, that doesn't undermine the Christian interpretation. The collective or community and the Messiah are ONE. One body. This is what we believe as Christians. We see the assembly or "church" as the body of Jesus Christ. The Israel of God is now comprised of the born-again Christians who are still attached to the vine, in Christ. We interpret the Bible spiritually, in light of the NT, you, unfortunately, rely on your carnal mind and religion.

 

[hobelim]

So explain its relevance.

I heard somewhere that some people are obsessed with building a temple, again, to slaughter farm animals in. Imagine that!

They profess to believe that the sanctuary of God is an inner room of that temple made by human hands, And get this, The priest, a fancy schmancy butcher, offers the blood of animals to God.

Damn.

Did I claim otherwise? You are just dumping things in scattershot. Take a moment and a breath and try to formulate a coherent argument that uses quotes to support the point you are making. Just dropping a verse in, and then making a separate statement like "One cannot comply with the command to refrain from the flesh of swine that do not ruminate literally without violating the deeper implications of the exact same law" is useless.

"One cannot comply with the command to refrain from the flesh of swine that do not ruminate literally without violating the deeper implications of the exact same law" is coherent and rational.

Would you like for me to break it down for you?

 

[Red Front]

This is the tap dancing game revisionist Jews have to play. Isaiah gives them headaches.

I never waste much time and energy debating Jewish reprobates.

Paul writes in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 as follows:

1Th 2:13-16 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. (14) For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: (15) Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men: (16) Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins always: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

They think they will save themselves through their own righteousness, keeping laws, without Christ. They're carnal and spiritually dead.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

This sacrifice shows that God was being fair when he held back and did not punish those who sinned in times past

Christianity Was Adopted by Romans Who Had Gone Soft, Stupid, and Fatalistic

So God is a soft-on-crime Liberal judge? In fact, Christianity is where this contempt for victims comes from. After all, the ruling class thinks its own victims are whining losers.

 

[Red Front]

you have expressed your faith based belief

My faith is based on reality. I have witnessed and experienced the presence of God and His power, manifest through the Name of Jesus/Yehoshua. The miracles that I have witnessed confirm my God-given faith.

 

[Red Front]

Christianity Was Adopted by Romans Who Had Gone Soft, Stupid, and Fatalistic

So God is a soft-on-crime Liberal judge? In fact, Christianity is where this contempt for victims comes from. After all, the ruling class thinks its own victims are whining losers.

American Christians always side with the rich and powerful, because they're under the spell of the demon of capitalism. They pursue worldly riches and comfort, rather than the Kingdom of God. It's not Christianity that is the problem, it's the people who claim to follow it.

 

[rosends]

It doesn't explicitly refer to the Messiah, but that doesn't imply that the suffering servant isn't the Messiah.

Wait, now your argument is that a lack of mention dosn't mean it doesn't mean something. So instead of being able to point to the text as positively referring to what you want to find, you resort to "just because it isn't there doesn't mean it isn't there in my interpretation".

Non-believing Jews

We believe. Just not what you believe. To us, you are non-believing.

assert that the suffering servant is the nation of Israel, yet Israel is nowhere mentioned in Isaiah 53 as the suffering servant.

Why would you say that when I pointed out to you that the nation of Israel is identified with the servant repeatedly. Is it because in the passages about a suffering servant, it isn't mentioned AGAIN? Actually, if you start reading from 52, you will see explicit mention of the people as the subject of the conversation. That subject is then called the servant. I can show you how the nouns and pronouns work if you need me to.

Actually, if the Israelites keep Torah, they shouldn't go through that suffering, and if they do it's due to not keeping the Torah. The redeemer is the Messiah who is the second Adam, keeping the Torah perfectly he earns the position of being the new head of humanity and its savior.

You put a few different claims in this statement. The first is true -- if Jews kept the Torah properly and consistently, we wouldn't go through suffering. But we haven't, so we do. Then you bring in the word "redeemer" which isn't a very good word to use as it doesn't actually describe the messiah. You also throw in the word "savior" but your meaning is not clear.

The above clearly demonstrates that the name of David is a symbolic, metaphorical name of the Messiah.

I didn't say it wasn't. I showed how the name was used in Isaiah.

Yes, it is. Then you respond again "No it isn't" and I respond "Yes it is", and you say "No it's not" and I say "Yes" and you say "No" and I say "Yes definitely" and you say...ad infinitum.

Exactly. I hope this shows how there is no value to your insistence of a plain old "yes it is."

In the beginning, you claimed that the Messiah or Jesus isn't mentioned in Isaiah 53, and I agree, he not explicitly mentioned in Isaiah 53.

He is not mentioned explicitly anywhere in Jewish texts.

You yourself were arguing from a position that assumes chapter 53 exists and now due to you realizing the precarious position you placed yourself in, completely delete the chapters from the book of Isaiah,

What chapters did I delete? I don't recall deleting anything. I catalogued uses of a term.

contending that the book of Isaiah identifies Israel as the servant, as well as the prophet Isaiah and David.

I cited verses where the text makes that clear, yes.

You conveniently moved the signpost from chapter 53 to the whole book of Isaiah.

"the signpost" What is that? Is that some fanciful interpretation that you insert? Because it isn't part of the text.

Nice try, but Christians aren't going to fall for such shenanigans.

And Jews know how to read the text as a whole.

However, nonetheless,

so you start by saying "even though Jesus isn't there, nonetheless, I will say he is there."

the deeper meaning of Isaiah 53 is that the Messiah will suffer, redeeming all of humanity, if not all of God's creation.

Only because you insist that 53 is about the messiah. Except it isn't, so your claim to a "deeper meaning" is more a "wishful thinking." You don't have to believe it, but those of us who study the text see the reality of it.

David is mentioned by name but in several passages in the Hebrew Bible, that name actually means Jesus the Messiah.

No, it never means Jesus and he wasn't a messiah.

There are also Messianic verses in the book of Isaiah, that are of the Messiah.

Like the ones about Cyrus, which I quoted. And about Isaiah, which i quoted. Both are referred to by the root for messiah.

The Messiah is Jesus Christ, Yehoshua Ben Yoseph. The Jew who split time. That is our Lord and King, the Savior of our souls.

That is your belief, yes.

In Daniel 7, the Bar Nasha is both the remnant of Israel and the Messiah.

There is no "bar nasha." Learn the words before you try to use them. And all you have done is insert your personal belief in the place of what the text says.

The collective or community and the Messiah are ONE. One body.

But, again, that's just a statement of your belief. It isn't a function of the texts' meaning. Sorry you can't see that because of the blinders you prefer to wear.

 

[rosends]

I heard somewhere that some people are obsessed with building a temple, again, to slaughter farm animals in. Imagine that!

Judaism is very focused on the rebuilding of the temple and even (according to many) resuming animal sacrifice. So?

They profess to believe that the sanctuary of God is an inner room of that temple made by human hands, And get this, The priest, a fancy schmancy butcher, offers the blood of animals to God.

The sanctuary is the place that God designated, and the place where the earlier temples stood and sacrifices were offered. If you don't like the idea of sacrifice (past or future) then that's fine with me.

"One cannot comply with the command to refrain from the flesh of swine that do not ruminate literally without violating the deeper implications of the exact same law" is coherent and rational.

Would you like for me to break it down for you?

It doesn't need to be broken down. it is a claim made with no explanation. "You cannot comply with the speed limit literally without violating the deeper implications of the exact same speed limit."

If that makes sense to you, then great. It doesn't actually explain anything or support its claim but if that's enough for you then best of luck.

 

[Meriweather]

came up with the atonement

Nonsense, no. The etymology of the word means uniting, or at one=atone. To be one with God, we repent of (turn away from) sin and turn towards obedience to God.

 

[hobelim]

It doesn't need to be broken down. it is a claim made with no explanation.

All right. You asked for it. Here it is. The explanation.

One cannot comply with the literal interpretation and application of the command to refrain from the flesh of swine that do not ruminate without violating the deeper implications of that exact same law because the teaching that the concern of God is about eating or abstaining from certain food is the flesh of swine that do not ruminate.

The animals described in the divine menu represent human archetypes, their flesh, whether clean or unclean, represents their teaching, beliefs, ideologies, philosophies, etc.

Unclean thoughts, beliefs, ideas, predilections, defile and contaminate the mind to the point of insanity with specious lies which affect the quality of life, not food. Here is the wisdom of God.

Does that help?

 

[Meriweather]

You think historians believe the Holocaust existed only because of Anne Frank's diary

I wasn't speaking of the Holocaust, but of personal events in Anne's diary--those events that occurred outside of historical fact. Historical facts in Jesus' time were crucifixions. Personal event was the resurrection. Crucifixions left physical evidence; the resurrection did not. I am certain you can understand the difference between historical physical proof and personal events that leave no physical evidence.

 

[rosends]

All right. Here it is. The explanation.

One cannot comply with the literal interpretation and application of the command to refrain from the flesh of swine that do not ruminate without violating the deeper implications of that exact same law because the teaching that the concern of God is about eating or abstaining from certain food is the flesh of swine that do not ruminate.

Does that help?

no -- that is grammatically incomplete

You have the subject (one cannot do X without doing Y)
conjunction "Because"
then your reason "the teaching"
which teaching? that the concern of God is about eating or abstaining from certain food
is the flesh of swine that do not ruminate."

there are definitely woords missing. Unless your statement is that "teaching Z"
is (equals)
the flesh of swine

in which case the words are there but that makes no sense.

 

[BreezeWood]

Yes -- to remove a political threat.

that's why they needed judas, paid by the jews to point him out to be arrested ... and the jews did it for the romans to seek their favor. turn in one of their own they loved.

- so brave of them and heart warming.

 

[BreezeWood]

I never waste much time and energy debating Jewish reprobates.

- so true, just add the other two - desert religions - and all the worldly ill's are made into a single package.

 

[irosie91]

Since When Is an Opiate a Threat to Tyranny?

Just the opposite. To punish an agent who had failed to stop the Jewish Revolt.

who is the "agent" who was supposed to STOP the Jewish revolt?

 

[irosie91]

that's why they needed judas, paid by the jews to point him out to be arrested ... and the jews did it for the romans to seek their favor. turn in one of their own they loved.

- so brave of them and heart warming.

to what jews does "paid by THE JEWS to point him out..." refer ? who is seeking whose
"favor"?

 

[irosie91]

My faith is based on reality. I have witnessed and experienced the presence of God and His power, manifest through the Name of Jesus/Yehoshua. The miracles that I have witnessed confirm my God-given faith.

I have experienced lots of people who witness the presence of God-----in consultation

 

[hobelim]

Unless your statement is that "teaching Z" is (equals) the flesh of swine

Right.

In kosher law the "flesh" represents the "teaching" of animals which represent human archetypes. Isn't that exactly what I said? I didn't stutter. Whats your problem? Perplexed are you? Damn.

in which case the words are there but that makes no sense.

You must be one of those guys who wants to turn Israel into a dictatorship. Good luck with your fancy schmancy glorified slaughterhouse temple plans. I bet there is a high priest in waiting...lol..

There are too many people in this day and age who are too smart to fall for that scam yet again.

 

[hobelim]

who is the "agent" who was supposed to STOP the Jewish revolt?

007?

 

[Woodznutz]

Then why did the Sanhedrin accuse him of blasphemy? He was saying that he was the Son of Man. I know you like to ignore historical facts, but they found him guilty of violating the Sabbath, threatening to destroy the temple, and claiming to be the Messiah. They demanded his death for this, and pressured the Romans to do it for them since they were not allowed to do it themselves.

You can’t have it both ways.

The Jews wanted Jesus killed because he came as king seeking peace. They wanted a warlord messiah.