The Scandal of Christianity, Myth or Truth ? Part VII

 Continuing with the conversation

• JR Don, read Zechariah 8:23. Gentiles will come to Jews and realize that G-d is with the Jewish people...Not the other way around! And Jeremiah 16:19 says that you will recognize that you have inherited lies from your fathers!
  
  Ultimately, this will lead to your understanding that you were wrong about worshipping your jesus.
  
  And the "Branch" you speak of in Zechariah 6:12...This is what it says:
  
  Zechariah 6:12. And you shall speak to him, saying, "So said the Lord of Hosts, saying: Behold a man whose name is **the Branch,** who will spring up out of his place and **BUILD THE TEMPLE OF THE LORD.**
  
  Did your jesus build the Temple? No! Thus jesus is not the Branch!

   

  
  
• 

  Don Tan Not according to Rabbi Moses Maimonides per Isaiah 53 .....

  
  

  
  
• JR Don, you claim that Maimonadies believes that jesus is the Branch?!

  
  Are you delusional? That's pretty outrageous that you would even entertain such a notion.
  
  Surely you don't mean that...

   

  
  

  JR You're assuming that I don't find Isaiah 53 to be about the Messiah. I actually do. However, the Messiah is a part of Israel. Ultimately, Isaiah 53 is about Israel, but the Messiah is a PART of Israel, making Isaiah 53 about the Messiah!
  
  The mistake christianity makes is it assumes that Isaiah 53 is ONLY about the Messiah...That couldn't be further from the truth concerning the identity of the suffering servant...

  
  
• 
  
• 

  Don Tan Whether it is highly improbable or impossible. Maimonides believed that Isaiah 53 is describing the Messiah. I'm not delusional and i'm not asking you to believe me. Certainly, i have, good reason to believe in, what i believe in.. Look, Zech 6:12 is talking about future events, right ? Its hypothetical right now. The 'fat lady hasn't sung yet'.... It's still the Dome of the Rock (Al Aqsa)...

  
  

   

   
• JR Maimonides did not believe Isaiah 53 described jesus. That's a fact. Just because a Rabbi claims that Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah does not mean that it isn't about Israel as well. The Messiah is a PART of Israel, so there is nothing conflicting about making such a claim.
  
  However, it is foolish to assume that jesus fulfilled Isaiah 53 because he did not. I am glad to see you conceding that jesus did not fulfill Zechariah 6:12. If you believe this to be a Messianic prophesy, why is jesus the only candidate for the job?
  
  jesus failed to fulfill the Messianic prophesies, including Isaiah 53. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation...

  
  

The Scandal of Christianity, Myth or Truth ? Part VI

• JR Isaiah only refers to Israel as the servant in the 4 servant songs, never "David" or anything signifying the exclusivity of the individual of Messiah.
  
  So you have a choice to make. You either accept that the servant refers to Israel (as the Tanach states) or you make up your own eisegetical understanding of the text.
  
  Hashem promised a righteous remnant of Israel. It is the role of the remnant to bring back the rest of Israel to righteousness. Then the nation of Israel will serve as a "light unto the nations" as G-d's servant. This is what Isaiah 49:3-6 is saying.
  
  Isaiah 53 refers to at the end of days when Israel is restored to righteousness through the remnant and the gentiles realize that their worship of jesus was idolatrous and foolish.
  
  Just read Jeremiah 16:19 and Zechariah 8:23...

  
  
• 
  

  JR Also, how has your belief in jesus stopped you from sinning any less than the time before you believed in him? You still sin don't you?
  
  It's a double standard for you to demand tangible proof that Israel was "pierced for your transgressions" when your jesus didn't tangibly do away with your sins either...
  
  Same with Hashem being "pleased" to "bruise jesus." If you believe that jesus was a "god" then your god was pleased to bruise himself?!
  
  If you think my position is wacky, just look in a mirror!

  
  
• 
  

  JM Don, it does not say he was pierced for my transgressions. It says because of our transgressions because of our iniquity. This is the gentile kings of the world admitting that Israel was bruised because of their (the Gentiles) iniquities. The Christian Bible purposely mistranslates this verse.

  
  
• 

  Don Tan Jacob, Again, chapter 1 sets the tone 'goy choteh' Israel.
  
  5. But he was pained because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his wound we were healed ~ Isaiah 53 (Tanakh)
  
  How do you know 'our' refers to Gentile nations. Did your Rabbi tell you that, or did you come to that conclusion yourself.....
  
  Which gentile nation is admitting that ? You cannot tell me you need an explicit explanation for the Messiah ,and give me an implicit explanation that 'our' refers to Gentile nations. I don't buy that explanation. After all, from what i have read or come to discover, Yeshua did not, himself receive a fair trial.....
  
  Jason, I'm not making up my own exegesis. I'm simply reading the text literally. I don't buy the explanation.... 'end of days when Israel is restored to righteousness through the remnant and the gentiles realize that their worship of jesus was idolatrous and foolish. ' Where did you pull that rabbits foot out off ?
  
  Did Christianity mistranslate Isaiah ?
  
  Rabbi Moses Maimonides: (1135-1204) "What is the manner of Messiah's advent....there shall rise up one of whom none have known before, and signs and wonders which they shall see performed by him will be the proofs of his true origin; for the Almighty, where he declares to us his mind upon this matter, says, `Behold a man whose name is the Branch, and he shall branch forth out of his place' (Zech. 6:12). And Isaiah speaks similarly of the time when he shall appear, without father or mother or family being known, He came up as a sucker before him, and as a root out of dry earth, etc....in the words of Isaiah, when describing the manner in which kings will hearken to him, At him kings will shut their mouth; for that which had not been told them have they seen, and that which they had not heard they have perceived." (From the Letter to the South (Yemen), quoted in The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, Volume 2, pages 374-5)
  
  or was it re-interpreted by modern rabbinical scholars to mean something else..... I'm not the one that's trying to change its interpretation.....

The Scandal of Christianity, Myth or Truth ? Part V

• JM Don, false prophets can perform miracles, so even if Jesus did miracles it would not make him a real prophet. Secondly, I will ask you how do you know that Jesus even did any of those miracles such as raising the dead? After all, that is just a story that could easily be invented by anyone. Can you prove that he actually did any of those things? Can you prove that he was really born of a virgin? Can you prove anything that is written in the new testament? The answer is no. You can only go on it on blind faith. Unlike the Torah which was witnessed by the entire nation of Israel, not having to rely on the testimony of others. Christianity is clearly false and does not match Torah at all.

  
  
• 

  Don Tan Jason, I agree with you that it does not explicitly reference "David" or the "the stump of Jesse" but its talking about someone. I wont implicitly imply who that is However, its definitely not referring to, a whole nation.
  
  Jacob, Ok if the Hyphothesis is. It's just a story ? Why was it witnessed and scribed by his disciples followers later. Moreover, why die over a lie i.e being stone to death, crucified, be-headings .... or exiled for life on the Island of Patmos. Secondly, can you provide roman, jewish and greek
  records (Plyny the Younger, Josephus, Tacitus,..., Talmud) equivalent to any old testament prophet, the likes of Yeshua. I don't think soo
  
  Why do you assume that the set criteria has to match one's paradigm before one decides if it is true ? Why can't one assume something is plausible, or even highly improbable, and work towards an answer. It's either true of false. A dozen disciples are not enough ? You need a whole nation of witnesses ? I cannot give you what you want based on your paradigm....
  
  Shalom Aleichem

  
  
• 
  

  JR Isaiah 49:3. And He said to me, "You are **My servant, Israel,** about whom I will boast."
  
  Isaiah 49:4. And I said, "I toiled in vain, I consumed my strength for nought and vanity." Yet surely my right is with the Lord, and my deed is with my God.
  
  Isaiah 49:5. And now, the Lord, Who formed me from the womb as a servant to Him, said to bring Jacob back to Him, and Israel shall be gathered to Him, and I will be honored in the eyes of the Lord, and my God was my strength.
  
  Isaiah 49:6. And He said, "It is too light for you to be My servant, to establish the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the besieged of Israel, but I will make you a light of nations, so that My salvation shall be until the end of the earth."
  
  Israel is said to be G-d's servant and will serve as a light unto the nations. This refers to a collective, not simply an individual.

  
  
• 

   

  Don Tan It's not explicitly stated in Isaiah 53 i.e. Shema Israel. If you read it the way you see it. Israel as a nation was despised by the nations, and HaShem was pleased to bruise her. Israel was pierced for my transgressions ? Chapter 1 sets the context. HaShem calls Israel a 'goy choteh' sinful nation. Is ISRAEL Good or Bad ? Does this make sense to you ? ...

  
  

The Scandal of Christianity, Myth or Truth ? Part IV

Continuing further from previous comments

• 

  MB "Do you even know, or even see, what you are quoting?"
  
  This should be for you, not for me. LOL.
  
  It is you that do not know what you are talking or you are not admitting the wrong.
  
  Read the book in Hebrew, not in English.
  
  The nation of Israel is always a one entity - and passages I quote above (previously, and also on previous other thread about Isa 53) already proof that.
  
  Even without Hebrew knowledge, without translation - a simple English already proof that the words "they were" in Isa 53:8 IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL.
  
  A common sense would know (without translation), but Christinity never admit their wrong.
  
  I know Isa 53 is one of the proof text pillar for Christianity and by proofing that Isa 53 is not about jesus - it HURT and DISSAPOINT the Christianity. This is the truth, do not get mad due to mistranlation by the catholic or king james or international version etc.
  
  Read the original text is the best. The Hebrew text and understand it in the Hebrew way, not the gentile/outsider way.
  
  By the way, books in NT always contradicted the OT. And therefore quoting from there is no difference than quoting from Quran or any other pagan books.

  
  
• JR Don Tan,
  
  Concerning Isaiah 7:14, all we have to do is look at the context of what Isaiah is saying in order to determine what he meant in Isaiah 7:14. Allow me to demonstrate:
  
  The birth of Isaiah’s child was clearly the fulfillment of the sign prophesied in Isaiah 7:14-16. How do I know this? Isaiah tells us himself! Lets look at these verses
  
  Isaiah 7:14. Therefore, the Lord, of His own, shall give you a sign; behold, the young woman is with child, and she shall bear a son, and she shall call his name Immanuel.
  
  Isaiah 7:15. Cream and honey he shall eat when he knows to reject bad and choose good.
  
  Isaiah 7:16. For, when the lad does not yet know to reject bad and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread, shall be abandoned.”
  
  Keep verse 16 in mind. It is crucial to the context of Isaiah. Now, lets look at the next chapter of Isaiah and see what he has to say:
  
  Isaiah 8:3. And I was intimate with the prophetess, and she conceived, and she bore a son, and the Lord said to me, “Call his name Maher-shalal-hash-baz.
  
  Isaiah 8:4. For, when the lad does not yet know to call, ‘Father’ and ‘mother,’ the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria.”
  
  Well what do you know! Isaiah said a young woman would give birth to a child and in the very next chapter his wife has a son! Prophesy fulfilled! The interesting thing about it is that Isaiah explicitly says he was intimate with her. This means that this "alma" described in Isaiah 7:14 is Isaiah's wife. Morever, she is not a virgin! Thus, the word "alma" does not exclusively refer to women who are virgins! Isaiah says it himself!
  
  And if you are still not convinced, here's a direct statement from Isaiah saying his sons are signs:
  
  Isaiah 8:18. Behold, I and the children whom the Lord gave me for signs and for tokens in Israel, from the Lord of Hosts, Who dwells on Mount Zion.
  
  The natural birth of Isaiah's son was the fulfillment of the sign of Isaiah 7:14, namely that his wife would give birth to a son, and that before he knew the difference between good and evil/father and mother, "the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria shall be carried off before the king of Assyria."
  
  If you are going to argue that this is a "dual fulfillment" regarding Matthew's application of this to the supposed virgin birth of Jesus, you will have to concede that the word "alma" does not exclusively refer to a virgin, as I have demonstrated above. In any case, this prophesy clearly has nothing to do with Jesus...
  
  Shalom and G-d bless!

  
  
• 
  

  JR Also, Don, concerning Isaiah 53, I challenge you to show me one reference in the entirety of the servant songs where the servant is referred to explicitly as “David” or “the stump of Jesse” or any other Messianic specifier used in other passages throughout the Tanach…
  
  The fact is, the “servant” of Isaiah’s servant songs is referred to as Israel and Jacob multiple times. But where is the servant referred to as being “David” or “the stump of Jesse”?
  
  Jews and Christians can agree on other passages referring exclusively to the Messiah! Here are a few: Isaiah 11:1, Ezekiel 37:24, Hosea 3:5, Jeremiah 30:9…
  
  There is one thing all of these verses have in common: They all use a “Davidic qualifier,” meaning that they all exclusively refer to the Davidic dynasty in some fashion. This is why Jews and Christians can all understand that these future prophesies refer to one person: Moshiach ben David.
  
  However, Isaiah 53 makes no mention of this servant having any exclusive association with the kingdom of David. This is why we understand it as referring to a collective group of individuals, namely the righteous among Israel!
  
  Shalom and G-d bless!