03-28-2024, 10:14 PM
Thanks Thomas.
"I see that explanations of how certain aspects are supposed to fit Israel contradict what other Jewish scholars say the text of Isaiah says"
I don't see them as contradictions. If you know Judaism, you know if you ask 2 Jews the same question you'll get 3 different answers.
"So, I imagine that, if I knew nothing of the NT, I would still understand Isaiah 53 to be referring to a notable individual, perhaps the Messiah King to come, instead of the nation Israel. But that is my speculation."
The servant is referred to in the plural several times, so it cannot be an individual. Again, it's poetic Hebrew that Isaiah uses.
"But that is not why I am here posting. I am here posting because counter-missionaries are disturbed that some Jews have read Isaiah 53 and concluded that it is talking about Jesus. I have heard of several cases where an unlearned Jew has read or heard someone read Isaiah 53 without comment and got offended because they believed they were hearing the NT. "I told you not to read me the Christian Bible!" So, the counter-missionaries have gone through the several statements of the passage, ONE AT A TIME, and presented arguments why these statements cannot refer to Jesus. Apparently, this has caused some of these people to doubt their impressions and recant their belief in Jesus."
I would think most of those "unlearned Jews" were listening to the passage as written in the Christian bible, not in the original Hebrew. I would also think those unlearned Jews were pretty unlearned in Christianity as well.
"I already pointed out the fact that God says that this servant of Isaiah 53 is a sin-bearer, and the orthodox rabbi admitted that Israel is not a sin-bearer in the sense of Isaiah 53:12, but made the claim that this is just the impression of the kings. What? God is speaking the impression of heathen kings? [NO ANSWER]"
Who is "the orthodox rabbi"? Are you taking the opinion of one? It seems to me the servant is the bearer of the sins that others commit against him/them. Just as it says in verse 5.
"Before that, I pointed out that Jesus is stated in the NT to have been made sin, so there is no contradiction between the NT Jesus and Isaiah 53:10 saying that the servant offers a sacrifice for his own guilt. [NO ANSWER] Notice that the Christians on this forum didn't answer, either."
I have no idea what being made sin is, not something that is in line with what G-d teaches in the Hebrew bible. Either one is guilty of committing a sin, or they are not. And if Jesus was sin as you say, then he would have had physical offspring and lived a long life, neither of which are true.
"In this thread, I showed that according to the NT, Jesus was not taken off the cross by Joseph and so must have been actually buried with the wicked, so there is no contradiction between the NT Jesus and Isaiah 53:9."
Must have been? Sounds like speculation to me. If I'm not mistaken, Jesus was buried in a rich man's tomb. How is that with the wicked? Should I speculate that a rich man wouldn't have a tomb with the wicked?
Here are my reasons that why I don't see the servant to be Jesus -
The servant is identified in the plural.
The servant justifies with knowledge, not the shedding of blood.
The servant is wounded from the sins of others, not died for the sins of others.
The servant has an opportunity to see physical offspring and have a long life if he admits his guilt, it is conditional.
No mention of the servant being an anointed one.
No mention that one must believe in the servant and the only way to the father is through him or you are damned to hell.
No mention of a second coming.
"I see that explanations of how certain aspects are supposed to fit Israel contradict what other Jewish scholars say the text of Isaiah says"
I don't see them as contradictions. If you know Judaism, you know if you ask 2 Jews the same question you'll get 3 different answers.
"So, I imagine that, if I knew nothing of the NT, I would still understand Isaiah 53 to be referring to a notable individual, perhaps the Messiah King to come, instead of the nation Israel. But that is my speculation."
The servant is referred to in the plural several times, so it cannot be an individual. Again, it's poetic Hebrew that Isaiah uses.
"But that is not why I am here posting. I am here posting because counter-missionaries are disturbed that some Jews have read Isaiah 53 and concluded that it is talking about Jesus. I have heard of several cases where an unlearned Jew has read or heard someone read Isaiah 53 without comment and got offended because they believed they were hearing the NT. "I told you not to read me the Christian Bible!" So, the counter-missionaries have gone through the several statements of the passage, ONE AT A TIME, and presented arguments why these statements cannot refer to Jesus. Apparently, this has caused some of these people to doubt their impressions and recant their belief in Jesus."
I would think most of those "unlearned Jews" were listening to the passage as written in the Christian bible, not in the original Hebrew. I would also think those unlearned Jews were pretty unlearned in Christianity as well.
"I already pointed out the fact that God says that this servant of Isaiah 53 is a sin-bearer, and the orthodox rabbi admitted that Israel is not a sin-bearer in the sense of Isaiah 53:12, but made the claim that this is just the impression of the kings. What? God is speaking the impression of heathen kings? [NO ANSWER]"
Who is "the orthodox rabbi"? Are you taking the opinion of one? It seems to me the servant is the bearer of the sins that others commit against him/them. Just as it says in verse 5.
"Before that, I pointed out that Jesus is stated in the NT to have been made sin, so there is no contradiction between the NT Jesus and Isaiah 53:10 saying that the servant offers a sacrifice for his own guilt. [NO ANSWER] Notice that the Christians on this forum didn't answer, either."
I have no idea what being made sin is, not something that is in line with what G-d teaches in the Hebrew bible. Either one is guilty of committing a sin, or they are not. And if Jesus was sin as you say, then he would have had physical offspring and lived a long life, neither of which are true.
"In this thread, I showed that according to the NT, Jesus was not taken off the cross by Joseph and so must have been actually buried with the wicked, so there is no contradiction between the NT Jesus and Isaiah 53:9."
Must have been? Sounds like speculation to me. If I'm not mistaken, Jesus was buried in a rich man's tomb. How is that with the wicked? Should I speculate that a rich man wouldn't have a tomb with the wicked?
Here are my reasons that why I don't see the servant to be Jesus -
The servant is identified in the plural.
The servant justifies with knowledge, not the shedding of blood.
The servant is wounded from the sins of others, not died for the sins of others.
The servant has an opportunity to see physical offspring and have a long life if he admits his guilt, it is conditional.
No mention of the servant being an anointed one.
No mention that one must believe in the servant and the only way to the father is through him or you are damned to hell.
No mention of a second coming.