A question about the Jews

[Kaninchen]

How will you be able to determine he’s from the House of David when all such records were destroyed (as I’m lead to believe) in the 70s. (that is c. 70 AD)?

How is he to be a leader of a world government, yet be in a time of peace?

How is he to gather all Jews to Israel?

All matters for Messiah to organize. When it happens, it happens, if it doesn’t happen, it isn’t Messiah.

[must admit the having to go to Israel doesn’t really appeal]

 

[Peter_DiMitri]

I have a serious question about the Jews. I would ask that the answers be civil and not anti-Semitic at all.

Are there practising Jews out there that are still waiting for the Messiah? I was always told that the prophecies in the Old Testament pointed to the rise of the Messiah. My understanding was that the Messiah, to the Jews, was to be a great and powerful leader that would rival the Caesars and make the Jews a powerful nation. Jesus Christ didn’t fit the mold of a great temporal leader to save the Jews from the world. So, my question is; Are there Jews that are still waiting the coming of the Messiah?

If so, wouldn’t the Anti-Christ fit the ideal of a Messiah were he to begin his reign on Earth today? The Anti-Christ, as I understand him to be (correct me if I’m wrong), would become a great leader who would rebuild King Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem, where he would rule. Wouldn’t he appear to fit the notion of the Messiah for the Jews?

I ask that we keep the discussion civil and charitable. Mods, please close this thread the moment the discussion is no longer charitable.

Please keep in mind that the “Anti-Christ” that has been popularized in the culture is a Dispensationalist creation, and doesn’t have a basis in Catholic teaching.

 

[brkn1]

After reading the link, I have to say that it seems strange how the Jewish sages have no problem transposing the nation Israel, which is described as the wife of thy Maker (Isaiah 54:5) and the “captive daughter of Zion” (Isaiah 52:2) into a MALE servant as described in Isaiah 52,53,54.
The male gender of who is described precludes the nation Israel as the servant. The gender does not keep being switched back and forth unless the interpreter is confused or mistaken.

Sorry, don’t see an issue here. The Christian Church is described in many various ways–as a body (I Corinthians 12), a vine (John 15), a building (Ephesians 2), the bride/wife of Christ (Ephesians 5), etc. Does this mean that the interpreter of the Chrisitan Scriptures was confused or mistaken? If we apply the critieria that I read you as applying, the centuries of Christian translators can’t even decide whether the Church is a plant, a building or a person.

Let’s go along with the idea that the servant represents Israel in symbolic form and see if it makes sense in (Isaiah 53)

The last part of v.8 “…: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.” seems to be a very odd way of saying “Israel was stricken for its sins.” “my people” and “he” come across as two very different subjects.

v.9 “…; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth” does not apply to any nation that ever existed, which includes Israel.

v.10 “…: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, …”
The question I have with this verse (and especially v.11 & v.12) is: How does one honestly get past the idea that the servant must have “poured out his soul unto death:…; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors (sinners).”?
Outside of the Christian Messiah understanding, the meaning of (Isaiah 53) requires a rather vague dismissal of what is written. It definitely goes against my understanding of the self-help methods of sin resolution prescribed in the other links I’ve read.

 

[Valke2]

Let’s go along with the idea that the servant represents Israel in symbolic form and see if it makes sense in (Isaiah 53)

The last part of v.8 “…: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.” seems to be a very odd way of saying “Israel was stricken for its sins.” “my people” and “he” come across as two very different subjects.

v.9 “…; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth” does not apply to any nation that ever existed, which includes Israel.

v.10 “…: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, …”
The question I have with this verse (and especially v.11 & v.12) is: How does one honestly get past the idea that the servant must have “poured out his soul unto death:…; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors (sinners).”?
Outside of the Christian Messiah understanding, the meaning of (Isaiah 53) requires a rather vague dismissal of what is written. It definitely goes against my understanding of the self-help methods of sin resolution prescribed in the other links I’ve read.

On the contrary, when taken in context with “chapters” 52 and 54, it is clear that Isaiah is speaking about the Israeli people. Moreover, throughout Isaiah, Israel is called God’s servant.

Prior to this Isaiah predicts Israel’s exile. And Chapters 52 through 54 are words of consolation to Israel. These chapters have to do with the redemption of Israel, the suffering servant. Also, there’s nothing there to suggest that the “servant” is the messiah. It doesn’t say

Jesus’ own disciples didn’t believe Isaiah 53 was referring to him. Otherwise how do you explain Mat 16:22? (Peter denying that Jesus will die).

Also, if Jesus is God, are we to interpet Isaiah is God being God’s servant?

Was Jesus despised and rejected by men? Then what about Luke 4:14? Or the fact that he had to be taken away in secret by the Romans, for fear of angering the people who loved him? Also was Jesus a sickly man? (A man acquainted with disease) You can’t have it both ways. If you are going to point to some things in Isaiah tha tyou believe refer to Jesus, you have to addres the others which clearly don’t.

Take a look at Isaiah 42:4 which dicusses the Messiah.

Earlier in Chapter 52, we see Israel being oppressed and taken away. Why do you have such a hard time believing that CHapter 53 also refers to this?

These are just off the top of my head. I’m sure Jews for Judaism has a much more detailed explanation as to why Jews are quite comfortable in not attributing anything in Isaiah 53 (or anywhere else) toward Jesus.

And then there are the other aspects of the “suffering servant” that clearly show it can’t be referring to Jesus.

 

[Valke2]

As for 53:10 “He shall see his seed.” The Hebrew word for “seed”, used in this verse, always refers to physical descendants. See Gen. 12:7; Gen. 15:13; Gen. 46:6; Ex. 28:43. There is actually another word which is used to refer to spiritual descendants (see Deut. 14:1, e.g.). That word is not found in Isaiah 53.

And how do you explain: “He will prolong his days.”? Not only did Jesus die young, but how could the days be prolonged of someone who is alleged to be God?

(This I took pretty much from Jews for Judaism).

 

[Valke2]

v.9 “…; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth” does not apply to any nation that ever existed, which includes Israel.
QUOTE]

See Matt. 21:12; Mk. 11:15-16; Lk. 19:45; Lk. 19:27; Matt. 10:34 and Lk. 12:51.

 

[brkn1]

As for 53:10 “He shall see his seed.” The Hebrew word for “seed”, used in this verse, always refers to physical descendants. See Gen. 12:7; Gen. 15:13; Gen. 46:6; Ex. 28:43. There is actually another word which is used to refer to spiritual descendants (see Deut. 14:1, e.g.). That word is not found in Isaiah 53.

And how do you explain: “He will prolong his days.”? Not only did Jesus die young, but how could the days be prolonged of someone who is alleged to be God?

(This I took pretty much from Jews for Judaism).

The “He will prolong his days.” refers to the physical ressurection of Jesus after His atoning “pouring out of his soul unto death”.
My counter question would be: How do you resolve the contradiction of v.10 with v.12 in Isaiah 53?
“prolonging his days” vs. “pouring out his soul unto death” ?

 

[brkn1]

brkn1;1947511:

v.9 “…; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth” does not apply to any nation that ever existed, which includes Israel.
QUOTE]

See Matt. 21:12; Mk. 11:15-16; Lk. 19:45; Lk. 19:27; Matt. 10:34 and Lk. 12:51.

There is nothing wrong or evil about the righteous violence needed to overcome or defend against thieves or murderers, etc. We are expected by God to use appropriate and sometimes violent means to curb evil.
All nations, including Israel, have not always used appropriate violence, so v.9 would not seem to apply to Israel.

 

[brkn1]

Stricken does not have to mean “sickly”.
It could also mean: “the stroke was laid upon Him”.

 

[Valke2]

Valke2;1947692:

There is nothing wrong or evil about the righteous violence needed to overcome or defend against thieves or murderers, etc. We are expected by God to use appropriate and sometimes violent means to curb evil.
All nations, including Israel, have not always used appropriate violence, so v.9 would not seem to apply to Israel.

the justification of it is not relevant. If you are going to take Isaiah at his word, then no violence, righteous or not, will be done by the person being described.

 

[brkn1]

brkn1;1947902:

the justification of it is not relevant. If you are going to take Isaiah at his word, then no violence, righteous or not, will be done by the person being described.

The very criteria you require precludes Israel also.

 

[brkn1]

brkn1;1947902:

the justification of it is not relevant. If you are going to take Isaiah at his word, then no violence, righteous or not, will be done by the person being described.

Violence in Hebrew: (chamas) H2555
from H2554; violence; by implication WRONG; by metonymy unjust gain: cruel (ty), damage, false, injustice, X oppressor, unrighteous, violence (against, done), violent (dealing), wrong.

I chose “wrong” or “unrighteous” for the true meaning of H2555 (chamas).

There is a “violence which violates” which is not at all the same thing as a “violence which constrains evil”.

The use of “deceit” in the same verse 9 with “violence” proves that the evil version of “violating violence” is being spoken of.
The true meaning of any word depends heavily on its context.

 

[Montalban]

All matters for Messiah to organize. When it happens, it happens, if it doesn’t happen, it isn’t Messiah.

[must admit the having to go to Israel doesn’t really appeal]

I don’t quite follow. You seem to be moving into circular-logic territory with this.

When asked how you will know the Messiah’s lineage from David is true, you say that the Messiah will fix this up - as if it will be self-proving - the Messiah says he’s a descendant from David, and we know he’s the Messiah because he’s descended from David

Is this what you meant to say?

 

[Kaninchen]

I don’t quite follow. You seem to be moving into circular-logic territory with this.

I’ve said before that you’re much too smart for me to argue with.

When asked how you will know the Messiah’s lineage from David is true, you say that the Messiah will fix this up - as if it will be self-proving - the Messiah says he’s a descendant from David, and we know he’s the Messiah because he’s descended from David

Is this what you meant to say?

What I meant to say was that if the predictions to do with the Messiah take place (‘on the ground’ rather than ‘on paper’ as with the Christian version), then we’ll know that Messiah has turned up - if they don’t take place, it’s not Messiah.

Simple as that. We’re not waiting for a big papyrus sheet or whatever with a family tree, neither are we going to scoot through the Tanakh looking for any piece of text that could possibly, perhaps with a bit of manipulation, refer to the candidate, we’re waiting for the important stuff.

 

[Montalban]

I’ve said before that you’re much too smart for me to argue with.

So far, I’ve just been asking questions. Argument to follow…

What I meant to say was that if the predictions to do with the Messiah take place (‘on the ground’ rather than ‘on paper’ as with the Christian version), then we’ll know that Messiah has turned up - if they don’t take place, it’s not Messiah.

Simple as that. We’re not waiting for a big papyrus sheet or whatever with a family tree, neither are we going to scoot through the Tanakh looking for any piece of text that could possibly, perhaps with a bit of manipulation, refer to the candidate, we’re waiting for the important stuff.

You’ll* know* the Messiah’s turned up because they meet the criteria of being Messiah. How do you know they meet the criteria? The Messiah will fix that up. But how do you know they’re the Messiah? Well they meet the criteria.

We can branch out. What is one of the criteria? They’re from the House of David. How do we know the Messiah’s from the House of David? Well the Messiah will fix that up (to use your term), and so on.

You are correct. This is a different approach to the Christian version!

 

[Kaninchen]

You’ll* know* the Messiah’s turned up because they meet the criteria of being Messiah. How do you know they meet the criteria? The Messiah will fix that up. But how do you know they’re the Messiah? Well they meet the criteria.

You seem to be getting it so far.

We can branch out. What is one of the criteria? They’re from the House of David. How do we know the Messiah’s from the House of David? Well the Messiah will fix that up (to use your term), and so on.

You seem to be expecting Messiah to turn up applying for the job of Messiah and being asked to provide a CV and references. The references will be the fulfilment of the (real world) prophesies.

You are correct. This is a different approach to the Christian version!

Yes, Messiah has real material things to achieve (I’ve provided links above). While you’ve decided that somebody was Messiah (and ‘God’ for heaven’s sake!) and have to make everything fit, we’re waiting for everything to fit and then we’ll know. There have been a number of Messiah claimants, what they’ve failed to do, all of them, is achieve the prophesies (other than ‘on paper’).

 

[Montalban]

You seem to be getting it so far.

Not after you write…

You seem to be expecting Messiah to turn up applying for the job of Messiah and being asked to provide a CV and references. The references will be the fulfilment of the (real world) prophesies.

But one is that he be from the House of David. So you’re back into your circular logic (see my post above)

Yes, Messiah has real material things to achieve (I’ve provided links above).

Yes, I had a look, that’s why I raised the question about the House of David - in light of the fact that there’s no more records of lineage - not after the time of Jesus funny that, after Jesus the records are gone.

While you’ve decided that somebody was Messiah (and ‘God’ for heaven’s sake!) and have to make everything fit,

Are you saying God can’t save the people? No, don’t answer you seem to want to have a different debate.

A couple of times you’ve not been content to discuss “A question about the Jews” but want to make this “A question about Jesus” which is a different debate - funny I thought you didn’t want to debate me but instead of dealing with questions in connection with what you maintain you’d rather look at what Christians claim about Jesus.

we’re waiting for everything to fit and then we’ll know.

Based on circular logic - so far that’s all you’ve offered on this point. You’ll know he matches the criteria, because he’ll be the Messiah who fits the criteria, because he’s the Messiah… etc.

There have been a number of Messiah claimants, what they’ve failed to do, all of them, is achieve the prophesies (other than ‘on paper’).

Irrelevant.

 

[Kaninchen]

But one is that he be from the House of David. So you’re back into your circular logic (see my post above)

Well, as I’ve said, you’re far too smart for me to debate with.

Yes, I had a look, that’s why I raised the question about the House of David - in light of the fact that there’s no more records of lineage - not after the time of Jesus funny that, after Jesus the records are gone.

I’ve absolutely no reason whatsoever to accept the Jesus lineage!

Are you saying God can’t save the people? No, don’t answer you seem to want to have a different debate.

Err?

A couple of times you’ve not been content to discuss “A question about the Jews” but want to make this “A question about Jesus” which is a different debate - funny I thought you didn’t want to debate me but instead of dealing with questions in connection with what you maintain you’d rather look at what Christians claim about Jesus.

I’ve dealt with the questions, you just don’t accept my answers.

Based on circular logic - so far that’s all you’ve offered on this point. You’ll know he matches the criteria, because he’ll be the Messiah who fits the criteria, because he’s the Messiah… etc.

Circular logic would imply that there was no evidential part of the argument. I’ve been saying that, when the evidence turns up, we’ll know that Messiah has turned up - if somebody turns up, brings universal peace, brings us all back to Israel etc, etc, etc, then we’ll know that it’s Messiah as predicted.

 

[Montalban]

Well, as I’ve said, you’re far too smart for me to debate with.

I’ve absolutely no reason whatsoever to accept the Jesus lineage!

It’s my own fault for mentioning it, it’s another debate.

Err?

You seem to be edging towards discussion about Jesus rather than about Judaism

I’ve dealt with the questions, you just don’t accept my answers.

You’re darn tootin’ I don’t. I don’t like circular logic. Why? Because I don’t. Why? Because it’s circular

Circular logic would imply that there was no evidential part of the argument. I’ve been saying that, when the evidence turns up, we’ll know that Messiah has turned up - if somebody turns up, brings universal peace, brings us all back to Israel etc, etc, etc, then we’ll know that it’s Messiah as predicted.

The important part is the etc.

Why state one of your reasons about knowing him will be ‘x’, if it’s not important.

You can’t have it both ways.

 

[Kaninchen]

You can’t have it both ways.

Oh, I expect we’ll be quite happy to accept that fulfillment of the important things will imply fulfillment of the minor rather than vice-versa - we won’t be demanding a CV and references, it’ll be obvious.

If you consider that as having it both ways, then ok, to you it’ll be having it both ways, for us, we’ll be too busy dealing with packing for Israel (those of us who aren’t there, of course) to worry about what your position on the issue might be.