It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Were the Jews Expecting the Son of God?

page: 8
1
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Well that is true about Isaiah 45.
However, in interpreting Isaiah 53, many of the earliest Jewish scholars assumed the passage was referring to King Messiah, God's Righteous Servent.

The Aramaic translation of this chapter, thought to be written by Rabbi Jonathan ben Uzziel early in the second century c.e., is prefaced:

'Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high, and increase, and be exceeding strong: as the house of Israel looked to him through many days, because their countenance was darkened among the peoples, and their complexion beyond the sons of men (Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 53, ad locum).'"

Babylonian Talmud:

What is his [the Messiah's] name? The Rabbis said: His name is "the leper scholar," as it is written, "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted." (Sanhedrin 98b)

Again, the Midrash Rabbah states:

He is speaking of the King Messiah: "Come hither" draw near to the throne "and dip thy morsel in the vinegar," this refers to the chastisements, as it is said, "But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities."

The Zohar:

There is in the Garden of Eden a palace named the Palace of the Sons of Sickness. This palace the Messiah enters, and He summons every pain and every chastisement of Israel. All of these come and rest upon Him. And had He not thus lightened them upon Himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel's chastisements for the trangression of the law; as it is written, "Surely our sicknesses he has carried." (Zohar II, 212a)

The interpretation of Suffering Servant as Israel was popularized much later and has been found to have several flaws that don't exist when considering Jesus as the potential unknown servant.

The following passages don't add up when considering Israel as the Suffering Servant:

By oppression and judgment, he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

When was the whole nation of Israel cut off from the land of the living? God has promised that Israel shall never cease to be a nation, and as we know, Israel has suffered but never perished.

Finally, the passage "for the transgression of my people he was stricken" gets very confusing when we consider that Israel is both God's people and the "he" that was the one stricken. In one line Israel is plural-- "my people" and the very next they are a "he", who is stricken for their own transgression. It really only makes sense of the servant is an individual.
edit on 14-9-2016 by zosimov because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: zosimov




Well that is true about Isaiah 45. However, in interpreting Isaiah 53, many of the earliest Jewish scholars assumed the passage was referring to King Messiah, God's Righteous Servant.


Isaiah 53 is the Suffering Servant, which is the personification of the Nation of Israel, God's righteous servant, according the Jewish tradition.


Despite strong objections from conservative Christian apologists, the prevailing rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53 ascribes the “servant” to the nation of Israel who silently endured unimaginable suffering at the hands of its gentile oppressors.
outreachjudaism.org...




When was the whole nation of Israel cut off from the land of the living?


In 70AD

Perhaps Jesus also is merely a metaphor for the Nation of Israel, and existed only in folk lore and remembrance of the Nation of Israel, that was "cut off" in 70AD, with the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple and the Hebrew culture.



Israel has suffered but never perished.


Yes it did. It was "resurrected" in 1942.


edit on 14-9-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

The Babylonian Talmud is the second most important text to the Jewish people. So your website's opinion might not take precedence over the scholarship written in the Talmud.

Here's a site which presents a different take:
www.mayimhayim.org...

I could guess at the reasons why the Suffering Servant=Israel has been pushed as the only valid interpretation, but I'll leave that up to the reader.

As to your other point--Is Israel a geological locale, or a people? The nation of Israel has never been cut off from the land of the living. In order to make your point, you had to add the quotation marks, but we're not talking about a near extinction when it comes to this prophesy, we are talking about the death of the servant. Which happened to Jesus, not Israel.

8He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. 9And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.

edit on 14-9-2016 by zosimov because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 11:29 PM
link   
a reply to: zosimov




The Babylonian Talmud is the second most important text to the Jewish people. So your website's opinion might not take precedence over the scholarship written in the Talmud.


All of God's servants die! The Messiah of Isaiah was Cyrus the Great. The Suffering Servant is the Nation of Israel. This is according to Jewish tradition. I've provided a citation that dates back to the 2nd century 180 AD, verifying this is true, from early Christian father Origen.

Your link is one of those websites that the OP was talking about...a Christian site pretending to be Jewish.

Sorry, Jesus of Nazareth isn't Isaiah's Messiah nor his Suffering Servant. He doesn't fit the bill.

edit on 14-9-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

The link I provided is a compilation of Rabbinic interpretation of Isaiah 53. It is solely quotes, no commentary. The words speak for themselves. I've cross referenced and, sure enough, the passages line up with their sources, which include the Talmud.


edit on 14-9-2016 by zosimov because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

It's interesting to notice that someone else is saying exactly what I am saying, I always look for the correct answers and not the ones that align with what I was told by one side hostile to the traditions of the nation it claims descendancy from yet doesn't understand in the least.

People who follow the traditions of men who didn't understand the traditions themselves are never going to go away but I am just glad someone else is paying attention and willing to look at the Tanakh from its true perspective and not the one made up to agree with myths foreign to the culture they are attached to, heresy actually as one God means ONE, not two or three, Gods and Christianity has 3 but SAYS 1 like it is not completely illogical utter nonsense. They can be said to be 1 but are still 3 at the end of the day making Christianity polytheistic, not even dualistic monolatry but 3 different Gods, a Devil and a Queen of Heaven.

Thats paganism, not that there's anything wrong with that. But it is paganism and nor true Monotheism so basically the first thing in Christianity that makes it different from Judaism is a lie, that Christ is God, a man.

Ancestor worship.



posted on Sep, 14 2016 @ 11:58 PM
link   
a reply to: zosimov

You sources don't change a thing. Jewish tradition has always been to interpret Isaiah's Suffering Servant as The Nation of Israel, as the book itself makes clear, and that Isaiah's messiah was Cyrus the Great.

Jesus didn't establish a kingdom. Israel is not now, nor never has been living in peace.
Jesus didn't have offspring.
The suffering servant is despised until his exaltation, it was just the opposite with Jesus. Jesus lived a charmed life, all the way until his supposed crucifixion, and was only despised by a few religious leaders.

Jesus just doesn't fit the bill! Christians know this and suppose that he'll fulfill the ticket when he returns in his cloud of glory. I'm sorry, but "no ticket, no jacket". Talk to me after his return and he's finished the job.

In the meantime, as per the OP..... Nope, the Jews were not expecting the "Son of God" as their Messiah.



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 12:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: LucianusXVII
a reply to: windword

It's interesting to notice that someone else is saying exactly what I am saying, I always look for the correct answers and not the ones that align with what I was told by one side hostile to the traditions of the nation it claims descendancy from yet doesn't understand in the least.



You apparently haven't read the above quotes, which come directly from the traditions themselves.
The correct answer would depend on who you asked, now wouldn't it? If you asked a Jewish person who believes in Christ, they would tell you something different than one who doesn't. If you look in the Talmud or read the quotes from Rabbis I provided, it would indicate that Isaiah 53 is in reference to The King Messiah. If you speak to one whose faith depends on Jesus not being the true Messiah, he will tell you otherwise.

So I'd say the truth is not exclusive to the Jews who haven't recognized Christ.



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 12:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: zosimov

Jesus didn't establish a kingdom.


For me and many others, he is King. And God is LORD (our Father, above all)




The suffering servant is despised until his exaltation, it was just the opposite with Jesus. Jesus lived a charmed life, all the way until his supposed crucifixion, and was only despised by a few religious leaders.


Note the pharisees who followed after him, spoke ill of him, and tried on a number of occasions to grab hold and stone him. Also despised by Nazrenes "A prophet is not without honor, save in his own country"



In the meantime, as per the OP..... Nope, the Jews were not expecting the "Son of God" as their Messiah.

Those who haven't become Christian, that is true.
edit on 15-9-2016 by zosimov because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 12:09 AM
link   
a reply to: zosimov




You apparently haven't read the above quotes, which come directly from the traditions themselves.


Apparently you have no idea what they mean or how they apply to your argument, which seems to be that, yes, the Jews were expecting Yahweh incarnate to die and rise for their sins.

Your citation doesn't back that claim up.



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: windword

Well that is true about Isaiah 45.
However, in interpreting Isaiah 53, many of the earliest Jewish scholars assumed the passage was referring to King Messiah, God's Righteous Servent.


No they didn't, not a one.

Azzai, Hillel, Gamaliel, Shammai down to Yochai and later De Leon, Maimonides do NOT consider Isaiah 53 to be talking about anyone other than the nation of Israel. The Talmud certainly doesn't either.



The Aramaic translation of this chapter, thought to be written by Rabbi Jonathan ben Uzziel early in the second century c.e., is prefaced:

'Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high, and increase, and be exceeding strong:

as the house of Israel looked to him through many days, because their countenance was darkened among the peoples, and their complexion beyond the sons of men (Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 53, ad locum).'"


This doesn't say Isaiah 53 is talking about the Messiah AT ALL. Modern Jewish thought is what has been already stated and comes from the Talmud, not in opposition to it.

That's comparing the Messiah to the house of Israel not claiming that it's a prophecy about the Messiah. You are using typical missionary tactics and fooling no one. You don't even care about what is actually being done but what you can make it LOOK like is being done.

What's really being done is comparing the coming Messiah, obviously not Jesus if you want to pull it out as authoritative you got to go all the way and rule out any possibility of Jesus being Messiah to take the position that the Talmud has any weight as an argument about the Messiah as it is all after Jesus when penned and declared sacred.

It doesn't say that Isaiah 53 IS the Messiah but that the Messiah will be like the nation of Israel, you are not even interpreting it correctly.



Babylonian Talmud:

What is his [the Messiah's] name? The Rabbis said: His name is "the leper scholar," as it is written, "Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted." (Sanhedrin 98b)

Again, the Midrash Rabbah states:

He is speaking of the King Messiah: "Come hither" draw near to the throne "and dip thy morsel in the vinegar," this refers to the chastisements, as it is said, "But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities."


Now your just selecting random Talmud quotes and trying to get them to hook up to a single passage in Isaiah and with the Messiah and it is not working at all, you have gone from Isaiah to Deuteronomy to the Talmud to try and twist the words to make them say that your religion is correct that Jesus was the Messiah , never mind Son of God the actual topic.

You have not done it and won't be able to.



The Zohar:

There is in the Garden of Eden a palace named the Palace of the Sons of Sickness. This palace the Messiah enters, and He summons every pain and every chastisement of Israel. All of these come and rest upon Him. And had He not thus lightened them upon Himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel's chastisements for the trangression of the law; as it is written, "Surely our sicknesses he has carried." (Zohar II, 212a)

The interpretation of Suffering Servant as Israel was popularized much later and has been found to have several flaws that don't exist when considering Jesus as the potential unknown servant.


Thats false, Origen reports this view and the Zohar was written in Medieval times WAY after Origen. Nice try.



The following passages don't add up when considering Israel as the Suffering Servant:

By oppression and judgment, he was taken away. And who can speak of his descendants? For he was cut off from the land of the living; for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

When was the whole nation of Israel cut off from the land of the living? God has promised that Israel shall never cease to be a nation, and as we know, Israel has suffered but never perished.


When was Jesus cut off from the land of the living? That'd make him dead, not reigning in Heaven.

Land of the Living is obviously a metaphor for Israel/Judea and this a reference to the Diaspora, pick one.



Finally, the passage "for the transgression of my people he was stricken" gets very confusing when we consider that Israel is both God's people and the "he" that was the one stricken. In one line Israel is plural-- "my people" and the very next they are a "he", who is stricken for their own transgression. It really only makes sense of the servant is an individual.


It's not confusing at all as it's correctly tranlated FROM not FOR.

Better luck next time? Try staying out of the Talmud unless you want to be a Rabbi, you certainly can't use it as proof that Jesus is the Messiah and can't even make a legit case for Isaiah 53 being about the Messiah because you don't study the text and are shooting in the dark, as is readily apparent to a student of Judaism.
edit on 15-9-2016 by LucianusXVII because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 12:11 AM
link   
a reply to: zosimov




For me and many others, he is King. And God is LORD (our Father, above all)


So what? That's not what this thread is about. It's asking if there's a prophecy that predicts the Christian version of the Jesus story. There isn't.

Edit: Sorry if I come across rude, I get frustrated with people who twist scripture to fit their paradigm.


edit on 15-9-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 12:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: LucianusXVII
readily apparent to a student of Judaism.


He is speaking of the King Messiah: "Come hither" draw near to the throne "and dip thy morsel in the vinegar," this refers to the chastisements, as it is said, "But he was wounded for our transgessions, bruised for our iniquities

In italics you find a direct quote from Isaiah 53, applied to the King Messiah.

How much more clarity do you need?



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 12:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: LucianusXVII
readily apparent to a student of Judaism.


He is speaking of the King Messiah: "Come hither" draw near to the throne "and dip thy morsel in the vinegar," this refers to the chastisements, as it is said, "But he was wounded for our transgessions, bruised for our iniquities

In italics you find a direct quote from Isaiah 53, applied to the King Messiah.

How much more clarity do you need?




You are trying to use the Talmud (which has Christ boiling in excrement in hell, btw) to get Isaiah to mean what it doesn't say or mean and the Talmud isn't doing itself by saying things like King Messiah over and over and asking how much clarification I need, which seems to be your own issue as you're using the Talmud as a book to suggest that Isaiah is 53 is talking about (Jesus) something it clearly isn't, and the Talmud is NOT claiming that Isaiah 53 is ABOUT the Messiah but LIKE Israel the nation, mighty and strong. The suffering servant, Israel, is being compared TO THE MESSIAH. Not saying that it is the Messiah.

Again, clarification isn't my issue, I get it fine.
edit on 15-9-2016 by LucianusXVII because: clarification



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 12:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: LucianusXVII


'Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high, and increase, and be exceeding strong: as the house of Israel looked to him through many days, because their countenance was darkened among the peoples, and their complexion beyond the sons of men (Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 53, ad locum).

What's really being done is comparing the coming Messiah, obviously not Jesus if you want to pull it out as authoritative you got to go all the way and rule out any possibility of Jesus being Messiah to take the position that the Talmud has any weight as an argument about the Messiah as it is all after Jesus when penned and declared sacred.


I was using this as a refutation to the idea of Suffering Servant=Israel. Not as a validation of Jesus as Messiah.




The Zohar:


Thats false, Origen reports this view and the Zohar was written in Medieval times WAY after Origen. Nice try.


But the Talmud precedes Origen.




When was Jesus cut off from the land of the living? That'd make him dead, not reigning in Heaven.


When he was murdered, and again when he ascended to heaven. Which is out of the realm of the living.

As for the "from the transgression of my people he was stricken" nope still doesn't make sense. Sorry.



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 12:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: LucianusXVII

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: LucianusXVII
readily apparent to a student of Judaism.


He is speaking of the King Messiah: "Come hither" draw near to the throne "and dip thy morsel in the vinegar," this refers to the chastisements, as it is said, "But he was wounded for our transgessions, bruised for our iniquities

In italics you find a direct quote from Isaiah 53, applied to the King Messiah.

How much more clarity do you need?




You are trying to use the Talmud (which has Christ boiling in excrement in hell, btw) to get Isaiah to mean what it doesn't say or mean and the Talmud isn't doing itself by saying things like King Messiah over and over and asking how much clarification I need, which seems to be your own issue as you're using the Talmud as a book to suggest that Isaiah is 53 is talking about (Jesus) something it clearly isn't, and the Talmud is NOT claiming that Isaiah 53 is ABOUT the Messiah but LIKE Israel the nation, mighty and strong. The suffering servant, Israel, is being compared TO THE MESSIAH. Not saying that it is the Messiah.

Again, clarification isn't my issue, I get it fine.


Yes, I'm aware of that. Nice book, huh? And these are the people who are being asked to validate Christ's reign.

But you're wrong. I'm using it to refute the Israel as Suffering Servant concept. Without which Jesus becomes a very prime candidate.



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 12:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword

Edit: Sorry if I come across rude, I get frustrated with people who twist scripture to fit their paradigm.



Wow I truly appreciate your apology. And if I have said anything offensive, I also apologize. I don't think that twisting is what I am doing here, though, and have tried to submit examples of Rabbis who have also interpreted above passage as referring to the Messiah (NOT Jesus specifically, but also NOT Israel) to back up my (and many others') opinion.

When I read that passage, it matches the fate Jesus. It doesn't take any twisting on my part to read it as a prophesy because all it mentions match what is recorded in the gospel.

It could also (I must admit) be made to fit the nation of Israel (in a vague, metaphorical way) but I and many others don't interpret it that way.
edit on 15-9-2016 by zosimov because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: LucianusXVII


'Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high, and increase, and be exceeding strong: as the house of Israel looked to him through many days, because their countenance was darkened among the peoples, and their complexion beyond the sons of men (Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 53, ad locum).

What's really being done is comparing the coming Messiah, obviously not Jesus if you want to pull it out as authoritative you got to go all the way and rule out any possibility of Jesus being Messiah to take the position that the Talmud has any weight as an argument about the Messiah as it is all after Jesus when penned and declared sacred.


I was using this as a refutation to the idea of Suffering Servant=Israel. Not as a validation of Jesus as Messiah.




The Zohar:


Thats false, Origen reports this view and the Zohar was written in Medieval times WAY after Origen. Nice try.


But the Talmud precedes Origen.




When was Jesus cut off from the land of the living? That'd make him dead, not reigning in Heaven.


When he was murdered, and again when he ascended to heaven. Which is out of the realm of the living.

As for the "from the transgression of my people he was stricken" nope still doesn't make sense. Sorry.


It didn't work. It doesn't make sense to you personally, but makes perfect sense as it was what Isaiah means, Judaism believed and believes today.

Isaiah didn't know Jesus Christ to write about him specifically and the Messiah to Isaiah is the King of Persia who conquered Babylonia and not some guy who claims to be the Son of God but a conquerer.

He even calls him God's annointed (Messiah or Christ) and doesn't prophecy about Jesus or the Davidic Messiah, a very late development in Judaism borrowed (much) from the Persian religion of Zarathustra.

The prophecy you should be using is in Numbers and by a Gentile/Goyim prophet. That was the big Messianic prophecy in Jesus time, star and scepter prophecy of David and Israel. But still it fails as Jesus was executed and essentially defeated, the movement passing over to Rome in the 2 and 3rd centuries losing its genuine battle against Rome and Jesus was no Messiah.

Not even barely 100 years after Jesus allegedley died Bar Kochba was called the Messiah based off of Numbers and called "son of the star" which is what bar Kochba means and the Star of Numbers I spoke of was used to support his claims until he also failed and Rome won, Israel was defeated and no legitimate Messiah ever came.
edit on 15-9-2016 by LucianusXVII because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: LucianusXVII

No, I do mean to use this particular prophesy. There are many others, I know, but this is the one I chose to focus on.

And the substitution of from/for still doesn't clear up the problematic reference to Israel as both "my people" and "he" in the same sentence. It is not syntactically correct.

Edit: But hey, my birthday begins in 7 minutes and I sure don't find this a pleasant way to spend it (although I do love to speak on behalf of Jesus, I hope I represented him well in the mind of my fellow Christians) so I bid you goodnight.

I'm sure I'll hear more from you at some later date

edit on 15-9-2016 by zosimov because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 15 2016 @ 01:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: LucianusXVII

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: LucianusXVII
readily apparent to a student of Judaism.


He is speaking of the King Messiah: "Come hither" draw near to the throne "and dip thy morsel in the vinegar," this refers to the chastisements, as it is said, "But he was wounded for our transgessions, bruised for our iniquities

In italics you find a direct quote from Isaiah 53, applied to the King Messiah.

How much more clarity do you need?




You are trying to use the Talmud (which has Christ boiling in excrement in hell, btw) to get Isaiah to mean what it doesn't say or mean and the Talmud isn't doing itself by saying things like King Messiah over and over and asking how much clarification I need, which seems to be your own issue as you're using the Talmud as a book to suggest that Isaiah is 53 is talking about (Jesus) something it clearly isn't, and the Talmud is NOT claiming that Isaiah 53 is ABOUT the Messiah but LIKE Israel the nation, mighty and strong. The suffering servant, Israel, is being compared TO THE MESSIAH. Not saying that it is the Messiah.

Again, clarification isn't my issue, I get it fine.


Yes, I'm aware of that. Nice book, huh? And these are the people who are being asked to validate Christ's reign.

But you're wrong.


Of course I am wrong, you're a Christian and Christianity could NEVER be wrong only people who disagree with it are, right?

I am not wrong about anything I have said about Jesus, Isaiah or the Messiah , what we were discussing so I am not sure what I am supposed to be wrong about or how you could prove it even if, so it's moot.

I have the beliefs of Jews today to compare with Isaiah and Christians beliefs and I haven't said anything that is wrong, it is just not what you believe as a Christian.

I am neither Jewish or Christian and 100% neutral, but I have to say the Jewish people know the Tanakh better than Christians with or without Talmud or Zohar and Christians don't know scripture very well at all.

You're doing a decent job, I don't think you're not intelligent or anything, quite the contrary as I don't debate with someone who is not intelligent but we disagree on the status of Jesus and the intent of Isaiah, it happens.



I'm using it to refute the Israel as Suffering Servant concept. Without which Jesus becomes a very prime candidate.


It's not something that can truly be refuted except with opinion, you can't prove anything with opinion that happened 2000 and more years ago.

It's all speculation but one thing is a fact is that you don't have Jews today awaiting a suffering servant Messiah as described by Isaiah and the Jews consider the nation of Israel to be what Isaiah was talking about with that remark and it's a fact that that is the majority opinion in Judaism, that Isaiah's suffering servant is Israel.

So there's that plus the infamous almah (young maiden) being mistranslated in the Greek to virgin but it is known now that passage doesn't say or even imply virginity and the birth of that child happened in Isaiah's time to the person he was talking to and early Christians weren't aware of when writing Matthew betraying a corruption, there's a huge amount of trust lost on that one count to cast doubt on the New Testament in entirety.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join