In Malaysia, the Muslims are advised not to join Freemason movement and many Muslims are asking the Mason lodges to hand over Holy Korans used in their ceremonies. And majority of Muslims had left the movement.
How about Judaism, do the Jews allowed to join Freemason movement?
I'm not sure if Judaism has much of an opinion on the Freemasons.
This is impossible, because Isaiah 53 says that this suffering servant died as a sin attonement for the people of Isaiah; Israel.
On the contrary, your reading very faulty translations. Probably the translations which Christian missionaries use, however, they are not only wrong, but very deceptive. If you could only read the Hebrew it would remain very clear.
PRELIMINARY ISSUES
Before engaging in an examination of Isaiah 53 itself, some preliminary issues must be considered. First is the issue of circular reasoning. Even if we interpret the chapter as the Christians do (forgetting for a minute the mistranslations and distortions of context which will be noted below), the most that could be said is this: Isaiah 53 is about someone who dies for the sins of others. People may have seen Jesus die, but did anyone see him die as an atonement for the sins of others? Of course not; this is simply the meaning which the New Testament gives to his death. Only if you already accept the New Testament teaching that his death had a non-visible, spiritual significance can you than go back to Isaiah and say, "see - the Prophet predicted what I already believe." Isaiah 53, then, is in reality no "proof" at all, but rather a contrived confirmation for someone who has already chosen Christianity.
Second (and consistent with all Jewish teaching at the time), Jesus' own disciples didn't view Isaiah 53 as a messianic prophecy. For example, after Peter identifies Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. 16:16), he is informed that Jesus will be killed (Matt. 16:21). His response: "God forbid it, lord! This shall never happen to you" (Matt. 16:22). See, also, Mk. 9:31-32; Mk. 16:10-11; Jn. 20:9. Even Jesus didn't see Isaiah 53 as crucial to his messianic claims - why else did he call the Jews children of the devil for not believing in him before the alleged resurrection (Jn. 8:39-47)? And why did he later request that God "remove this cup from me" (Mk. 14:36) - didn't he know that a "removal of the cup" would violate the gentile understanding of Isaiah 53?
And third, even if we accept the gentile Christian interpretation of Isaiah 53, where is it indicated (either in Isaiah 53 or anywhere else in our Jewish Scriptures) that you must believe in this "Messiah" to get the benefits?
B. CONTEXT
Since any portion of Scripture is only understood properly when viewed in the context of God's revelation as a whole, some additional study will be helpful before you "tackle" Isaiah 53.
Look at the setting in which Isaiah 53 occurs. Earlier on in Isaiah, God had predicted exile and calamity for the Jewish people. Chapter 53, however, occurs in the midst of Isaiah's "Messages of Consolation", which tell of the restoration of Israel to a position of prominence and a vindication of their status as God's chosen people. In chapter 52, for example, Israel is described as "oppressed without cause" (v.4) and "taken away" (v.5), yet God promises a brighter future ahead, one in which Israel will again prosper and be redeemed in the sight of all the nations (v.1-3, 8-12).
Chapter 54 further elaborates upon the redemption which awaits the nation of Israel. Following immediately after chapter 53's promise of a reward for God's servant in return for all of its suffering (53:10-12), chapter 54 describes an unequivocally joyous fate for the Jewish people. Speaking clearly of the Jewish people and their exalted status (even according to all Christian commentaries), chapter 54 ends as follows: "`This is the heritage of the servants of the L-rd and their vindication is from Me,' declares the L-rd."
C.
ISAIAH 53
In the original Hebrew texts, there are no chapter divisions, and Jew and Christian alike agree that chapter 53 is actually a continuation of the prophecy which begins at 52:13. Accordingly, our analysis must begin at that verse.
52:13 "Behold, My servant will prosper." Israel in the singular is called God's servant throughout Isaiah, both explicitly (Isa. 41:8-9; 44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3) and implicitly (Isa. 42:19-20; 43:10) - the Messiah is not. Other references to Israel as God's servant include Jer. 30:10 (note that in Jer. 30:17, the servant Israel is regarded by the nations as an outcast, forsaken by God, as in Isa. 53:4); Jer. 46:27-28; Ps. 136:22; Lk. 1:54. ALSO: Given the Christian view that Jesus is God, is God His own servant?
52:15 - 53:1 "So shall he (the servant) startle many nations, the kings will stand speechless; For that which had not been told them they shall see and that which they had not heard shall they ponder. Who would believe what we have heard?" Quite clearly, the nations and their kings will be amazed at what happens to the "servant of the L-rd," and they will say "who would believe what we have heard?". 52:15 tells us explicitly that it is the nations of the world, the gentiles, who are doing the talking in Isaiah 53. See, also, Micah 7:12-17, which speaks of the nations' astonishment when the Jewish people again blossom in the Messianic age.
53:1 "And to whom has the arm of the L-rd been revealed?" In Isaiah, and throughout our Scriptures, God's "arm" refers to the physical redemption of the Jewish people from the oppression of other nations (see, e.g., Isa. 52:8-12; Isa. 63:12; Deut. 4:34; Deut. 7:19; Ps. 44:3).
53:3 "Despised and rejected of men." While this is clearly applicable to Israel (see Isa. 60:15; Ps. 44:13-14), it cannot be reconciled with the New Testament account of Jesus, a man who was supposedly "praised by all" (Lk. 4:14-15) and followed by multitudes (Matt. 4:25), who would later acclaim him as a prophet upon his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matt. 21:9-11). Even as he was taken to be crucified, a multitude bemoaned his fate (Lk. 23:27). Jesus had to be taken by stealth, as the rulers feared "a riot of the people" (Mk. 14:1-2).
53:3 "A man of pains and acquainted with disease." Israel's adversities are frequently likened to sickness - see, e.g., Isa. 1:5-6; Jer. 10:19; Jer 30:12.
53:4 "Surely our diseases he carried and our pains he bore." In Matt. 8:17, this is correctly translated, and said to be literally (not spiritually) fulfilled in Jesus' healing of the sick, a reading inconsistent with the Christian mistranslation of 53:4 itself.
53:4 "Yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken, smitten of G- D and afflicted." See Jer. 30:17 - of God's servant Israel (30:10), it is said by the nations, "It is Zion; no one cares for her."
53:5 "But he was wounded from (NOTE: not for) our transgressions, he was crushed from (AGAIN: not for) our iniquities." Whereas the nations had thought the Servant (Israel) was undergoing Divine retribution for its sins (53:4), they now realize that the Servant's sufferings stemmed from their actions and sinfulness. This theme is further developed throughout our Jewish Scriptures - see, e.g., Jer. 50:7; Jer. 10:25. ALSO: Note that the Messiah "shall not fail nor be crushed till he has set the right in the earth" (Isa. 42:4).
53:7 "He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth. Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so he did not open his mouth." Note that in the prior chapter (Isa. 52), Israel is said to have been oppressed and taken away without cause (52:4-5). A similar theme is developed in Psalm 44, wherein King David speaks of Israel's faithfulness even in the face of gentile oppression (44:17- 18) and describes Israel as "sheep to be slaughtered" in the midst of the unfaithful gentile nations (44:22,11).
Regarding the claim that Jesus "did not open his mouth" when faced with oppression and affliction, see Matt. 27:46, Jn. 18:23, 36-37.
53:8 "From dominion and judgment he was taken away." Note the correct translation of the Hebrew. The Christians are forced to mistranslate, since - by Jesus' own testimony - he never had any rights to rulership or judgment, at least not on the "first coming." See, e.g., Jn. 3:17; Jn. 8:15; Jn. 12:47; Jn. 18:36.
53:8 "He was cut off out of the land of the living." Israel is described as "cut off" in Ez 37:11.
53:8 "From my peoples' sins, there was injury to them."Here the Prophet makes absolutely clear, to anyone familiar with Biblical Hebrew, that the oppressed Servant is a collective Servant, not a single individual. The Hebrew word "lamoh - (lamed-mem-vav) ", when used in our Scriptures, always means "to them" never "to him" and may be found, for example, in Psalm 99:7 - "They kept his testimonies, and the statute that He gave to them."
53:9 "His grave was assigned with wicked men." See Ez. 37:11-14, wherein Israel is described as "cut off" and God promises to open its "graves" and bring Israel back into its own land. Other examples of figurative deaths include Ex. 10:17; 2 Sam. 9:8; 2 Sam. 16:9.
53:9 "And with the rich in his deaths." Perhaps King James should have changed the original Hebrew, which the plural "deaths" makes clear that we are dealing with a collective Servant, i.e., Israel, which will "come to life" when the exile ends (Ez. 37:14).
53:9 "He had done no violence." See Matt. 21:12; Mk. 11:15-16; Lk. 19:45; Lk. 19:27; Matt. 10:34 and Lk. 12:51; then judge for yourself whether this passage is truly consistent with the New Testament account of Jesus.
53:10 "He shall see his seed." The Hebrew word for "seed", used in this verse, always refers to physical descendants in our Jewish Scriptures. See, e.g., Gen. 12:7; Gen. 15:13; Gen. 46:6; Ex. 28:43. A different word, generally translated as "sons", is used to refer to spiritual descendants (see Deut. 14:1, e.g.).
53:10 "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?
53:11 "With his knowledge the righteous one, my Servant, will cause many to be just." Note again the correct translation: the Servant will cause many to be just, he will not "justify the many." The Jewish mission is to serve as a "light to the nations" which will ultimately lead the world to a knowledge of the one true God, this both by example (Deut. 4:5-8; Zech. 8:23) and by instructing the nations in God's Law (Isa. 2:3-4; Micah 4:2-3).
53:12 "Therefore, I will divide a portion to him with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty." If Jesus is God, does the idea of reward have any meaning? Is it not rather the Jewish people - who righteously bore the sins of the world and yet remained faithful to God (Ps. 44) - who will be rewarded, and this in the manner described more fully in Isaiah chapters 52 and 54?
Not only that but:
According to the words "He shall see seed, he shall prolong days," the suffering servant is to be rewarded for his selflessness in the service of the Almighty by being blessed with children and prolongation of life. These two promises must be treated as a unit, as described in greater detail in Isaiah 65:20- 23. Each promise complements the other, highlighting the ancient Hebraic ideal of viewing children and a long life as the two greatest rewards God gives to man here on earth. This is further illustrated in Job 5:25-26: "You shall know also that your seed shall be great, and your offspring as the grass of the earth. You shall come to your grave in ripe age, as a shock of corn in its season." From the manner in which the Hebrew word zer'a ("seed") is used in the Scriptures, there can be no doubt that actual physical offspring is meant here.
Christian commentators have interpreted certain verses in the Scriptures (Genesis 3:15, 38:8; Isaiah 1:4, 57:4; Malachi 2:15; Psalms 22:31; Proverbs 11:21) as referring only symbolically to "bodily seed." But such an interpretation is unwarranted, since in each of these verses the term "seed" can be taken in a literal and physical sense. While the literal understanding of these verses is generally evident, those from the Book of Isaiah are misunderstood by some people.
In Isaiah 57, the prophet castigates certain individuals (not the nation as a whole) for perpetuating the idolatrous practices of their parents. Isaiah calls them "sons of the sorceress, the seed of adulterers and the harlot" (verse 3). He then asks, "Are you not children of transgression, a seed of falsehood?" (verse 4). These verses are a scathing denunciation of wicked offspring who uphold the sinful ways of their parents. They are what the prophet has earlier termed a "seed of evil-doers" (1:4) that is, children of parents who do evil deeds. Those spoken to in Isaiah 57 were conceived in adultery and harlotry; they are the resultant products of transgression and falsehood. Literally, they are children born as a result of parental transgression, a seed born as a result of parental falsehood.
Christian commentators would like us to believe that the term "seed" is used metaphorically, meaning, in Isaiah 53:10, "disciples." Generally, the Hebrew word bayn ("son") may be employed metaphorically with the meaning "disciples," but never is the term zer'a ("seed") used in this sense. For example, "And Abraham said: 'Behold to me You have given no seed (zer'a), and, see the son (ben) of my house is my heir.' And, behold, the word of the Lord came to him, saying: 'This man shall not be your heir, but he that shall come forth out of your own bowels shall be your heir'" (Genesis 15:3-4). Hence, zer'a must be taken literally, which rules out the possibility that it refers to Jesus since he had no children of his own.
The second part of the promise, ". . . he shall prolong days," also cannot be applied to Jesus, who died at a young age. To apply these words, as Christian commentators do, is not only evasive but also meaningless. How can such a promise have any meaning for Jesus, who is viewed as being of divine substance and whose existence is believed by Christianity to be eternal? There would be no need for God to assure a fellow member of the Trinity eternal life.
In understanding the meaning of the phrase ". . . he shall prolong days" it should be understood that there is a difference in meaning between the concept of prolonging of days and that of gaining eternal life. The concept of a prolonged life cannot be treated as the equivalent of eternal life because in an eternal context, time of any duration is of no consequence. Consequently, one cannot speak of an eternal being as having his days prolonged: "Are Your days as the days of man, or Your years as a man's days?" (Job 10:5). God must be referred to as eternal: "The number of his years is unsearchable" (Job 36:26). He is the first, He is the last, He cannot be anything else. Prolonging the days of one who is already supposed to be eternal would make his life longer than eternity. That is an obvious impossibility. If the promise of prolonged days is applied to Jesus, he could not be of divine origin.
Prolonging of life implies earthly mortality, a cut-off date in the future, while the term eternal life refers to immortality. Therefore, the phrase "prolonged life" can only relate to the limited bodily existence in this world, and not to the endlessness of eternal life. Since the blessings of seeing children and prolonging life are only appropriate when applied to a mortal individual and not to an immortal being, these blessings cannot be applied to the Jesus of Christian theology. Jesus died young and childless. If, after his alleged resurrection, he returned to heaven to become an eternal heavenly being again, this stage of his existence cannot be appropriately referred to as prolongation of days.
Once again, we see that Isaiah 53's description of the suffering servant of the Lord does not find fulfillment in the New Testament's description of Jesus.
Finally
Generally, the beginning of this verse is rendered: "By oppression and judgment he was taken away." When explained in this way, the verse is meant to indicate that, by means of persecution and judicial decision, the servant was exiled, not only from his own homeland but from the lands of his dispersion as well. But, at best, the prophet's words have no particular application to Jesus, since they could, in actuality, be applied generally to many people who suffered persecution.
However, the general context of this verse indicates that the word may-'otser should not be translated as "by oppression" but in accordance with its derivation from 'etser, denoting "domination," "sovereignty," and thus the beginning of the verse should read: "From dominion and judgment. . . ." Accordingly, the verse does not refer to how the servant was taken away but refers, rather, to what he was taken away from. Can this be applied to Jesus? From what dominion and judgment was Jesus taken away? He never had any power as a ruler to lose. He was never deprived of any office.
According to the New Testament, Jesus' "first coming" was not as a ruler or judge, but as one who would bring salvation. The New Testament further claims that Jesus will be coming back a second time and it is only then that he will reign as king and judge of the world. Jesus is quoted as saying: ". . . the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many" (Matthew 20:28) and "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). It is further stated in the Gospel of John: "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world; but that the world should be saved through him" (John 3:17). The preceding quotations illustrate that Jesus did not lose any dominion or right to judge during his lifetime, since he never had these rights in the first place.
Considering verse 8 in its entirety, within the context of the entire chapter, it becomes clear that Isaiah did not refer to Jesus. "From dominion and judgment" reflects critical events in Jewish history: Taken from "dominion and judgment, that is, rulership and the right to judge, who can relate Israel's history which followed after "he was cut off out of the land of the living," that is, the Land of Israel? Israel's life was filled with innumerable sufferings because of the misdeeds of the Gentiles who afflicted him unjustly. Driven into exile, the servant was deprived of his right to rule and judge.
The fact is that there is nothing in any part of this verse that points to Jesus as the "suffering servant of the Lord."
Actually I am just trying to compare the two interpretations of Christianity and Judaism has of certain passages and see which is truthful to me.
Flying pigs can be truthful to me Yeh, yet it will not be logical. There is a major difference between the two.
I have heard these arguments before it turns out that one book that covered similar topics "the similarities of Christ to other deities, or something like that it was called" contained mostly falsified information regarding the deities. Where the author just attributes Christian teachings to the accient deitiess of the past.
Well if you would dive in and research a bit more, I think you would find out otherwise, that a way in which Christianity became popular with the masses, was introducing practices and beliefs that the locals were already accustomed to, and neither Islam nor any religion for that matter is completely void of such beliefs that were created for such a purpose in my humble opinion.
