Why Jews don't believe in JESUS!
- Thread starter Dr.Trax
- Start date
- Replies 68
- Views 14K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | vBulletin 4 php 8.0 patch
Exactly ,Fedos ...
Graceseeker tries to solve the problem by the (double-application) solution......
but if he read our discussion , he will find out easily that the double-application can't solve it either...
Not only the double-application is alien concept to the bible ,but also those who wish to use it ,have to answer the same questions:
I inserted all the names and time that neccesary for the double application
Therefore the Lord Himself will give to the future Davidic monarch a sign: Behold, after hundred of years from now, the virgin Mary shall conceive and bear a Son without a man , and shall call His name Jesus. Curds and honey Jesus shall eat, that Jesus may know to refuse the evil and choose the good. For before Jesus shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land that you dread will be forsaken by both her kings.”
who are those two kings that such future Davidic monarch ,during Jesus' lifetime, was under their attack ?
Which were the two kingdoms during Jesus' lifetime that were abandoned?
sorry to repeat the obvious again and again ......
The passage of Isaiah:7 will never and by no means ,be a reference to far future fulfilment .......
Thanx fedos for your positive input (though I disagree with it) it seems that you really spent a great deal of time searching for a suitable responses to my arguments
..
I hope we both got benefited from the discussion.......
next post will be my concept of Isaiah 53 ......
peace
Isaiah :53 where it came from and where it goes?
Isaiah 53 would give us the answer to
Why Matthew and the other writers misquoted the Old Testament?
Why they chose such (sacrificial passion) to finish their story of their Savoir Messiah
By misquoting Isaiah 7, passing by Jeremiah (31:15), Hosea 11:1 , Isaiah 40:3, Jeremiah 32:9 Psalms 22:16, Zechariah 12:10 etc………. ,
the writer of Matthew gives us the clue of his intentions and what kind of a story he tells , It is a story of the type of the messiah he and his sect (which the other NT writers belong) wished it to be .
Due to their belief in the Jewish hearsay regarding how the life of Jesus was terminated on earth, their awareness of the basic messianic concept in the old testament that couldn’t have been materialized by the hearsay account they received regarding Jesus ,their awareness of the (sin for blood ritual in the old testament ),their understanding of Isaiah 53 as a passage predicting blood atonement,
all that would lead logically to their misuse of the Jewish false propaganda (we killed Jesus).
Though they are not to be blamed for their belief in the hearsay, as nothing wondrous about a prophet who been killed(if it was true the hearsay) and been added to such list of the murdered prophets , but they are to be blamed for their awful mistake is that they convinced themselves and tried to convince others that such death has something with the ( blood for sin) Old testament concept (which the Hebrews borrowed from their pagan neighbours).....
The writers tried their best to find legitimacy to sell their (sacrificed messiah) concept, they started a never-ending search for Old testament passages that could be connected with the hearsay accounts they had, in doing so they misquoted the text , when they found the misquotation can't help the hearsay account, they invented things in the story line ,and invented old testament passages that not even exist in the old testament itself eg . Matthew (2:23),.. , (for more in this point see our next posts)
in our discussion about Isaiah:7 , we suggested the key to be ( the context)...
Now the suggested key for Isaiah :53 would be ( the concept of blood sacrifice) such key , not only shows where the problem of Isaiah 53 came from ,but also will answer the Question ,why the writers wanted the story of Jesus to be a (sacrificial passion).......
let's read The text under discussion:
"1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.2 Shake thyself from the dust; arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem: loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion.3 For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money.4 For thus saith the Lord GOD, My people went down aforetime into Egypt to sojourn there; and the Assyrian oppressed them without cause.5 Now therefore, what have I here, saith the LORD, that my people is taken away for nought? they that rule over them make them to howl, saith the LORD; and my name continually every day is blasphemed.6 Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I.7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!
8 Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the LORD shall bring again Zion.
9 Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem: for the LORD hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem.10 The LORD hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.11 Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the LORD.12 For ye shall not go out with haste, nor go by flight: for the LORD will go before you; and the God of Israel will be your rereward. Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted, and extolled, and be very high. As many were astonished at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.Who would have believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? For he grew up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he had no form nor comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised, and we esteemed him not.Surely he hath borne griefs inflicted by us, and suffered sorrows we have caused: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded through our transgressions, bruised through our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his wounds we were healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon him.He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: as a lamb which is brought to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. He was taken away from rule and from judgment; and his life who shall recount? for he was cut off out of the land of the living; through the transgressions of my people was he stricken. And one made his grave among the wicked, and his tomb among the rich; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.But it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief; if his soul shall consider it a recompense for guilt, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my servant justify the righteous before many, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong because he hath laid open his soul unto death, and was numbered with transgressors; and he took off the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.*
Before showing my concept ,and how one properly understand the problem of Isaiah 53 , explaining why it can by no means be a valid passage
To be a prophecy or even a true description….
Let’s highlight the common, heated , debate between Jews and Christians regarding Isaiah 53........
in one hand Christians claim that the servant must be Jesus, in the other hand Jews affirms that the servant is not Jesus ....
The following is the Jewish academic refutation of the Christian interpretation of the text verse by verse:
Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted, and extolled, and be very high
1- There is no reason to believe that the servant referred to is Jesus. "Servant" refers to anyone who works hard for God. It is used in reference to Moses (Num. 12:7, Job 1:Cool, all the prophets (Amos 3:7), and all of Israel (Lev. 25:42). The servant is expressly identified with Jacob or Israel in Isa. 41:8-9, 42:19, 44:1-2, and 49:3 . Judging from the context, it refers to the Jews , , not Jesus.
2- The chapter divisions did not exist until about four hundred years ago. Immediately before Isaiah 52:13-53:12 Isaiah is predicting the gathering of the exiles and just after Isa. 54:1 he is talking of the glorious promises descriptive of the same events. Therefore, logically, all in-between ( the midst of Isaiah's "Messages of Consolation", ) is speaking of the same thing.
3- Christians cling to this chapter so dearly as proof that the Messiah is to suffer is because it is one of those very few places where they can attempt to do so.
4- Most 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.
5- It would be an indignity to apply "servant" to the godhead.
6- several Christian scholarly books, like Revised Standard Version Oxford Study Edition Bible, The Revised Standard Version tells us that Isaiah 53 is about national Israel. New Revised Standard Version and New English Bible echo this analysis.
7- When did Jesus prosper? How can a condition of prosperity or success be predicated of the Godhead?
so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand. (Isaiah 52:15)
1-What king ceased to speak because of Jesus?
2-The description refers to Israel:
And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name. (Isaiah 62:2)
The stunned reaction of the world’s nations to the unexpected vindication and redemption of the Jewish nation in the messianic age is a reoccurring theme throughout the Hebrew Scriptures
Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? (Isaiah 53:1)
1-The speaker from 52:13 to the end of chapter 52 is God himself, whereas from the beginning of 53:1 through 53:9 the gentile kings of nations are speaking in their numbed astonishment. This narrative expressed by the surprised leaders of the surrounding gentile nations is referred to in 52:15. This alternation in speakers is evident in that verses 52:13 and 53:11 speak of "My [i.e. God's] servant," while the intervening verses refer to "our transgressions"
2-The “arm of the Lord” is the redemption of Israel, and has nothing to do with Jesus.
With your mighty arm you redeemed your people, the descendants of Jacob and Joseph. Selah (Psalms 77:15)
He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground.
Israel grew up like a plant:
No one looked on you with pity or had compassion enough to do any of these things for you. Rather, you were thrown out into the open field, for on the day you were born you were despised. " 'Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, "Live!" I made you grow like a plant of the field. (Ezekiel 16:5-7)
I will be as the dew unto Israel: he shall grow as the lily, and cast forth his roots as Lebanon. (Hosea 14:5)
Israel grew up like a tender shoot:
Then will all your people be righteous and they will possess the land forever. They are the shoot I have planted, the work of my hands, for the display of my splendour. (Isaiah 60:21)
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. (Isaiah 53:2-3)
the servant is Ill ,bad looking, despised and rejected by men, familiar with sorrow and suffering
All such descriptions make more sense to Israel not Jesus
1- How many people really hated Jesus as opposed to the number of tribes who hated the Jews?
2- The first book of the Talmud Berachoth page 5a states "If the Holy One, blessed be He, is pleased with a man, He crushes him with painful sufferings. For it is said: And the Lord was pleased with [him, hence] He crushed him by disease (Isa. 53:10, an exegetical reading). Now, you might think that this is so even if he did not accept them with love. Therefore it is said: To see if his soul would offer itself in restitution. Even as the trespass-offering must be brought by consent, so also the sufferings must be endured with consent. And if he did accept them, what is his reward? He will see his seed, prolong his days. And more than that, his knowledge [of the Torah] will endure with him. For it is said: The purpose of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
3- Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. He taught in their synagogues, and everyone praised him. (Luke 4:14-15)
4- we hid as it were our faces from him" (53:3). The Jews did not hide their faces from him but condemned him many times .
5- And no, disease does not mean sin or any other metaphorical interpretation. The historical context confirms this, early Jewish sources confirm this - it refers to leprosy.” The Rabbis said: His name is 'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath borne our grieves, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted." (Sanh. 98b)
Jesus was no leper. He wasn't smitten, afflicted, plagued, crushed by disease. Jesus doesn't fit.
Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. Isaiah 53:4)
see our conclusion below
the preposition "mi" in Isaiah 53:5 and 53:8 is commonly translated as "for." The meaning of "mi" is not "for" but rather "from" or "because of". Thus the Judaica Press Tanach translates Isaiah 53:5 as: "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."
We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:6)
see our conclusion below
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. (Isaiah 53:7)
Jesus not only opened his mouth when oppressed but was struck in the process. He even cried for help.
From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)
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. (Isaiah 53:8)
1- Israel was politically oppressed by Babylon king Nebuchadrezzar, who conquered Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E. and destroyed the Temple. The Israelites were “taken away” into captivity.
2- the Hebrew phrase "mi-pesha’ ‘ami niga’ lamo" is translated as "for the transgression of my people was he stricken". The word "lamo" is the poetic form of the Hebrew "lahem" which means their/them not him and is used as such throughout the Hebrew Bible. The Jewish rendition of Isaiah 53:8 then is: "because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them." Based on this, the servant is argued to be a collective entity not a person. This claim is supported by the fact that the Hebrew word for "death" in the following verse of Isaiah 53:9, "And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death;" is plural.
He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death,
1- The word used in Hebrew is (deaths) and not death...
2- The suffering servant's "deaths" as well as the description of his subsequent revival are indeed, metaphors for the fortunes of Israel, he was cut off out of the land of the living" (verse 8), "his grave was set" (verse 9), and "in his deaths" (verse 9) are not to be taken literally. The metaphor "his grave was set" describing an event in the life of God's suffering servant, is similar to the statement, "for he was cut off out of the land of the living" (verse 8). Metaphors of this type, used to describe deep anguish and subjection to enemies, are part of the biblical idiom. Similar metaphorical language is used, for example, in Ezekiel 37 to express the condition preceding relief and rejuvenation following the end of exile. Ezekiel provides the clues needed for understanding the phraseology used by Isaiah. The metaphorical images employed by Isaiah-"cut off out of the land of the living" and "grave"-are used in Ezekiel's description of the valley of the dry bones, where the bones symbolize the exiled Jewish people. Lost in apparently hopeless exile, the Jewish people exclaim: "we are clean cut off" (Ezekiel 37:11). In reply, God promises: "And I will put My spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land" (Ezekiel 37:14). It is now clear that Isaiah's phrase, "for he was cut off out of the land of the living," refers to the deadly condition of exile. Similarly, the term "grave" in Isaiah-"And his grave was set with the wicked"-refers to life in exile as used in Ezekiel: "I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves" (Ezekiel 37:12), where "graves" is a metaphor for the lands of exile.
The messages of these two prophets are addressed to God's suffering servant. The sovereign national entity was destroyed but the Jewish people survive, albeit in exile from which God will restore them to their land. Although "cut off out of the land of the living" and now living in the lands of exile, the "grave set with the wicked," God will free the servant from this fate and restore him to the "land of the living," the Land of Israel. That Isaiah speaks in the singular and Ezekiel in the plural is of no consequence, for the people of Israel may be spoken of in both forms (for example, Exodus 14:31, Psalms 81:12-14).
Paralleling "grave set with the wicked" is the phrase "with the rich in his deaths." "Rich" here refers to the powerful men and institutions of the Gentile nations among whom the personified people of Israel are exiled.
"And his grave was set with the wicked" describes an imposed fate and not something accepted voluntarily by the servant. Furthermore, this was not a literal death, as the servant was alive when "his grave was set" (cf. Genesis 30:1; Exodus 10:17; Numbers 12:12; 2 Samuel 9:8, 16:9; Jonah 4:9 for examples of figurative death). This verse informs us that despite the imposed fate of exile, Israel continued to be faithful to God. Accordingly, Israel is to afterwards enjoy the fruits of his sacrifice. The phrase "in his deaths" signifies that the suffering servant of the Lord experienced figuratively many "deaths" in exile. His anguish was multiplied exceedingly by the constant harassment of his enemies.
3-The Midrash Rabba on Deuteronomy says, "The Israelites poured out their soul to die in the captivity, as it is said, ‘Because he poured out his soul to die.’(Isaiah 53:12)”"[7]
though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. (Isaiah 53:9)
Jesus according to the New Testament had done some violence and deception
1- John 2:15 ("And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables" besides his failed prophecies eg,the prophecies of second coming,peter denial etc....
2- But I will leave within you the meek and humble, who trust in the name of the LORD. The remnant of Israel will do no wrong; they will speak no lies, nor will deceit be found in their mouths. They will eat and lie down and no one will make them afraid." (Zephaniah 3:12-13)
obviously If we understand the verse as talking about sinless ness, neither Jesus(as the NT tells) nor Israel could fit such description
the text doesn't talk about a sinless being from his-their birth nor someone that never done violence all his-their life long, it simply affirms that such being(s) had suffered though did nothing bad for such punishment...... he-they could have had countless flaws all his-their life but, he-they did nothing wrong to deserve such punishment.....
And that could be applicable to countless innocent people all over history
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin
1- Most Jewish scholars equate the phrase "It pleased..." with the concept of divine kingship. All royal acts in an absolute kingdom take place at the "pleasure" of the king, regardless of whether they bring the king actual joy or not. Additionally, Jewish theologians contend that one need not be guiltless for his suffering to have meaning.
"He shall see seed, he shall prolong days.
1- The Hebrew word for “seed” is zerah, and it always refers to physical descendants:
2- Hardly a fitting description of a man who died childless in his thirty third year!!
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.
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.
The crucial question to understand Isaiah 53,
Where the theme of Isaiah 53 came from?
No doubt the Idea of Korban (sacrifiece) has a divine origin ,but It was corrupted ,changed from pious (act of obedience to God ) as Cain and Abel , Abraham and his son story to satanic ( Blood for sin ritual )
such satanic concept , Blood for sin ,had its wicked effects all , it has corrupted nations after nations all over history .... beginning from pre-historic nations passing by Ancient Egyptians, far east nations ,Scandinavians , Africans , south Americans , Hebrews , Christians ...............
as if a guilty person is convinced that an animal or human had given life to atone him... for such person(s) ,whatever amount of preaching of the importance of being with morality he may listen to , he will continue committing sins without feeling ashamed of his deeds.....
The offerings in atonement for transgressions concept in the Old Testament is the same theme of the pagan neighbours (and all the heathen world without exception) to the Jews and the New Testament writers continued the same theme making it more and more destructive to morality ...
Just as in Judaism sins could be forgiven through the offering and the pouring out of the blood of an "unblemished" lamb (cf. Lev 4:32), so Christians believe they can be freed from sin by the blood of Jesus, the unblemished Lamb of God.
in the Old Testament some writers were aware of the negatives of such concept ,they for sure were not able to abolish the practice , cause if they tried to , the masses would be angry .....but they spoke out against those Israelites who brought forth sacrifices but did not act in accord with the precepts of the Torah.
With what shall I approach the Lord,
Do homage to God on high?
Shall I approach Him with burnt offerings,
With calves a year old?
Would the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,
With myriads of streams of oil?
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,
The fruit of my body for my sins?
Man has told you what is good.
But what does the Lord require of you?
Only to do justice
And to love goodness,
And to walk humbly with your God (Micah 6:6-8).
All a man's ways seem right to him, but the LORD weighs the heart. To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice. (Proverbs 21:2-3)
The Maimonides , a medieval Jewish scholar, was aware of the pagan connection with the blood for sin ritual ,taking the view that God understood that the Israelites were used to the animal sacrifices that the surrounding pagan tribes used as the primary way to commune with their gods. , it was only natural that Israelites would believe that sacrifice would be a necessary part of the relationship between God and man. . It would have been too much to have expected the Israelites to leap from pagan worship to prayer and meditation in one step. (Book III, Chapter 32. Translated by M. Friedlander, 1904, The Guide for the Perplexed, Dover Publications, 1956 edition.)
such pagan concept ( blood for sin) infected the mentality of the Bible writers ,as the more they write about it, the worse would it came to be......
in the beginning, the concept was offering animal to atone for some transgressions ,till Isaiah 53 , making the concept worse ,that a being (If the single understanding to be valid) atoned for all transgressions ....
the group which the New Testament writers belong to ,picked such concept ,and as they were aware that they can by no means convince themselves and others that Jesus could have fulfilled the actual exhaustive breadth of Messianic prophecy ,having believed the hearsay propagated by some Jews who hated Jesus (we killed Jesus the magician) ,they convinced themselves that his death was not of that normal kind , but it was sacrificial death .....that is why we find such graphic description in the contradictory ,hearsay accounts of the so called ( crucifixion-resurrection) of Jesus......
To sum up:
approaching Isaiah 53 with objective approach (neither Jewish nor christian)we begin with what Thomas Paine commented regarding the issue :
Truly . All the cases he states of him, his persecutions, his imprisonment, his patience in suffering, and his perseverance in principle, are all within the line of nature; they belong exclusively to none, and may with justness be said of many.
What about (But he was wounded through our transgressions, )?
In both cases (whether Christians or Jews interpretations) such verse is not a valid language for a prophecy or a description..
We can’t accept Jewish interpretation , as neither Jews nor any other nation whatever degree of morality may get, would suffer of others sins..
As one of the basic concepts regarding God is that he is just
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:20)
We can’t accept the Christian interpretation(which makes less sense than the Jewish one) as well , cause of
1-the point we have highlighted , where Isaiah 53 idea came from(paganism) and where it goes (the mind of the New testament writers),
2- some of the description can’t be applicable to Jesus story (according to the NT)And that makes more sense to the Jewish interpretation
3-the only thing in the description which Christian would claim to be exclusive to Jesus (wounded through our transgressions) is a not a proper language to make a prophecy ,as it is something can never be verified by the naked eyes ,exactly just as ,
let's imagine finding a text about Osiris ,claiming that by his murder he atoned for the ancient Egyptians sins !!!
How on earth one could ever verify the truth of such claim?!!!
The best Christians could offer to support such (impossible to be verified ,common in the pagan mythology) description ,is the contradictory accounts of ( the crucifixion-resurrection) which makes their position weaker and weaker…
Why shouldn’t we accept the contradictory accounts of ( the crucifixion-resurrection) ?
Because
The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. Proverbs 14:15
In a word , Isaiah 53 is a lie been inspired by ancient lie and will inspire another future lie…..
more posts related to the topic
The Quran concept regarding the crucifiction:
Juda, or none?
http://www.islamicboard.com/discover-islam/39411-jesus-islam-4.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/134268952-who-wrote-bible-3.html#post979966
peace for all
Last edited:
Isaiah :53 where it came from and where it goes?
Isaiah 53 would give us the answer to:
Why Matthew and the other writers misquoted the Old Testament?
Why they chose such (sacrificial passion) to finish their story of their Savoir Messiah ?
By misquoting Isaiah 7, passing by Jeremiah (31:15), Hosea 11:1 , Isaiah 40:3, Jeremiah 32:9 Psalms 22:16, Zechariah 12:10 etc………. ,
the writer of Matthew gives us the clue of his intentions and what kind of a story he tells , It is a story of the type of the messiah he and his sect (which the other NT writers belong) wished it to be .
Due to their belief in the Jewish hearsay regarding how the life of Jesus was terminated on earth, their awareness of the basic messianic concept in the old testament that couldn’t have been materialized by the hearsay account they received regarding Jesus ,their awareness of the (sin for blood ritual in the old testament ),their understanding of Isaiah 53 as a passage predicting blood atonement,
all that would lead logically to their misuse of the Jewish false propaganda (we killed Jesus), while they are not to be blamed for their belief in the hearsay, as nothing wondrous about a prophet who been killed(if it was true the hearsay) and been added to such list of the murdered prophets , but their awful mistake is that they convinced themselves and tried to convince others that such death has something with the ( blood for sin) Old testament concept (which the Hebrews borrowed from their pagan neighbours).....
The writers tried their best to find legitimacy to sell their (sacrificed messiah) concept, they started a never-ending search for Old testament passages that could be connected with the hearsay accounts they had, in doing so they misquoted the text , when they found the misquotation can't help the hearsay account, they invented things in the story line ,and invented old testament passages that not even exist in the old testament itself eg . Matthew (2:23),.. , (for more in this point see our conclusion )
in our discussion about Isaiah:7 , we suggested the key to be ( the context)...
Now the suggested key for Isaiah :53 would be ( the concept of blood sacrifice) such key , not only shows where the problem of Isaiah 53 came from ,but also will answer the Question ,why the writers wanted the story of Jesus to be a (sacrificial passion).......
let's read The text under discussion:
"1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.2 Shake thyself from the dust; arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem: loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion.3 For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money.4 For thus saith the Lord GOD, My people went down aforetime into Egypt to sojourn there; and the Assyrian oppressed them without cause.5 Now therefore, what have I here, saith the LORD, that my people is taken away for nought? they that rule over them make them to howl, saith the LORD; and my name continually every day is blasphemed.6 Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I.7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!
8 Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the LORD shall bring again Zion.
9 Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem: for the LORD hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem.10 The LORD hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God.11 Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean thing; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the LORD.12 For ye shall not go out with haste, nor go by flight: for the LORD will go before you; and the God of Israel will be your rereward. Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted, and extolled, and be very high. As many were astonished at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men: So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.Who would have believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed? For he grew up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he had no form nor comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised, and we esteemed him not.Surely he hath borne griefs inflicted by us, and suffered sorrows we have caused: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded through our transgressions, bruised through our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his wounds we were healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon him.He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: as a lamb which is brought to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth. He was taken away from rule and from judgment; and his life who shall recount? for he was cut off out of the land of the living; through the transgressions of my people was he stricken. And one made his grave among the wicked, and his tomb among the rich; although he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.But it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief; if his soul shall consider it a recompense for guilt, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my servant justify the righteous before many, and he shall bear their iniquities. Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong because he hath laid open his soul unto death, and was numbered with transgressors; and he took off the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.*
Before showing my concept ,and how one properly understand the problem of Isaiah 53 , explaining why it can by no means be a valid passage
To be a prophecy or even a true description….
Let’s highlight the common, heated , debate between Jews and Christians regarding Isaiah 53........
in one hand Christians claim that the servant must be Jesus, in the other hand Jews affirms that the servant is not Jesus ....
The following is the Jewish academic refutation of the Christian interpretation of the text verse by verse:
Behold, my servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted, and extolled, and be very high
1- There is no reason to believe that the servant referred to is Jesus. "Servant" refers to anyone who works hard for God. It is used in reference to Moses (Num. 12:7, Job 1:Cool, all the prophets (Amos 3:7), and all of Israel (Lev. 25:42). The servant is expressly identified with Jacob or Israel in Isa. 41:8-9, 42:19, 44:1-2, and 49:3 . Judging from the context, it refers to the Jews , , not Jesus.
2- The chapter divisions did not exist until about four hundred years ago. Immediately before Isaiah 52:13-53:12 Isaiah is predicting the gathering of the exiles and just after Isa. 54:1 he is talking of the glorious promises descriptive of the same events. Therefore, logically, all in-between ( the midst of Isaiah's "Messages of Consolation", ) is speaking of the same thing.
3- Christians cling to this chapter so dearly as proof that the Messiah is to suffer is because it is one of those very few places where they can attempt to do so.
4- Most 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.
5- It would be an indignity to apply "servant" to the godhead.
6- several Christian scholarly books, like Revised Standard Version Oxford Study Edition Bible, The Revised Standard Version tells us that Isaiah 53 is about national Israel. New Revised Standard Version and New English Bible echo this analysis.
7- When did Jesus prosper? How can a condition of prosperity or success be predicated of the Godhead?
so will he sprinkle many nations, and kings will shut their mouths because of him. For what they were not told, they will see, and what they have not heard, they will understand. (Isaiah 52:15)
1-What king ceased to speak because of Jesus?
2-The description refers to Israel:
And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the LORD shall name. (Isaiah 62:2)
The stunned reaction of the world’s nations to the unexpected vindication and redemption of the Jewish nation in the messianic age is a reoccurring theme throughout the Hebrew Scriptures
Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? (Isaiah 53:1)
1-The speaker from 52:13 to the end of chapter 52 is God himself, whereas from the beginning of 53:1 through 53:9 the gentile kings of nations are speaking in their numbed astonishment. This narrative expressed by the surprised leaders of the surrounding gentile nations is referred to in 52:15. This alternation in speakers is evident in that verses 52:13 and 53:11 speak of "My [i.e. God's] servant," while the intervening verses refer to "our transgressions"
2-The “arm of the Lord” is the redemption of Israel, and has nothing to do with Jesus.
With your mighty arm you redeemed your people, the descendants of Jacob and Joseph. Selah (Psalms 77:15)
He grew up before him like a tender shoot, and like a root out of dry ground.
Israel grew up like a plant:
No one looked on you with pity or had compassion enough to do any of these things for you. Rather, you were thrown out into the open field, for on the day you were born you were despised. " 'Then I passed by and saw you kicking about in your blood, and as you lay there in your blood I said to you, "Live!" I made you grow like a plant of the field. (Ezekiel 16:5-7)
I will be as the dew unto Israel: he shall grow as the lily, and cast forth his roots as Lebanon. (Hosea 14:5)
Israel grew up like a tender shoot:
Then will all your people be righteous and they will possess the land forever. They are the shoot I have planted, the work of my hands, for the display of my splendour. (Isaiah 60:21)
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him, nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. (Isaiah 53:2-3)
the servant is Ill ,bad looking, despised and rejected by men, familiar with sorrow and suffering
All such descriptions make more sense to Israel not Jesus
1- How many people really hated Jesus as opposed to the number of tribes who hated the Jews?
2- The first book of the Talmud Berachoth page 5a states "If the Holy One, blessed be He, is pleased with a man, He crushes him with painful sufferings. For it is said: And the Lord was pleased with [him, hence] He crushed him by disease (Isa. 53:10, an exegetical reading). Now, you might think that this is so even if he did not accept them with love. Therefore it is said: To see if his soul would offer itself in restitution. Even as the trespass-offering must be brought by consent, so also the sufferings must be endured with consent. And if he did accept them, what is his reward? He will see his seed, prolong his days. And more than that, his knowledge [of the Torah] will endure with him. For it is said: The purpose of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
3- Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. He taught in their synagogues, and everyone praised him. (Luke 4:14-15)
4- we hid as it were our faces from him" (53:3). The Jews did not hide their faces from him but condemned him many times .
5- And no, disease does not mean sin or any other metaphorical interpretation. The historical context confirms this, early Jewish sources confirm this - it refers to leprosy.” The Rabbis said: His name is 'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath borne our grieves, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted." (Sanh. 98b)
Jesus was no leper. He wasn't smitten, afflicted, plagued, crushed by disease. Jesus doesn't fit.
Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. Isaiah 53:4)
see our conclusion below
the preposition "mi" in Isaiah 53:5 and 53:8 is commonly translated as "for." The meaning of "mi" is not "for" but rather "from" or "because of". Thus the Judaica Press Tanach translates Isaiah 53:5 as: "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."
We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:6)
see our conclusion below
He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth. (Isaiah 53:7)
Jesus not only opened his mouth when oppressed but was struck in the process. He even cried for help.
From the sixth hour until the ninth hour darkness came over all the land. About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"—which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)
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. (Isaiah 53:8)
1- Israel was politically oppressed by Babylon king Nebuchadrezzar, who conquered Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E. and destroyed the Temple. The Israelites were “taken away” into captivity.
2- the Hebrew phrase "mi-pesha’ ‘ami niga’ lamo" is translated as "for the transgression of my people was he stricken". The word "lamo" is the poetic form of the Hebrew "lahem" which means their/them not him and is used as such throughout the Hebrew Bible. The Jewish rendition of Isaiah 53:8 then is: "because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them." Based on this, the servant is argued to be a collective entity not a person. This claim is supported by the fact that the Hebrew word for "death" in the following verse of Isaiah 53:9, "And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death;" is plural.
He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death,
1- The word used in Hebrew is (deaths) and not death...
2- The suffering servant's "deaths" as well as the description of his subsequent revival are indeed, metaphors for the fortunes of Israel, he was cut off out of the land of the living" (verse 8), "his grave was set" (verse 9), and "in his deaths" (verse 9) are not to be taken literally. The metaphor "his grave was set" describing an event in the life of God's suffering servant, is similar to the statement, "for he was cut off out of the land of the living" (verse 8). Metaphors of this type, used to describe deep anguish and subjection to enemies, are part of the biblical idiom. Similar metaphorical language is used, for example, in Ezekiel 37 to express the condition preceding relief and rejuvenation following the end of exile. Ezekiel provides the clues needed for understanding the phraseology used by Isaiah. The metaphorical images employed by Isaiah-"cut off out of the land of the living" and "grave"-are used in Ezekiel's description of the valley of the dry bones, where the bones symbolize the exiled Jewish people. Lost in apparently hopeless exile, the Jewish people exclaim: "we are clean cut off" (Ezekiel 37:11). In reply, God promises: "And I will put My spirit in you, and you shall live, and I will place you in your own land" (Ezekiel 37:14). It is now clear that Isaiah's phrase, "for he was cut off out of the land of the living," refers to the deadly condition of exile. Similarly, the term "grave" in Isaiah-"And his grave was set with the wicked"-refers to life in exile as used in Ezekiel: "I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves" (Ezekiel 37:12), where "graves" is a metaphor for the lands of exile.
The messages of these two prophets are addressed to God's suffering servant. The sovereign national entity was destroyed but the Jewish people survive, albeit in exile from which God will restore them to their land. Although "cut off out of the land of the living" and now living in the lands of exile, the "grave set with the wicked," God will free the servant from this fate and restore him to the "land of the living," the Land of Israel. That Isaiah speaks in the singular and Ezekiel in the plural is of no consequence, for the people of Israel may be spoken of in both forms (for example, Exodus 14:31, Psalms 81:12-14).
Paralleling "grave set with the wicked" is the phrase "with the rich in his deaths." "Rich" here refers to the powerful men and institutions of the Gentile nations among whom the personified people of Israel are exiled.
"And his grave was set with the wicked" describes an imposed fate and not something accepted voluntarily by the servant. Furthermore, this was not a literal death, as the servant was alive when "his grave was set" (cf. Genesis 30:1; Exodus 10:17; Numbers 12:12; 2 Samuel 9:8, 16:9; Jonah 4:9 for examples of figurative death). This verse informs us that despite the imposed fate of exile, Israel continued to be faithful to God. Accordingly, Israel is to afterwards enjoy the fruits of his sacrifice. The phrase "in his deaths" signifies that the suffering servant of the Lord experienced figuratively many "deaths" in exile. His anguish was multiplied exceedingly by the constant harassment of his enemies.
3-The Midrash Rabba on Deuteronomy says, "The Israelites poured out their soul to die in the captivity, as it is said, ‘Because he poured out his soul to die.’(Isaiah 53:12)”"[7]
though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth. (Isaiah 53:9)
Jesus according to the New Testament had done some violence and deception
1- John 2:15 ("And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables" besides his failed prophecies eg,the prophecies of second coming,peter denial etc....
2- But I will leave within you the meek and humble, who trust in the name of the LORD. The remnant of Israel will do no wrong; they will speak no lies, nor will deceit be found in their mouths. They will eat and lie down and no one will make them afraid." (Zephaniah 3:12-13)
obviously If we understand the verse as talking about sinless ness, neither Jesus(as the NT tells) nor Israel could fit such description
the text doesn't talk about a sinless being from his-their birth nor someone that never done violence all his-their life long, it simply affirms that such being(s) had suffered though did nothing bad for such punishment...... he-they could have had countless flaws all his-their life but, he-they did nothing wrong to deserve such punishment.....
And that could be applicable to countless innocent people all over history
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin
1- Most Jewish scholars equate the phrase "It pleased..." with the concept of divine kingship. All royal acts in an absolute kingdom take place at the "pleasure" of the king, regardless of whether they bring the king actual joy or not. Additionally, Jewish theologians contend that one need not be guiltless for his suffering to have meaning.
"He shall see seed, he shall prolong days.
1- The Hebrew word for “seed” is zerah, and it always refers to physical descendants:
2- Hardly a fitting description of a man who died childless in his thirty third year!!
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.
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.
Now the crucial question to understand Isaiah 53,
Where the theme of Isaiah 53 came from?
Without doubt the Idea of Korban (sacrifiece) has a divine origin ,but It was corrupted ,changed from pious (act of obedience to God ) as Cain and Abel , Abraham and his son story to satanic ( Blood for sin ritual )
such satanic concept , Blood for sin ,had its wicked effects all over history , it has corrupted nations after nations all over history .... beginning from pre-historic nations passing by Ancient Egyptians, far east nations ,Scandinavians , Africans , south Americans , Hebrews , Christians ...............
as if a guilty person is convinced that an animal or human had given his life to atone him... for such person(s) ,whatever amount of preaching of the importance of being with morality he may listen to , he will continue committing sins without feeling ashamed of his deeds.....
The offerings in atonement for transgressions concept in the Old Testament is the same theme of the pagan neighbours (and all the heathen world without exception) to the Jews and the New Testament writers continued the same theme making it more and more destructive to morality ...
Just as in Judaism sins could be forgiven through the offering and the pouring out of the blood of an "unblemished" lamb (cf. Lev 4:32), so Christians believe they can be freed from sin by the blood of Jesus, the unblemished Lamb of God.
in the Old Testament some writers were aware of the negatives of such concept ,they for sure were not able to abolish the practice , cause if they tried to , the masses would be angry .....but they spoke out against those Israelites who brought forth sacrifices but did not act in accord with the precepts of the Torah.
With what shall I approach the Lord,
Do homage to God on high?
Shall I approach Him with burnt offerings,
With calves a year old?
Would the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams,
With myriads of streams of oil?
Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression,
The fruit of my body for my sins?
Man has told you what is good.
But what does the Lord require of you?
Only to do justice
And to love goodness,
And to walk humbly with your God (Micah 6:6-8).
All a man's ways seem right to him, but the LORD weighs the heart. To do what is right and just is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice. (Proverbs 21:2-3)
The Maimonides , a medieval Jewish scholar, was aware of the pagan connection with the blood for sin ritual ,taking the view that God understood that the Israelites were used to the animal sacrifices that the surrounding pagan tribes used as the primary way to commune with their gods. , it was only natural that Israelites would believe that sacrifice would be a necessary part of the relationship between God and man. . It would have been too much to have expected the Israelites to leap from pagan worship to prayer and meditation in one step. (Book III, Chapter 32. Translated by M. Friedlander, 1904, The Guide for the Perplexed, Dover Publications, 1956 edition.)
such pagan concept ( blood for sin) infected the mentality of the Bible writers ,as the more they write about it, the worse would it came to be......
in the beginning, the concept was offering animal to atone for some transgressions ,till Isaiah 53 , making the concept worse ,that a being (If the single understanding to be valid) atoned for all transgressions ....
the group which the New Testament writers belong to ,picked such concept ,and as they were aware that they can by no means convince themselves and others that Jesus could have fulfilled the actual exhaustive breadth of Messianic prophecy ,having believed the hearsay propagated by some Jews who hated Jesus (we killed Jesus the magician) ,they convinced themselves that his death was not of that normal kind , but it was sacrificial death .....that is why we find such graphic description in the contradictory ,hearsay accounts of the so called ( crucifixion-resurrection) of Jesus......
To sum up:
approaching Isaiah 53 with objective approach (neither Jewish nor christian)we begin with what Thomas Paine commented regarding the issue :
Isaiah, or at least the writer of the book that bears his name, employs the whole of this chapter, Iiii., in lamenting the sufferings of some deceased persons, of whom he speaks very pathetically. It is a monody on the death of a friend; but he mentions not the name of the person, nor gives any circumstance of him by which he can be personally known; and it is this silence, which is evidence of nothing, that Matthew has laid hold of, to put the name of Christ to it; as if the chiefs of the Jews, whose sorrows were then great, and the times they lived in big with danger, were never thinking about their own affairs, nor the fate of their own friends, but were continually running a Wild-Goose chase into futurity. To make a monody into a prophecy is an absurdity. The characters and circumstances of men, even in the different ages of the world, are so much alike, that what is said of one may with propriety be said of many; but this fitness does not make the passage into a prophecy; and none but an impostor, or a bigot, would call it so.
Isaiah, in deploring the hard fate and loss of his friend, mentions nothing of him but what the human lot of man is subject to. All the cases he states of him, his persecutions, his imprisonment, his patience in suffering, and his perseverance in principle, are all within the line of nature; they belong exclusively to none, and may with justness be said of many. But if Jesus Christ was the person the church represents him to be, that which would exclusively apply to him must be something that could not apply to any other person; something beyond the line of nature, something beyond the lot of mortal man; and there are no such expressions in this chapter, nor any other chapter in the Old Testament.
It is no exclusive description to say of a person, as is said of the person Isaiah is lamenting in this chapter, He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a Lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before his shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. This may be said of thousands of persons, who have suffered oppressions and unjust death with patience, silence, and perfect resignation.(Examination of the prophecies)
Truly . All the cases he states of him, his persecutions, his imprisonment, his patience in suffering, and his perseverance in principle, are all within the line of nature; they belong exclusively to none, and may with justness be said of many.
What about (But he was wounded through our transgressions, )?
In both cases (whether Christians or Jews interpretations) such verse is not a valid language for a prophecy or a description..
We can’t accept Jewish interpretation , as neither Jews nor any other nation whatever degree of morality get would suffer of other sins..
As one of the basic concepts regarding God is that he is just
The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. (Ezekiel 18:20)
We can’t accept the Christian interpretation(which makes less sense than the Jewish one) as well , cause of
1-the point we have highlighted , where Isaiah 53 idea came from(paganism) and where it goes (the mind of the New testament writers),
2- some of the description can’t be applicable to Jesus story (according to the NT)And that makes more sense to the Jewish interpretation
3-the only thing in the description which Christian would claim to be exclusive to Jesus (wounded through our transgressions) is a not a proper language to make a prophecy ,as it is something can never be verified by the naked eyes ,exactly just as ,imagine finding a text about Osiris claiming that by his murder he atoned for the ancient Egyptians sins !!!
How on earth one could ever verify the truth of such claim?!!!
The best Christians could offer to support such (impossible to be verified ,common in the pagan mythology) description ,is the contradictory accounts of ( the crucifixion-resurrection) which makes their position weaker and weaker…
Why shouldn’t we accept the contradictory accounts of ( the crucifixion-resurrection) ?
Because
The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going. Proverbs 14:15
In a word , Isaiah 53 is a lie been inspired by ancient lie and will inspire another future lie…..
more posts related to the topic
http://www.islamicboard.com/discover-islam/39411-jesus-islam-4.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/134268952-who-wrote-bible-3.html#post979966
peace for all
Well, we could go on and on regarding this passage, but I'm just going to let you upfront know that you won't convince me that this passage doesn't relate to Jesus and what he would ultimately end up doing on the cross, not after all that I have experienced in the Lord and the things he has delivered me from.
I've already explained that only the Messianic Jews really understand the Torah, because God has placed a veil over the eyes of most Jews, so that we all might start out in unbelief, and until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in:
'What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election (a remnant) hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear
unto this day.'Romans 11: 7-8.
Now let's address this idea that Jesus doesn't save sinners from their sins.
'The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.' St. John 1: 29.
Let's look at a few more scriptures affirming this:
'Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whomsoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.
And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever.
If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.' John 8: 34-36. This is talking about freedom from sin, no matter what your background is.
'Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.' II Corinthians 5: 17. This is not just referencing your mindset, but your lifestyle, you completely throwing off the sinful man and putting on the righteousness of God. It also references the new birth.
'What shall we say then? Shall we contine in sin, that grace may abound?
God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?' Romans 6: 1-2.
'All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death.
We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not, but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.
And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.' 1 John 5: 17-20.
So having an understanding of where I've been and what God has delivered me from, no, I don't buy it that Isaiah 53 doesn't relate to Christ.
Last edited:
Whose spamming?
Grace Seeker
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,343
- Reaction score
- 617
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
I'm going have to bow out of this discussion because I just don't have time to invest into reading all that Imam and Fedos are producing and then try to make a thoughtful response to it all. So, I'll leave you both with a final thought. Are the misquotes that are being cited truly misquotes at all? I don't know because I didn't take the time to research them. I know that there are a few misquotes of the OT in the NT. But the vast majority that at first appear this way are actually good quotes of the LXX. They just appear to be misquotes because most English OT translations are based on translations made from the Hebrew Masoretic texts. But at the time of the writing of the NT, the text that the NT authors would have been most familiar with was not a Hebrew text of the Tanakh at all, but the Greek LXX. When comparing what many people think are in exact quotations of the OT found in the NT, most of them turn out to actually be fairly good renderings of the LXX versions.
Again, whether that is true with the passages under discussion in this thread I didn't check out, but maybe one of you who is going to remain engaged in the thread might do that to see what you learn.
As I said before, the burden of proofs lies on him who alleges ,
we have some writers thought that some old testament passage predicted both the crucification and the blood atonement
in other words the passage is said to get 2 kinds of fulfillments:
1- physical fulfillment (crucification,resurrection).
2- so called spiritual fulfillment (unseen act of atonement).
yes ,the writers you quoted claim that jesus spiritually fulfilled it
such as
'The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.' St. John 1: 29.
But How could one trust their claims?
Are they trustworthy?
What If they fail to prove the physical fulfillment,would we trust them in unseen,spiritual fulfillment then?
The Christian fundamentalist Gleason Archer affirmed such logical issue:
Gleason Archer said:
While we can't verify the so called spiritual act of atonement ,we certainly could easily verify the so called physical fulfillment (crucifiction,resurrection) through the incredibly defective accounts of such writers:
1- discrepancies among the crucifiction,resurrection accounts:
small sample:
What time did the women visit the tomb?
John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)
Mark: "when the sun had risen"
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
Matthew: No (28:2)
John: Yes (20:1)
When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
John: No (20:2)
2- failed prophecies:
A-
For as Jonas was three days and three night in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth" (Matthew 12:38-40).
The prophecy failed
Jesus is said to have died Friday and risen On the first day of the week, early in the morning, while it was still dark
John 13:38 Jesus said to Peter, "The cock shall not crow, till thou hast denied me thrice."
The prophecy failed
Mark 14:66-68, of course, reveals that the cock actually crowed after the first denial, not the third.
Matthew 26:14-15 states that Judas Iscariot was paid thirty pieces of silver by the Jewish priests as payment for his betrayal. Matthew 27:9-10 claims that this is done to fulfill a prophecy of Jeremiah
(Then that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled, saying, "And they took the thirty pieces of silver for the price of the one whose price had been set by the sons of Israel; and they gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord directed me."
That is false
the quoted verse appears nowhere in the book of Jeremiah. There is a verse which is similar in the book of Zechariah, but there the prophet Zechariah is speaking about himself and no betrayal is involved.
fulfillment of nonprophecy in Luke 24:46.
New Testament writers claimed that the resurrection of the Messiah on the third day had been predicted in the scriptures.
Luke 24:46."Thus it is written and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day."
Try as they may, however, bibliolaters cannot produce an Old Testament passage that made this alleged third-day prediction. It simply doesn't exist.
3- The forgery in the end of the resurrection account of Gospel of Mark
Bart D. Ehrman said:
In light of all such serious problems of the writers' accounts
It doesn't take a great deal of wisdom to see that if the writers not to be trusted in the easy to be verified (so called physical fulfillment) would be also untrustworthy of their claims of (the so called spiritual fulfillment)
[/QUOTE]
Grace Seeker said:
for example?
peace for all
Last edited:
Well, here's what I found:
And again:
I have personally experienced this, when I was in sin, twice actually. I'll try to explain the second time. When I was in sin I was trying to take advantage of someone sexually, they were asleep, and while this was happening it was like the Lord closed up my understanding, and the results of that was that I couldn't enjoy it. So I didn't go all the way.
Now, this happened way back in the summer of 2002, and after it happened I never understood it. It wasn't until I accepted Christ (August 1st of 2002) and I then reflected on what happened that I understood that God had closed up my understanding.
Also, my father has experienced the exact same thing, at least he told me about it once. There was this gentlemen at church and he was trying to get my father to put in an application at a place of employ, and whenever he would do so my father wouldn't respond, like he wasn't interested. Then the gentlemen told my father that it was too late to apply for the job, and my father replied in shock, having realized that God closed up his understanding, because he didn't want him working at that place. It turns out the job that my father eventually ended up getting was run and owned by a (and you can believe or disbelieve either account if you wish, but I am telling the truth) a Jewish man whom he had the opportunity to witness to.
This is hardly a failed prophecy. First let's examine a few scriptures:
'Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.' Ephesians 4: 9-10.
'And he said also unto his disciples, There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.' Luke 16: 19-31.
Last few scriptures is here and then I'll make my point: 'Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.' Ephesians 4: 8
And here: 'And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.' Matthew 27: 52-53.
So then hell as we know it from the Christian perspective is actually at this moment in time in the center of the Earth. But before Jesus died to save man from his sins, paradise was also in the center of the earth. There was between the two areas a great gulf fixed, so that no man could travel from here to there. When Jesus ascended, he delivered those who were in the center of the Earth who were the Lord's people out of the Earth. Some of them went on to be with the Lord in the third heaven (where God is), and some of them walked among men. Hope that answers and clears up some confusion.
Jesus said, 'Before the cock crow twice, thou shalt deny me thrice.'
I think Isaiah 53 covers this. If that is a prophecy of the Messiah (and it is) it foretells of a suffering servant. Rising the third day from the dead is not there, but there is a Pslam which says this:
'For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.' Psalms 16: 10. Thus the resurrection (maybe not rise the third day, but still) is clearly in the Old Testament, and it most definitely applies to the Messiah.
Well, I haven't answered everything admittedly, but I'm certain I've answered some critical issues. Maybe Graceseeker or Keltoi will chime in with some of the other areas of concern. Oh, and this is the site where I got the quoted information: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/ordorise.html
Last edited:
Last edited:
Well, that was just an argument that the gentlemen on Christian-thinktank used. I perhaps should have quoted more from the site than I did, to further elaborate. In essence I shouldn't have presented his argument like that because that's not what he really believes, and he even says as much in my quote. Here's more:
Feel free to comment on some other issues that you wanted to raise.
Last edited:
Well, before the gentelman of christianthinktank try to use his multiple visits theory,he should :
first:
pay attention to Mark 16
2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they [Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome] went to the tomb.
and as
in John 20 is a talk about a visit while it was still dark
if there had been more than one visit, one in the dark and another when the sun had risen ,then logically the first would be while it was still dark
what happened according to the writer in the first visit?
Mary (and other women if you wish) found the stone rolled away
If she , while in the dark,found the stone rolled away and jesus not there , why then she and the other women had been saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb when the sun had risen ?"?
second:
The writer tries to convince the readers that Mary Magdalena had returned to tell Peter and John that the body had been removed before she got the message that Jesus been resurrected.... unfortunately , the text can't help him ....
Matthew,Mark,Luke said that Mary Magdalene did hear the angel's resurrection message before going anywhere:.
Mark 16
1And the sabbath having past, Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of James, and Salome, bought spices, that having come, they may anoint him, 2and early in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, they come unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun, 3and they said among themselves, `Who shall roll away for us the stone out of the door of the sepulchre?' 4And having looked, they see that the stone hath been rolled away -- for it was very great, 5and having entered into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right hand, arrayed in a long white robe, and they were amazed. 6And he saith to them, `Be not amazed, ye seek Jesus the Nazarene, the crucified: he did rise -- he is not here; lo, the place where they laid him! 7and go, say to his disciples, and Peter, that he doth go before you to Galilee; there ye shall see him, as he said to you.'
Matthew 28
1And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre, 2and lo, there came a great earthquake, for a messenger of the Lord, having come down out of heaven, having come, did roll away the stone from the door, and was sitting upon it, 3and his countenance was as lightning, and his clothing white as snow, 4and from the fear of him did the keepers shake, and they became as dead men. 5And the messenger answering said to the women (Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary ) , `Fear not ye, for I have known that Jesus, who hath been crucified, ye seek; 6he is not here, for he rose, as he said; come, see the place where the Lord was lying; 7and having gone quickly, say ye to his disciples, that he rose from the dead; and lo, he doth go before you to Galilee, there ye shall see him; lo, I have told you.' 8And having gone forth quickly from the tomb, with fear and great joy, they ran to tell to his disciples;
first:
pay attention to Mark 16
2 And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they [Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome] went to the tomb.
and as
in John 20 is a talk about a visit while it was still dark
if there had been more than one visit, one in the dark and another when the sun had risen ,then logically the first would be while it was still dark
what happened according to the writer in the first visit?
Mary (and other women if you wish) found the stone rolled away
If she , while in the dark,found the stone rolled away and jesus not there , why then she and the other women had been saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance to the tomb when the sun had risen ?"?
second:
The writer tries to convince the readers that Mary Magdalena had returned to tell Peter and John that the body had been removed before she got the message that Jesus been resurrected.... unfortunately , the text can't help him ....
Matthew,Mark,Luke said that Mary Magdalene did hear the angel's resurrection message before going anywhere:.
Mark 16
1And the sabbath having past, Mary the Magdalene, and Mary of James, and Salome, bought spices, that having come, they may anoint him, 2and early in the morning of the first of the sabbaths, they come unto the sepulchre, at the rising of the sun, 3and they said among themselves, `Who shall roll away for us the stone out of the door of the sepulchre?' 4And having looked, they see that the stone hath been rolled away -- for it was very great, 5and having entered into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right hand, arrayed in a long white robe, and they were amazed. 6And he saith to them, `Be not amazed, ye seek Jesus the Nazarene, the crucified: he did rise -- he is not here; lo, the place where they laid him! 7and go, say to his disciples, and Peter, that he doth go before you to Galilee; there ye shall see him, as he said to you.'
Matthew 28
1And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre, 2and lo, there came a great earthquake, for a messenger of the Lord, having come down out of heaven, having come, did roll away the stone from the door, and was sitting upon it, 3and his countenance was as lightning, and his clothing white as snow, 4and from the fear of him did the keepers shake, and they became as dead men. 5And the messenger answering said to the women (Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary ) , `Fear not ye, for I have known that Jesus, who hath been crucified, ye seek; 6he is not here, for he rose, as he said; come, see the place where the Lord was lying; 7and having gone quickly, say ye to his disciples, that he rose from the dead; and lo, he doth go before you to Galilee, there ye shall see him; lo, I have told you.' 8And having gone forth quickly from the tomb, with fear and great joy, they ran to tell to his disciples;
Last edited:
Well, this is what this gentlemen says:
The argument made is that the other Gospel writers did not focus on Mary Magdalene running away to tell the disciples, but John did. All of the Gospel writers did not write the exact same thing, but that still doesn't mean there can be no textual harmony between the texts.
Ok, but couldn't Matthew's account be speaking in the past tense. Perhaps the earthquake happened before the women went there, Mary Magdalene saw the rolled away stone, and immediately went to tell the disciples and then the other women went to speak with the angels. John's account supports this. Sure, it's not in the other Gospels, but that's why you have to consider all of them.
Well, here's this gentlemen's response:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/q3rdday.html
Aqeel Ahmed
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 64
- Reaction score
- 9
In my experience in Life I never understood the god of Jewish, if they're are Ny on board, can someone answer my question , What reasons or proof do Jewish people have that their god exists?
:wl:
As for The writer's claim that variations "in no way contradict the idea of harmony," that would depend upon what the variations are. Variations that involve only the inclusion or exclusion of details may very well not contradict the idea of inerrancy, but variations that involve rank inconsistencies do contradict the idea of inerrancy.
It seems that the writer is living in another planet
He should just go to Palestine and see that daylight actually comes well before the sun is rising
so how it is fair to describe the world as still dark when the sun had risen?
Mark 16
And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen.
Certainly by the time the sun had risen, it was never "yet dark" outside
I think the academic linguistic analysis I posted makes more sense than your guessing work.....
Well,
Farrell till said:
till this moment I'm typing ,all the Christian Apologists failed miserably to solve such serious problem which damage the credibility of the New Testament writers .
and as Christianity stands or fall on its gospel ,and its gospel stands or fall on the resurrection account ...
hence, without credible resurrection account there would be no credible gospel and logically no credible Christianity...
there is no such idiom in the Hebrew language. A part of a day was reckoned as a day and a part of a night was reckoned as a night but nowhere in Hebrew literature is any part of a day (as opposed to night) reckoned as a day and a night.there is no evidence that "three days and three nights" is an idiom. Just saying it doesn't make it so. There is no reason to believe that "three days and three nights" means anything other than "three days and three nights". An idiom is an expression whose meaning cannot be derived from its constituent elements. The above expression shows no evidence of an idiomatic expression.
No, there is no evidence that "three days and three nights" can equal the "third day"unless the event being counted begins at nighttime. Then, logically, the third day would have the third night come before it and in that sense "three days and three nights" does equal "the third day".
the examples he used from the old Testament;
in Gen 42.16
Where does it say here that "on the third day" is equal to "after three days"? It doesn't.
,Chr 10.5
If Rehoboam said this on A Friday then Sunday would be the third day. He told them to return in three days and they came back on the third day (two days later). the phrase "on the third day" was used in the sense of "the day after tomorrow" (Ex 19:10,11,15; Lev 7:16-18; 19:6,7; 1 Sam 20:12; Luke 13:32).So the "third day" could also refer to "two days later".
,Esther 4.16,
The third day already included the third night before it. If the fast began Friday night then the third day (Monday daytime) would include three days and three nights. That is because the night was counted first. However, in the NT we see Jesus died three hours before sunset Nisan 14. This means the first day would precede the first night. This is what causes the conflict. Had Jesus died after sunset then we would begin counting with the night first and three days and three nights later would still be the third day (as in Esther). But the problem remains that Jesus died in the afternoon of the first day. The first night followed, then a whole day (Sat) and a night. That makes only 2 days and 2 nights.
1 Samuel 30.12
There are two separate events being counted here: 1) the time of abandonment and 2) the beginning of the fast. There is no evidence they began at the same time. One could logically come before the other.although his master abandoned him on Thursday afternoon the slave still had something to eat after his master abandoned him because the text says his fast did not begin until about Thursday sunset
There weaknesses to the Talmudic citation mentioned above.
First, it overlooks the fact that Jesus used three nights as well as three
days in his prophecy. That defined the Onah for his audience. According to
the popular interpretation of the above passage, an hour could be an Onah,
a half day could be an Onah, an hour of night could be an Onah, a half of a
> night could be an Onah, a part of a day and a part of a night could be an
> Onah etc, etc, etc. The problem is this: Jesus defined how big his Onah
was> going to be. His three Onahs were going to be composed of three days and three nights. The same principal applied to the definition of a day. Jesus
said there were 12 hours in a day, yet we know the Jews taught that any
part of a day would be reckoned as the whole (for computational purposes). That means that although a day consisted of 12 hours and one hour could be
considered a day, there was no way that an hour could also be considered
12 hours.
It would be proper to say (if you worked one hour) that you had worked one day (because it is used in its generic sense) but it would be improper to say you had worked 12 hours. The specific term defined the length of the day, not the other way around. If someone promised someone else 12 hours of
work for 60 dollars then quit after one hour and demanded his full wages
because after all "any part of the day was counted as a day so therefore one hour is the same as 12 hours" we would at once think he was nuts. The generic term "day" could be used for counting purposes even if a part of a day was counted but the specific terms 6 hours, 9 hours, etc meant exactly that, no more, no less. Likewise (allowing the interpretation of Onah above) the generic expression "Onah" was used for counting periods of time consisting of a day and a night and someone could claim he had traveled for "five Onahs" even if he had traveled for a part of five Onahs. But if he used the specific term he traveled for "five days and five nights" then he was understood to have literally meant "five days and five nights". The specific term always defined the boundaries. That is important to remember. That meant that the "three Onahs" of Jesus were clearly defined as Onahs that consisted of three days and three nights.
there is another problem with that passage from the Talmud. that an "Onah" was thought of as a unit.By definition, an Onah was a "day and a night". Minus one of those elements it ceased being an Onah. Any part of a day was counted as a day and any part of a night was counted as a night but any part of a day AND a night was reckoned as one Onah. That means if someone served parts of six days and parts of six nights he was said to have served "six Onahs". If he served only parts of six days and *five* nights then it was said he served "five Onahs and a day" or more commonly "six days and five nights". In any case, the Talmud quote doesn't really hold up well to scrutiny(Quote from David,Errant years).
After three days" can mean on the "third day" as well so there is no problem here. This is the way the Pharisees understood it. This doesn't solve the problem of the missing night though. Jesus need not spend the whole three days in the grave for the third day to be counted. So in this usage, if Jesus rose a few hours into the third day, it could be said to be "after three days". I do not make a big deal out of this passage (and those in Mark) as some skeptics do. Some skeptics use these "after three day" passages alongside the "three days and three nights" passage and claim contradiction with the "on the third day" passages. It has been shown to me that it was possible for "after three days" to be compatible with "the third day" so that presents no problem here.
Jewsforjudaism said:
Appendix 144 From The Companion Bible.
The fact that "three days" is used by Hebrew idiom for any part of three days and three nights is not disputed; because that was the common way of reckoning, just as it was when used of years. Three or any number of years was used inclusively of any part of those years, as may be seen in the reckoning of the reigns of any of the kings of Israel and Judah.
But, when the number of "nights" is stated as well as the number of "days", then the expression ceases to be an idiom, and becomes a literal statement of fact. Moreover, as the Hebrew day began at sunset the day was reckoned from one sunset to another, the "twelve hours in the day" (John 11:9) being reckoned from sunrise, and the twelve hours of the night from sunset. An evening-morning was thus used for a whole day of twenty-four hours, as in the first chapter of Genesis. Hence the expression "a night and a day" in 2 Corinthians 11:25 denotes a complete day (Greek nuchthemeron). When Esther says (Esther 4:16) "fast ye for me, and neither eat nor drink three days", she defines her meaning as being three complete days, becuase she adds (being a Jewess) "night or day". And when it is written that the fast ended on "the third day" (5:1), "the third day" must have succeeded and included the third night. In like manner the sacred record states that the young man (in 1 Samuel 30:12) "had eaten no bread, nor drunk any water, three days and three nights". Hence, when the young man explains the reason, he says, "because three days agone I fell sick". He means therefore three complete days and nights, because, being an Egyptian (verses 11, 13) he naturally reckoned his day as beginning at sunrise according to the Egyptian manner (see Encycl. Brit., 11th (Cambridge) ed., vol xi, page 77). His "three days agone" refers to the beginning of his sickness, and includes the whole period, giving the reason for his having gone without food during the whole period stated. Hence, when it says that "Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" (Jonah 1:17) it means exactly what is says, and that this can be the only meaning of the expression in Matthew 12:40; 16:4. Luke 11:30, is shown in Appendix 156.
Last edited:
Ok, I'm going to cut this short, because in reality I'm only a baby in Christ. And even if I knew all the answers to your questions, and I answered them perfectly, it would still take the Father to draw you to Christ, for him to use the Holy Spirit to convict you of your sin. But I will answer this, and let you have the last word.
Not so, both Mark and John describe the exact same things.
Not so, both Mark and John describe the exact same things.
Fedos
I understand your feelings well..
sadly,you have been victimized by the Sunday preaching
I showed you irrefutable proofs that the human concept of blood atonement is derived from paganism and has no dependable textual support
If you are of such persons who find difficulty in getting the message through academic documented work, just go watch some jungle adventure movies which show those whom christians call (savages,pagans) performing the exact same thing christians believe in (human sacrifice to satisfy God)
Tertullian confessed that pagans worshiped crucified saviors hanging on a cross.
he said:
"Crosses, moreover, we Christians neither venerate nor wish for. You indeed who consecrate gods of wood venerate wooden crosses, perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners, and flags of your camps, what are they but crosses gilded and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it."
Celsus (his literary activity falls between the years 175 -180) . asks:
Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians-and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God.
even If I expect you to pray for me to the father , readers of the thread would not be satisfied to see the thread turning into a session of preaching and praying....
the best thing to offer me and the visitors of the thread is your continual the two-sided discussion.....
I'm expecting you not offering prayer but offering other Old Testament passages that might validate the claims of the NT writers.....
what else you think been fulfilled by Jesus (as depicted by the NT writers)?
Fedos
I understand your feelings well..
sadly,you have been victimized by the Sunday preaching
I showed you irrefutable proofs that the human concept of blood atonement is derived from paganism and has no dependable textual support
If you are of such persons who find difficulty in getting the message through academic documented work, just go watch some jungle adventure movies which show those whom christians call (savages,pagans) performing the exact same thing christians believe in (human sacrifice to satisfy God)
Tertullian confessed that pagans worshiped crucified saviors hanging on a cross.
he said:
"Crosses, moreover, we Christians neither venerate nor wish for. You indeed who consecrate gods of wood venerate wooden crosses, perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners, and flags of your camps, what are they but crosses gilded and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it."
Celsus (his literary activity falls between the years 175 -180) . asks:
Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians-and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God.
even If I expect you to pray for me to the father , readers of the thread would not be satisfied to see the thread turning into a session of preaching and praying....
the best thing to offer me and the visitors of the thread is your continual the two-sided discussion.....
I'm expecting you not offering prayer but offering other Old Testament passages that might validate the claims of the NT writers.....
what else you think been fulfilled by Jesus (as depicted by the NT writers)?
Well, it was God himself who introduced blood sacrifice for the remission of sins to humankind. It was not pagan in the beginning, though overtime (and because of the fall and the devil's influence) it became pagan through certain peoples (it was not pagan--for instance--through the Jewish people).
But God introducing blood sacrifice to human kind can be seen as far back as the Old Testament and Cain and Abel's offerings:
'And in the process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord.
And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
But unto Cain and his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.
And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.'
Genesis: 4: 3-7.
جوري
Soldier Through It!
- Messages
- 27,759
- Reaction score
- 6,095
- Gender
- Female
- Religion
- Islam
Fedos
I understand your feelings well..
sadly,you have been victimized by the Sunday preaching
I showed you irrefutable proofs that the human concept of blood atonement is derived from paganism and has no dependable textual support
If you are of such persons who find difficulty in getting the message through academic documented work, just go watch some jungle adventure movies which show those whom christians call (savages,pagans) performing the exact same thing christians believe in (human sacrifice to satisfy God)
Tertullian confessed that pagans worshiped crucified saviors hanging on a cross.
he said:
"Crosses, moreover, we Christians neither venerate nor wish for. You indeed who consecrate gods of wood venerate wooden crosses, perhaps as parts of your gods. For your very standards, as well as your banners, and flags of your camps, what are they but crosses gilded and adorned? Your victorious trophies not only imitate the appearance of a simple cross, but also that of a man affixed to it."
Celsus (his literary activity falls between the years 175 -180) . asks:
Are these distinctive happenings unique to the Christians-and if so, how are they unique? Or are ours to be accounted myths and theirs believed? What reasons do the Christians give for the distinctiveness of their beliefs? In truth there is nothing at all unusual about what the Christians believe, except that they believe it to the exclusion of more comprehensive truths about God.
even If I expect you to pray for me to the father , readers of the thread would not be satisfied to see the thread turning into a session of preaching and praying....
the best thing to offer me and the visitors of the thread is your continual the two-sided discussion.....
I'm expecting you not offering prayer but offering other Old Testament passages that might validate the claims of the NT writers.....
what else you think been fulfilled by Jesus (as depicted by the NT writers)?
Another brilliant post.. Masha'Allah.. and Jazaka Allah khyran..
