Who is God’s suffering servant?

[Akivah]

The whole entire concept of Jesus is a sort of Midrash, from the very beginning to the end. {snip}

Most Jewish scholars have very little interest in the New Testament; therefore we get very little input from them.{snip}

What I am saying is that the aim of the Gospels was to use the figurative character Jesus to represent the nation of Israel to point them to the true meaning of the Torah. To explain it another way, Jesus is the righteous Israel that never went astray. In very simple laymen’s terms, he ain’t a real dude. He is a metaphor, much like Uncle Sam.

I'm listening. Your last two sentences grabbed my attention. Not many Christians admit to jesus being a fictional character (which incidentally is what I believe).

A big problem with your hypothesis is that there was already a lot of written material in Judaism that predated the gospels. For us, the five books of Moses are trump. They are the direct words of G-d. The rest of the Hebrew bible could be said as being commentaries on them. The gemorah and midrash are commentaries on the commentaries. Nothing in authoritative Jewish writing can contradict the Torah. Our Jewish writings were written by recognized Jewish sages. We have little interest in the gospels because they contradict the Torah and they weren't written by recognized Jewish sages. In fact, they are writings for a different religion with different beliefs than traditional Judaism.

 

[roger1440]

I'm listening. Your last two sentences grabbed my attention. Not many Christians admit to jesus being a fictional character (which incidentally is what I believe).

A big problem with your hypothesis is that there was already a lot of written material in Judaism that predated the gospels. For us, the five books of Moses are trump. They are the direct words of G-d. The rest of the Hebrew bible could be said as being commentaries on them. The gemorah and midrash are commentaries on the commentaries. Nothing in authoritative Jewish writing can contradict the Torah. Our Jewish writings were written by recognized Jewish sages. We have little interest in the gospels because they contradict the Torah and they weren't written by recognized Jewish sages. In fact, they are writings for a different religion with different beliefs than traditional Judaism.

When the stories about Jesus first started to be circulated I don’t think the intention was to create a religion. The Jesus story unintentional took on a life of its own. This style of writing continued for the next few hundred years. Dozens upon dozens of gospels were written. A handful of these gospels surfaced during the last hundred years. The early church latched onto four of the gospels and condemned the remaining as heretical. The early church interpreted the gospels as literal. They do not understand the allegorical nature of these writings. They misunderstood these writings because the writings were intended for Jews not Gentiles.

 

[roger1440]

I'm listening. Your last two sentences grabbed my attention. Not many Christians admit to jesus being a fictional character (which incidentally is what I believe).

I’m not your garden variety Christian, LOL. 500 years ago I would have been burnt at the stake for heresy. I don’t believe a child can be born of a virgin or dead people come back to life. But I’ll tell you what, if Jesus actually turned water in wine, he most definitely is invited to my next party. Most Christians think Jesus feeding 5000 Jews with only a few loaves of bread and a few fish is a great miracle. I think the greater miracle is Jesus was able to assemble 5000 absent minded Jews that forgot to pack a lunch that day. Then for an encore he did the same in the next chapter. You would think some people from the first feeding would mention to people to the second feeding, they better pack a lunch cause this Jesus dude will talk to no end.

 

[Akivah]

When the stories about Jesus first started to be circulated I don’t think the intention was to create a religion. The Jesus story unintentional took on a life of its own. This style of writing continued for the next few hundred years. Dozens upon dozens of gospels were written. A handful of these gospels surfaced during the last hundred years. The early church latched onto four of the gospels and condemned the remaining as heretical. The early church interpreted the gospels as literal. They do not understand the allegorical nature of these writings. They misunderstood these writings because the writings were intended for Jews not Gentiles.

I want to preface by saying that I know almost nothing about the gospels.

Your narrative doesn't flow for me. You say that the gospels were written for the Jews and that many dozens of them were written. Well as we were rejecting them, who was cranking them out? And why keep writing them if your audience isn't buying them?

 

[Boyd]

This is where I’m going with this. Christians have been telling Jews for 2000 years Jews do not understand their own scriptures. That is the reasons Jews do not accept the Gospels. I think it’s the other way around. It’s Christians who do not understand the Gospels. The Gospels were written by Jews, for Jews with a 1st century understanding of Jewish scripture. The Gospels were not written for Gentiles. The Jesus in the Gospels is a metaphor for Israel. In other words he is Israel collectively. He represents the Israel that never went astray after the Exodus. He is God’s son, just as Israel is God’s son. They are one in the same. The Gospels are a sort of Midrash. They are a concise sort of Torah. If you read the words of Jesus closely, all he did was point the Jews to the Torah. Then who is the Messiah? If Jesus is Israel and also the Messiah then according to the Gospels, Israel would be its own Messiah. If I’m right then there must be a first century view point of Jewish scripture to validate my claim. I also believe these Gospels were written after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Jews of this period had to rethink what it meant to be a Jew. The Gospels provided the answer. The answer was the Torah.

The reason that Jews don't accept the Gospels is because they lift up a Messiah that failed. The Jewish canon was also largely figured out by the time any of the Gospels were being written, so they really were not in consideration. Seeing that Jesus was not the Messiah, there is more reason for us to reject the Gospels. Another reason is also that they are Greek works, and not Hebrew.

I do agree that many Christians do not understand the Gospels though. Some of the Gospels were written for Jews by Jews (I would say that Luke may not have been a Jew, as his work appears more to be for a Gentile audience), and they deal largely with Jewish ideology, as well as Greek thought. If one is not familiar with those subjects, understanding the Gospels will be difficult.

I do disagree with your interpretation of the Gospels though. The Gospels are not the only source for a historical Jesus. Paul also speaks of Jesus as an actual person, as does Josephus. The Gospels also do not portray a singular portrait of Jesus. Instead, there are four different views that are portrayed. I would argue that they instead try to portray a Messiah figure.

While there are interpretations of the suffering servant that relates it to the Messiah, there is none that portray it as both Israel and the Messiah. There are also problems with reading the suffering servant as the Messiah, such as it is unlike what one would expect in Deutero-Isaiah. From a Jewish perspective, Jesus also did not fulfill the messianic prophecy.

 

[CMike]

I’ll rephrase the question. How was the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 interpreted during the 1st century? I’m looking for a Jewish perspective. I know very well most Christians would say, “That’s easy, Jesus.”

The suffering servant was Israel.

If you look a chapter before 53 and a chapter after 53 it's clearly talking about Israel. Isaiah originally had no chapters. It was one long prophesy.

Also Israel is referring to as a "suffering servant" in the text in other places.

Jesus is no where in jewish scriptures.

 

[CMike]

Are there any interpretations that had combined both? In other words the suffering servant is both Israel and the Messiah. If so, Israel would be its own Messiah.

The suffering servant was Israel.

 

[CMike]

Here is a good explanation of Isaiah 53

ISAIAH 53

 

[RabbiO]

I want to preface by saying that I know almost nothing about the gospels.

Your narrative doesn't flow for me. You say that the gospels were written for the Jews and that many dozens of them were written. Well as we were rejecting them, who was cranking them out? And why keep writing them if your audience isn't buying them?

For one examination and take on it, you might find interesting a book that came out about 8 years ago, The Reluctant Parting: How the New Testament's Jewish Writers Created A Christian Book.

The author is Julie Galambush, Ph.D who is a professor of religion at the College of William & Mary. Dr. Galambush is a convert to Judaism who was, at one time, a Baptist minister.

 

[CMike]

Here is an in-depth analysis.

Isaiah 53 – The Jewish Perspective « Jewish Isaiah 53

B. CONTEXT

Since any portion of Scripture is only understood properly when viewed in the context of God’s revelation as a whole, some additional study will be helpful before you “tackle” Isaiah 53.

Look at the setting in which Isaiah 53 occurs. Earlier on in Isaiah, God had predicted exile and calamity for the Jewish people.

Chapter 53, however, occurs in the midst of Isaiah’s “Messages of Consolation”, which tell of the restoration of Israel to a position of prominence and a vindication of their status as God’s chosen people. In chapter 52, for example, Israel is described as “oppressed without cause” (v.4) and “taken away” (v.5), yet God promises a brighter future ahead, one in which Israel will again prosper and be redeemed in the sight of all the nations (v.1-3, 8-12).

Chapter 54 further elaborates upon the redemption which awaits the nation of Israel. Following immediately after chapter 53′s promise of a reward for God’s servant in return for all of its suffering (53:10-12), chapter 54 describes an unequivocally joyous fate for the Jewish people. Speaking clearly of the Jewish people and their exalted status (even according to all Christian commentaries), chapter 54 ends as follows: “`This is the heritage of the servants of the L-rd and their vindication is from Me,’ declares the L-rd.”
C. ISAIAH 53

In the original Hebrew texts, there are no chapter divisions, and Jew and Christian alike agree that chapter 53 is actually a continuation of the prophecy which begins at 52:13. Accordingly, our analysis must begin at that verse.

52:13 “Behold, My servant will prosper.” Israel in the singular is called God’s servant throughout Isaiah, both explicitly (Isa. 41:8-9; 44:1-2; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3) and implicitly (Isa. 42:19-20; 43:10) – the Messiah is not. Other references to Israel as God’s servant include Jer. 30:10 (note that in Jer. 30:17, the servant Israel is regarded by the nations as an outcast, forsaken by God, as in Isa. 53:4); Jer. 46:27-28; Ps. 136:22; Lk. 1:54. ALSO: Given the Christian view that Jesus is God, is God His own servant?

52:15 – 53:1 “So shall he (the servant) startle many nations, the kings will stand speechless; For that which had not been told them they shall see and that which they had not heard shall they ponder. Who would believe what we have heard?” Quite clearly, the nations and their kings will be amazed at what happens to the “servant of the L-rd,” and they will say “who would believe what we have heard?”. 52:15 tells us explicitly that it is the nations of the world, the gentiles, who are doing the talking in Isaiah 53. See, also, Micah 7:12-17, which speaks of the nations’ astonishment when the Jewish people again blossom in the Messianic age.

53:1 “And to whom has the arm of the L-rd been revealed?” In Isaiah, and throughout our Scriptures, God’s “arm” refers to the physical redemption of the Jewish people from the oppression of other nations (see, e.g., Isa. 52:8-12; Isa.

63:12; Deut. 4:34; Deut. 7:19; Ps. 44:3).

53:3 “Despised and rejected of men.” While this is clearly applicable to Israel (see Isa. 60:15; Ps. 44:13-14), it cannot be reconciled with the New Testament account of Jesus, a man who was supposedly “praised by all” (Lk. 4:14-15) and followed by multitudes (Matt. 4:25), who would later acclaim him as a prophet upon his triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Matt. 21:9-11). Even as he was taken to be crucified, a multitude bemoaned his fate (Lk. 23:27). Jesus had to be taken by stealth, as the rulers feared “a riot of the people” (Mk. 14:1-2).

53:3 “A man of pains and acquainted with disease.” Israel’s adversities are frequently likened to sickness – see, e.g., Isa. 1:5-6; Jer. 10:19; Jer 30:12.

53:4 “Surely our diseases he carried and our pains he bore.” In Matt. 8:17, this is correctly translated, and said to be literally (not spiritually) fulfilled in Jesus’ healing of the sick, a reading inconsistent with the Christian mistranslation of 53:4 itself.

53:4 “Yet we ourselves esteemed him stricken, smitten of G- D and afflicted.” See Jer. 30:17 – of God’s servant Israel (30:10), it is said by the nations, “It is Zion; no one cares for her.”

53:5 “But he was wounded from (NOTE: not for) our transgressions, he was crushed from (AGAIN: not for) our iniquities.” Whereas the nations had thought the Servant (Israel) was undergoing Divine retribution for its sins (53:4), they now realize that the Servant’s sufferings stemmed from their actions and sinfulness. This theme is further developed throughout our Jewish Scriptures – see, e.g., Jer. 50:7; Jer. 10:25. ALSO: Note that the Messiah “shall not fail nor be crushed till he has set the right in the earth” (Isa. 42:4).

53:7 “He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth. Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, and like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, so he did not open his mouth.” Note that in the prior chapter (Isa. 52), Israel is said to have been oppressed and taken away without cause (52:4-5). A similar theme is developed in Psalm 44, wherein King David speaks of Israel’s faithfulness even in the face of gentile oppression (44:17- 18) and describes Israel as “sheep to be slaughtered” in the midst of the unfaithful gentile nations (44:22,11).
Regarding the claim that Jesus “did not open his mouth” when faced with oppression and affliction, see Matt. 27:46, Jn. 18:23, 36-37.

53:8 “From dominion and judgement he was taken away.” Note the correct translation of the Hebrew. The Christians are forced to mistranslate, since – by Jesus’ own testimony – he never had any rights to rulership or judgement, at least not on the “first coming.” See, e.g., Jn. 3:17; Jn. 8:15; Jn. 12:47; Jn. 18:36.

53:8 “He was cut off out of the land of the living.”
5
3:9 “His grave was assigned with wicked men.” See Ez. 37:11-14, wherein Israelis described as “cut off” and God promises to open its “graves” and bring Israel back into its own land. Other examples of figurative deaths include Ex. 10:17; 2 Sam. 9:8; 2 Sam. 16:9.

53:8 “From my peoples’ sins, there was injury to them.” Here the Prophet makes absolutely clear, to anyone familiar with Biblical Hebrew, that the oppressed Servant is a collective Servant, not a single individual. The Hebrew word “lamoh”, when used in our Scriptures, always means “to them” never “to him” and may be found, for example, in Psalm 99:7 – “They kept his testimonies, and the statute that He
gave to them.”

53:9 “And with the rich in his deaths.” Perhaps King James should have changed the original Hebrew, which again makes clear that we are dealing with a collective Servant, i.e., Israel, which will “come to life” when the exile ends (Ez. 37:14).

53:9 “He had done no violence.” See Matt. 21:12; Mk. 11:15-16; Lk. 19:45; Lk. 19:27; Matt. 10:34 and Lk. 12:51; then judge for yourself whether this passage is truly consistent with the New Testament account of Jesus.

53:10 “He shall see his seed.” The Hebrew word for “seed”, used in this verse, always refers to physical descendants in our Jewish Scriptures. See, e.g., Gen. 12:7; Gen. 15:13; Gen. 46:6; Ex. 28:43. A different word, generally translated as “sons”, is used to refer to spiritual descendants (see Deut. 14:1, e.g.).

53:10 “He will prolong his days.” Not only did Jesus die young, but how could the days be prolonged of someone who is alleged to be God?

53:11 “With his knowledge the righteous one, my Servant, will cause many to be just.” Note again the correct translation: the Servant will cause many to be just, he will not “justify the many.” The Jewish mission is to serve as a “light to the nations” which will ultimately lead the world to a knowledge of the one true God, this both by example (Deut. 4:5-8; Zech. 8:23) and by instructing the nations in God’s Law (Isa. 2:3-4; Micah 4:2-3).

53:12 “Therefore, I will divide a portion to him with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty.” If Jesus is God, does the idea of reward have any meaning? Is it not rather the Jewish people – who righteously bore the sins of the world and yet remained faithful to God (Ps. 44) – who will be rewarded, and this in the manner described more fully in Isaiah chapters 52 and 54?

 

[metis]

For one examination and take on it, you might find interesting a book that came out about 8 years ago, The Reluctant Parting: How the New Testament's Jewish Writers Created A Christian Book.

The author is Julie Galambush, Ph.D who is a professor of religion at the College of William & Mary. Dr. Galambush is a convert to Judaism who was, at one time, a Baptist minister.

Damn you RabbiO, now I gotta get this one too!

Shabbat shalom, my friend.

 

[roger1440]

The reason that Jews don't accept the Gospels is because they lift up a Messiah that failed. The Jewish canon was also largely figured out by the time any of the Gospels were being written, so they really were not in consideration. Seeing that Jesus was not the Messiah, there is more reason for us to reject the Gospels. Another reason is also that they are Greek works, and not Hebrew.

I do agree that many Christians do not understand the Gospels though. Some of the Gospels were written for Jews by Jews (I would say that Luke may not have been a Jew, as his work appears more to be for a Gentile audience), and they deal largely with Jewish ideology, as well as Greek thought. If one is not familiar with those subjects, understanding the Gospels will be difficult.

I do disagree with your interpretation of the Gospels though. The Gospels are not the only source for a historical Jesus. Paul also speaks of Jesus as an actual person, as does Josephus. The Gospels also do not portray a singular portrait of Jesus. Instead, there are four different views that are portrayed. I would argue that they instead try to portray a Messiah figure.

While there are interpretations of the suffering servant that relates it to the Messiah, there is none that portray it as both Israel and the Messiah. There are also problems with reading the suffering servant as the Messiah, such as it is unlike what one would expect in Deutero-Isaiah. From a Jewish perspective, Jesus also did not fulfill the messianic prophecy.

True, Paul and Josephus speaks of Jesus as an actual person, but neither man has ever met Jesus. Josephus writes as an historian not an eye witness. When Jesus died, Josephus was only a young boy. Paul on the other hand writes about the risen Jesus. He knows nothing about Jesus while Jesus was alive. I wrote a large article on another thread about my view on Paul. I’ll post it here. Jesus may have been a real person in the first century. There is no way to proof or disproof his existence. If he did exist his story went far beyond the actual person. There are still sayings attributed to Confucius and the guy has been dead over 2,500 years, LOL. Jesus is no different.



http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3537014-post53.html

There are several reasons why I doubt the authenticity of the “Book of Acts”. According to the book Paul goes from being this new sect’s greatest adversary to its greatest evangelist, literality in a flash. He had gone from one extreme to another.

Paul was no dope, he was well educated and articulate. In his own words Paul writes about himself, “I am a Jew. I was born in Tarsus in Cilicia. But I grew up here in Jerusalem. I was well trained by Gamaliel in the law of our people. I wanted to serve God as much as any of you do today.” (Acts: 22:3) Not only did Paul study the Law, he was a student of the very best teacher of his day. Gamalliel was the grandson of the great Jewish teacher hillel the Elder. In modern day times this would have been the equivalent of going to an Ivy League school such as Columbia, Princeton, Harvard, etc. Gamalliel was, “…a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people.” (Acts 5:34) What we have here is a super doper Jew who very devotional to his faith and an intellectual giant. He is by no means your garden variety Jew. The picture Luke paints of Paul in the “Book of Acts” is that of a super hero. Lois Lane (Superman’s girlfriend) would have fallen for this guy in a heartbeat.

During Paul’s escapades he was shipped wrecked, put into prison, stripped, beaten, stoned and put on trial. He was extremely enthusiastic in his ministry. When he wasn’t preaching he was running for his life. Yet, never once does he mention anything about the life of Jesus, he only quotes Jesus once. Paul either knew nothing about the life of Jesus or he thought there wasn’t anything about the life of Jesus worthy to mention. Another possibility is that Paul forgot. Yeah, that’s what happened. Let’s face it; Paul had a lot on his mind. He was probably distracted. With all the beatings and stoning going on he just plain forgot.

Even if the virgin birth, miracles and resurrection is fictional, Jesus must have said and done something with his life worthy of mentioning. . The only time Paul quotes Jesus is in “1st Corinthians. The quote come from (Luke 22:20). Communion or the Lord’s Supper is probably the oldest ritual from this nearly founded Jewish sect. All clubs, institutions, societies, organizations and religions have rituals and traditions. Without them it would be impossible to differentiate one from another. Paul may not have been quoting from the “Gospel of Luke” but from a well circulated ritual that he had come in contact with.

“For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” (1st Cor. 11:23-26)​

Christian apologists may want to use the argument that Luke did not want to be redundant. Jesus’s ministry is quoted in the “Gospel of Luke” so why repeat it in the “Book of Acts”? But redundancy doesn’t seem to be a problem with Luke. Three times in the “Book of Acts” Paul’s conversion is mentioned.

Paul was with Peter for two weeks and also met James, Jesus’s “brother”. Peter and James knew Jesus personally. Didn’t it cross Paul’s mind to ask these men about the living Jesus and his ministry? If we read closely how Peter is depicted in the “Book of Acts” we notice Peter’s character is of a person who is not in the know and Paul’s character is of a person who does know. Peter is clearly at odds with Paul. The theological friction between Paul’s theology and Peter’s theology mirrors the dividing line between the teaching of living Jesus to Peter and the revelation of the risen Jesus to Paul. This is clearly evident in the 2nd chapter of Galatians.

“When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.” (Gal. 2:11-13)​

The Barnabas of Galatians is the same Barnabas mentioned in Acts. In Acts Paul and Barnabas has a falling out. Barnabas is also referred to as an apostle in Acts.

“Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord.” (Acts 15:36-40)​

In Acts Luke deliberately ignores the teaching of the living Jesus in favor of the revelation of the risen Jesus. The story line in Acts is very much one sided.

 

[roger1440]

Here is an in-depth analysis.

Isaiah 53 – The Jewish Perspective « Jewish Isaiah 53

I’m a tiny bit familiar with the Jews For Judaism organization. Rabbi MIchael Skobac is a very good public speaker. I have seen several videos featuring him on Youtube. He seems to know more about the Gospels then most Christians do. He is in agreement with me that Jesus was a strict Torah observant. Jesus was born a Jew, lived as a Jew and died a Jew. There isn’t anything not Jewish about Jesus. You might enjoy this video with Rabbi MIchael Skobac :
[youtube]BMHuUIYCA0o[/youtube]
JUDAISM vs CHRISTIANITY: Parting the Ways [Jews for Jesus Messianic Jewish Christian Messiah Yeshua] - YouTube

 

[roger1440]

I want to preface by saying that I know almost nothing about the gospels.

Your narrative doesn't flow for me. You say that the gospels were written for the Jews and that many dozens of them were written. Well as we were rejecting them, who was cranking them out? And why keep writing them if your audience isn't buying them?

Are you suggesting Christianity didn’t originate within Judaism? I’m convinced it was the Jews and not Gentiles that started the Jesus story that developed into Christianity.

 

[hexler]

It is annoying to see God's Messengers are reduced to the jewish prophets and Jesus. Should God's love be so one-sided ? Is Krishna or Buddha smaller?

 

[roger1440]

It is very plausible Jesus or a Jesus like person existed during the 1st century. He was probably a rural preacher. At some point he had separated from whatever school of Judaism he had belonged to and went solo. During his short lived career he attracts a handful of devote followers. The one thing a preacher needs more than anything else is people to preach too, otherwise he wouldn’t be a preacher. Passover week in Jerusalem would have been an ideal opportunity for a preacher. The city would swell to quadruple its normal size during this week. Somehow he ruffled the wrong feathers and got himself executed. His followers believed Jesus was an innocent man. It is a very small leap from there to being a martyr. Martyr stories are always popular. We always have a heart for the small good guy who gets stomped on by the big bad guy. Once the martyrization is established by his followers the story builds momentum. Anything wise or insightful concerning the Torah is attributed to Jesus as the time goes by. Allegorical stories are created that parallels that of the Torah. The use of the word bread is used a metaphor. Jesus is God's suffering servant. Israel is God's suffering servant. Both became intertwined into one. The Jesus character is transformed into the nation of Israel. Some branches of the Jesus stories grow into different directions. The Jesus story of the canonical Gospels, (Mathew, Mark, Luke and John) merges with the Jesus story of Paul. This plants the seed for the Orthodox Church. Other branches grow. The Orthodox is larger and stronger. The smaller branches are suffocated by the larger Orthodox and die. This is an extremely short outline on how I think the Church started. I could probably write an entire chapter on each sentence and not be finished.

 

[roger1440]

It is annoying to see God's Messengers are reduced to the jewish prophets and Jesus. Should God's love be so one-sided ? Is Krishna or Buddha smaller?

Some people have actually entertained angels and didn’t even realize it.

 

[Tumah]

Just to go back to the original question:

I’ll rephrase the question. How was the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 interpreted during the 1st century? I’m looking for a Jewish perspective. I know very well most Christians would say, “That’s easy, Jesus.”

In [orthodox] Judaism the simple understanding of the suffering servant is as a reference to Israel. This view is supported by context- ie. previous and later chapters. It is also supported by the actual verses therein- ie. the last word in verse 8 is actually in plural form (a plague to them). This switching between singular and plural form is found in other places in Scriptures in reference to Israel.

The original bible did not have chapters. The book of Isaiah is supposed to be read as one unit, all together. Reading from the beginning, it is extremely obvious that the suffering servant is the people Israel. That is how we read it then and read it now.

This is not completely accurate. While the Chapter and Verse structure was I believe a Christian innovation, Scriptures is broken up into portions using the "Samech" and "Peh" letters that denote opened or closed endings- different types of paragraph breaks.

This is where I’m going with this. Christians have been telling Jews for 2000 years Jews do not understand their own scriptures. That is the reasons Jews do not accept the Gospels. I think it’s the other way around. It’s Christians who do not understand the Gospels. The Gospels were written by Jews, for Jews with a 1st century understanding of Jewish scripture. The Gospels were not written for Gentiles. ..

You start off with an interesting idea. A similar idea was put forth about 300 yeas ago by Rabbi Jacob Emden. His opinion was that the original writers of the NT did not intend to create a new religion for Jews but rather a new religion for non-Jews based on the 7 Noahide Laws. His resolves a number of contradictions in the NT by explaining that certain verses were speaking about Jews or admonishing Jews to keep to Judaism and other verses were speaking to non-Jews or teaching them to practice the 7 Laws.

True, Paul and Josephus speaks of Jesus as an actual person, but neither man has ever met Jesus. Josephus writes as an historian not an eye witness. When Jesus died, Josephus was only a young boy. Paul on the other hand writes about the risen Jesus. He knows nothing about Jesus while Jesus was alive. I wrote a large article on another thread about my view on Paul. I’ll post it here. Jesus may have been a real person in the first century. There is no way to proof or disproof his existence. If he did exist his story went far beyond the actual person. There are still sayings attributed to Confucius and the guy has been dead over 2,500 years, LOL. Jesus is no different.

The [Orthodox] Jewish view is that he was a real person although the NT account is generally considered to be something of a fictional biography. There are a few Talmudical accounts that mention him although its seems that the Talmud has him living about 75 years earlier that Christian accounts. I understand that modern scholars considers Josephus' account to be an interpolation by the Church (who had the only surviving book).

 

[roger1440]

The [Orthodox] Jewish view is that he was a real person although the NT account is generally considered to be something of a fictional biography. There are a few Talmudical accounts that mention him although its seems that the Talmud has him living about 75 years earlier that Christian accounts. I understand that modern scholars considers Josephus' account to be an interpolation by the Church (who had the only surviving book).

If the Paul of the Talmud is the same Paul of the Book of Acts then the time line would not match. One or the other is mistaken. I’m not saying which one, I wasn’t there. According to the Book of Acts, Paul had studied under Gamaliel. Gamaliel had died about the year 50 AD.
Gamaliel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regardless if the New Testament books are fact or fiction, painstaking effect was used to include historical events and times. The Book of Acts is attributed to the same author of the Gospel of Luke. In Luke’s Gospel is a story about the 12 year old Jesus. This story is very similar to a story about Josephus when he was a child, found in his autobiography. This autobiography was not published until around the year 90 AD.

After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. (Luke 2:46-47)
​

Most of what we know about first century Palestine comes down to us from the Jewish historian Flavis Josephus (born 37 – died 100). His most famous works were “The Jewish War” (c. 75) and “Antiquities of the Jews” (c. 94). In his autobiography entitled “The Life Of Flavius Josephus” he writes:

…I made mighty proficiency in the improvements of my learning, and appeared to have both a great memory and understanding. Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the high priests and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law. The Life Of Flavius Josephus, Paragraph 2 http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/autobiog.htm
​

Imagine that, Josephus is a lot like Jesus when he was a child. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3465489-post82.html

 

[Tumah]

If the Paul of the Talmud is the same Paul of the Book of Acts then the time line would not match. One or the other is mistaken. I’m not saying which one, I wasn’t there. According to the Book of Acts, Paul had studied under Gamaliel. Gamaliel had died about the year 50 AD.
Gamaliel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regardless if the New Testament books are fact or fiction, painstaking effect was used to include historical events and times. The Book of Acts is attributed to the same author of the Gospel of Luke. In Luke’s Gospel is a story about the 12 year old Jesus. This story is very similar to a story about Josephus when he was a child, found in his autobiography. This autobiography was not published until around the year 90 AD.

After three days they found him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers. (Luke 2:46-47)
​

Most of what we know about first century Palestine comes down to us from the Jewish historian Flavis Josephus (born 37 – died 100). His most famous works were “The Jewish War” (c. 75) and “Antiquities of the Jews” (c. 94). In his autobiography entitled “The Life Of Flavius Josephus” he writes:

…I made mighty proficiency in the improvements of my learning, and appeared to have both a great memory and understanding. Moreover, when I was a child, and about fourteen years of age, I was commended by all for the love I had to learning; on which account the high priests and principal men of the city came then frequently to me together, in order to know my opinion about the accurate understanding of points of the law. The Life Of Flavius Josephus, Paragraph 2 http://www.ccel.org/j/josephus/works/autobiog.htm
​

Imagine that, Josephus is a lot like Jesus when he was a child. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3465489-post82.html

I don't recall there being a Paul in the Talmud but there is a Jesus the Nazarene in the Talmud. But the Talmud places him ~75 years earlier than the NT does. And with 5 Disciples not 12. And it was the Sanhedrin that stoned and hung him on Passover Eve, not the Romans who crucified him.

My theory is that there was a Jesus who managed to get some small following. A few generations or so later, someone decides to put a book out about him and culls some rumors floating around throws it together with some re-imagined Biblical stories and voila. NT.

Pain-staking historical detail is not an accurate portrayal of the Census. Or the date of death. Or the correct genealogical line. To name a few.