• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Isaiah 53 Suffering Servant

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Here are some additional verses where there is the 'anointed one':

Is the Messiah to Bring Peace or Tribulation?

In my opinion. :innocent:
Ok... those are interesting. I'll spend some time on those.

Here's my question: why can't mem-shin-chet be translated negatively in some verses? I'm seeing mem-shin-chet as a fundamental transformation. This could be positive as in anointed / consecrated / the messiah. Or it could be negative as in marred / destroyed / a raider.

In the post you linked to, you propose that the verses are translated in error. Why?

Edit... Maybe a good example of mem-shin-chet is the English word: raised / razed. You can raise someone up. But also.. If a city is razed... It means it is destroyed. I don't know if that's helpful or not...
 
Last edited:

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
List of kings of Israel and Judah.

Kings of Israel and Judah

David had been dead for hundreds of years before Isaiah was even born.

correct... it's shorthand for someone in David's line

see also "nations shall hope in the root of Jesse"
the twist being root which suggests also being divine
another twist also being the ,branch of David ' Is 11:1 suggests fully man... fully God filly man... that resolves birth root and branch
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I believe you might have a point with the fall of man although one can admit to the fall of the Adamic Race called human by the aliens who recreated it.
This raises a few questions:

How do you define 'fall' and 'man' as used here?

What and who is Adam, as in 'Adamic'?

What and who are the aliens you mention?

What is 'it' that the aliens recreated?
However other things may seem contrived there is enough evidence to support most of them
What 'other things'? An example would be helpful.

What evidence supports that example?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
correct... it's shorthand for someone in David's line

see also "nations shall hope in the root of Jesse"
the twist being root which suggests also being divine
another twist also being the ,branch of David ' Is 11:1 suggests fully man... fully God filly man... that resolves birth root and branch

David wasn't divine..

Azariah or Uzziah, King - Amazing Bible Timeline with ...
https://amazingbibletimeline.com/blog/king-azariah-or-uzziah
Oct 26, 2014 · Azariah or Uzziah, King. In Hebrew, the name Uzziah or Azariah means “Yahweh is my strength”. This man was noted as one of the Kingdom of Judah ‘s finest kings. Although he ruled at a very young age, he was able to show great wisdom and character as a king, and this was the reason he remained in his reign for as much as 52 years.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
This raises a few questions:

How do you define 'fall' and 'man' as used here?

What and who is Adam, as in 'Adamic'?

What and who are the aliens you mention?

What is 'it' that the aliens recreated?

What 'other things'? An example would be helpful.

What evidence supports that example?

Some claim Adam is the ancestor of the Jews.. If you aren't Jewish you came from some other ancestors.. Which makes sense sort of since the Sumerians were already established agriculturists long before Genesis.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
In the post you linked to, you propose that the verses are translated in error. Why?
Because they should've said 'the anointed one' is prophesied before the destruction across the Tanakh.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Some claim Adam is the ancestor of the Jews.. If you aren't Jewish you came from some other ancestors.. Which makes sense sort of since the Sumerians were already established agriculturists long before Genesis.
But unfortunately for the facts, that's not what the story says.

By no means an uncommon problem with the bible.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Because they should've said 'the anointed one' is prophesied before the destruction across the Tanakh.

In my opinion. :innocent:

Yes.. they anticipated an anointed warrior king like David who would vanquish their enemies.. and throw the Romans out. NOT divine.

The Jews didn't always expect a messiah..

But, they did consider Cyrus of Persia to be a messiah.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Because they should've said 'the anointed one' is prophesied before the destruction across the Tanakh.

In my opinion. :innocent:
Most respectfully: I know that's what you believe. I'll go search thru the thread you posted. Maybe there will be evidence supporting your claim there.

Sorry to bother you. :oops:
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
None of these are translations of the text. They are all interpretations and interpolations obviously meant to draw the reader away from the simple translation which clearly disproves Jesus as the messiah, since he had opened his mouth multiple times.

Literally?
He opened his mouth, sure.
How about Israel - does it even have a mouth?
Next if food comes in the mouth does Israel poop?
My Jesus pooped because he was a human being with a mouth.
How about Israel?

All you're doing here is reiterating what you've said instead of arguing against the point I've made. I'm not sure why you think that's a valid response.

Israel of the past had done violence
It is a justifiable violence - it was an eye for an eye then
With that circumstances and with the many battles Israel fought
Isa 53 points not to Israel but to the Lord Jesus Christ
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
Literally?
He opened his mouth, sure.
How about Israel - does it even have a mouth?
Next if food comes in the mouth does Israel poop?
My Jesus pooped because he was a human being with a mouth.
How about Israel?
Whether or not Israel has a mouth, the point is that we've established it can't be Jesus since he did open his mouth.

Israel of the past had done violence
It is a justifiable violence - it was an eye for an eye then
With that circumstances and with the many battles Israel fought
Isa 53 points not to Israel but to the Lord Jesus Christ
Except that as we established just above, it can't be him, since he opened his mouth.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
David wasn't divine..

Azariah or Uzziah, King - Amazing Bible Timeline with ...
https://amazingbibletimeline.com/blog/king-azariah-or-uzziah
Oct 26, 2014 · Azariah or Uzziah, King. In Hebrew, the name Uzziah or Azariah means “Yahweh is my strength”. This man was noted as one of the Kingdom of Judah ‘s finest kings. Although he ruled at a very young age, he was able to show great wisdom and character as a king, and this was the reason he remained in his reign for as much as 52 years.

no but he pointed to someone who was

Interestingly the final passover psalm (Psalm 118) says "the stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone" The builders being the Jewish leaders of the day. The rejected stone is Jesus. The resurrection settling the issue.

Isn't it interesting the final Passover Psalm has the shortest Psalm before (a 'gospel' invitation to the nations) and the longest Psalm after ( a Psalm about living in the 'spirit of the law' walking in dependence on God to keep it.)
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
The present version makes the Servant of the Lord disfigured or we have David being paraphrased as the anointed one (Psalms 89:19-21), which makes the most sense?
The former, since it's obviously a figurative statement speaking about the perception of the nations towards Israel in relation to themselves.

(his visage) מראהו (from man) מאישׁ (I anointed) משׁחתי
Right. That's the thing that doesn't make sense.
 

whirlingmerc

Well-Known Member
The former, since it's obviously a figurative statement speaking about the perception of the nations towards Israel in relation to themselves.


Right. That's the thing that doesn't make sense.


I would not take that as 'obvious'

And how do you take 'the stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone' ? from Psalm 118
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
I would not take that as 'obvious'
That's because you've been trained to ignore the obvious in favor of a pre-determined outcome.

And how do you take 'the stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone' ? from Psalm 118
How about this: Why don't you tell me what that Psalm could possibly be talking about, if we remove Jesus as a possibility. Go ahead and give it a try. I'm sure you've read the Books of Samuel and know a bit about David's life and times. Let's see if you can figure it out.
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
Whether or not Israel has a mouth, the point is that we've established it can't be Jesus since he did open his mouth.


Except that as we established just above, it can't be him, since he opened his mouth.

It is the Jewish position that it is Israel
It it the Christian position that it is Jesus
It is the Atheist position that it is not Israel not Jesus because what is the Bible to them anyway?

Israel doesn't have a mouth
Did violence
Hence Isaiah 53 disqualifies Israel twice as the suffering servant.
Is that how Jews interpret their Tanakh?

upload_2019-4-14_13-53-1.jpeg


No wonder you kept waiting for the Messiah.
 

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
That's the thing that doesn't make sense.
If we read Psalms 89:19-21 the Lord chooses from among men someone to be his 'Arm'; so that God can 'exalt' that person, and has chosen David...

In Isaiah 52:13-14 my servant is chosen from among men, and anointed to be above others.

The 'person' is anointed by God (chosen to be the Messiah); which makes them then glorified (visage) more than any of the sons of Adam.

Understand the confusion is as some are so busy putting themselves in the text, they've rejected David as the Messiah, and now don't want to accept everyone could be wrong...

Yet literally WW3 is soon, and after mankind is destroyed, only the Godly will remain or we could question the text properly between us, and bring mankind to know God?
Why don't you tell me what that Psalm could possibly be talking about, if we remove Jesus as a possibility
Continuing the song of Moses in Exodus 15:2, Psalms 118 paraphrases it using the term Yeshua (Salvation), specifically to express that the Salvation of the Lord becomes the Chief Corner Stone...

Thus to even state could we remove Yeshua (Salvation) from Psalm 118, is missing the point of the Tanakh.

Psalms 118:14-15 Yah is my strength and song. He has become my salvation. (H3444) (15) The voice of rejoicing and salvation (H3444) is in the tents of the righteous. “The right hand of Yahweh does valiantly.

Psalms 118:21-22 I will give thanks to you, for you have answered me, and have become my salvation. (H3444) (22) The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.

The former, since it's obviously a figurative statement speaking about the perception of the nations towards Israel in relation to themselves.
Here is a list of reasons that Israel doesn't qualify as the identity of Isaiah 53:
  • 1: They did not fulfill Isaiah 53:1 which links with Isaiah 28:9-19 (rumor to rumor), and the 'arm of the lord' in Isaiah 52:10 (Yeshuat Eloeinhu) + Psalms 98
  • 2: They were seen as a majestic nation, which was desired by many; they still are presented as a chosen people, which is desired by many.
  • 3: They are not in a depressed state, and not disliked by people; that is a self loathing statement, people like the Jews.
  • 4: They have not carried anyone's suffering or sins; they have been cursed, yet not that anyone acknowledges that, and sees them as accursed.
  • 5: They have not been pierced for anyone's sins, they've not been crushed/put to death/tortured as a sin offering for anyone else.
  • 6: They have not had everyone's sins put on them; tho they might have helped confuse all the sheep, yet they're not directly responsible.
  • 7: They have not been silent as they were slaughtered, neither was it done in the form of a sin offering.
  • 8: The disobedience of the 'people' is the Hebrew people; yet then they can't be the person who is cut off from the land of the living for their sins.
  • 9: They were not put to death with the wicked or rich, and are clearly not free of violence or deceit.
  • 10: They were put to death for part of the plan, yet not as a sin offering.
  • 11: They haven't carried anyone's sins, their knowledge has not lead many to righteousness, neither have they arrived at the light from their actions of being put to death.
  • 12: They haven't got an inheritance to share with the strong, they've not continued teaching the things of God until death, and then acted as an intercessor for people's sins.
Isaiah 5:3 “Now, inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, please judge between me and my vineyard.

Like we've already discussed, denying the Lord, Law, Messiah, just to make Israel a chosen nation above all of that; means everyone will get nothing according to the Tanakh.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 
Last edited:

wizanda

One Accepts All Religious Texts
Premium Member
Most respectfully
Most respectfully I'm always learning as well, so on a closer look of what you've just hypothesized, that there is good and bad anointing, which could be a logical idea...

Did another word search of M-SH-CH-T משׁחת, and more inclined to see all of them as 'anointing' in someway (smothered), and we're not understanding the contexts properly.

In my opinion. :innocent:
 
Last edited:

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Most respectfully I'm always learning as well, so on a closer look of what you've just hypothesized, that there is good and bad anointing, which could be a logical idea...

Did another word search of M-SH-CH-T משׁחת, and more inclined to see all of them as 'anointing' in someway (smothered), and we're not understanding the contexts properly.

In my opinion. :innocent:

That's a much shorter list.

I finished going through all 160. It was actually a fun learning exercise. I'm going to type it up. If you have time, I would appreciate your feedback.

Btw, What do you make of Psalms 20:6?

Also, instead of smothered, I was thinking of something more like a tsunami.. like a wave of destruction... what do u think?
 
Last edited:
Top