• 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!

Torah in Christianity

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
If you follow the pronouns and the grammar, the kings speak and the people are spoken of as a singular servant of God:
Is 52 mentions God's speaking of "my people" and, starting way back in Is 42, you have statements like "But, you Israel, are My servant; Jacob, whom I have chosen; seed of Abraham, My friend."

So 52 continues with the same singular reference
"My servant shall prosper"

and then talks of how others perceive the servant
"Just as the many were appalled at him"

then there is the (first person plural) statement made by the kings who have been startled
"Who can believe what we have heard?"

so you have the "we" being the kings and their people" and the "he" being the servant/Israel

Note how both those players have been explicitly named and the narrative's continuity is established.

Using that, the "my people" (as a statement made by the kings) transgressed, and "he" (the servant) is paying for it.

Instead of introducing a character not named in the text, and ignoring what is actually happening, you should be able to see the straightforward logic here.

So you would have us believe Isaiah 53: is saying things like the following:

Israel is a man ("ish") of sorrows. (Note: this clearly says he is a man (singular).

and YHWH laid on Israel the iniquity of us all. (You mean YHWH punishes people for other peoples sins?)

And who can speak of Israel's descendants? For Israel was cut off from the land of the living. (So Israel doesn't have descendants because Israel is no longer in the land of the living?)

by his knowledge my righteous servant (Israel) will justify many, and Israel will bear their iniquities. (So Israel was to suffer because others sin?)
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
So you would have us believe Isaiah 53: is saying things like the following:

Israel is a man ("ish") of sorrows. (Note: this clearly says he is a man (singular).

Yes -- the word "ish" is used elsewhere in the singular, and a nation has elsewhere been likened to a single individual.
and YHWH laid on Israel the iniquity of us all. (You mean YHWH punishes people for other peoples sins?)
That it clearly how the other kings perceive it.
And who can speak of Israel's descendants? For Israel was cut off from the land of the living. (So Israel doesn't have descendants because Israel is no longer in the land of the living?)

Actually, the Radak points out that "eretz chaim" is a reference to the land of Israel elsewhere in the text so this is about exile
כאשר גלה מארצו שנקראת ארץ חיים, כמו אתהלך לפני ה' בארצות החיים, ויש לפרש כי בגלות נחשב באמת כאלו נגזר מארץ חיים ואיך היינו חושבים שתהיה לו גדולה כזו
by his knowledge my righteous servant (Israel) will justify many, and Israel will bear their iniquities. (So Israel was to suffer because others sin?)
That is, again, how the other nations see things.
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
Yes -- the word "ish" is used elsewhere in the singular, and a nation has elsewhere been likened to a single individual.

That it clearly how the other kings perceive it.


Actually, the Radak points out that "eretz chaim" is a reference to the land of Israel elsewhere in the text so this is about exile
כאשר גלה מארצו שנקראת ארץ חיים, כמו אתהלך לפני ה' בארצות החיים, ויש לפרש כי בגלות נחשב באמת כאלו נגזר מארץ חיים ואיך היינו חושבים שתהיה לו גדולה כזו

That is, again, how the other nations see things.

Of course "ish" is used elsewhere in the singular because that is what it is. But I would like to see your verse where "ish" refers to a nation.

How can it be YHWH speaking in 52: and then suddenly it is from the viewpoint of outside kings?
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Of course "ish" is used elsewhere in the singular because that is what it is. But I would like to see your verse where "ish" refers to a nation.
you mean like Judges 20:17 which talks about Ish Yisrael, the man of Isrel (which refers to the nation)?
or do you mean like in Is 49:3 in which the text says that Israel (the nation) is a (singular) servant?
How can it be YHWH speaking in 52: and then suddenly it is from the viewpoint of outside kings?
Kings shall be silenced because of him,
For they shall see what has not been told them,
Shall behold what they never have heard.
Who can believe what we have heard?
Upon whom has the arm of the LORD--a been revealed?"

Note the shift from the third to first person but the repetition of the not hearing part.

The quote at the beginning is continuing from what God is saying and then it introduces the kings and what THEY say. Then the next pine gives the text of what they say from their positio as plural first person speakers ("we have heard.")

So, yeah, outside kings.
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
you mean like Judges 20:17 which talks about Ish Yisrael, the man of Isrel (which refers to the nation)?
or do you mean like in Is 49:3 in which the text says that Israel (the nation) is a (singular) servant?

Kings shall be silenced because of him,
For they shall see what has not been told them,
Shall behold what they never have heard.
Who can believe what we have heard?
Upon whom has the arm of the LORD--a been revealed?"

Note the shift from the third to first person but the repetition of the not hearing part.

The quote at the beginning is continuing from what God is saying and then it introduces the kings and what THEY say. Then the next pine gives the text of what they say from their positio as plural first person speakers ("we have heard.")

So, yeah, outside kings.

I think I see what you are trying to say here, but think you are definitely wrong. It's funny how you can bend all around finding an example where singular didn't really mean singular to justify your belief, yet other places hold to something in the most strict way. Even though in this case it still works regarding what I believe. You know, it (Isaiah 53:1) could be shifting from the prophet speaking for YHWH, to speaking regarding those bringing the good news of salvation, as mentioned in Isaiah 52:7 and who has believed the message.
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
This has already been explained to you. The difference is the law will be written on their hearts. There are no changes made to the law. He's saying the covenant was broken and needed renewing.

All God's ways are perfect aren't they? Psalms 18:30
Why did he say in Isaiah 65:17 that he was going to create new heavens and a new earth? Does that mean what he did the first time wasn't perfect??

So with the above in mind, please explain how that same thing can't apply to him making a new covenant also.

I would also like to ask you, since the word in Hebrew is new, are you telling us that renew is the very same word in Hebrew?
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
I think I see what you are trying to say here, but think you are definitely wrong. It's funny how you can bend all around finding an example where singular didn't really mean singular to justify your belief, yet other places hold to something in the most strict way. Even though in this case it still works regarding what I believe. You know, it (Isaiah 53:1) could be shifting from the prophet speaking for YHWH, to speaking regarding those bringing the good news of salvation, as mentioned in Isaiah 52:7 and who has believed the message.
I enjoy watching how you ignore both content and grammar and dance from precedent. You asked about a use of a word and I provided it. I gave an explanation keeping in mind exactly what is writtenbut that isn't good enough and you would prefer another interpretation not justified by the text, only by the external need. Have fun with that.
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
I enjoy watching how you ignore both content and grammar and dance from precedent. You asked about a use of a word and I provided it. I gave an explanation keeping in mind exactly what is writtenbut that isn't good enough and you would prefer another interpretation not justified by the text, only by the external need. Have fun with that.

I don't think I am ignoring content and grammar. I pointed out content when I mentioned Isaiah 52:7 and the feet of those spreading the message of salvation and how Isaiah 53:1 refers to that and who would believe their message. And that doesn't conflict with grammar or precedent either one. And it is justified by the text.

I am ok with you finding precedent for use of a word. I just don't agree with how you are applying it in this case.

I would also like to ask you something else. Is the Hebrew word for renew the same exact word as it is for new?
 
Last edited:

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
I just don't see how any other law is possible here, let alone one that applies to non-Jews.

I think you might benefit by looking at what sages in the Kaballah tradition have to say. I'm not suggesting their dress code etc, but their words. Their words opened me to a side of Judaism I had never realized existed. I don't practice Judaism but I honor it more than I ever did before I read from Kaballah. Some examples:

“To me, religions are like languages: no language is true or false; all languages are of human origin; each language reflects and shapes the civilization that speaks it; there are things you can say in one language that you cannot say as well in another; and the more languages you learn, the more nuanced your understanding of life. Judaism is my mother tongue yet in matters of the spirit I strive to be multilingual. In the end, however, the deepest language of the soul is silence.” - Rabbi Rami Shapiro

The Torah is a historic tale about the exodus of the people of Israel from Egypt. But in fact, it unfolds man’s exit from a state of corporeal lowness, called Egypt, to his ascent to the state called The Land of Israel.

Moses, the author of the Torah, used a language named – The Language of the Branches. He used names of objects, feelings and actions of our world, but intended to point to objects in the spiritual world: supreme powers, secret forces, exits and entries of power, information and effects, including harmful ones. All that is portrayed as a historic tale about human development. In fact, human evolution corresponds to the Torah. The Torah describes a certain era in human development, but it actually refers to spiritual roots. - Rav Michael Laitman

“Aren’t all religions equally true? No, all religions are equally false. The relationship of religion to truth is like that of a menu to a meal. The menu describes the meal as best it can. It points to something beyond itself. As long as we use the menu as a guide we do it honor. When we mistake the menu for the meal, we do it and ourselves a grave injustice.” - Rabbi Rami Shapiro
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
I hear that in Judaism some say that with a new priesthood there is a change in law but even though there is a new priesthood in Jesus (Ps 110:4) it's not really a change of law since love is the summation of the Law.
With God's Spirit in a person to guide people and with people being guided by it, the law of God is fulfilled in even Gentiles who do not know what the Law says.

I almost hate to say anything because I have agreed with quite a bit you have said. But somehow there is some kind of change to the law as it says in Hebrews 7:12
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
They didn't add new laws though. That's the thing.

I guess I'm always going to be dissatisfied, as all answers necessasitate some change in a law that is called perfect and says not to add it take away from it.

I just don't see how any other law is possible here, let alone one that applies to non-Jews.

With the way you believe, how will Abraham ever be the father of many nations? How will scriptures that refer to the Gentiles also being God's people ever come about? In a roundabout way you are saying we are not, and never will be the people of God. Whereas your own scriptures said we would be.
 

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
In a roundabout way you are saying we are not, and never will be the people of God
Yes, because we are not. That is the Israelites. Non-Jews have the Noachide Law and are God's people in the sense of following and believing in him, but will never be as Israelites.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
'
I think you misunderstand how "ancient traditions" work. For example, Judaism has an ancient tradition that a day is a day and when the first Chrsitians spoke of Jesus' "rising" they didn't say it happened over 3000 years, but after 3 days. Explication comes about after the simpler reading, not instead of it. The many commandments which discuss the weekly cycle in terms of show bread, sacrifices etc don't speak of a time that will come in 6000 years -- they talk about a cycle of days in the text. A statement that Peter must have gotten his teaching from somewhere (in the absence of that actuial source) is not a particularly useful claim. When the rabbis discuss the computing of potential messianic eras you run into 2 problems -- one is that they are talking about a singular arrival, so any claim to Jesus' having been a messianic figure is, by defacto, invalidated. The second is that they don't see the times as being literal only after they see the text in its context as literal.

Any by the way, according to much ancient tradition, Hosea 6 doesn't mention a thousand of anything and isn't talking about years at all. "Days" there is a reference to the 2 destroyed temples and their exiles. The talmud does use it to talk about years, sort of:

Abaye said: The world will be destroyed for two thousand years, as it is stated: “After two days He will revive us” (Hosea 6:2). According to the opinion of Abaye that the destruction will be for two days, there is no connection between the future world and the day of Shabbat, which is only one day.

---------
there are a bunch of other talmudic citations about the verse, some of which talk about OUR resurrection after two days (not two thousand years) - check the Jerusalem talmud Sanhedrin, 11:6.

Well, you appear to be at odds with the views of Abaye, R. Kattina and Tanna debe Eliyyahu.

'R. Kattina said: Six thousand years shall the world exist, and one [thousand, the seventh], it shall be desolate, as it is written, And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day [Isaiah 2:11]. Abaye said: It will be desolate two [thousand], as it is said, After two days will he revive us: in the third day, he will raise us up, and we shall live in his sight. [Hosea 6:3]
It has been taught in accordance with R.Kattina: Just as the seventh year is one year of release in seven, so is the world: one thousand years out of seven shall be fallow, as it is written, And the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day, meaning the day that is altogether Sabbath - and it is also said, For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past [Psalm 90:4]
The tanna debe Eliyyahu teaches: The world is to exist six thousand years. In the first two thousand there was desolation; two thousand years the Torah flourished; and the next two thousand years is the Messianic era, [97b] but through our many iniquities all these years have been lost.'

Quite clearly, these teachers were using Genesis 1, together with other specific scriptures, to argue that God had a plan that would last seven days, each of a thousand years. All the scriptures that they use as evidence speak of 'that day' or a numbered day.

Using the principle of the parable, Jesus' resurrection on the third day does have an application in a wider sense. As tanna debe Eliyyahu teaches, the Messianic era was to last two thousand years, with the Sabbath following. If you apply this to Jesus' crucifixion, with the Sabbath day preceding resurrection [the 'new heaven and new earth'], you can count back three days to the crucifixion.

The passage in Hosea 5,6 is specifically about Ephraim [Israel] and Judah, and according to Hosea 5:15, it is God who will 'return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face:' Ephraim and Judah respond to this in Hosea 6:1-3, which suggests to me that for two thousand years [days 5,6 of the week] Ephraim and Judah are kept from their land, and that only when they are allowed to return do they begin to 'acknowledge their offence, and seek my face (Christ)'.

I agree that the Sabbath, day 7, is not the future world. The new heavens and new earth must follow the Sabbath, as did Jesus' resurrection. This is why the NT talks about a millennium of peace on earth following the return of Christ.[Revelation 20:6]
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
It isn't my opinion that matters -- some say it refers to Elijah (cf the Malbim והוא המלאך שיכניס את העולם בברית התורה והאמונה ובברית בינם לבין אלהים, וחז"ל פי' שזה אליהו מלאך הברית שיקדים לבא להשיב רבים מעון)
Your understanding of scripture is a matter of the utmost importance, IMO!

Do you think that the 'messenger of the covenant' is Elijah? Surely, that is more likely to be the 'messenger' who 'shall prepare the way before me'. [Malachi 3:1, Isaiah 40:3]
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
I believe traditionally in Judaism the messengers are succession of Kings to rule the Hebrews and the temple is a real temple.
There is a problem here. God does not build a temple made with stone. God only builds a spiritual temple.

David thought that God wanted him to build his temple, but was told otherwise. Solomon thought, as David's son, that he must be the one to build the temple, which he did. But the temple he built was only a temporary solution. God wanted the Son of David, and the Son of God, to build God's temple.

The everlasting temple is greater than the stone temple, and it's spiritual. Only God can build it. The cornerstone is Christ, according to scripture.
Psalm 118:22,23.

What do you make of 2 Chronicles 2:5,6?
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
I don't think I am ignoring content and grammar. I pointed out content when I mentioned Isaiah 52:7 and the feet of those spreading the message of salvation and how Isaiah 53:1 refers to that and who would believe their message. And that doesn't conflict with grammar or precedent either one. And it is justified by the text.
You are ignoring the explicit connections, the particular pronouns and nouns used and the structure of the entire section of the text. Then you isolate a phrase or a verse and connect it to another one and insist that they then, must be related.
I would also like to ask you something else. Is the Hebrew word for renew the same exact word as it is for new?
As a verb, there is a slightly different form of the ch-d-sh root, but there is no distinct adjectival form distinguishing between "new" and "renewed". It is understood from context.
 

Redemptionsong

Well-Known Member
I've come to the conclusion that I will never understand Christianity.

Judaism gives way more straightfoward answers.

This is my take.

Jesus was a Jew, but also the Son of God, who fulfilled the law in righteousness. This means not just the outward law, but the inward heart of the law. In other words, Jesus was holy. He came to die for the unholy, and offer a way of salvation. His way of salvation is to say, Piggyback on me! Take my Spirit, and join my flock. I'm the ark, enter in and avoid the flood!
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
'

Well, you appear to be at odds with the views of Abaye, R. Kattina and Tanna debe Eliyyahu.
So you are quoting medrash now and ignoring the talmudic quotes that are actually discussing these exact medrashim and show how this language has nothing to do with the sabbath. But, hey, if you want to look at medrash and decide that what it says must be a literal truth that you can apply, let me know -- there are many other medrashim that you might be interested in relying on when interpreting text. Are you buying, wholesale, into medrash, let me know. Of course, medrash doesn't ever mean that the literal/simple translation is wrong and rarely is the information in a medrash used to understand the message of a text on which it speaks, but you do you. Just to help out, the talmud also discusses the name of the messiah and the name Jesus isn't in there.

The passage in Hosea 5,6 is specifically about Ephraim [Israel] and Judah, and according to Hosea 5:15, it is God who will 'return to my place, till they acknowledge their offence, and seek my face:' Ephraim and Judah respond to this in Hosea 6:1-3, which suggests to me that for two thousand years [days 5,6 of the week] Ephraim and Judah are kept from their land, and that only when they are allowed to return do they begin to 'acknowledge their offence, and seek my face (Christ)'.
It is nice that it suggests something to you. Imagination is important.
 
Top