Isaiah 53 and Human Sin

[blü 2]

You keep saying, 'despite what your own text tells you', without supplying the text!

For a start I gave you the text for Mark's Jesus not being the son of God till adopted at his baptism on the model of Psalm 2:7 as confirmed in Acts 13:33; that his birth was not foretold; that he wasn't descended from David.

Did you read any of those? You're certainly not acting like you did,

 

[Redemptionsong]

So if someone says "I was told by God to say the following" then that person isn't the subject of prophecy? OK. Well then, this must really limit your understanding of Is 42 (and possibly Jer 51). But whatever floats your boat.


Why is that vanity? Isaiah is proclaiming his mission. You are labeling that vanity? And why should it have the "backing" (whatever you mean by that) of anyone else? He has his mission, they have theirs. Now you are judging Isaiah's motives and telling other prophets their job. That's a bit arrogant.

You have a strange idea of what prophecy is then. (This, I already know, because you insist that all text is prophetic.) The prophet gives the message he is commanded to give. It might be about past, present or future. If it includes information about the prophet then the prophet speaks it. And, no, they don't speak of "his Christ" except for Moses who does speak of false prophets...



Remember, the words are important -- so when the text uses words that, if read consistently, speak of Abraham, then the text is about Abraham whether you like it or not. The biblical text uses the word "adoni" for Abraham and the word in Ps 110 is adoni. Unless you think that that is some sort of coincidence. And what's all this about "everlasting glory"? I don't see that in Ps 110 (or Daniel 7:14).

And "salvation"? What are you talking about? Is 61 has the prophet proclaim his mission -- to give people the news of future redemption and victory. "Arm of salvation"? If you make things up, you end up with a mass of confusion, and you have that in spades.

You say here, 'Remember, the words are important -- so when the text uses words that, if read consistently, speak of Abraham, then the text is about Abraham whether you like it or not. The biblical text uses the word "adoni" for Abraham and the word in Ps 110 is adoni. Unless you think that that is some sort of coincidence. And what's all this about "everlasting glory"? I don't see that in Ps 110 (or Daniel 7:14).'

I'd like to examine what you say.

Does the text use the word 'adoni' to refer to Abraham in Psalm 110:1? This is an important issue to resolve.

In Genesis 24, Abraham is spoken about as 'my master' (adon) by his servant. So a hierarchy of 'masters' is evident in scripture, with the LORD God seated on the throne above all angels and men. Where in this hierarchy does Abraham stand? Well, in Genesis 18:12, we are told that Sarah called Abraham 'my lord'. Yet, in 18:3, Abraham bows himself before the 'three men', calling one of them 'My Lord' [see 18:27, where, in comparison with the Lord, Abraham is but 'dust and ashes']. So, this proves that a 'Lord' (adon) exists between Abraham and the LORD. This, in turn, demonstrates that the one seated at the right hand of the LORD in heaven is not Abraham! If Abraham has a Lord that is not the LORD, then a mediator exists between the LORD and Abraham.

Now, let me ask you this: Is it possible to see God? In Exodus 33:20 it says, 'But," He [the LORD] said, "you cannot see My face, for man may not see Me and live" ' [JPS]. However, in Exodus 24:10 it says, 'they saw the God of Israel', which would be strange if it were a vision, given that 'Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy elders of Israel' all saw the God of Israel at the same time! How do you explain this?

If we apply the readings of the Torah to the book of Psalms then we have an issue. Abraham, who is become 'dust and ashes', cannot be the Lord to whom he himself bows down! And is the Lord of Genesis 18:27 not also the LORD with whom he has a conversation?

The only way in which these apparent inconsistencies can be resolved is by understanding 'the face of God' to be 'the glory of God' and this means that the Lord can come to earth, as Christ.

 

[rosends]

Does the text use the word 'adoni' to refer to Abraham in Psalm 110:1? This is an important issue to resolve.

You are puting the cart before the horse. Psalm 110 uses the word "adoni" and doesn't name the subject. So biblical explanation gives us a number of techniques to use -- one, which you pointed out, is that the choice of words is intentional. So we look to see who else (whose exploits fit the content of the verse) was spoken to using the same word. In this case, Abraham, who was involved with Malkitzedek (named in the Psalm) was called Adoni (cf Gen 23:6). All the rest of your gymnastics, trying to use your own series of (il)logical leaps to piece together any conclusion you need to find cannot compare to what the words actually say.

In Genesis 24, Abraham is spoken about as 'my master' (adon) by his servant. So a hierarchy of 'masters' is evident in scripture, with the LORD God seated on the throne above all angels and men. Where in this hierarchy does Abraham stand? Well, in Genesis 18:12, we are told that Sarah called Abraham 'my lord'. Yet, in 18:3, Abraham bows himself before the 'three men', calling one of them 'My Lord' [see 18:27, where, in comparison with the Lord, Abraham is but 'dust and ashes']. So, this proves that a 'Lord' (adon) exists between Abraham and the LORD. This, in turn, demonstrates that the one seated at the right hand of the LORD in heaven is not Abraham! If Abraham has a Lord that is not the LORD, then a mediator exists between the LORD and Abraham.

A couple of notes -- one is that a "hierarchy of masters" is an invention of yours. You think it is evident. That's on you, not the text. Next, 18:3 doesn't have the word adoni, but by invoking 18:12 you simply reinforce that the word refers to Abraham. Good job. 18:27 has God speaking with Abraham and Abraham compares himself to God (called NOT adoni in the verse...check the vowels).

Now, let me ask you this: Is it possible to see God? In Exodus 33:20 it says, 'But," He [the LORD] said, "you cannot see My face, for man may not see Me and live" ' [JPS]. However, in Exodus 24:10 it says, 'they saw the God of Israel', which would be strange if it were a vision, given that 'Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy elders of Israel' all saw the God of Israel at the same time! How do you explain this?

Because you don't understand what it means to see God's "face" -- it doesn't mean to speak with God "face-to-face" because Moses could do that and yet he was only able to see God's "back". If you want to conflate complex ideas into simple words, that's on you.

If we apply the readings of the Torah to the book of Psalms then we have an issue. Abraham, who is become 'dust and ashes', cannot be the Lord to whom he himself bows down! And is the Lord of Genesis 18:27 not also the LORD with whom he has a conversation?

That's true and it only seems so because you are confused about the Hebrew.

 

[Redemptionsong]

For a start I gave you the text for Mark's Jesus not being the son of God till adopted at his baptism on the model of Psalm 2:7 as confirmed in Acts 13:33; that his birth was not foretold; that he wasn't descended from David.

Did you read any of those? You're certainly not acting like you did,

I've read all your posts, but I want to condense the issues to a manageable discussion.

To your understanding, Jesus is either the son of David or the son of God, but to my understanding he is BOTH.

You appear to accept, from various texts you have quoted, that Jesus fulfilled prophecies to be the son of God. This is certainly the view expressed by Luke in Acts 13:30-37. Here it refers not only to Psalm 2:7 but also to Psalm 16:10 as being fulfilled in Jesus Christ. If, therefore, you accept that Jesus was the son of God, all I need to show is the evidence for his being the son of David, according to the flesh.

The genealogies of Matthew and Luke now become salient to the argument. In Matthew's Gospel, we have the royal line of descent from Abraham, through David. This is the line through to Joseph, the supposed father of Jesus. On it's own, it does not show that Jesus is the son of David because, as we know from the nativity record, Mary was a virgin.

Luke's genealogy is the genealogy of Mary. If you wonder why her name does not appear in the list it is because women do not appear in these genealogies. So, instead of using Mary's name they begin the genealogy with the name of her husband, Joseph. Then, to make the connection back to Mary, they call Joseph 'of Heli' meaning 'son-in-law of Heli'. This is slightly confusing because the text of the KJV has 'son of' in italics. The words 'son of' do not exist in the Greek original.

So, from the name of Heli, Mary's father, we follow the line of David through his son, Nathan. Nathan was a son of David, but not of the royal line. So Mary is descended from David, but not in the royal line. How, therefore, does one get legitimacy from Joseph's royal line? The answer is by marriage. When Mary married Joseph, their child became 'a royal'. But, Jesus was not royal after Joseph's succession, but after the combination of two genealogies. This is important, because, according to Jeremiah 22:30 no descendant of Jeconiah, mentioned in Joseph's genealogy [Matthew 1:11,12], could sit upon the throne of David.

There you have it.

 

[blü 2]

I've read all your posts, but I want to condense the issues to a manageable discussion.

Yes, but the question was whether you looked at the text references I gave you, and if you did, why did you accuse me of not giving them?

To your understanding, Jesus is either the son of David or the son of God

No, that's not what I said.

As to Jesus being the son of God, Mark's Jesus is the son of God by adoption, Matthew's Jesus and Luke's Jesus are the son of God by divine insemination ie they have God's Y-chomosome, and Paul's and John's Jesuses are the envoys of God, having previously dwelt in heaven with God.

As to Jesus being descended from David, Mark's is explicitly not, Matthew's and Luke's can't be since their (absurd) genealogies don't relate to Jesus' father but to Joseph, and Paul's and John's are each said to be descended from David without explanation.

but to my understanding he is BOTH.

As I've been at pains to make clear, there is not one Jesus in the NT but five.

You appear to accept, from various texts you have quoted, that Jesus fulfilled prophecies to be the son of God.

No, what I said is set out above. No version of Jesus can fulfill any prophecies because Jesus is never mentioned in the Tanakh and in no way resembles a Jewish messiah.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't know what that even means.

Literally nowhere.

You know this isn't true, right? A significant percentage of the world is Christian, to be sure, but a significant percentage of the world is non-Christian, as well.

Then there was that time he tried to evade the Judean IRS. And that time he went crazy on the Temple Mount. And that time he used sorcery for "miracles". And that time he was rude to his family. Yep, a big ol' bundle of morals. What are those in your eyes? --The price of peace? And here I thought that price was actually the dozens of Christian wars the world has seen, the mass killings and pogroms and all that. What's your excuse - that those people weren't really Christians?

What's your excuse for being rude? That I'm not really a Jew?

 

[BilliardsBall]

So the priests' wives and children and family and friends were all messiahs for the same reason, eh? Gosh, I didn't know that!
You seem to think antisemitism was confined to the RCC. No, the Protestants were dab hands at it too! And wasn't there a movement just a few years ago to remove the out-loud antisemitic parts of Orthodox liturgy?

No, antisemitism is as Christian as apple pie. It started with John (eg but not only John 8:44) and seldom looked back.

Only 7 persons were anointed with oil in the OT. And kings needn't be anointed except in precipitous times.

Jesus is KING by birth.

Yeshua wasn't antisemitic--he told the truth to the rabbis in John 8. Acts says many of them trusted Christ after the resurrection!

 

[blü 2]

Only 7 persons were anointed with oil in the OT. And kings needn't be anointed except in precipitous times.

Jesus is KING by birth.

None of the five versions of Jesus in the NT is a king.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Because you don't understand what it means to see God's "face" -- it doesn't mean to speak with God "face-to-face" because Moses could do that and yet he was only able to see God's "back". If you want to conflate complex ideas into simple words, that's on you.

The question is whether the LORD comes to earth, and takes upon Himself an appearance. It would not be possible for an omnipresent God to come to earth without remaining transcendent. So the one that comes to earth must be the 'likeness of God' or 'face of God'. In Numbers 12:5-8, we have such an appearance: 'The LORD came down in a pillar of cloud, stopped at the entrance to the Tent, and called out, "Aaron and Miriam!" The two of them came forward; and He said, "Hear these My words: When a prophet of the LORD arises among you, I make myself known to him in a vision, I speak to him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; he is trusted throughout My household. With him I speak mouth to mouth, plainly and not in riddles, and he beholds the likeness of the LORD.'

What is 'the likeness of the LORD', if not Christ?

 

[Harel13]

What's your excuse for being rude? That I'm not really a Jew?

I don't believe I have ever doubted your Judaic status. Nor have I ever complained about your very incorrect usage of tems such as Rabbi Yeshua and Rabbi Shaul (though I have debated you in on the usage). I'm not being rude. I simply state Christianity like I see it. But if you think it's rude, you may of course report it and the staff will deal with it as they see fit (I will of course abstain from the discussion).

 

[rosends]

The question is whether the LORD comes to earth, and takes upon Himself an appearance.

Why is that the question? Why would anyone think of that as a relevant question? Weird.

So the one that comes to earth must be the 'likeness of God' or 'face of God'. In Numbers 12:5-8, we have such an appearance: 'The LORD came down in a pillar of cloud, stopped at the entrance to the Tent, and called out, "Aaron and Miriam!" The two of them came forward; and He said, "Hear these My words: When a prophet of the LORD arises among you, I make myself known to him in a vision, I speak to him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses; he is trusted throughout My household. With him I speak mouth to mouth, plainly and not in riddles, and he beholds the likeness of the LORD.'

God appears on earth in a variety of ways (though I don't know what "likeness of God" is supposed to mean). The people at Sinai had national revelation and saw thunder and lightning and heard God's voice. Abraham sensed God and spoke with him. Jacob spoke to him "face to face" (same phrase as Moses) and yet no one saw God's. Isaiah saw visions as if they were refelctions in a mirror or through a screen (that's the language of the Chizkuni (היינו באספקלריה שאינה מאירה. אספקלריא מחיצה). Ex 33 says that there is a level of understanding God that no one who is human can reach, and that even if a human were to see God in some sense, that human could not appreciate the true glory of God because of limitations on human perception. The finite can not truly appreciate the infinite. I recomend the Rabbeinu Bahye on Ex 33:20 for more explanation.

What is 'the likeness of the LORD', if not Christ?

Isn't the "likeness of God" the image in which all men were created? That's what the text says in Gen 1:26, 27

 

[wellwisher]

Ahm, Isaiah 53 is about the "Suffering Servant", the nation of Israel, and has nothing to do with messiahs or Jesus.

If you have any doubt about it, ask your Jewish friends ─ it's their book, after all.

In Isaiah 50, the mother of the suffering servant is sent away. This is not Jesus, since Mary was always with him even after he died on the cross.

The suffering Servant is also the sensible slave whose master; Jesus, put in charge to get things ready for the masters arrival. This Servant is spoken of in the New Testament and in Revelations. He prepares the way for the second coming of Jesus.

After Jesus dies and goes to heaven, there is a political battle in heaven between Satan; Lord of the Earth and Jesus; son of God, with law and the tree of knowledge go good and evil on the line. Satan was still condoned in Heaven up through these political battles. Eventually this leads to a war in heaven and Satan and the third of the Angles are expelled. Satan is no longer condoned by God.

At this time transitional time in revelations, there is a Divine Women in heaven, who is labor about to give birth. Satan is there ready to devour her child, as soon as it is born. She gives birth to a son, who is caught up to the throne of God and protected. Her son will be the suffering servant, who has to evolve in isolation; with no mother and nobody accepts him, until he finally appears as the White Horseman; prepares the way.

The White Horseman has a golden crown; ring of marriage on his head to God. He has a bow and arrow, and goes forth conquering and to conquer, passing in safety by a path he does not traverse with his feet. The bow and arrow is a long distance weapon that can hit a target from far away. He is not obvious, while his color is white; connection to heaven. As the Red horseman, he has a sword; two edged sword. This is more about close in fighting, where the Servant become more noticeable. The prophesy drama has to unfold with the sensible slave ready, when the time is right.

 

[Redemptionsong]

No version of Jesus can fulfill any prophecies because Jesus is never mentioned in the Tanakh and in no way resembles a Jewish messiah.

Saying that 'Jesus is never mentioned in the Tanakh' is a mantra of yours, and, IMO, simply demonstrates a blindness to what is made obvious by the light of the NT.

The first point worth discussing is what you call 'a Jewish Messiah'. We both know that an understanding of who the Messiah is comes from scripture. The Jewish Messiah was expected by many Jews two thousand years ago. The Messiah that was expected did not come [see Talmudic discussions - Sanhedrin 97b]. Was that because the predictions were wrong, or was it because their 'picture' of the Messiah was wrong?

Christians have a very different outlook on the Messiah because the NT reveals the Suffering Servant as the fulfilment of the first advent. The return of the Suffering Servant as King of Kings is still future.

Torah Jews, who reject Jesus as the Suffering Servant, have all the Suffering Servant prophecies to explain. Many of these prophecies are explained by saying that the Suffering Servant is the nation of Israel. The problem with that explanation is that it doesn't cover many prophecies relating to the Suffering Servant. For example, Bethlehem is mentioned as the birth place of the 'ruler of Israel' [Micah 5:2, KJV]. Malachi 3:1 tells us about the coming of a prophet who prepares the way for 'the messenger of the covenant'. Zechariah 9:9 mentions the King coming 'lowly, and riding on an ***', as describing the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem. Psalm 22 describes the crucifixion, and begins with words spoken by Jesus on the cross. Jesus describes Jonah as a sign of the resurrection, Jonah rising after three days and nights 'in sheol'. And in Isaiah we have numerous references including ch.53.

For Christians, absolute confirmation of Jesus as the one anointed to be Messiah is Isaiah 61. Jesus read a portion of Isaiah 61 in the synagogue in Nazareth [Luke 4:16], and in doing so, he intentionally stopped his reading at the point where it says, 'and the day of vengeance of our God'. No one, attempting to write Jesus into scripture, could have possibly known that Jesus would take this passage from Isaiah and divide it into two 'advents'. In Isaiah, the Messianic passages always conflate the two advents, thereby offering Israel the chance to accept their Messiah.

So to say that Jesus is not present in the Tanakh, except in name, is nonsense.

 

[Redemptionsong]

God appears on earth in a variety of ways (though I don't know what "likeness of God" is supposed to mean). The people at Sinai had national revelation and saw thunder and lightning and heard God's voice. Abraham sensed God and spoke with him. Jacob spoke to him "face to face" (same phrase as Moses) and yet no one saw God's. Isaiah saw visions as if they were refelctions in a mirror or through a screen (that's the language of the Chizkuni (היינו באספקלריה שאינה מאירה. אספקלריא מחיצה). Ex 33 says that there is a level of understanding God that no one who is human can reach, and that even if a human were to see God in some sense, that human could not appreciate the true glory of God because of limitations on human perception. The finite can not truly appreciate the infinite. I recomend the Rabbeinu Bahye on Ex 33:20 for more explanation.

I agree that God can appear on earth in a variety of ways. God appears as an angel, 'the angel of the LORD', and there is no doubt that he appears as a man, because that is what Abraham experienced at Mamre. Abraham even bowed down before the three men coming towards his tent. Then Abraham prepared food for the three men, and they ate! [Genesis 18:8]. So, not only did the LORD appear as a man, he also ate food given him by Abraham.

Solomon considers the possibility that God might come to dwell on earth as a man. In 1 Kings 8:27, whilst Solomon is contemplating the building of the temple, he asks, 'But will God indeed dwell on the earth?'. What Solomon does not realise is that the building of the everlasting temple of God is not the job of man! It is for God alone to build the everlasting spiritual temple, and this means providing the one to build it - who is, of course, Christ. And is the everlasting temple a temple of stone? Certainly not, for the temple God builds is constructed 'without hands'. As it says in Psalm 127:1, 'Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it:'

 

[rosends]

The first point worth discussing is what you call 'a Jewish Messiah'. We both know that an understanding of who the Messiah is comes from scripture. The Jewish Messiah was expected by many Jews two thousand years ago. The Messiah that was expected did not come [see Talmudic discussions - Sanhedrin 97b]. Was that because the predictions were wrong, or was it because their 'picture' of the Messiah was wrong?

Seriously, you have already shown a lack of understanding of biblical text -- please don't try to represent the talmud. You simply don't understand how it operates and what it is saying.
The first line actually addresses your question

and eleven lines up from the medium lines is the spot that the Rambam actually codifies as normative practice and understanding which addresses other issues.

If you can't read the whole thing, don't try to take a little bit and make a case out of it.

 

[Muffled]

There seem to be two ways of understanding Isaiah 53 in the context of sin:

1) Jesus paid for human sin
2) A righteous remnant of Israel/Jewish people atones for sin

Is there a passage(s) in Tanakh that describes how sin may be atoned for without an animal sacrifice (not punishment or repayment but actual atonement)?

Is there a passage(s) in Tanakh that describes how a human may atone for another human's sin?

Thank you.

I believe there is a place where God says He will provide Himself the sacrifice. I just don't remember where.

 

[Muffled]

Ahm, Isaiah 53 is about the "Suffering Servant", the nation of Israel, and has nothing to do with messiahs or Jesus.

If you have any doubt about it, ask your Jewish friends ─ it's their book, after all.

I believe Jews are prejudiced because they missed it and feel guilty that they did.

 

[Muffled]

They do, I'm afraid. They're still Jews, without the NT's lead in their saddle bags.

And even the better kind of Christian scholarship knows that Isaiah 53 is about the nation of Israel as 'the Suffering Servant'.

In my opinion such scholars are the worst because they can't even read and understand English.

 

[rosends]

I agree that God can appear on earth in a variety of ways. God appears as an angel, 'the angel of the LORD', and there is no doubt that he appears as a man, because that is what Abraham experienced at Mamre.

Sure there is doubt and that's not Abraham experienced. The text is very precise about exactly what happened that day and it isn't as you present it. The three men are identified in the text not as God but as men so why do you assume otherwise? And when angels show up, why do you assume God is appearing as an angel? Why not just accept that angels exist?

Abraham even bowed down before the three men coming towards his tent. Then Abraham prepared food for the three men, and they ate! [Genesis 18:8]. So, not only did the LORD appear as a man, he also ate food given him by Abraham.

see? When you start with an error, you end up compounding the error. Because the three men weren't God, their eating has no reflection on God.

Solomon considers the possibility that God might come to dwell on earth as a man. In 1 Kings 8:27, whilst Solomon is contemplating the building of the temple, he asks, 'But will God indeed dwell on the earth?'.

And he answers his question. His question was whether God could be contained within a physical place on earth is he cannot be contained in the heavens.

What Solomon does not realise is that the building of the everlasting temple of God is not the job of man!

God told Solomon to build the temple (verse 19).

It is for God alone to build the everlasting spiritual temple

Oh, look -- another invention..."spiritual temple" as if that's a thing!

, and this means providing the one to build it - who is, of course, Christ. And is the everlasting temple a temple of stone? Certainly not, for the temple God builds is constructed 'without hands'. As it says in Psalm 127:1, 'Except the LORD build the house, they labour in vain that build it:'

127 says nothing about "without hands" and you really should read the Ibn Ezra and the Radak on the verse -- I can paste them here if you want. Or maybe you should take it literally the way you are and quit your job because God will provide everything for you while you sleep (verse 2).

 

[rosends]

I believe Jews are prejudiced because they missed it and feel guilty that they did.

and I believe Christians are prejudiced beause they need to justify their inventions and feel worried that they can't. Aren't beliefs great?