Simplelogic
Well-Known Member
Yes it does. Read the Psalm
-
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!
If Jesus spoke, ''father, why have you forsaken me'', then why would Xians worship the father?
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Sounds good to me!
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Except, it has been brought up elsewhere in the thread, not all the Gospels even contain these words, on the cross. Don't you think that something so monumental, as Jesus's faith being tested on the cross, would be in all the Gospels?
rosends
Well-Known Member
Ignoring the unicorn silliness, and the fact that if this was an intentional quote, you would think that the retellings of the event would agree and quote the text accurately (which they don't) I wonder why people insist on mistranslating verse 16 and inserting "they pierced" for the Hebrew word "ka'ari" which means "like a lion" (cf Numbers 24:9).
Simplelogic
Well-Known Member
"What causes such confusion is that the two Hebrew words for “pierced” and “lion” are remarkably similar. All that separates the two Hebrew words is the length of an upright vowel stroke. A majority of Hebrew manuscripts, from theMasoretic text, ofPsalm 22have the “lion” reading, while a minority of manuscripts contain the “pierced” reading. However, which reading is in the majority is not always the deciding factor in determining which reading is correct. For example, in theDead Sea Scrolls, which predate most other Hebrew texts by over a thousand years, note that the term is unmistakably “pierced.” In addition, the oldest Syriac, Vulgate, Ethiopic, and Arabic versions also go with “pierced.” The same is true in the Septuagint, the first Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, which was completed approximately 200 years before the birth of Christ.
So, even though the Hebrew manuscripts that say “lion” outnumber the manuscripts that say “pierced,” the older Hebrew manuscripts, and manuscripts in other languages that predate most of the Hebrew manuscripts, strongly argue for “pierced” being the correct reading. Those who argue for “lion” typically claim that “pierced” is a corruption, inserted by Christians, in an attempt to create a prophecy about Jesus. However, the fact that there are many manuscripts that predate Christianity that have the “pierced” reading disproves this concept. In fact, it is more likely that the “lion” reading in the Masoretic Hebrew text is the corruption, as the Masoretic manuscripts predominantly date to the 3rd and 4th centuries AD, after Christianity was established, giving the Jews a reason to conceal what the Hebrew Scriptures predict regarding Jesus Christ."
Read more:What is the correct translation of Psalm 22:16?
Simplelogic
Well-Known Member
I wonder why the DSS also says "pierced"??? Hey….weren't they written before Christianity??
rosends
Well-Known Member
as the DSS have no vowels, how do you propose that they have one version or the other if they are differentiated by "an upright vowel stroke"?
In fact, the early texts all had no vocalization. So how do you differentiate? And why do you cite other versions not in Hebrew when each is simply a translation of the Hebrew...unless you think that the Hebrew is not the original version and are claiming corruption in the Hebrew text and not agendized translation. Just say so.
Simplelogic
Well-Known Member
No. I actually defend the Masoretic texts and believe the LXX (known today) to be a largely fraudulent text. Many people try to suggest that Christians made up the "pierced" translation. The fact that this interpretation existed before the birthplace of Christianity disproves this claim. Not to mention the fact that if you simply read the chapter it is obvious that it is referring to a man who trusted God who would be rejected and persecuted for his zealousness. There are many more significant verses which lead many to believe that this chapter is referring to the same suffering servant of Isaiah 53.
Now, before you respond with declaring Isaiah 53 being "about Israel" I recommend you check out this link where I show the inconsistencies with this interpretation. You can find it here:
Debunking 365 Messianic Prophecies – Could Jesus be the servant of Isaiah 53? – Rabbi Michael Skobac | TRUTH2U Radio
I am Dave in the comments list.
rosends
Well-Known Member
TO my mind, 53 has been thoroughly and completely debunked as referring to an individual for so many reasons. Too often in that chain, you say things like "not buying it" or "imho" though my favorite is when you assert as proof a gospel quote which you then say is "irrefutable." You don't agree and start with a belief system which is opposed; you dismiss arguments to the contrary as poorly thought out, based, of course, in your personal assessment so as to discredit them and support your position by circular logic. That's your prerogative. It isn't novel or persuasive. It does show a lack of understanding of Hebrew and Judaism (regardless of your claim to have been born a Jew, your knowledge base seems mired in other people's thinking and your own misunderstanding of Judaic texts and methodology).
53 is actually not "53" but part of a continuum - a whole which establishes its imagery and religio/literary context well in advance of the portion in question.
Either way, the Hebrew text reads "ka'ari" and your citation from the DSS (not a "vowel stroke") is actually from another scroll which a) might have been digitally altered and b) has other mistakes on it. This helps support the belief that the caves were a genizah.
53 is actually not "53" but part of a continuum - a whole which establishes its imagery and religio/literary context well in advance of the portion in question.
Either way, the Hebrew text reads "ka'ari" and your citation from the DSS (not a "vowel stroke") is actually from another scroll which a) might have been digitally altered and b) has other mistakes on it. This helps support the belief that the caves were a genizah.
Simplelogic
Well-Known Member
If you are referring to Tovia Singer's arguments then I strongly disagree. The concept of Israel being "the servant" is completely illogical and has no leg to stand on. Regardless of whether you agree on it being about Yeshua or not. I am aware that there were no chapter breaks in Hebrew as well. If you are going o parrot Tovia Singer like the rest of the people I debate then stand by. His arguments are easy to defeat.
rosends
Well-Known Member
I don't have to parrot anyone's arguments. I can show plenty of examples in the text of Isaiah (for example, 41:8, 43:10, 44:1...) which explicitly identify the servant as Israel so claiming it is illogical is a position you should take up with Isaiah as it is a claim of which he would flatly disapprove. And the fact that you disagree with anyone's arguments isn't, on its own, an especially strong or persuasive statement.
Kolibri
Well-Known Member
It does not bother me at all that one gospel is not an exact duplicate of another. Each writer had a different background and a different intended audience or purpose in writing. All of these things required them to make choices of what to include. As John pointed out later:
"There are also, in fact, many other things that Jesus did, which if ever they were written in full detail, I suppose the world itself could not contain the scrolls written."
- John 21:25
Simplelogic
Well-Known Member
Verses in Isaiah which suggest that the servant is not Israel…what do you do with these?
-Israel is called blind and imprisoned (42:19)
-the servant will open the eyes of the blind and release prisoners (42:7)
-Israel is called deaf and is rebellious (42:19,20,25)
-the servant has opened ears and isn’t rebellious (50:5)
-Israel walks in darkness and looks for light (59:9)
-the servant brings people from out of the darkness and will be a light (42:7, 49:6)
-Israel is punished for their disobedience (42:24-25)
-the servant is rewarded for his obedience (49:4-6)
-Israel speaks lies (59:3)
-the servant has not spoken deceitfully (53:9)
-Israel has lost its way (59:7-8)
-the servant leads Israel back on track (49:5-6)
-Israel suffers for their own sins (42:25)
-the servant suffers for the sins of others (53:3-9)
-Israel suffers to their own shame (50:1-3)
-the servant suffers and knows he will not be ashamed (50:7)
-Israel is in need of salvation (59)
-the servant will bring salvation. (49:6)
-Israel needs an intercessor (59:16)
-the servant IS an intercessor (53:12)
rosends
Well-Known Member
Actually, he is talking to Isaiah in verse 6-7 speaking of what ISAIAH will do, not the servant.
Starting in verse 4, Isaiah is speaking in first person, so 50:5 isn't talking about the servant.
The servant WILL be a light etc. This is about the future. As stated above, 24:7 is about Isaiah.
Again, future tense.
53:9 is a continuation of a future prophecy starting in 52 speaking about the future realization by other nations that Israel suffered on their behalf and never said anything etc.
future tense again.
Nothing says that Israel ONLY suffers for its own sins. The nations in the future will understand Israel's role in a grander sense. Start with 52:13.
50:7 is Isaiah speaking.
IN THE FUTURE.
God in 59 sees no intercessor which will save Israel while 53 speaks of Israel's punishment being an intercessor on behalf of other nations.
This is all very basic stuff. You are ignoring that Israel is explicitly called the servant repeatedly.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Yeah. Doesn't bother me either, that they aren't duplicates. But this is a very important part of the narrative, if believed in the manner you have presented. This isn't like, what flavor bread someone ate for communion.
Kolibri
Well-Known Member
All I was expressing was that w/o added information it could have gone either way. We do know that the Psalm he could have been quoting from was reported to have fulfillments on or around this time, some that he would have had no ability to influence one way or another.
Servant_of_the_One1
Well-Known Member
This saying proves islam to be right.
For example we believe someone else died on the cross. It makes sense if that person(traitor) uttered such words. He believed he was forsaken by God while he is follower of monotheism. Monotheism cannot help you when you betray the messenger of God and tell the romans and jews where jesus pbuh is staying.
But why should Jesus pbuh utter such words when we know from christianity they believe jesus pbuh sacrificed himself for the sins of mankind, in that case he should have said: God the Father, Glory and praise be to you for choosing me to die for the sins of mankind". Or if Jesus pbuh is himself god, he should have said: Verily I am going to die for your original sin! Sayonara!
You get the point
For example we believe someone else died on the cross. It makes sense if that person(traitor) uttered such words. He believed he was forsaken by God while he is follower of monotheism. Monotheism cannot help you when you betray the messenger of God and tell the romans and jews where jesus pbuh is staying.
But why should Jesus pbuh utter such words when we know from christianity they believe jesus pbuh sacrificed himself for the sins of mankind, in that case he should have said: God the Father, Glory and praise be to you for choosing me to die for the sins of mankind". Or if Jesus pbuh is himself god, he should have said: Verily I am going to die for your original sin! Sayonara!
You get the point
Simplelogic
Well-Known Member
There are numerous servants mentioned in Isaiah. You are dismissing this fact. The future tense does not solidify the mainstream Jewish notion of this being about Israel. You are also dismissing the fact that God says that He was "pleased to crush Him". Does this mean that God was pleased to bring disaster amongst the Jewish people? You are also dismissing the fact that this servants suffering will bring restoration to others (vicariously if you will). Can you explain to me how Israel's punishment results in the restoration of others? Like I said in the other thread earlier. This logic is so convoluted that it completely distorts God's role and the way He restores His people. Yes, it does get rid of the "Yeshua dilemma" but it actually causes MANY more theological problems in the process.
It is also important to note that the majority of ancient Rabbi's believed that this verse was pertaining to A MAN…not Israel. Rashi was the first one to really champion the concept of Israel being the servant and Tovia Singer has based his logic off of Rashi's commentary. Obviously, this concept was only created to delegitimize Yeshua as a potential messiah. Even though it causes us to believe that God was responsible for the Shoah and every other tragedy of the Jewish people. Very sad. It is truly a desperate attempt to hide the obvious in the text which almost all ancient Rabbi's clearly understood.
rosends
Well-Known Member
That's your assertion. It is unsubstantiated, but you are allowed to make stuff up if you want.
When the text speaks in the future about Israel's role and explicitly identifies the servant with Israel (all those verses you have ignored) then, yes, yes it does solidify the notion.
Actually, the text means "wanted/wished" not "pleased." God wished to crush the people to inspire them to return and repent. The next phrase follows with the effect brought about by the cause.
Israel's suffering will show others the wages of sin and inspire them to return as well. Israel's punishment does help pay for the sins of others (until the Messiah comes and people realize that tey have only blossomed by virtue of Israel's suffering). You don't have to like it, but it has been around as a thread of Jewish thought for a lot longer than you have been worrying about it.
I find this very troubling. Are you saying that God was NOT responsible for the Holocaust? Are you saying that things happen in the world outside of God's power?
arthra
Baha'i
There are two possible answers that I see for this issue..
(1) Is that while He was on the cross Jesus made a short hand reference to Psalm 22 by uttering the first words:
All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8 He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.
9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.
10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou art my God from my mother's belly.
11 Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help.
12 Many bulls have compassed me: strong bulls of Bashan have beset me round.
13 They gaped upon me with their mouths, as a ravening and a roaring lion.
14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint: my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou hast brought me into the dust of death.
16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I may tell all my bones: they look and stare upon me.
18 They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.
19 But be not thou far from me, O Lord: O my strength, haste thee to help me.
While on the cross He would not have had breath to recite the entire Psalm. It also refers to the human side of Jesus while being crucified.
(2) Another possible explanation according to Aramaic scholar George Lamsa is that the Lord actually uttered the words:
"My God, my God, for this I was spared!"
Last edited: