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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Oh, so to support your belief in the rectitude of the reading of Christianity, you cite the Christian bible. Got it.
Specifically Jacob son of Abraham, doesn't say the rest.
Helps if you read the line before it, that states The Gentiles (הגוים) are the servant in that instance... As if you read on, you see that:
They do say 'And Israel' is the servant...So 2 out of 4 isn't bad.
Isa 52:10 Yahweh has made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God (Yeshuat Eloheinu).
No, you are talking about what you see as "veiled" and subject to your reading as informed by Christianity. In the Hebrew, the words are different. In the Hebrew, the references are clear. You have decided Abraham's thought process and God's intent which are NOT in the text. God made a promise and God made a request. The two must have seemed contradictory to Abraham and that's why this was explicitly referred to in the text as a test (22:1). How could Abraham reconcile the two ideas? Through absolute faith. That's the whole point.
2 problems -- one, if it does mean only Jacob, that doesn't refute my point that the text explicitly identifies Jacob as the servant, not Jesus. Two, the text is addressing Jacob, and yet was written well after Jacob died. So unless it refers to a ghost, it must refer to the seed of Abraham (even though Jacob was actually the seed of Isaac).
No, the nations come forward to present testimony accepting what was said 2 verses earlier, that God made everyone. But if you go back and read from verse 1, when God speaks, he is addressing the nation of Israel. So after the nations present their testimony that God is the God of all, God looks at Jacob/Israel and speaks to them as their servant.
Exactly -- you have just confirmed that God is identifying the servant with Jacob/the people. Perfect. Thank you.
So? The phrase is unrelated to a person. No one is named. Note that in the English translation you quoted, the words are "the salvation of". Not a person. Next.
So Jesus is an arm? You have just made the claim that he is a zro'a. I mean, that's the word the text uses and you have decided that that arm points to Jesus. Wait, are you saying that any phrase that uses the word "yeshu'a" (different from the Hebrew name many ascribe to Jesus, Yehoshua, and its textually precedented nickname, Yeishu'a) that refers to Jesus? Brilliant.
Do you even read what you write?Basically we couldn't get more specific, the reference in Isaiah 52:10 thus identifies him by name in a symbolic sense, and that he is the right arm of Yah-Avah.
Whoever told you this never checked. The word in Isaiah is "mishchat"and in Leviticus, "mashchatam". Other words related to those two are mashcheto (his damage, in Ezekiel), "mashchat" (blemished, in Malachi 1:14 and Proverbs 25:26). All seem etymologially to be connected to mashchit, harm/wound which appears 19 times in the Tanach.The 'marred' bit (Isaiah 52:14), if you check the concordance is the word 'blemished', only used elsewhere in Leviticus 22:25 to mean an unclean offering.
Blind and absolute faith. God says jump, you say "how high." The talmud actually commends Abraham for this and criticizes Moses for asking for proofs (Sanhedrin 111a).
What about God. Do you think God commands Abraham to jump just to see Abraham jump?
God commands him to give Abraham the chance to ask "how high".
lol, ok then
We're dealing with the God of the living, not the dead.... Therefore the spirit of Jacob is still alive.
Again you're encompassing every 'servant' statement as being the same, and the end clause shows why you're being so sloppy....
It states Israel you won't be forgotten, not that you can suddenly make Israel the servant, when in the same chapter it is saying they're a curse.
Doesn't need to be a person, it is metaphoric as Yeshua was Yah-Avah's right arm.
Yah-Avah is the Lord (H3050) To Be (H1933 H1934).
Hadn't you already noticed this, since you read the Hebrew?
The text has multiple different qualifying points to show the symbolism; if you don't get it, maybe try studying.
Not plural, and plural.... Thus the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53, not plural.
Thank you for being helpful, will check the additional references.
No one “suddenly” does anything. The text has made it clear repeatedly and your claim that “servant” refers to the nations means you haven’t been reading. The servant deserves a curse because of its behavior. Various texts also equate the nation with “God’s child” but a disobedient child can be a curse. There is no contradiction. Simply put, no where does the text identify the servant with anyone else.
Studying? You mean like in the Hebrew to keep proving you wrong. Been there, done that.
Plural and not plural? Your claim was two fold:Not plural, and plural.... Thus the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53, not plural.
Agreed, it does say Israel is the 'servant' there; then we continue to Isaiah 49:7, where it has 'the man who is despised' as we find referenced in Isaiah 53:3, defined separately to Israel.
Quit with the ego, try to understand the text, not how you can make yourself into something...If it specifies Jacob, be grateful it does that.
Because I've shown already that some of the statements are not Israel the people, and because you argue against it, you think that automatically reinstates your original opinion.
Isaiah 20:3 (Isaiah) - Isaiah 22:20 (Eliakim the son of Hilkiah) - Isaiah 37:5 (servants of king Hezekiah) - Isaiah 37:35 (David) - Isaiah 41:8 (Jacob)
Nope it is slightly more than that, Yeshua was physically seen, and offered people salvation; just as the text implied...It is just lack of comprehension that could cause it to be misunderstood.
Posted the Strongs reference numbers to show where they come from; it is my choice to spell it like that, so it is clearer.
Guess you're missing half the metaphors in the Tanakh, if you don't realize even place names are symbolism.
Zechariah 3 is about Yehoshua by name; yet we were talking about Isaiah 53, where you were confused about where it referenced him by name.
Semitic languages have root consonants; think how Yeshua would have read it, and see his name referenced, then try applying that logic.
The New Testament quotes it because of them reasons.
Sorry, yet so far you haven't; instead I'm embarrassed for you, at how argumentative you are, without really noticing how flawed many of your arguments are.
I've looked up all the other references, surprising how many times 'to anoint' is spelled exactly the same in Hebrew.
It was hardly strange, in Leviticus it is referring to plural usage of different animals having a blemish, and therefore being unclean...
Still waiting for you to post a face palm smiley, to see if you actually listen or just argue.
A single face palm just won’t do it.
Good thing I never said “all the way through”.
Semitic languages have root consonants; think how Yeshua would have read it, and see his name referenced, then try applying that logic.
The New Testament quotes it because of them reasons.
LoL, what do you think this is WWE wrestling.
So do you not believe in Gilgul (reincarnation) or that the Saints are raised up to God, to be as Elohim?
This is your own lack of comprehension, Isaiah 52:10 states Yeshua is the right arm of Yah-Avah.
Yeshua was seen precisely as the text stated throughout the Tanakh, just before the 2nd temple destruction, diaspora, Abomination of Desolation, etc.
Personally using Esword, which still has the Hebrew texts searchable with out vowel points, so can see how the language was originally written...
hvh is the full root of the word; and don't like the English when people are pronouncing Yah, havvah, as they've gone into a word meaning destruction (H1942)...
You've not really shown things false, you're just missing what is going on, and assuming it is some normal battle.
Because you're not aware that most of the 18 usages of Yeshuah/Yeshuat within Isaiah, are metaphors for the Salvation of Yah-Avah being made physically manifest.
True, I'm only learning the alphabet at the moment...
Yeshua isn't a separate theology; Christianity is tho...The usage by them, was based on a first century understanding of the Tanakh.
It isn't my theology, this is your book; I'm just trying to understand it based on what is there.
Isaiah 53:10 (H817 אשׁם) - 'âshâm is to make atonement for sin...
Yes, that is why it asked do you believe in either of them?
When we realize it isn't a person that the Tanakh implies, it is Yah-Avah in person who shall do these things...Yeshua/Yah-Avah is son of the Most High (Elyon).
The prophets interact as one book, when we realize this, it shows that something outside of time interlinked it all.
In English; not in Hebrew...The sound travels, as it should Yah-h▼▲h-Avah.
As saying, as we start to understand all the prophecies in the Tanakh, they make the most Amazing Work I've ever seen in a text created over thousands of years in-between.
Not really started teaching Hebrew grammar; pointed out that Yeshua is a symbolic reference throughout the Tanakh, that any child can see, as it is all pictures.
The 3 shepherds were cut off, the flock was slaughtered (Zechariah 11), the people no longer with guidance, and when someone comes along with a spot light, the reaction is to shout, "turn out that bright light".
It helps explain a religion by what it believes, not by going to outside sources.
As we've already discussed the 'blemish' is mentioned because of sacrificial laws (Isaiah 52:14), 'he was wounded for our transgressions' (Isaiah 53:5), 'he shall bear our iniquities' (Isaiah 53:11), 'laid on him the iniquity of us all' (Isaiah 53:6), 'he was cut off from the land of the living, for the transgression of our people' (Isaiah 53:8), etc....
In English; not in Hebrew...The sound travels, as it should Yah-h▼▲h-Avah.
Not really started teaching Hebrew grammar; pointed out that Yeshua is a symbolic reference throughout the Tanakh, that any child can see, as it is all pictures.
Plus wasn't making any claims about language, having a discussion about ideas.