The Collective Messiah - Isaiah 53

adrianhindes said:

No problem. I'm having a mental block but here's a few for starters

Jesus' name will be 'Immanuel'. Matthew 1:22-3, Isaiah 7:14

'Out of Egypt I called my son'. Mt 2:18. Hos 11:1

A ruler will come from Bethlehem. Mt 2:6, Mic 5.2

The massacre of the innocents. Mt 2:18, Jer 31:15

Beyond the Jordan, the people who sat in darkness saw a great light. Mt 4:15, Isa 9:1-2

He Himself took our infirmities/ and bore our sicknesses. Mt 8:17, Isa 53:4

Prophetic praise of Jesus, His character and ministry to the Gentiles. Mt 12:18-21, Isa 42:1-4

He will speak in parables. Mt 13:35, Ps 78:2

The Messiah will enter Jerusalem on a donkey. Mt 21:4-5, Zech 9:9

Daniel 9:24-27
There were 490 years from when the decree to rebuild Jerusalem was issued from Artaxerxes in 457 BC to when Christ was crucified at age 33. This makes up 490 years or seven times seventy days.

Click to expand...

For the record nobody called Jesus Immanuel and that prophecy doesn't apply to Jesus, doesn't say virgin and is about Cyrus the Annointed of God, he will be called God is with us, who redeemed the Jews.

Matthew was obviously Greek writing using the Septuagint incorrectly.

Sonny said:

Really? Noi, but your knowledge of Rome is about the same as your knowledge of Islam/Mohammad.

When Did Rome Fall?
In his masterwork, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, historian Edward Gibbon names the date AD 476 as the year Rome ceased to exist. That date has been generally accepted because that's when the Germanic king of the Torcilingi Odoacer deposed the last Roman emperor to rule the western part of the Roman Empire.

What Factors Caused the Fall of the Roman Empire?

The fall was prophesied in the book of Daniel when he was speaking about the 5 great nations that would come and go.

Click to expand...

Gibbons is wrong.

Rome may have began deteriorating around that time but did not fall apart completely as it was huge and had two capitals, Constantinople

And Rome.

Like I said, it was not until around the time of Islam, a separate issue, and one sacking of Rome didn't collapse it.

Daniel was not a historian.

I don't about this Gibbons but the Roman Empire did not fall at a specific day on a year and at best it can be guessed.

500AD is not that far away from Islam either, but I am not saying Rome had no territory at that time because they did.

Constantinople was invaded in 626 then less than 100 years later by Arabs.

That my friend is

SethZaddik said:

Rome may have began deteriorating around that time but did not fall apart completely as it was huge and had two capitals, Constantinople

Click to expand...

You're the first person I have ever known of that disputes history.

SethZaddik said:

For the record nobody called Jesus Immanuel and that prophecy doesn't apply to Jesus, doesn't say virgin and is about Cyrus the Annointed of God, he will be called God is with us, who redeemed the Jews.

Matthew was obviously Greek writing using the Septuagint incorrectly.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that now is the time to ask you if there is anything that you don't know more about than anyone else who has ever lived? It's hard to discuss with someone who 1. doesn't back up his statements with facts or references and 2. knows everything about everything that is being discussed.

SethZaddik said:

Rome may have began deteriorating around that time but did not fall apart completely as it was huge and had two capitals, Constantinople

Click to expand...

Wait! You said I was wrong but now you're saying 'may have'. Which is it? History is one of those things where we either know it or we're not sure. The fall of Rome is not an unknown. So, between 476 and 610 is 134 years. And, both occurred about 2,000 miles apart. No comparison at all between the fall of Rome and the rise of Islam.

SethZaddik said:

I don't about this Gibbons but the Roman Empire did not fall at a specific day on a year and at best it can be guessed.

500AD is not that far away from Islam either, but I am not saying Rome had no territory at that time because they did.

Click to expand...

Rome is still with us but not as an Empire of awesome military might. That ended with the full-on attack of the Barbarians. Funny thing is, to me, that like America today, the Romans did not know they were being invaded until the Barbarians were literally at the gates of Rome.
Since America refuses to call evil 'evil' and do something about it we are setting ourselves up for a terrible fall, in my opinion. But maybe, now that we have an American who loves our country in the Oval Office, we will be able to call things what they are and deal with them appropriately. We'll see.

There is a 'son of God motif' in the Old testament several ways, in Israel and in the Kings of Israel. It points forward to the Messiah.... in fact the law is a picture of heavenly realities and it provides for a king.... king Messiah

The contrast between singular and pillar in Isaiah is stark... 'all of us like sheep have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way but the Lord laid the iniquity of us all on him (singular)' and after Isaiah 53, instead of servant it is servants plural... the servant made possible many servants

I might also point out that Jeremiah promised 'the man who would be the branch' a shared name also used in Isaiah, would be characterized somehow by the name 'the Lord is our righteousness' which goes along with a Jesus Messiah

SethZaddik said:

Daniel was not a historian.

Click to expand...

No, he wasn't. I didn't mean to imply that. I simply meant that, ironically, Daniel saw the 5 great Empires that were and would be in power and their fall and two of them were Rome (Rome, Constantinople). The Bible is interesting like that when it gives a prophecy and then time fulfills them. I have examined many religion's books for fulfilled prophecy and couldn't find any that happened as it was stated except the ones in the Bible.
And, to answer another post, I own and read a 1968 Koran. I say that so everyone knows mine was produced before the PC movement had taken over every word someone might say and change it to fit that particular moment in time. Truth is not what it used to be.

Ben Avraham said:

The Collective Messiah - Isaiah 53

We all know that the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah. So, no argument about it. But then whom did Isaiah have in mind when he wrote chapter 53? In fact, who was in his mind when he wrote the whole book? That's in Isaiah 1:1: "A vision about Judah and Jerusalem." That's the theme of the book of Isaiah: Judah. Or the House of Jacob called by the name Israel from the stock of Judah. (Isa. 48:1)

Now, how about the Suffering Servant? Isaiah mentions him by name, which is Israel according to Isaiah 41:8,9; 44:1,2,21. Now, we have established a syllogism. If the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, and the Suffering Servant is Israel, the resultant premise will obviously be that Israel (the Jewish People) is the Messiah. Rashi thought so too, and a few other thinkers of weight.

Now, if the Messiah must also bring the epitet of son of God, there is no problem. We can have it from Exodus 4:22,23. Here's what it says in there: "Israel is My son; so, let My son go, that he may serve Me," says the Lord. That's why Hosea said that "When Israel was a child, God said, out of Egypt I called My son." (Hosea 11:1)

Last but not least, Jesus no doubt was part of the Messiah but not on an individual basis. The Messiah is collective. What we need from time to time, especially in exile, is of a Messianic leader to lead or inspire the Messiah to return home. Moses was one for bringing the Messiah back to Canaan. Cyrus was another for proclaiming the return of the Messiah to rebuild the Temple; which he contributed heavily finacially; and in our modern times, we had Herzl who was also one for inspiring the Messiah with love for Zion.

How about Jesus, what do we have to classify him as at least a Messianic leader? Well, when he was born Israel was at home, although suffering under the foreign power of the Romans. As he grew up that suffering only got worse. When he left, the collective Messiah was expelled into another exile of about 2000 years. Not even as a Messianic leader he could not classify. Let alone as the Messiah himself.

Now, I would appreciate to share your comments about the above.

Click to expand...

I noticed something interesting. You made this thread and said in the oP that Cyrus was a Messiah.

Now this went unchallenged from you, nobody said that you were incorrect because Cyrus was Persian, yet everything I say has been as factual if not clearly a theory as goes with the territory but as far as what is in the Bible and history I have been spot on.

Not your fault by the way but I can't help feeling it has something to do with the fact that I am a Muslim. Because I am Muslim it was said, without proof, that Mohammed killed 800 Jews for no good reason in violation of his own code which has no basis in fact. All I wanted to do was talk about the Messiah but no, I can't do that. A Muslim is guilty of everything every Muslim has ever done but not the Christian who can quote Paul without ten people reminding him he was a homicidal maniac.

I am certain that we need no further Messiah, look at the trouble it has caused since the Maccabees?

What we need is to stop religious intolerance all around, nobody is innocent in this who doesn't actively fight persecution of OTHERS beliefs and not just their own.

I am going to argue with the notion of the servant being Messiah, they are distinct and identified as Israel and Cyrus and agree with the notion Jesus was Messianic but not THE Messiah, but he was ultimately betrayed by Saul after he ascended and Mohammed was as Messianic as Jesus, Jesus the Priestly Zaddik type Messiah and Mohammed as the Cyrus or Joshua type, which was not a bad deal for the Jews at all, probably made them friendlier actually because he allowed them to live free of persecution and scientific arts flourished as Christians would eventually grow jealous and invade a Jerusalem of Arabs, Jews and kill them all.

Now hopefully I can have a peaceful discussion without people who don't even know what Constantinople is or when it was invaded telling me about things they don't know about.

Because we don't need MORE Messiahs, someone always loses in that scenario, we need another golden age of Science and Reason without religious squabbling over whose Prophets killed the most people or any other nonsense that is propaganda about Mohammed being a senseless killer of Jews.

Especially when Christians own the crown of Jewish persecution on their heads in their hearts believing that the Jews killed Jesus, who wasn't crucified.

This thread provides evidence a Muslim can't say so much as return evil with good without being persecuted by Christians about Mohammed and things that are flat out lies.

If you don't see the beauty in returning evil with good but do see the word Mohammed and proceed to slander him you are a terrible person.

For no other reason than his name was said. I could have quoted Ghenghis Khan or Sun Tzu and gotten no grief.

Not Mohammed though. Joshua didn't do anything evil by massacring Canaan because "God told him to" but Mohammed is literally slandered for the simple fact people tell lies and it moves around the internet.

There is nothing Mohammed did that the Bible doesn't actually agree with, have a character honored for doing or otherwise endorse and he was not evil. People don't want to hear about the good things he did.

Just the bad.

But their bad is good because God says so.

Which using that logic Mohammed is clearly off the hook.

When people stop behavior like this is when King Messiah will arrive, and only when the world is free of neighbor hatred and lies, persecution, when war stops because humans say no more.

I would not come to this world, people can't let other people be what they are without being attacked in the guise of debate, well debating requires knowledge of the facts, not feelings of entitled hatred simply because you are of an unresearched opinion and a hypocrite with no knowledge of the thing you debate (read: hate).

God only lets US do evil is the idea, you are not responsible for the past of your religion and it's crimes, lies and generally hypocrisy because it is "God's True Church" Jews killed Jesus and rejected the Messiah and are going to hell, Muslims have no right to exist or worship God in Muslim fashion because YOU say God was not with him.

The evidence says otherwise as Christians say, look at how big Christianity is, that's proof God is with us.

We got the numbers too.

a single person makes more sense as per Psalms
Psalm 80:17
But let your hand be on the man of your right hand, the son of man whom you have made strong for yourself!

And Psalm 1 starts 'blessed be THE MAN' and Psalm 2 ends 'blessed are all those who trust in him" and as you probably know most scholars take psalm 1 and 2 as probably 1 psalm in the original and then later broken into parts... also sounds like Jesus and those who trust in Him

but also Daniel where 'the son of man' comes with the clouds to be served by people of all tribes and tongues and nations... sounds like Jesus

Ben Avraham said:

God's chosen People did not reject Him. We simply did not recognize that Jesus could have been the Messiah. That's all. He did absolutely nothing that could entitle him as the Messiah.

Click to expand...

Crucifying someone could reasonably be considered a form of rejection! Who crucified Him? Caiaphas the high priest of the Jews judged Him. The Jewish people judged Him when they jeered for the release of a criminal Barabbas, so that an innocent man, Jesus, would be put to death.

As Moses parted the sea, Jesus parted a mountain (symbolically) Zechariah 14:1-8. The two mountains are the two Covenants of Moses and Christ and the community of their faithful followers. It was arguably His greatest miracle. The endurance of His Teachings as well as the enormous influence He had on the hearts and minds of His followers, even today is a monumental achievement. It could only have happened through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Ben Avraham said:

This is only according to the gospel of Paul. There is no righteousness by faith but all righteousness happens as a result of obedience to God's Law. Jesus himself asserted to that when he said that we must listen to "Moses" aka the Law. (Luke 16:29-31)

Click to expand...

If you call stoning someone to death because they heal someone on the Sabbath righteousness! Jesus revealed a New Covenant from God just as Moses had. The Mosaic one had become obsolete. Jesus had the authority from God to do this, and the apostle Pauls' teachings were in harmony with Christ.

Ben Avraham said:

The followers of Jesus were Jewish. Not a single Gentile or Christian. Jesus never even dreamed that Christianity would ever rise.

Click to expand...

Jesus did dream Christianity would rise. That is why He spoke of the Gospels being preached to all the Nations.

Isaiah 49:6 prophesised it.
"And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth."

Crucifying Jesus is like Joseph's brothers selling Joseph as a slave... in the plan of God, God would save the sinners from famine and the plan included the sinners, Joseph's brothers for all practical purposes killing the one God used to save them

and oh by the way, God raised Joe up and seated Joe at the right hand of Pharaoh and both the gentiles and jews would be saved through Joe ... in the plan of God... just like Jesus... isn't it great?

As far as Is 49:6, it refers both to the church and to Christ... the church is in Christ and so it's appropriate to apply it to both and in the book of Acts Is 49:6 applies to the church