Is according to Jews everything God's will?

Harel13 said:

And yet you are still unable to provide the actual source from Ibn Kaspi's writings. Why is that so?

Click to expand...

The Suffering Servant in Rabbinic Controversy

Judaism solidly taught that the Suffering Servant was the Messiah until a very influential Talmudic commentator Rabbi Shlomo Itzchaki, 1040-1105 CE (called Rashi) and some of the later rabbis began to interpret the passage as referring to Israel. In Rashi’s own words this was a defensive move to take away the case made by Christians that the Suffering Servant was fulfilled in Jesus.

Click to expand...

Ehav4Ever said:

We all know that you don't accept the various Midrash texts. If you did you would have to accept everything the Midrash says not only part of it. You also would be forced to accept the Midrash that openly disagree with your beleif in Jesus.

Also, you don't have to include the link anywhere. I don't accept it as valid. Only "you" showing me that you can read the entire Midrash in the original languages they are in would get me to take your point even remotely serious.

Click to expand...

Skywalker said:

Rashi changed the position that the Suffering Servant was the Messiah to refute the belief that Jesus is the Suffering Servant. The Suffering Servant of Isaiah – A Rabbinic Anthology | Jewish Awareness Ministries

Click to expand...

Harel13 said:

We're not talking about Rashi or the Talmud - though believe me, we'll get to them too. We're talking about Ibn Kaspi. You can't go about disparaging someone without any proof. Show it to me, or I'll be forced to conclude you're basing yourself on a group of liars.

Click to expand...

In this short article my point has been to demonstrate that there is a considerable, credible, consistent, and authoritative body of proof from Jewish primary sources testifying that the Suffering Servant is the Messiah. With these proofs available to the Jewish people why is there still a controversy over this portion of Scripture? Perhaps in the Jewish mind things have not changed much since the days of Rashi. Most Jewish people still view themselves as under attack by a hostile Christian world that seeks to strip them of their Jewish identity. As it was in Rashi’s day, the desire for self-preservation and peace goes beyond the desire for truth. Without realizing it, they have overthrown the very foundations of the Jewish religion by overthrowing the older and more authoritative teachings. They have broken the line of authority that goes back to the Prophets and have devised new ideas to suit the social situation. This has removed the Word of God from its place of primary importance and replaced it with the word of man.

Click to expand...

Skywalker said:

People changed their beliefs about who the Suffering Servant is because of the mistakes of the church. The mistakes of the church have nothing to do with who God is. The Suffering Servant of Isaiah – A Rabbinic Anthology | Jewish Awareness Ministries

Click to expand...

Harel13 said:

So you have zero evidence that Ibn Kaspi changed his view. So stop disparaging his good name.

Click to expand...

Rashi, in the 11th century A.D., was the first to put forth the premise that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is the nation of Israel. Others stated that the suffering servant was Moses or the pious in general. This was in total opposition to the teaching of the ancient Rabbis. For example, the targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel written in the 2nd century renders Isaiah 52:13: Behold, my servant, the Messiah, shall prosper; He shall be exalted, and increase, and be very strong. (reprinted by Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1953). Rabbi Joseph ben Kaspi, who lived from A.D. 1280 to 1340, warned the Rabbis that those who expound this section of the Messiah give occasion to the heretics (Christians) to interpret it of Jesus. In response to this Rabbi Saadis ibn Danan observed: May God forgive him for not having spoken the truth. (Driver & Neubauer: The Suffering Servant of Isaiah According to Jewish Tradition, pg. 203).

Click to expand...

Skywalker said:

Rabbi Ibn Kaspi didn't have an issue with the belief that the Suffering Servant was the Messiah, he had an issue with the belief that the Suffering Servant was Jesus. People don't want to believe that they are sinners in need of a Savior. JEWISH OBJECTIONS TO JESUS IN ISAIAH 53 | ShalomShalom.info

Click to expand...

Harel13 said:

You are basing yourself on a group of liars. It amazes me that such people have such little faith in their own religion, that they are forced to lie about religious leaders of other religions, just to "prove" their own and to feel good about themselves. Talk about spineless. If I were you, @Skywalker, I'd stay far away from people like the ones you keep quoting.

Click to expand...

Skywalker said:

I understand that I didn't quote the right source about Ibn Kaspi but that doesn't take away from evidence

Click to expand...

Harel13 said:

it actually does. Until you can bring the actual evidence, you have zero evidence. I can say Jesus was a pink unicorn, but if I don't have any evidence, then my say-so is worth zilch.

Click to expand...

Rashi, in the 11th century A.D., was the first to put forth the premise that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is the nation of Israel. Others stated that the suffering servant was Moses or the pious in general. This was in total opposition to the teaching of the ancient Rabbis. For example, the targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel written in the 2nd century renders Isaiah 52:13: Behold, my servant, the Messiah, shall prosper; He shall be exalted, and increase, and be very strong. (reprinted by Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1953).

Click to expand...

Skywalker said:

I believe that people mix truth and lies. I wasn't quoting the MIdrash to say that I believe in it, I believe in the Bible, I was quoting the MIdrash to show that the people who write it knew that the Suffering Servant was the Messiah, even though they may not have fully understood what that meant. I believe that the Midrash has the right interpretations of the Bible, mixed with the traditions of people.

Click to expand...

Skywalker said:

Rabbis believed that the Suffering Servant was the Messiah. JEWISH OBJECTIONS TO JESUS IN ISAIAH 53 | ShalomShalom.info

Click to expand...

Ehav4Ever said:

Of course you don't beleive in it, you don't know what a Midrash really is and you have never read one from start to finish in the langauge it was written in. Therefore it is not valid to use it at all since you don't have a way of knowing when to consider to be the truth and when to consider something to be a lie.

For example, Jesus or any NT idea being represented in a midrash is a lie. Further, the authors of the NT appear to have known this thus they weren't quoting Midrash and they didn't quote from the Hebrew Tanakh and chose to write in Greek since it would have been easier to fool those who could not read Hebrew and Aramaic.

Click to expand...

The Suffering Servant in Rabbinic Literature

Rabbinic literature called Midrash is opinions of authoritative rabbis whose concern is correctly expounding portions of Scripture. Since these are opinion they are non-binding. However, the overwhelming conclusion of these Midrashim is that the Suffering Servant is the Messiah. Note the following sampling of quotes:

Midrash Tanhuma; parasha Toldot (400-600 CE): “‘Who art thou, O great mountain?’ (Zechariah 4:7) This refers to the King Messiah. And why does he call him the ‘great mountain?’ Because he is greater than the patriarchs, as it is said, ‘My servant shall be high, and lifted up, and lofty exceedingly.'”

Midrash Ruth Rabbah, 2.14 (650-900 CE): “‘Come hither’ draw near to the throne ‘and dip thy morsel in the vinegar,’ this refers to the chastisements, as it is said, ‘But he [Messiah] was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities.'”

Midrash Lekach Tov (11th C.): “‘And let his [Israel’s] kingdom be exalted,’ in the days of the Messiah, of whom it is said, ‘Behold my servant shall prosper; he will be high and exalted, and lofty exceedingly.'”

Yalkut ii. 620 (13th C.): “In a comment with regard to Psalm 2:6: ‘I have drawn him out of the chastisements’…The chastisements are divided into three parts: one for David and the fathers, one for our own generation, and one for the King Messiah; and this is that which is written, ‘He was wounded for our transgressions.'”

Click to expand...

Harel13 said:

Still no evidence.

Click to expand...

Ehav4Ever said:

I think the point is for him, and the others from the other thread, to simply keep posting information to waste our time in endless cycles of debate. The typical Batman rogoue gallary tactic.

Click to expand...

Skywalker said:

The MIdrash talk about the Suffering Servant and give hints of what Isaiah 53 says about who the Messiah is.

Click to expand...

Harel13 said:

Still no evidence.

Click to expand...

Rashi, in the 11th century A.D., was the first to put forth the premise that the suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is the nation of Israel. Others stated that the suffering servant was Moses or the pious in general. This was in total opposition to the teaching of the ancient Rabbis. For example, the targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel written in the 2nd century renders Isaiah 52:13: Behold, my servant, the Messiah, shall prosper; He shall be exalted, and increase, and be very strong. (reprinted by Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1953). Rabbi Joseph ben Kaspi, who lived from A.D. 1280 to 1340, warned the Rabbis that those who expound this section of the Messiah give occasion to the heretics (Christians) to interpret it of Jesus. In response to this Rabbi Saadis ibn Danan observed: May God forgive him for not having spoken the truth. (Driver & Neubauer: The Suffering Servant of Isaiah According to Jewish Tradition, pg. 203).

Click to expand...

Skywalker said:

Rabbi Ben Kaspi said that there were rabbis who believed that the Suffering Servant was the Messiah. JEWISH OBJECTIONS TO JESUS IN ISAIAH 53 | ShalomShalom.info

Click to expand...

ayin said:

When David killed righteous Uriah, was it God's will? When Israel forsook their God, was it God's will? When a person sins, is it God's will? Is everything God's will, or is there also coincidence?

Click to expand...

IndigoChild5559 said:

Just TRY reading it with a different mind set. PRETEND for five minutes that the remnant of Israel is the suffering servant, addressed in the singular (as it is many times) which suffers for all of Israel. Vicarious suffering -- look that up.

Click to expand...

There are at least eight reasons from the text itself why these interpretations cannot stand. First, consider the contrasting pronouns. In verse 2 for example, if the he is Israel, Moses, or the pious, then who is the him before whom he grows up? Who is the we who sees “him”? Clearly the we and our of verse 3 is Israel or the Jewish people. It makes no sense if the “he” and “him” is also Israel. Not only do we have the problem of opposing pronouns, but we have singular and plural pronouns in the same text referring to the same object adding to the confusion if the servant is Israel.

Second, the servant is described as righteous in verse 11. Israel, according to Isaiah 1:4-6 is called unrighteous. Only God is called righteous.

Third, according to verse 7 the servant described does not fight back. Is it not true that Israel, as a nation, always has fought back? Read Kings and Chronicles to see this servant cannot be the nation of Israel. Fourth, according to verses 6, 10, and 12, the servant bears the sins of sinners. Atonement is not the work of a nation, according to the Hebrew Scriptures; it is the work of the Redeemer who must be himself sinless. As Israel has always been described as unrighteous it cannot do anything of itself to atone either for its own sins or for the sins of others. The servant cannot be Israel.

Click to expand...