How did Isaiah 52:13 predict that the Messiah Jesus would be crucified "lifted up"?

[Shaul]

Two "Messiahs". The Son of Joseph and Son of David. Obviously the Messiah comes not once but twice. Jesus first coming clearly is the Son of Joseph(Even his adoptive father was Joseph) as He suffered at the hands of His brethren just as Joseph. As Joseph told his brothers how that although they meant this for his harm they should not be grieved because it was for the deliverance of a posterity in the earth and God really sent Joseph to Egypt ahead of them.

There is so much wrong with this one scarcely knows where to begin. The messiah ben Yosef(Joseph) and the messiah ben David are two separate people. One is a descendant from the tribe is Joseph(Yosef) and the other is descendant from the house David (which is a family of the tribe of Judah. Jesus’ father being name Joseph would have no bearing on whether Jesus was what is referred to as the messiah ben Yosef. Joseph was not Jesus’ “adoptive father”. That notion is absurd. If you think that it isn’t ask yourself this question, who gave Jesus up for adoption? But even if Jesus had been adopted it would make no difference to his tribal identity. Tribal identity is based on someone’s biological father only.

 

[rosends]

Who said Isaiah 52? It's the same writing as ch. 53. Isaiah 53:9 they made his grave ... yes it is obviously about his death.

Great! Then Ezer Weitzman it is. Thank you for confirming this.

 

[74x12]

Great! Then Ezer Weitzman it is. Thank you for confirming this.

Your welcome

 

[Subduction Zone]

Anyone that reads the Targum of Jonathan will see that it could not be talking about Jesus of Nazareth. According to that Targum the messiah will among other things: return Israelites to the land of Israel, cast sinners into hell, and destroy gentile dominion of the land of Israel. Jesus didn’t do any of those things.

As far as Psalm 22, that is a mistranslation based on the non-authoritative Septuagint. That verse is better translated “For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers has encompassed me, like a lion, my hands and feet.” See here, https://outreachjudaism.org/crucifixion-psalm/

Another prophecy that was a result of a misinterpretation of the Septuagint resulted in the virgin birth myth of Jesus. And then the author of Luke put the birth of Jesus a few years BCE and about 6 CE. There are signs that the Gospels were written to "fulfill" prophecies.

 

[74x12]

Another prophecy that was a result of a misinterpretation of the Septuagint resulted in the virgin birth myth of Jesus. And then the author of Luke put the birth of Jesus a few years BCE and about 6 CE. There are signs that the Gospels were written to "fulfill" prophecies.

They quoted the Septuagint which does say virgin. That's not misinterpreting the Septuagint.

But everyone knows it's not a sign for a young woman to give birth if she isn't a virgin. It's only a sign if a virgin gives birth. Otherwise it's just a normal birth. So although the Masoretic doesn't say virgin. It does say a young woman. So according to the Torah she has to be virgin or she is a transgressor because she had sex.

 

[rosends]

They quoted the Septuagint which does say virgin. That's not misinterpreting the Septuagint.

But everyone knows it's not a sign for a young woman to give birth if she isn't a virgin. It's only a sign if a virgin gives birth. Otherwise it's just a normal birth. So although the Masoretic doesn't say virgin. It does say a young woman who is not married. So according to the Torah she has to be virgin or she is a transgressor because she had sex without being married.

where does it say "not married"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

They quoted the Septuagint which does say virgin. That's not misinterpreting the Septuagint.

But everyone knows it's not a sign for a young woman to give birth if she isn't a virgin. It's only a sign if a virgin gives birth. Otherwise it's just a normal birth. So although the Masoretic doesn't say virgin. It does say a young woman who is not married. So according to the Torah she has to be virgin or she is a transgressor because she had sex without being married.

Correct, the Septuagint is where the fault lies. I did not intend, nor do I think that I implied that the writers of the Gospel misinterpreted the Septuagint. Like most translations some errors can be found in it. Also if you read that in context the birth had already happened, if I recall correctly.

 

[blü 2]

Behold, My servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. (Isaiah 52:13)

and I, if I may be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.' (John 12:32)

Using your approach, I notice our prophet also foresaw that Jesus would get very high. That suggests there was more to the Last Supper than bread and wine ─ shrooms, do you think?

 

[74x12]

The messiah ben Yosef(Joseph) and the messiah ben David are two separate people. One is a descendant from the tribe is Joseph(Yosef) and the other is descendant from the house David (which is a family of the tribe of Judah.

That is what you assume.

Jesus’ father being name Joseph would have no bearing on whether Jesus was what is referred to as the messiah ben Yosef.

It would be a sign. I'm not saying it's proof but a sign. The real evidence He is the Messiah ben Yosef is that He also suffered for the Hebrews at the hands of the Hebrews just as Joseph did. He is spiritually the son of Joseph in that way. It's not about who you are physically but spiritually.

where does it say "not married"?

No where. Sorry. Mary was married or at least betrothed to Joseph after all.

Joseph was not Jesus’ “adoptive father”. That notion is absurd. If you think that it isn’t ask yourself this question, who gave Jesus up for adoption? But even if Jesus had been adopted it would make no difference to his tribal identity.

If you read the gospel accounts Joseph is not the Father. God is the Father; so Joseph adopted Jesus by the will of God.

 

[Shaul]

They quoted the Septuagint which does say virgin. That's not misinterpreting the Septuagint.

But everyone knows it's not a sign for a young woman to give birth if she isn't a virgin. It's only a sign if a virgin gives birth. Otherwise it's just a normal birth. So although the Masoretic doesn't say virgin. It does say a young woman. So according to the Torah she has to be virgin or she is a transgressor because she had sex.

Actually, no. The Septuagint indeed uses the word parthenos in Isaiah. However the Greek word parthenos does not mean virgin.

 

[74x12]

Actually, no. The Septuagint indeed uses the word parthenos in Isaiah. However the Greek word parthenos does not mean virgin.

In that case we would have no problem. The gospel of Matthew also uses the same Greek word parthenos.

But, it does mean virgin according to Strong's dictionary ... although I'm no Greek expert.

 

[Kenny]

You understand that the Targum isn't saying anything about a messiah being crucified whatsoever.

Not in that respective reference... correct.

 

[Shaul]

In that case we would have no problem. The gospel of Matthew also uses the same Greek word parthenos.

But, it does mean virgin according to Strong's dictionary ... although I'm no Greek expert.

Strong’s notwithstanding, parthenos means young woman, not virgin. This is clear when you let scripture, not Strong’s, interpret itself. To wit, in Genesis(Beresheit) we read the account of the rape of Dinah. The Septuagint itself then uses the word “parthenos” when referring to Dinah after the rape. Clearly a woman that has been raped is not a virgin. So you have the problem of the gospels quoting Isaiah as saying virgin when Isaiah, in fact, does not.

Although you might double check Strong’s. I believe you will find it defines parthenos as both virgin or young woman.

 

[Shaul]

That is what you assume.

It would be a sign. I'm not saying it's proof but a sign. The real evidence He is the Messiah ben Yosef is that He also suffered for the Hebrews at the hands of the Hebrews just as Joseph did. He is spiritually the son of Joseph in that way. It's not about who you are physically but spiritually.

No where. Sorry. Mary was married or at least betrothed to Joseph after all.

If you read the gospel accounts Joseph is not the Father. God is the Father; so Joseph adopted Jesus by the will of God.

Again so much wrong here, where to begin. First it isn’t a case of me assuming, it is a case of what scripture says. According to scripture both the messiah (moshiach) ben Yosef and the messiah ben David must be the physical offspring of their respective tribes (Ephraim and Judah). Being only a “spiritual” descendant isn’t enough. Scripture is quite clear on this. Furthermore these two messiahs are contemporaries. They will live in the same time just before the messianic age. “Suffering at the hands of the Hebrews”[sic] doesn’t make someone have a new biological father.

Then you write Joseph wasn’t the father after striving like a contortionist to try to make him his father so Jesus can claim to be “adopted by the will of God” (whatever that means).

By the way, why would the Father give up his son to be adopted by a mere man? Did the Father disown Jesus? And if the Father did give Jesus up for adoption that would mean Jesus would no longer inherit anything from the Father too.

 

[74x12]

Strong’s notwithstanding, parthenos means young woman, not virgin. This is clear when you let scripture, not Strong’s, interpret itself. To wit, in Genesis(Beresheit) we read the account of the rape of Dinah. The Septuagint itself then uses the word “parthenos” when referring to Dinah after the rape. Clearly a woman that has been raped is not a virgin. So you have the problem of the gospels quoting Isaiah as saying virgin when Isaiah, in fact, does not.

Although you might double check Strong’s. I believe you will find it defines parthenos as both virgin or young woman.

Interesting. I'll check that out in the Septuagint to see if it really calls Dinah that afterwards. However, in that case you cannot have an issue with the gospel of Matthew(because in the oldest version it uses the same word parthenos). The English translations do not really matter when it comes to this kind of research. They are only translations.

According to scripture both the messiah (moshiach) ben Yosef and the messiah ben David must be the physical offspring of their respective tribes (Ephraim and Judah). Being only a “spiritual” descendant isn’t enough. Scripture is quite clear on this.

Well quote the verse because I'm not even sure what scriptures you are saying are so clear about this.

“Suffering at the hands of the Hebrews”[sic] doesn’t make someone have a new biological father.

It's only spiritual seed that is counted because God called Isaac Abraham's only son. (Genesis 22:2) So, Ishmael did not count; even though he is biologically the firstborn of Abraham.

Then you write Joseph wasn’t the father after striving like a contortionist to try to make him his father so Jesus can claim to be “adopted by the will of God” (whatever that means).

By the way, why would the Father give up his son to be adopted by a mere man? Did the Father disown Jesus? And if the Father did give Jesus up for adoption that would mean Jesus would no longer inherit anything from the Father too.

You're taking it too literally when I say adopted I mean as in because He had no human father. So Joseph acted as His father. It was not that God disowned anyone. Before we go further on these questions let me ask you if you've ever read the gospels and if so which?

 

[Tumah]

It's only spiritual seed that is counted because God called Isaac Abraham's only son. (Genesis 22:2) So, Ishmael did not count; even though he is biologically the firstborn of Abraham.

Without getting into the rest of your answers in that post, don't you feel like this is kind of a weak response? Even going with your interpretation of "spiritual seed" as the only alternative explanation to Gen. 21, Isaac was both Abraham's biological seed and spiritual seed. So if you wanted to draw a parallel somewhere, you'd have to find something with both properties as you don't have a precedent here for being just "spiritual seed".

But we should address Gen. 22:2 as well. It doesn't say, "you're only son". It says, "you're son, you're only, whom you love, Isaac." The verse doesn't say in what aspect Isaac is an "only" to Abraham. It probably doesn't mean his "only son", because way back in Gen. 21:13, G-d Himself says about Ishmael, "for he is also your seed". And just a bit earlier, the verse 11 says that the "matter was evil in his eyes about his son".

And 21:13 is an important verse to remember as well, because here we see that it's not only Isaac that's called Abraham's seed, but Ishmael as well.

So I think when we go back and read "because Isaac will be called your seed", I better understanding is probably that for the purposes of inheritance which is usually passed down to all children, we're only gong to consider Isaac as the sole inheritor. But Ishmael and Keturah's children are all technically Abraham's children or seed as well and the verse doesn't say anything against that.

 

[Tumah]

Not in that respective reference... correct.

You're invited at any time to provide a reference where the Targum mentions crucifixion.

 

[Shaul]

Interesting. I'll check that out in the Septuagint to see if it really calls Dinah that afterwards. However, in that case you cannot have an issue with the gospel of Matthew(because in the oldest version it uses the same word parthenos). The English translations do not really matter when it comes to this kind of research. They are only translations.

Well quote the verse because I'm not even sure what scriptures you are saying are so clear about this.

It's only spiritual seed that is counted because God called Isaac Abraham's only son. (Genesis 22:2) So, Ishmael did not count; even though he is biologically the firstborn of Abraham.


You're taking it too literally when I say adopted I mean as in because He had no human father. So Joseph acted as His father. It was not that God disowned anyone. Before we go further on these questions let me ask you if you've ever read the gospels and if so which?

I can certainly take issue with Matthew for many reasons, and I do. Furthermore if you accept that Matthew doesn’t say that Mary was a virgin then the entire theology of the Virgin Birth loses it foundation. That is a tenet held by the vast majority of Christians.

I can cite verses as needed but you should be more specific on which ones you need. First it is generally accepted by Christians that the messiah shall be a descendant of David. But more specifically scripture says that he must be a physical, not “spiritual”, descendant of David. Among the scriptures that show this is I Chronicles 17. Verses 11-12 read, “And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build me an house, and I will stablish his throne for ever.” The Hebrew word in that verse is “zera” (see Strong’s 2233). This word always means physical descendants and never spiritual ones. (That would usually be the Hebrew word “ben”)

By the way, because the word “zera” means physical offspring, that is one of the reasons the servant of Isaiah 53 could not be Jesus. In Isaiah 53 it says, “Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.” The word used is seed (“zera”). The servant of Isaiah 53 will have physical offspring, not “spiritual” offspring. Jesus never had physical offspring. So he can not be the servant of Isaiah 53.

You ask if I have ever read the gospels. I have read them many times as well as the rest of the Christian “New Testament”. So much so that I dare say I am probably more knowledgeable about them than most Christians.

 

[2ndpillar]

Behold, My servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. (Isaiah 52:13)

and I, if I may be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto myself.' (John 12:32)

Not until the "son of man" comes on the clouds (Daniel 7:13) will he prosper. Until now, the foxes have holes in the ground, but the son of man had no place to lay his head. (Mt 8:20)


New American Standard Bible Mt 8:20
Jesus said to him, "The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head."

 

[74x12]

Furthermore if you accept that Matthew doesn’t say that Mary was a virgin then the entire theology of the Virgin Birth loses it foundation. That is a tenet held by the vast majority of Christians.

Not really. The virgin birth is obvious as I said before, for a young woman who is not a virgin to have a son and call his name Emmanuel is not a sign. At least not a very good one. So she must be a virgin. However, I do not accept your supposition that the word parthenos does not mean virgin. In modern Greek at least Parthena is indeed a virgin. You'd have to argue the meaning has changed over time. All I'm saying is that even if you're right; it doesn't pose a problem for me either way because Matthew uses the same word. So, if you're trying to argue against Matthew then you've not succeeded.

But more specifically scripture says that he must be a physical, not “spiritual”, descendant of David.

He was a physical descendant of David ...

By the way, because the word “zera” means physical offspring, that is one of the reasons the servant of Isaiah 53 could not be Jesus. In Isaiah 53 it says, “Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.” The word used is seed (“zera”). The servant of Isaiah 53 will have physical offspring, not “spiritual” offspring. Jesus never had physical offspring. So he can not be the servant of Isaiah 53.

It doesn't mean physical offspring exactly and it can be used figuratively and it is in other places. And too God the spiritual is physical. You may be confusing the term spiritual. I believe in a spiritual reality as real as this one we are in now. Jesus' seed is all those who are born again/anew/above/whatever you prefer. (see John 3:3-5) That is indeed physical in heaven. (see 1 Cor. 15:40)

You ask if I have ever read the gospels. I have read them many times as well as the rest of the Christian “New Testament”. So much so that I dare say I am probably more knowledgeable about them than most Christians.

Alright good. Then you have a solid understanding of the story ... and we need not get bogged down in minutiae.