Featured Is according to Jews everything God's will?

Since one of the Messiahs purposes was to teach us how to live (he was to be a rabbi and a teacher), wouldn't it make sense that he would give a new covenant? The Tanakh doesn't mention the future division of the Old and New Covenant when spreading the gospel to the gentiles, because those details weren't relevant to giving a description of who the Messiah was to be.

 

That doesn't follow at all.

It also doesn't mention the future giving of the Qur'an, because that detail wasn't relevant.

Are you really being serious?!?

 

But no messiah is mentioned and the plural noun "kings" is explicitly listed.

It doesn't sound like that because Isaiah clearly identifies the servant with the nation of Israel. No other reading is as likely.

Good think I didn;t say it was the kings of Isael.

No, it isn't.

 

As far as informed guesswork, and I'm not disputing that fact, would you say it's like evolution as far as timetables and evidence scientists say show mankind is not approximately 6,000 years in existence rather than what the Bible says about God creating by design the heavens, the earth and eventually Adam and Eve? How do you feel about that?

 

I understand there's latitude in understanding what God's will is, and how it is exercised. For instance, the Bible (or Tanach) clearly says that the earth will be beautiful someday where the righteous will be. I quote one scripture from psalms to show this wonderful promise. Psalm 37:29. "The righteous will inherit the land and dwell in it permanently."
I am happy to review that scriptural thought. May you have a good day.

 

The Quran is not consistent with the Tanakh because it contradicts what the Tanakh teaches about Ishmael. It teaches that the Messiah was a prophet who came and pretended to die on the cross. Isa never mentioned a New Covenant. The teachings of Jesus are similar to the teachings in the Tanakh-God being a personal Father. Jesus talked about the Trinity-which matched the term Elohim in the Old Testament. Allah is distant. In Islam Allah is omnipotent but is distant and not personally involved with people. Allah of Islam, Is He Yahweh God of the Bible?

 

I'm not sure what you are asking. Do you want to know if I am a young earth creationist? Or if I take the creation account literally?

 

Kings are mentioned because when Jesus rules in the future, he will be the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The man of sorrows is a reference to the Messiah, not kings.

Isaiah 53 - Wikipedia

That is similar to the verse in the New Testament where the crowds said crucify him, about Jesus. Israel is not a servant because there is no reason they would be a servant to anyone. Jesus served us when he went to the cross for our sins.

What king of Israel was highly disfigured and was pierced? Those verses are a reference to Jesus, who was pierced for our iniquities. The New Testament calls Jesus the King of the Jews.

 

No, it is a reference to the nation. Kings are mentioned because the text is talking about kings.

You quote something I didn't say, and I still didn't say anything about a king of Israel. They also don't mention piercing. Roger Miller calls himself the King of the Road. So?

 

Israel is not a suffering servant. The kings of Israel served their nation, in the sense of a ruler whose job is to keep order, not in the traditional meaning of the term servant. Isaiah 53:5 mentions Jesus being pierced. Isaiah 53:5 But He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon Him, and by His stripes we are healed.

 

No, Israel is the suffering servant and again, I'm not talking about kings of Israel.
The Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53 - Source Book

Isaiah 53:5 never mentions Jesus or the servant. It is part of the statement made by foreign kings when they realize that the nation of Israel suffered because of the sins that the foreign nations committed. This has been covered in other threads, if you would like me to find them for you.

 

How was Israel a servant? Isaiah 53:11 talks about the travail of his soul, many being justified, and their iniquities being born. Isaiah 53:3 refers to the Messiah as a Man of Sorrows. Bible Gateway passage: Isaiah 53:11 - New International Version

Isaiah 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, acquainted with grief. Like one from whom men hide their faces, He was despised, and we esteemed Him not.

 

How?

Isaiah 41:8

But, you Israel, are My servant; Jacob, whom I have chosen; seed of Abraham, My friend.

Isaiah 49:3

And He said to me: "You are My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified!"

 

Isaiah 52:13 refers to the Messiah as "my servant". The verse doesn't say my servant Jacob or my servant Israel. Isaiah 52:13 to 53:12 describe the servant. References to the servant as a people actually ends with Isaiah 48:20.

The servant is righteous and without guile. If this is the nation of Israel, it's a complete violation of the Torah. According to Torah, if the nation is righteous, then it will be blessed. If the nation is wicked it will be punished. The idea that the nation as a whole could be righteous and yet punished is completely unacceptable on a scriptural level. The text says the servant will be highly exalted, even to where kings stand in awe. That's not true of Israel, but it is true of Jesus, who's worshiped by kings and leaders around the world. Isaiah said that the servant's sufferings brought healing to the people. Israel has suffered through the ages, but their sufferings didn't bring healings to the nations that afflicted them. Isaiah refers to the origins of the Messiah as very lowly and inauspicious. Jesus was from Nazareth. Jesus was rejected, suffered, and died, and was utterly forsaken when he died.

The resurrection of the Messiah isn't mentioned in the Old Testament, but it's plainly implied. How does someone die and yet prolong his days? Clearly, the passages speaks of the servant's continued activities after his death. And there's only one explanation for that-resurrection. Isaiah refers to the nonviolence of God's servant. Jesus used a whip to drive money-changers out of the temple. The Tanakh uses the word hamas for violence, describing things like robbery. The money chargers only got a verbal rebuke for making the temple 'a den of robbers. There's no record of anyone being injured, and this incident wasn't even brought up at Jesus' trial, where nobody could accuse him of any wrongdoing. Through his ordeal, Jesus doesn't try to defend himself. He turns the other cheek, as he taught in the sermon on the mount. Isaiah 53 saying the servant will not lift his voice or cry out doesn't imply that Jesus isn't the Messiah. The context of that verse isn't literal. The context is the servant did not open his mouth but was led away like a lamb. Jesus wasn't crying when he said Father, forgive them. Isaiah 53 says the servant of the Lord will have descendants-or 'see seed' in the Hebrew. Jesus never married or had children. Seed can be used metaphorically, in terms of spiritual offspring. Isaiah calls Israel a seed of evildoers. Seed of evildoers means 'community of evildoers' or 'evildoers to the core.' The Hebrew word for 'seed' can mean 'a future generation' without reference to specific descendants of one individual in particular. Isaiah 53 doesn't say that the Messiah will see his seed. I think it's appropriate to interpret that verse metaphorically.

 

Thus, this statement alone means that what you are describing is not a type of Judaism. According to the Hebrew Torah and Halakha that Hashem gave at Mount Sinai what you described about Jesus is Avodah Zara, and the Israeli/Jewish people were warned by Hashem that concepts, as you described it, are false and Hashem warned Israelis/Jews who hold by Torath Mosheh to stay away from such.

I am sure that the early, later, and modern Christian translations have doctored this quite a bit in their translations, which I have seen first hand in their texts, to fit their theology of Jesus or have used Greek and Hellonist ideas to justify it. If that is what Christians accept it is not the place of us Jews to get in your way, if that is what you want. Yet, again we were warned by Hashem to stay away from such and this, for us, explains why the first Jewish Christians disappeared within 2 generations of their start.

For me, it is also the reason that you and others I have asked cannot not or won't answer the first 3 questions I posed. I.e.

1. Can you provide the names of about 50 Jews, first name and father's name, who saw him return from somewhere?
2. Can you provide a non-NT a account of what kind of returning he did? Did him come back from the shuq or the makolet? If so, what did he bring back from there?
3. At what time of the day did he go to the Sanhedrin to display himself, like the author of the gospels claimed he said he would?

 

Because you are reading a Christian English double translation. Let's make things easier. Please see the below and prove that your concept is correct from the oldest version of the text in question.

 

There's nothing ambiguous about the word iniquity in the Hebrew. Its a formal word for sin.

 

The Old Testament never talks about the Messiah being married. How would Jesus not being married make following the teachings Jesus antithetical to Judaism? Because of the historical division between Jewish Christians and gentile divisions they are different faiths but to the Jewish Christians they were one and the same. People follow Judaism but nlt Jesus, some people follow just Jesus, some people mix being Jewish and following Jesus. The Old Covenant doesn't exclude the New Covenant. Even some gentiles follow Jesus and Torah. What evidence is there that Christian interpretations of the prophecies are based off of Greek amd Hellonist beliefs?

 

You don't understand what I am saying. The entire Hebrew text from the beginning of Yeshayahu to the end does not support what you saying. Thus, if what you are saying, even in one word, were true you would be abel to prove it by going through the Hebrew text. That is what I am saying.

 

The Christian text an "Old Testament" may or may not say a lot of things. The Hebrew Tanakh is not the same as the Christian translation you are quoting and the Hebrew Tanakh text does not mention the Christian concept of a "messiah." In terms of Davidic kings being married and having children that is stated in the Hebrew text of the Tanakh. Would you like me to post the Hebrew text that states it for you?

Christians, by the own admission from the past to the present do not follow Torath Mosheh or Torah based Judaism. That is why they are very clear in the NT to say that they don't.

In terms of proofs that the NT is based on Greek and Hellonist beleifs. That is easy. The NT was originally written in Greek, a language that Torath Mosheh Jews detested. Paul, according ot the NT, grew up in Tarsus and he wrote most of the NT. Paul also quoted in his writings a number of Greek pagan philosphers and his ideas are found heavily in Greek culture. Would like me to quote some of his Hellonist ideas?