Isaiah says God will kill Jesus?

[King Phenomenon]

It’s all symbolic imo. Jesus died in his sleep peacefully at a ripe old age.

 

[freelight]

It’s all symbolic imo. Jesus died in his sleep peacefully at a ripe old age.

Yep, all language is symbolic - where Jesus went after his supposed 'crucifixion'....or if he survived the cross by some subterfuge or illusion is open to speculation (toss in swoon theory too), but some fun bunny trails to follow on those possibilities - two possibilities of where he lived to older age and died are India or China that I've heard of....with claims of his gravesite.

Re: Is. 53 -

In any case, Israel is God's Servant-Son in a book written for that community, no matter whats read into the text by another religious group to support their version of the 'Messiah', since its all text-craft and creative script-writing anyways.

In the end, Isreal is the one glorified and exalted after her great suffering....with all nations coming to Zion, as their Messiah rules....a man accomplishing all the things their Messiah is supposed (taught/prophesied) to be accomplishing...hence their refusal to accept Jesus the first time around as THEIR messiah. - the idea of a 'second coming' (2nd try) doesnt work either as a Jewish belief or doctrine. So looks like a double strike on Jesus for them.

However, the idea of a spiritual 'Christ' being born/awakened in each soul, applies to all men universally, - this can include a messianic 'new age' where God by his Spirit, inspires all men within to live by natural and spiritual laws, to live in love, harmony, peace and co-operation, serving one another to effect the higher good of the world. This is the more gnostic/pagan/esoteric concept of the 'Christ' taught by Paul....after all, WE are God's TEMPLE

Perhaps thats too utopian or good to be true for some, but is what many religionists/spiritualists are aspiring towards,....bringing heaven down to earth. - we are the light-bearers and christed ones who will do it; - who else is 'God' going to work THRU to bring such about? We are it.


~*~*~

 

[King Phenomenon]

Yep, all language is symbolic - where Jesus went after his supposed 'crucifixion'....or if he survived the cross by some subterfuge or illusion is open to speculation (toss in swoon theory too), but some fun bunny trails to follow on those possibilities - two possibilities of where he lived to older age and died are India or China that I've heard of....with claims of his gravesite.

Re: Is. 53 -

In any case, Israel is God's Servant-Son in a book written for that community, no matter whats read into the text by another religious group to support their version of the 'Messiah', since its all text-craft and creative script-writing anyways.

In the end, Isreal is the one glorified and exalted after her great suffering....with all nations coming to Zion, as their Messiah rules....a man accomplishing all the things their Messiah is supposed (taught/prophesied) to be accomplishing...hence their refusal to accept Jesus the first time around as THEIR messiah. - the idea of a 'second coming' (2nd try) doesnt work either as a Jewish belief or doctrine. So looks like a double strike on Jesus for them.

However, the idea of a spiritual 'Christ' being born/awakened in each soul, applies to all men universally, - this can include a messianic 'new age' where God by his Spirit, inspires all men within to live by natural and spiritual laws, to live in love, harmony, peace and co-operation, serving one another to effect the higher good of the world. This is the more gnostic/pagan/esoteric concept of the 'Christ' taught by Paul....after all, WE are God's TEMPLE

Perhaps thats too utopian or good to be true for some, but is what many religionists/spiritualists are aspiring towards,....bringing heaven down to earth. - we are the light-bearers and christed ones who will do it; - who else is 'God' going to work THRU to bring such about? We are it.


~*~*~

No proof he died on a cross

 

[Shaul]

I believe we are not the ones in error. It seems certain people must bend over backwards to deny what the text actually says.

There is a key difference. The book of Isaiah was written by a Jew, written in the language of the Jews and the exegesis of it being about the collective righteous of Israel was well established prior to the time of Jesus of Nazareth and is in harmony with the rest of Isaiah and the TaNaKh. On the other hand, the nominative Christian interpretation that it is about Jesus of Nazareth was developed much later, is often based on erroneous translations, and is not even supported by the Christian "New Testament" itself.

 

[John D. Brey]

There is a key difference. The book of Isaiah was written by a Jew, written in the language of the Jews and the exegesis of it being about the collective righteous of Israel was well established prior to the time of Jesus of Nazareth and is in harmony with the rest of Isaiah and the TaNaKh. On the other hand, the nominative Christian interpretation that it is about Jesus of Nazareth was developed much later, is often based on erroneous translations, and is not even supported by the Christian "New Testament" itself.

This is a fair and important statement so far as it relies on a natural, asymmetrical progression of time, reality, and prophesy. In this most general of contexts, which is generally held by the majority of human beings (theistic or atheistic), argumentation against the Jewish interpretation of anything in the Tanakh, so far as it's based on the Gospels, or the so-called "New Testament" (which comes after the fact) is kind of a waste of time since in the general understanding of knowledge and its transference, what comes before, is the seed for what comes later, and not vice versa.

To argue meaningfully against the traditional Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53, or any other prophesy in the Tanakh for that matter, we'd have to have some legitimate means of arguing that something is purposely, and statedly, "hidden" in the Tanakh in order to be revealed after-the-fact of a purposely and stated future event (literally prophesied ---the event and its retroactive power is ---in the Tanakh itself). The future event must be prophesied in the Tanakh to have retroactive power over things hidden in the Tanakh right up until the arrival of this future event.

As a knowledgeable and fair-minded student of Jewish thought does anything come to your mind that fits what's written above? This question is important since without some viable argument for retroactive interpretation, the possibility of any viewpoint competing with the traditional Jewish understanding is pointless.

At times the Messiah who brings about the redemption is viewed simply as a Moses of the new aeon, a Moses redivivus, and the question arises whether the parallel can be pursued any further. Is the Messiah as a new Moses who leads his people out of exile into the world of redemption also perhaps the giver of a Torah for the time of the redemption? Is the Torah and its [asymmetrical] radiation outward via the tradition the final word of God to Israel or is there in the Messianic or apocalyptic view a new revelation, a new form of the word of God?​

​

Gershom Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, p. 53.​

John

 

[Shaul]

This is a fair and important statement so far as it relies on a natural, asymmetrical progression of time, reality, and prophesy. In this most general of contexts, which is generally held by the majority of human beings (theistic or atheistic), argumentation against the Jewish interpretation of anything in the Tanakh, so far as it's based on the Gospels, or the so-called "New Testament" (which comes after the fact) is kind of a waste of time since in the general understanding of knowledge and its transference, what comes before, is the seed for what comes later, and not vice versa.

To argue meaningfully against the traditional Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53, or any other prophesy in the Tanakh for that matter, we'd have to have some legitimate means of arguing that something is purposely, and statedly, "hidden" in the Tanakh in order to be revealed after-the-fact of this purposely and stated future event (literally prophesied ---the event and its retroactive power is ---in the Tanakh itself). The future event must be prophesied in the Tanakh to have retroactive power over things hidden in the Tanakh right up until the arrival of this future event.

As a knowledgeable and fair-minded student of Jewish thought does anything come to your mind that fits what's written above? This question is important since without some viable argument for retroactive interpretation, the possibility of any viewpoint competing with the traditional Jewish understanding is pointless.

At times the Messiah who brings about the redemption is viewed simply as a Moses of the new aeon, a Moses redivivus, and the question arises whether the parallel can be pursued any further. Is the Messiah as a new Moses who leads his people out of exile into the world of redemption also perhaps the giver of a Torah for the time of the redemption? Is the Torah and its [asymmetrical] radiation outward via the tradition the final word of God to Israel or is there in the Messianic or apocalyptic view a new revelation, a new form of the word of God?​

​

Gershom Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, p. 53.​

John

The Pauline Christian exegesis has a foundation in a "new revelation" through inner "mystery" revelation. For example as espoused by Paul of Tarsus in Ephesians chapter 3 where he wrote in verse 2-5: "Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets." This foundational "mystery" exegesis substitutes the prior understandings of the Hebrew scriptures with a gnostic-like ("mystery") inner foundation. This is an implicit acknowledgement that the new interpretations of the Hebrew scriptures can not be derived from the texts alone but require a basis of a "changed person" through faith alone in the putative effects of the resurrection (of Jesus) narrative. This clarifies the dichotomy. One can base one's understanding on the TaNaKh itself or on faith in the gospel. Individuals must choose for themselves. But the choice is foundational and existential.

 

[John D. Brey]

The Pauline Christian exegesis has a foundation in a "new revelation" through inner "mystery" revelation. For example as espoused by Paul of Tarsus in Ephesians chapter 3 where he wrote in verse 2-5: "Surely you have heard about the administration of God’s grace that was given to me for you, that is, the mystery made known to me by revelation, as I have already written briefly. In reading this, then, you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery of Christ, which was not made known to people in other generations as it has now been revealed by the Spirit to God’s holy apostles and prophets." This foundational "mystery" exegesis substitutes the prior understandings of the Hebrew scriptures with a gnostic-like ("mystery") inner foundation. This is an implicit acknowledgement that the new interpretations of the Hebrew scriptures can not be derived from the texts alone but require a basis of a "changed person" through faith alone in the putative effects of the resurrection (of Jesus) narrative. This clarifies the dichotomy. One can base one's understanding on the TaNaKh itself or on faith in the gospel. Individuals must choose for themselves. But the choice is foundational and existential.

Paul claims to know a mystery hidden since the katabole (Greek for the "falling-down") of the world (i.e., the world after Adam's sin). But whether he does know this mystery or not is subject to various evaluations related to what you've noted above such that I don't expect a practicing Jew to necessarily weigh in on Paul and his mystery.

What I have more in mind is a strictly Jewish understanding that the very nature of the revelation sealed up in the written Tanakh is by design, function, and focus, not only incomplete (by design and self-revelation), but subject to a retroactive re-evaluation after the arrival of Messiah.

Also I know that the Beit Haleivi explained that the entire torah is a chok but I don't think anyone would apply the title of a formal chok to every mitzvah because of that. Additionally, there are more than enough commentators who work to present reasons so they must not view it as a chok.​

Whether the entire Torah is a chok might be up for questioning. But the fact that the most fundamental and foundational rituals and symbols are often chukkim (say for instance ritual-circumcision) implies that the very foundations of Judaism can be practiced and written about, but that the deepest reasoning behind Judaism (say for instance, "How does cutting off flesh from the male-organ affect meaningful change") can't be fully known until Messiah arrives to reveal the true meaning of the chukkim (and thus the deepest meaning of a chok like ritual circumcision).

Fwiw, this waiting for Messiah to reveal what should technically come before Messiah (the practice seemingly shouldn't precede the reality the practice ritualizes), justifies a retroactive re-reading of Isaiah for those who use the purported life and death of Messiah (in this case Paul's Jesus of Nazareth) as the template for re-evaluating, re-exegeting, re-interpreting, say, Isaiah 53.

Whereas Jesus of Nazareth asymmetrically (present to future) transformed the Passover seder into a ritualization of his impending death and resurrection (the ritual of the Eucharist), the existence of the chukkim imply that Messiah, in Paul's case Jesus of Nazareth, would be just as much in his right to retroactively transform the ritual cutting of the flesh of the male child into a symbol not of Messiah's death and resurrection, (ala the Passover seder into the Eucharist), but rather ---retroactively ---transform the ritual of circumcision into a symbol of Messiah's conception and birth; a birth affected without any of the effects come, so to say, from the male-organ that's ritually struck a blow in a ritual circumcision (brit milah retroactively transformed into a symbol of emasculation, and thus virgin birth, followed by rebirth, through the Passion of the Eucharist ----ritualized in metzitzah---- for those unfortunates born the first time ---unlike Messiah ---from the serpentine seed of the ritually struck organ).



John

 

[Shaul]

Paul claims to know a mystery hidden since the katabole (Greek for the "falling-down") of the world (i.e., the world after Adam's sin). But whether he does know this mystery or not is subject to various evaluations related to what you've noted above such that I don't expect a practicing Jew to necessarily weigh in on Paul and his mystery.

What I have more in mind is a strictly Jewish understanding that the very nature of the revelation sealed up in the written Tanakh is by design, function, and focus, not only incomplete (by design and self-revelation), but subject to a retroactive re-evaluation after the arrival of Messiah.

Also I know that the Beit Haleivi explained that the entire torah is a chok but I don't think anyone would apply the title of a formal chok to every mitzvah because of that. Additionally, there are more than enough commentators who work to present reasons so they must not view it as a chok.​

Whether the entire Torah is a chok might be up for questioning. But the fact that the most fundamental and foundational rituals and symbols are often chukkim (say for instance ritual-circumcision) implies that the very foundations of Judaism can be practiced and written about, but that the deepest reasoning behind Judaism (say for instance, "How does cutting off flesh from the male-organ affect meaningful change") can't be fully known until Messiah arrives to reveal the true meaning of the chukkim (and thus the deepest meaning of a chok like ritual circumcision).

Fwiw, this waiting for Messiah to reveal what should technically come before Messiah (the practice seemingly shouldn't precede the reality the practice ritualizes), justifies a retroactive re-reading of Isaiah for those who use the purported life and death of Messiah (in this case Paul's Jesus of Nazareth) as the template for re-evaluating, re-exegeting, re-interpreting, say, Isaiah 53.

Whereas Jesus of Nazareth asymmetrically (present to future) transformed the Passover seder into a ritualization of his impending death and resurrection (the ritual of the Eucharist), the existence of the chukkim imply that Messiah, in Paul's case Jesus of Nazareth, would be just as much in his right to retroactively transform the ritual cutting of the flesh of the male child into a symbol not of Messiah's death and resurrection, (ala the Passover seder into the Eucharist), but rather ---retroactively ---transform the ritual of circumcision into a symbol of Messiah's conception and birth; a birth affected without any of the effects come, so to say, from the male-organ that's ritually struck a blow in a ritual circumcision (brit milah retroactively transformed into a symbol of emasculation, and thus virgin birth, followed by rebirth, through the Passion of the Eucharist ----ritualized in metzitzah---- for those unfortunates born the first time ---unlike Messiah ---from the serpentine seed of the ritually struck organ).



John

The concept that the TaNaKh cannot, or could not, be understood until the end time moshiach comes, or came as a Christian would say, it contrary to the TaNaKh. The TaNaKh declares that it can be understood before that time. It declares that it "is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, 'Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?'” Supposing that the Writer of the TaNaKh is "tricking" people into a misunderstanding is contrary to His nature of being Just.

 

[John D. Brey]

The concept that the TaNaKh cannot, or could not, be understood until the end time moshiach comes, or came as a Christian would say, it contrary to the TaNaKh. The TaNaKh declares that it can be understood before that time. It declares that it "is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, 'Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?'” Supposing that the Writer of the TaNaKh is "tricking" people into a misunderstanding is contrary to His nature of being Just.

11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? 14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.​

​

Deuteronomy 30:11–14.​

No scripture should be interpreted as a single concept by taking it out of context. A chapter later God says he will hide his faces from Israel so that they won't know the meaning of his word (see Isaiah 6:9-10). And a chapter earlier, the text says:

29 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law [minus the secret things that belong to God alone at this juncture].​

​

Deuteronomy 29:29.​

Throughout Deutero-Isaiah, the prophet claims the old things will, or should, be forgotten, to include the first Passover and the Exodus. He claims something utterly new, something that isn't directly related to Deuteronomy, or the Exodus, something exponentially greater, is going to be revealed (by him, Isaiah, in the later chapters of his prophesy). He exclaims, "But will you give ear?," or even (the Hebrew is difficult), "You will refuse to hear."

Remember ye not the former things, Neither consider the things of old. Behold I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not consider it?​

​

Isaiah 43:18-19.​

Ramban connects the latter chapters of Deuteronomy directly to Isaiah 48:6. He claims what's hidden from Israel in Deuteronomy is being prophesied to be revealed in the latter chapters of Isaiah if Israel is able to receive it:

I've declared the former things from the beginning. . . From the beginning I declared it to thee. . . I've shown thee new things from this time [now, Isaiah's day], even the hidden Nazarenes, and you refuse to consider them [or it].​

​

Isaiah 48:3-6.​

Unless someone has studied Ibn Ezra's commentary on Isaiah, they'd highly question the interpretation that claims Isaiah claims to reveal the "hidden Nazarenes" as though these "hidden Nazarenes" are what God has hidden from back-slidden Israel. Ibn Ezra points out that what's hidden in the Isaiah 48:6, hidden in the consonants "נצרות" (a hapax in the Tanakh), is precisely what is "hidden" in the Omniscient one in Deuteronomy 29:29. Ramban connects the latter chapters of Deuteronomy with Isaiah 48:6, while Ibn Ezra relates the hidden things to Deuteronomy 29:29 where secrets are hidden in the Omniscient one.

But where Ibn Ezra really connects with the interpretation of Isaiah 48:6 above, is when he points out that strictly and literally interpreted, the Hebrew word Nazareth "נצרות" is both the thing that's hidden, and the word used to speak of it as hidden. Ibn Ezra points out that in proper Hebrew, the verb "hidden" needs a noun associated with it, i.e., the thing that is hidden. But he points out that here, in Isaiah 48:6, the word "Nazareth" appears to be both the thing hidden, and the word used to hide it, since there's no noun associated with the word. Ibn Ezra points out that nothing is attached to the word "hidden" (נצרות).

In Isaiah 43:19, the prophet says that this new thing is so much greater than the original Passover and Exodus that the former should, and eventually will, be utterly forgotten. The new thing will "sprout" or "spring forth," צמח. The word "צמח" is parallel to "Nazar," or "Nazarene," i.e., נצר or נצרות. Both words speak of a "Branch" that sprouts not from sexual propagation, but as a basal-shoot that grows from an original root in a clonal manner rather than a sexual one.

Has anyone heard a tale of a would-be Jewish firstborn born of a clonal preganancy rather than a sexual one? Would it stretch believability to say that this Jewish firstborn, born of a clonal pregnancy, claimed to be Messiah, or that he came from Nazareth, and was called (he and the family he formed for himself),"the Nazarene," and his offspring "the Nazarene's," throughout the Talmud?




John

 

[John D. Brey]

Remember ye not the former things, Neither consider the things of old. Behold I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not consider it?​

​

Isaiah 43:18-19.​

The word for "new thing" in Isaiah 43:19 is "הדש." A parallel passage using the same Hebrew word (הדש) describes God doing something utterly new:

How long will thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? For the Lord hath created a new thing [הדש] in the earth: a woman will clone a man.​

​

Jeremiah 31:22.​

Isaiah says this cloning "סבב" of a man will be an undeniable sign to Israel since an unmarried maiden will be found pregnant apart from breaking any marital vow. A man will literally "sprout" (נצר or צמח), i.e. "branch" out of a woman's womb as the most peculiar of clones therein opening the earth on the way out rather than a sinful father opening it for him on the way in:

Thy first father sinned.​

​

Isaiah 43:27.​

​

Isaiah 43:18, says not to remember זכר the former ראשנות things. Then a few verses later we find out that the former ראשנות things are the swinging Richards who open the womb, the first father, creating the constant reinactment of the first sin of Adam. Then verse 19 says a new thing will sprout, or spring צמח out of a maiden's womb before it's sullied by a person's first father: a clone סבב will "open the womb" (Exodus 13:2), and he will forgive the sins of all those born only of the first, sinful, father.

The spirit is clearly working through Isaiah as the exegesis above shows since the word for "remember," as in remember not, i.e., זכר, is a word Isaiah uses elsewhere, almost beyond belief, for the male-organ of the father. Remember not the mechanism of your first birth (consider it bled to death, emasculated), for:

I am he that blotteth out thy transgresssions for my own sake and I will not remember thy sins, so remember me [the father of thy rebirth], not thy first father [of sin] . . ..​

​

Isaiah 43:25-26.​

John