Islam and Judaism are refuted.

[dybmh]

When land is written in the plural, it is feminine, eretzot.

When the bible refers to nations, usually two different words are used: am and goy. Both take the masculine plural, so amim and goyim.

Israel itself is a proper noun, masculine. Overwhelmingly, when the bible is referring to the collective people of Israel it uses the masculine b'nei Israel, literally, sons of Israel.

In the Isaiah passages, Israel is referred to as 'my servant' by God. The word is 'eved' in Hebrew which takes the masculine plural, so 'evedim,'

Interesting... I'll have to think about that.

B'nei Yisrael? I usually understand this as Jacob's Offspring. And it is speaking about the people, not the nation? I think? I could be wrong, but I think this phrase, 'B'nei Yisrael', occurs pre-nationhood.

I'll check. I'm also interested to look at eretzot. I wonder if it occurs in Tanach in that form?

 

[Trailblazer]

This is not clear in Paul after all. The blindness is never specifically attributed to God, but seems to be indirectly attributed to Him as part of the plan for Gentile salvation. See Romans 9 thru 11.

Okay thanks.. I'll take a look when I have time.

 

[stvdv]

1) Not blindly, no. What I find important is the prophecies concerning Israel and the Messiah.
2) The Jews certainly found the idea of Messiah as a suffering redeemer strange,
3) and the thought of them losing their nation because they reject him was offensive.

1) USA had 70% Christians (lots in high places), sometimes I think "maybe they (the rich ones) implement these prophecies a bit"
2) I find it very strange indeed. It's a true fact that "Jesus died by them" I hope for Christians it's not a fantasy that "Jesus died for them"
3) I call it belittling, demeaning and disrespectful. Even blasphemous. They do it also towards Hindu, Muslim, Buddhists, Atheists, Humanists.

 

[YoursTrue]

Perhaps the distinction is not whether Judaism is or is not correct.

According to the story, being outcast and persecuted is a result of not following the law. The fault could be in how the people behave and not the religion itself.

But to the larger point:

It seems to me that a lot of the scriptural evidence provided by Christians to show Jesus as the messiah of the Old Testament requires that the individual believe in Jesus first. For example, the list of verses provided from Isaiah are not meaningful unless a person believes in Jesus. If they do, then the verses confirm that belief. But to an outsider, they are not convincing. The same is true for virtually all scriptural evidence that Jesus is the messiah that is alluded to in the Old Testament.

If a religion is distorted and doing things not pleasing perhaps to God (that's for each to decide),it's the people that claim to be part of that religion.
Unless God just abandoned people to themselves to make up their own law(s) within a religion, why bother even figuring if the people/religion of and by the people is pleasing to God? The remains of the temple wall in Jerusalem are a reminder that for a long time now, something isn't right there, if what the scriptures say is true.

 

[YoursTrue]

It was actually one of our Jewish members that had posted a very interesting thread regarding Jesus's poor knowledge of Judaism with provided examples, but for the life of me I can't find it in the archives.

Pertaining the thought about Jesus speaking for or not for Judaism, all you have to do is take a look at the various divisions today of many religions, including Judaism, with their various teachings. As we know, there were the Samaritans, the Pharisees, the Saducees, Jesus spoke to them all, referring to their religious beliefs.

 

[dybmh]

If a religion is distorted and doing things not pleasing perhaps to God (that's for each to decide),it's the people that claim to be part of that religion.
Unless God just abandoned people to themselves to make up their own law(s) within a religion, why bother even figuring if the people/religion of and by the people is pleasing to God? The remains of the temple wall in Jerusalem are a reminder that for a long time now, something isn't right there, if what the scriptures say is true.

PruePhilip was saying that Judaism is flawed. The evidence provided was persecution and outcast.

I am saying that the persecution and outcast could be from a different cause. There are several possible causes.

One possible cause could be a flaw in the religion itself ( this is PruePhillip's claim ). PruePhillip is saying that persecution and outcast are caused by denying Jesus as LORD and savior. This would be, according to PruePhillip, a fault in the religion or the religious beliefs of Jewish people.

Another possible cause could be the behavior of Jewish people not following the Law as described in the Old Testament. This is detailed in Deuteronomy. ( This is what I proposed as a plausible counter argument). If this is the actual cause, then the Jewish religion is not at fault, because, the Jewish religion speaks about outcast and persecution as a result of ignoring the law.

There are other possible causes that aren't scriptural. The reason I brought this possible cause is because it is scriptural in origin. And in this way PruePhillip and I are discussing apples to apples. I could have spoken about the political reasons that Jewish people were expelled from the Land. And I could have spoken about human nature and in-group vs. out-group psychology. The Jewish people are often stereotyped and demonized like many other demographic groups. It could be that the outcast and persecution occurred for no religious reasons at all.

Does this answer your question?

 

[siti]

Yes, the scrolls, including 8 extant copies of Isaiah, show the Jesus prophecies were written hundreds of years before the time of Christ.

And therefore that the NT writers had access to them in order to compose the story of Jesus in accord with "prophecy"...like I said earlier - there is no mystery here.

 

[siti]

From the Jewish perspective yes, and that is only if you consider each religion isolated form all others.

Which, for the most part they are - aren't they?

 

[rosends]

Simple answer, yes, I think...

But "us" and "them" and "y'all", are gender neutral, I think...

@rosends , Can you help with this?

Probably not. This thread is predicated on a misunderstanding of the entirety of Isaiah, a text which explicitly defines the antecedents for its pronouns (and substitute, identifying nouns). It is precise in its wording and tenses, and it uses language in a way consistent with other biblical texts. The claims made about it smack of a deep seated ignorance of Hebrew and the book, itself, so I don't think that one would gain much trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon.

 

[dybmh]

Probably not. This thread is predicated on a misunderstanding of the entirety of Isaiah, a text which explicitly defines the antecedents for its pronouns (and substitute, identifying nouns). It is precise in its wording and tenses, and it uses language in a way consistent with other biblical texts. The claims made about it smack of a deep seated ignorance of Hebrew and the book, itself, so I don't think that one would gain much trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon.

Thank you for your reply.

 

[shunyadragon]

Which, for the most part they are - aren't they?

. . . only from the human tribal perspective.

 

[siti]

. . . only from the human tribal perspective.

Is there another perspective in regard to religion? I think not - although I fully expect members of the Baha'i tribe to disagree - in unison!

 

[siti]

They suffered at the Hands of the Almighty God for rejecting Jesus Christ.

Good Lord TB - didn't Hitler say something similar to that in Mein Kampf?

 

[shunyadragon]

Good Lord TB - didn't Hitler say something similar to that in Mein Kampf?

In a totally different context.

 

[siti]

In a totally different context.

But do you really believe that the Jews "suffered at the hands of Almighty God for rejecting Jesus"? I'd like to see how that remark can be justified in any context...and I'd really like an explanation as to how this is seeing things differently from the "human tribal perspective". Or is it just another example of Baha'i double speak?

 

[Trailblazer]

Good Lord TB - didn't Hitler say something similar to that in Mein Kampf?

I do not know what Hitler said, but I know what Baha'u'llah said and it was not pretty...
It is not something I would post here, lest the sirens go off...

 

[Trailblazer]

But do you really believe that the Jews "suffered at the hands of Almighty God for rejecting Jesus"? I'd like to see how that remark can be justified in any context...

Anything God does in any context is justified because God is just.

 

[siti]

I do not know what Hitler said

OK - let me enlighten you - In Mein Kampf, he wrote of the Jew: "His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine" and then "hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

but I know what Baha'u'llah said and it was not pretty...
It is not something I would post here, lest the sirens go off...

I'm sure you're right - not pretty at all...but in all fairness, I think you should quote Baha'u'llah if you are pinning antisemitism on him - let him speak for himself rather than you putting words in his mouth for him - don't you think...so where does Baha'u'llah blame God for the suffering of the Jews?

 

[siti]

Anything God does in any context is justified because God is just.

Well that's that then - I do enjoy a clearly reasoned argument!

 

[dybmh]

Anything God does in any context is justified because God is just.

As long as people do not attempt to execute the will of God thru violence, dominance, and harming others?