Sin and Repentance

[BilliardsBall]

[snip] insisting that you are usually oh, so persuasive when you work with people who (somehow) know less than you, is amusing, but not really educational.[/snip]

Way to focus on Messianic writer Michael Brown while both ignoring and disagreeing with Ramban, ben Uzziel, the NJPSV, the Septuagint, the Qumran'ers, Yalkut Shimoni, Midrash Rabbah, Targum Jonathan, etc.! They know more than you, not less than me or you.

Not amusing, but educational.

You are on this forum mainly to destroy the faith of Gentiles in the Jewish Messiah. God will judge between us. I pray you change your mind and stop being stubborn. I was stubborn once, too.

 

[rosends]

Way to focus on Messianic writer Michael Brown while both ignoring and disagreeing with Ramban, ben Uzziel, the NJPSV, the Septuagint, the Qumran'ers, Yalkut Shimoni, Midrash Rabbah, Targum Jonathan, etc.! They know more than you, not less than me or you.

Way to ignore what I said about all those and then pretend I didn't address it.

Not amusing, but educational.

Only if I want to learn how not to present a point of view, so thanks for that.

You are on this forum mainly to destroy the faith of Gentiles in the Jewish Messiah. God will judge between us. I pray you change your mind and stop being stubborn. I was stubborn once, too.

That's actually not even on my top 5 reasons for being on this forum but thanks for deciding my life for me. Shall I do the same for you? You are on this forum mainly to destroy Jews' connection to actual Judaism and mislead them into accepting the lie that any belief in Christianity can be reconciled with being Jewish. I pray you realize how wrong you are and stop being so stubborn.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Way to ignore what I said about all those and then pretend I didn't address it.

Only if I want to learn how not to present a point of view, so thanks for that.

That's actually not even on my top 5 reasons for being on this forum but thanks for deciding my life for me. Shall I do the same for you? You are on this forum mainly to destroy Jews' connection to actual Judaism and mislead them into accepting the lie that any belief in Christianity can be reconciled with being Jewish. I pray you realize how wrong you are and stop being so stubborn.

Ramban, ben Uzziel, the NJPSV, the Septuagint, the Qumran'ers, Yalkut Shimoni, Midrash Rabbah, Targum Jonathan, etc.! They know more than you, not less than me or you.

You said nothing about these. You present their authority in Tanakh and Hebrew as beneath your own? Or did you merely forget what they said about Isaiah before you presented the current anti-missionary plural deaths claim from the Hebrew?

It's disingenuous to claim Christians have twisted singular, not plural, prophecy about King Messiah when these and many more disagree with you.

Would love to hear your top 5 reasons for being on this forum that are neither attacking the Christians and Christian scriptures (which I see you doing at RF constantly) or sheer intellectual pride.

 

[rosends]

Ramban, ben Uzziel, the NJPSV, the Septuagint, the Qumran'ers, Yalkut Shimoni, Midrash Rabbah, Targum Jonathan, etc.! They know more than you, not less than me or you.

You said nothing about these.

Sure I did. You just don't like it.

You present their authority in Tanakh and Hebrew as beneath your own? Or did you merely forget what they said about Isaiah before you presented the current anti-missionary plural deaths claim from the Hebrew?

Maybe I quoted the talmud to explain my statements and you don't understand it. Maybe I have cited (and can continue to cite) a variety of commentators who point out the plural of the word and its reference. Why do you think I am giving my own and current understanding, and not that i have ancient (and modern) experts who see the plural and see it as applying to (among other things) the nation of Israel, or individuals in the nation? I like how you cite all sorts of experts who, not only couldn't you understand were I to quote them directly, but who say all sorts of things that negate your various positions and there, you would argue that their authority isn't valid. You should quit while you are behind. Way behind.

It's disingenuous to claim Christians have twisted singular, not plural, prophecy about King Messiah when these and many more disagree with you.

Ah, but they don't. They just understand the systems of interpretation in Judaism and expect their readers do as well. You clearly don't. Go back and read what I wrote earlier and try to understand it. Hint, it is in Hebrew.

Would love to hear your top 5 reasons for being on this forum that are neither attacking the Christians and Christian scriptures (which I see you doing at RF constantly) or sheer intellectual pride.

1. answering questions about Judaism
2. asking questions about Judaism
3. interacting with Jews from around the world
4. learning about other faiths
5. meeting people from other faiths and interacting with them

Number 6 might be "countering false information with accurate information about Judaism". Glad I could give you what you would love to hear. Any other requests?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sure I did. You just don't like it.

Maybe I quoted the talmud to explain my statements and you don't understand it. Maybe I have cited (and can continue to cite) a variety of commentators who point out the plural of the word and its reference. Why do you think I am giving my own and current understanding, and not that i have ancient (and modern) experts who see the plural and see it as applying to (among other things) the nation of Israel, or individuals in the nation? I like how you cite all sorts of experts who, not only couldn't you understand were I to quote them directly, but who say all sorts of things that negate your various positions and there, you would argue that their authority isn't valid. You should quit while you are behind. Way behind.

Ah, but they don't. They just understand the systems of interpretation in Judaism and expect their readers do as well. You clearly don't. Go back and read what I wrote earlier and try to understand it. Hint, it is in Hebrew.

1. answering questions about Judaism
2. asking questions about Judaism
3. interacting with Jews from around the world
4. learning about other faiths
5. meeting people from other faiths and interacting with them

Number 6 might be "countering false information with accurate information about Judaism". Glad I could give you what you would love to hear. Any other requests?

Interesting, none of those 6 are arguing with Christian believers and telling them their faith is void.

The modern mythmakers who go for the plural in Isaiah 53 disagree with the ancient sages, regardless, I've already said Jesus had multiple deaths, so perhaps you will answer the question:

"Why does God feel the need to tell us that some Jews will die near rich people and others, near bad people, and why isn't this a direct prophecy of Yeshua's death(s)?"

 

[rosends]

Interesting, none of those 6 are arguing with Christian believers and telling them their faith is void.

That's true, becauyse that's not my agenda. Sadly, it is the emergent obligation when confronted with false claims and lies.

The modern mythmakers who go for the plural in Isaiah 53 disagree with the ancient sages, regardless, I've already said Jesus had multiple deaths, so perhaps you will answer the question:

So Rashi was a modern myth maker? Got it.
מסר עצמו בכל מיני מות שגזר עליו על לא רצה לקבל עליו כפירה לעשות רעה ולחמוס חמס ככל הגוים אשר היה גר ביניהם

"Why does God feel the need to tell us that some Jews will die near rich people and others, near bad people, and why isn't this a direct prophecy of Yeshua's death(s)?"

You have two questions. The first asks about why God feels a need to do something. That's unanswerable. If you think you can answer it then you are more arrogant than I ever thought, deciding that you know why God decided to do something. The second asks about why something isn't a prophecy about someone's death in particular (if you knew Hebrew, you'd know that "Yeshua" isn't the name). I could show how other required elements of that chapter invalidate jesus as claimant. I could show how this prophecy has applied to Jews during the course of history. I could show how those who see this also as a reference to the Jewish messiah figure understand how this applies (וְיִמְסַר יַת רַשִׁיעַיָא לְגֵהִנָם וְיַת עֲתִּירֵי נִכְסַיָא דַאֲנַסוּ בְּמוֹתָא דְאָבַדְנָא בְּדִיל דְלָא יִתְקַיְמוּן עָבְדֵי חֶטְאָה וְלָא יְמַלְלוּן נִכְלִין בְּפוּמְהוֹן)

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's true, becauyse that's not my agenda. Sadly, it is the emergent obligation when confronted with false claims and lies.

So Rashi was a modern myth maker? Got it.
מסר עצמו בכל מיני מות שגזר עליו על לא רצה לקבל עליו כפירה לעשות רעה ולחמוס חמס ככל הגוים אשר היה גר ביניהם

You have two questions. The first asks about why God feels a need to do something. That's unanswerable. If you think you can answer it then you are more arrogant than I ever thought, deciding that you know why God decided to do something. The second asks about why something isn't a prophecy about someone's death in particular (if you knew Hebrew, you'd know that "Yeshua" isn't the name). I could show how other required elements of that chapter invalidate jesus as claimant. I could show how this prophecy has applied to Jews during the course of history. I could show how those who see this also as a reference to the Jewish messiah figure understand how this applies (וְיִמְסַר יַת רַשִׁיעַיָא לְגֵהִנָם וְיַת עֲתִּירֵי נִכְסַיָא דַאֲנַסוּ בְּמוֹתָא דְאָבַדְנָא בְּדִיל דְלָא יִתְקַיְמוּן עָבְדֵי חֶטְאָה וְלָא יְמַלְלוּן נִכְלִין בְּפוּמְהוֹן)

No, it's not arrogance. There are no wasted statements in Tanakh. God 100% of the time gives consistent, relevant advice--for hearers then and now. You are ducking and dodging the simple contrast:

* Christians recognize the statements from Isaiah 53 as obvious prophecy about King Messiah Jesus

* Non-Messianic Jews go to lengths to avoid discussing Jesus as the main focus of Tanakh prophecy, for example, saying "It was [mysteriously] important for God to take time in Tanakh to tell Jewish people that other Jewish people will die near rich persons, still others, die near sinners."

You further claim that *other* parts of Isaiah 52-53 refute the Lord Jesus Christ's fulfillment of prophecy, yet you won't admit the obvious issue with the above. Put differently, since you have no valid, insightful, spiritual or logical answer to the prophecies of verse 9, so you are excited to go to ground where you are more confident in your anti-Jesus apologetics. Why should we bother when the answers are so simple, per the below, concerning the whole passage?

The Lord has made bare His holy arm

In the eyes of all the nations;

And all the ends of the earth shall see

The salvation of our God.

[Jesus stripped bare and witnessed internationally]


13 Behold, My Servant shall deal prudently;

He shall be exalted and extolled and be very high.

[Jesus lifted on the cross, then lifted internationally by billions of Gentiles]


14 Just as many were astonished at you,

So His visage was marred more than any man,

And His form more than the sons of men;

[Jesus mocked, beaten nearly beyond recognition, a sacrificed lamb]


15 So shall He sprinkle many nations.

Kings shall shut their mouths at Him;

For what had not been told them they shall see,

And what they had not heard they shall consider.

[Gentiles brought to Tanakh, salvation and the gospel from Acts and onward]


Who has believed our report?

And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

[Jews despise their own Messiah, revealed first to Jews . . . then to the nations]


2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,

And as a root out of dry ground.

[Prophesied branch from the felled stump of the Davidic kings, a tender child grown to a man]


He has no form or comeliness;

And when we see Him,

There is no beauty that we should desire Him.

[Not a handsome man, Judas had to identify Him with a kiss, beaten badly for our sin]


3 He is despised and rejected by men,

A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.

[Grieved over Jerusalem and His Jewish people, despised and mocked for us]


And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;

He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

[Disciples fled, the rabbis mocked Him on His cross]


4 Surely He has borne our griefs

And carried our sorrows;

Yet we esteemed Him stricken,

Smitten by God, and afflicted.

[He brings believers joy through His redemption]


5 But He was wounded for our transgressions,

He was bruised for our iniquities;

[Literally wounded and bruised for our sin]


The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,

And by His stripes we are healed.

[He is our shalom and a miracle cure, He also heals people spiritually/holistically where they are not cured]


6 All we like sheep have gone astray;

We have turned, every one, to his own way;

And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

[Humans sin and turn from God "naturally", Jews reject the missing Temple sacrifices for mitzvot and prayer and the way of salvation NOT found in Tanakh which is to TRUST GOD for salvation]


7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,

Yet He opened not His mouth;

He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,

And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,

So He opened not His mouth.

[Jesus refused to defend Himself at trial, but was ultimately rejected for answering when adjured under oath that HE IS GOD]


8 He was taken from prison and from judgment,

And who will declare His generation?

For He was cut off from the land of the living;

For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.

[Held at Caiaphas's home, we preached in His Name, He died for Israel first]


9 And they made His grave with the wicked—

But with the rich at His death,

Because He had done no violence,

Nor was any deceit in His mouth.

[He died for the crime of being KING OF ISRAEL, died amongst thieves, was honored in an unused, wealthy Pharisee's tomb]


10 Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;

He has put Him to grief.

When You 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.

[God willed His death, He shall RISE FROM THE DEAD, FOR ETERNAL LIFE]


11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.

By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,

For He shall bear their iniquities.

[From one sin of Adam man is ruined, for billions of sins, Messiah died and justified many]


12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,

And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,

Because He poured out His soul unto death,

And He was numbered with the transgressors,

And He bore the sin of many,

And made intercession for the transgressors.

[His Name is great and He is the most influential person ever/still, though He isn't even on Earth! PRAISE YESHUA MELEKH MOSHIACH!]

 

[rosends]

No, it's not arrogance. There are no wasted statements in Tanakh. God 100% of the time gives consistent, relevant advice--for hearers then and now.

But that's not what you are asking. You are asking why God "feels the need" -- ascribing the emotion to God and trying to understand God's "emotions". You are treating God like a person. I guess that's ok with you.

You are ducking and dodging the simple contrast:

* Christians recognize the statements from Isaiah 53 as obvious prophecy about King Messiah Jesus

* Non-Messianic Jews go to lengths to avoid discussing Jesus as the main focus of Tanakh prophecy, for example, saying "It was [mysteriously] important for God to take time in Tanakh to tell Jewish people that other Jewish people will die near rich persons, still others, die near sinners."

You are ducking 2 really important points.
1. That Christians are wrong and the verse had meaning that was understood by Jews well before Christianity came into being.

2. Jews point out the lengths that Christians go to to try and inject Jesus where he is conspicuously absent, even ignoring the plethora of explanations for that line (which I have provided, repeatedly) and trying to intuit some human emotion they project into God.

You further claim that *other* parts of Isaiah 52-53 refute the Lord Jesus Christ's fulfillment of prophecy,

Yes, parts you ignore or jump through hoops to twist. You want only the parts you want.

yet you won't admit the obvious issue with the above. Put differently, since you have no valid, insightful, spiritual or logical answer to the prophecies of verse 9, so you are excited to go to ground where you are more confident in your anti-Jesus apologetics.

And yet I have posted the answers more than once. Are you having trouble reading them? Just because you don't understand the answers or don't like them doesn't make them not exist.[/S]

 

[rosends]

Here's how I see the two positions:
Jews say that the verses in question are explicitly and primarily about the Jewish people and, as per the standard method of interpretation, some can also be applied to a future messiah while others remain about the nation. Jesus is not that messiah for all the reasons pointed to elsewhere about his position, identity, character, actions etc.

Christians say that the verses in question are implicitly but solely about Jesus and the ones which seem to be interpretable about his life are used to prove his messianic identity and this interpretation is then used to show how the verses are solely about him. Any other explicit identification must therefore be wrong.

I'm more than happy to accept that, when you start with a particular messianic figure in mind, you have to find support in the text any way you can, so you look where others have seen a deeper meaning which includes the general idea of a messianic figure and claim that it exclusively points to that particular figure. It isn't a persuasive way of working, but so be it.

If a Christian were to say, "sure it is about the nation, but, as per the deeper rabbinic interpretation, it is also about a messiah, and I believe that the messiah is Jesus, so I see this about him" then the conversation could progress into a separate discussion of whether Jesus could have been a messiah. But I have never seen any Christian concede that the text is about what it says it is about primarily and then there is more interpreted.

 

[BilliardsBall]

But that's not what you are asking. You are asking why God "feels the need" -- ascribing the emotion to God and trying to understand God's "emotions". You are treating God like a person. I guess that's ok with you.



You are ducking 2 really important points.
1. That Christians are wrong and the verse had meaning that was understood by Jews well before Christianity came into being.

2. Jews point out the lengths that Christians go to to try and inject Jesus where he is conspicuously absent, even ignoring the plethora of explanations for that line (which I have provided, repeatedly) and trying to intuit some human emotion they project into God.


Yes, parts you ignore or jump through hoops to twist. You want only the parts you want.

And yet I have posted the answers more than once. Are you having trouble reading them? Just because you don't understand the answers or don't like them doesn't make them not exist.[/S]

We are made in God's image. God was also made manifest in flesh as a person, so we could better understand Him. He is the Son of God and Israel is the Son of God, so that our Father is understandable. I'm delighted to have left the mystery religion behind of our people to embrace a God who is near to us, not far from us.

And His ways are beyond ours in many respects. However, having recently reread the entire Tanakh, I'm struck that it does not waste words. You have not well defended (what you've labeled by implication) wasted words in Isaiah 53. That God would waste His living breath to inspire the incredible, transcendent knowledge that "Some Jews will die near rich people, others near bad people", is what I find insulting to God, not "ascribing God motives or emotions" that are exactly how God describes His own Tanakh!

Further, you've ignored what I've written several times, that Jesus had plural deaths. Obviously, you don't want to discuss Messianic/Christian doctrine, therefore, I take your (attempted) refutations of it lightly.

**That Christians are wrong and the verse had meaning that was understood by Jews well before Christianity came into being.**

I've cited to you several times pre-Christian and also post-Christian Jewish scholars--of the highest possible caliber, tradition and history--who've found Isaiah 52-53 to be speaking of Messiah in the singular.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Here's how I see the two positions:
Jews say that the verses in question are explicitly and primarily about the Jewish people and, as per the standard method of interpretation, some can also be applied to a future messiah while others remain about the nation. Jesus is not that messiah for all the reasons pointed to elsewhere about his position, identity, character, actions etc.

And here is one of those places where that information can be found.

Simple Reasons Why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus and Christianity

 

[rosends]

God was also made manifest in flesh as a person, so we could better understand Him.

That is your belief. Judaism disagrees.

He is the Son of God and Israel is the Son of God, so that our Father is understandable. I'm delighted to have left the mystery religion behind of our people to embrace a God who is near to us, not far from us.

Well, the nation of Israel is God's child (in the same way that David, Solomon and angels are textually God's children) so since וּבְנֵי עֶלְיוֹן כֻּלְּ֒כֶם and בָּנִ֣ים אַתֶּ֔ם לַֽי-ה-וָ֖ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶ֑ם you can claim that any Jew is equally a "son of God" with none being any more special in that role than any other.

You have not well defended (what you've labeled by implication) wasted words in Isaiah 53.

I don't recall saying they were wasted either explicitly or implicitly. You have decided that if you can't figure out God's feelings then the words are wasted. i look at their meaning and see what God says and why that is an important message. You might as well wonder why God "felt" like telling us that in the future, two different kinds of rain will fall. Your decision about what God feels is steeped in arrogance.

Further, you've ignored what I've written several times, that Jesus had plural deaths. Obviously, you don't want to discuss Messianic/Christian doctrine, therefore, I take your (attempted) refutations of it lightly.

I ignored it because it only concedes the point that the word is in plural while your cut and paste section stressed that word is not in the plural. If you want to argue with yourself, have at it. Do you really want to discuss how your position contradicts itself? Is the word singular or plural? Now you want to explain how the plural could apply to Jesus even though earlier, you argued how it could not apply to the Jewish people because it was in the singular (as per your translation in posts 117 and 232 and the external source you copied from in 257).

I've cited to you several times pre-Christian and also post-Christian Jewish scholars--of the highest possible caliber, tradition and history--who've found Isaiah 52-53 to be speaking of Messiah in the singular.

Speaking of a messianic figure in additon to speaking about the nation. I have explained that that's part of the Jewish exegetic method. PaRD"S.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That is your belief. Judaism disagrees.

Well, the nation of Israel is God's child (in the same way that David, Solomon and angels are textually God's children) so since וּבְנֵי עֶלְיוֹן כֻּלְּ֒כֶם and בָּנִ֣ים אַתֶּ֔ם לַֽי-ה-וָ֖ה אֱלֹהֵיכֶ֑ם you can claim that any Jew is equally a "son of God" with none being any more special in that role than any other.

I don't recall saying they were wasted either explicitly or implicitly. You have decided that if you can't figure out God's feelings then the words are wasted. i look at their meaning and see what God says and why that is an important message. You might as well wonder why God "felt" like telling us that in the future, two different kinds of rain will fall. Your decision about what God feels is steeped in arrogance.

I ignored it because it only concedes the point that the word is in plural while your cut and paste section stressed that word is not in the plural. If you want to argue with yourself, have at it. Do you really want to discuss how your position contradicts itself? Is the word singular or plural? Now you want to explain how the plural could apply to Jesus even though earlier, you argued how it could not apply to the Jewish people because it was in the singular (as per your translation in posts 117 and 232 and the external source you copied from in 257).

Speaking of a messianic figure in additon to speaking about the nation. I have explained that that's part of the Jewish exegetic method. PaRD"S.

My position does not contradict itself. The sages (mostly) argued for singular, but your position is NOT a contradiction with the manner in which Jesus died.

I also note that your "cut and paste" remark strengthens my position--so many sages argue for the singular that it was laborious to type them all in.

Meanwhile, Daniel 9 says Messiah will die for the sin of mankind on Pesach, 30 CE. Coincidence? Before you go off on this concept, be aware that I've encountered Lubavitchers who literally fear studying the chapter less they go insane (Jewish definition of insanity is, of course, become a Christian).

 

[rosends]

The sages (mostly) argued for singular, but your position is NOT a contradiction with the manner in which Jesus died.

The sages (starting over a thousand years ago) recognized the plural. They rarely argued for or against anything, but provided explanations accounting for the grammar. Your cut and paste website and translation denied that the word is in the plural. Now you acknowledge that it is in the plural but that is able to be reconciled with your claims. Why the change?

I also note that your "cut and paste" remark strengthens my position--so many sages argue for the singular that it was laborious to type them all in.

If only you had read what the sages actually say. I tried to explain it but you seem unwilling to read. That C/P job also included stuff which contradicts the sages and makes highly erroneous claims about the plural form in Hebrew.
If you think that that strengthens your position, then that just shows how little you understand your position.

Meanwhile, Daniel 9 says Messiah will die for the sin of mankind on Pesach, 30 CE. Coincidence?

Wow. No, no Daniel doesn't, so no coincidence.

I've encountered Lubavitchers who literally fear studying the chapter less they go insane (Jewish definition of insanity is, of course, become a Christian).

No, no you haven't. You spend your time with uneducated people. But I have actually encountered messianics who wear tin foil hats so that no one can read their thoughts! Well, no, I haven't, but I have encountered messianics who seem unwilling to read actual Jewish content but instead believe the lies and mistakes of Christians because they can't stand the possibility of learning that their entire theology is built on nothingness.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The sages (starting over a thousand years ago) recognized the plural. They rarely argued for or against anything, but provided explanations accounting for the grammar. Your cut and paste website and translation denied that the word is in the plural. Now you acknowledge that it is in the plural but that is able to be reconciled with your claims. Why the change?

If only you had read what the sages actually say. I tried to explain it but you seem unwilling to read. That C/P job also included stuff which contradicts the sages and makes highly erroneous claims about the plural form in Hebrew.
If you think that that strengthens your position, then that just shows how little you understand your position.

Wow. No, no Daniel doesn't, so no coincidence.


No, no you haven't. You spend your time with uneducated people. But I have actually encountered messianics who wear tin foil hats so that no one can read their thoughts! Well, no, I haven't, but I have encountered messianics who seem unwilling to read actual Jewish content but instead believe the lies and mistakes of Christians because they can't stand the possibility of learning that their entire theology is built on nothingness.

I did not acknowledge that it is in the plural. This change is one of countless post-exilic changes to serve as anti-missionary apologetics.

What I first said was that numerous ancient sources completely disagree with you, as well as many medieval and later sources. Then I acknowledged that if--the operative word being if here--if plural, Jesus still fulfills that verse and the other dozens of Jesus references in the passage--and hundreds of references throughout Tanakh! The key word is if, because I always attempt to understand an opponent's position using the hypothesis method. If it is true, what does that mean for me? If plural, I still have to reckon with the fact that Jesus died spiritually and physically, for one may not substitute for more than one--unless God is sacrificed--God experiences the brokenness and separation of the grave for us.

Unfortunately, you've mostly made appeals to authority and most of the sages who've ever commented on the passage affirm the singular. So each time you thus appeal to authority I think "But most ancient and modern disagree" and "Sure, we just figured out the "real " Hebrew of the passage after one thousand years of anti-missionary Jewish apologetics".

But I don't wish to devolve our argument further. Let's look at the overall picture:

1) I've noticed hundreds of Tanakh references to Yeshua in English and Hebrew

2) I'm further noticed ones I've not seen remarked upon elsewhere (foreshadowings and etc.)

3) I've been told that none of them, not one, can possibly apply to Yeshua, even coincidentally, which beggars the understanding

4) I should therefore observe that literally thousands of Jewish and Gentile translators, working in numerous languages in addition to Hebrew, have a devious agenda, or do not understand Hebrew, etc.

You claim I only hobnob with people ignorant in Hebrew, yet I've met with or corresponded with people incredibly strong in Hebrew and all forms of knowledge and wisdom--Jews who converted late in life, Conservative, Orthodox, Lubavitcher, secular but with Ph.D's in Hebrew and Biblical Literature--who also disagree with you.

Let's get to the root of the issue. I think Tanakh is the sole inspired Word of God apart from the NT. You think what? Not to be assumptive, but if you believe Moses, truly, you'd be a Christian today.

 

[rosends]

I did not acknowledge that it is in the plural. This change is one of countless post-exilic changes to serve as anti-missionary apologetics.

So post 270 that says "that Jesus had plural deaths" is about a contradiction between the plural deaths of Jesus and your insistence that the text is singular. Got it.

What I first said was that numerous ancient sources completely disagree with you, as well as many medieval and later sources.

Ah, but they don't. They complement what I said. Since you don't understand how the Jewish commentaries work, you miss that.

Then I acknowledged that if--the operative word being if here--if plural, Jesus still fulfills that verse and the other dozens of Jesus references in the passage--and hundreds of references throughout Tanakh! The key word is if, because I always attempt to understand an opponent's position using the hypothesis method. If it is true, what does that mean for me? If plural, I still have to reckon with the fact that Jesus died spiritually and physically, for one may not substitute for more than one--unless God is sacrificed--God experiences the brokenness and separation of the grave for us.

Not only does this ignore that the word is grammatically and unambiguously in the plural, but it plays both sides of the fence. If it is in the plural, then I can say X, but if it is in the singular, then X is not the case. If that's how you want to inject your interpretation, feel free. Your hypothetical is hedging, not belief.

Unfortunately, you've mostly made appeals to authority and most of the sages who've ever commented on the passage affirm the singular.

I have made an appeal to authority, and you tried to do the same but you don't understand the authorities (and you have cited people as authorities who are not). Your claim of "most" is without statistical support. So each time you insist that you understand things better than the authorities I cite, I just giggle.

1) I've noticed hundreds of Tanakh references to Yeshua in English and Hebrew

Well, interpolated.

2) I'm further noticed ones I've not seen remarked upon elsewhere (foreshadowings and etc.)

So even all the Christian experts aren't as keen as you. Wow. In the presence of genius we are.

3) I've been told that none of them, not one, can possibly apply to Yeshua, even coincidentally, which beggars the understanding

Well, YOUR understanding. So much for the claim to genius.

4) I should therefore observe that literally thousands of Jewish and Gentile translators, working in numerous languages in addition to Hebrew, have a devious agenda, or do not understand Hebrew, etc.

Feel free to observe what you want. The tradition of translations that have the text's meaning wrong is not new.

You claim I only hobnob with people ignorant in Hebrew

No, I said that for you to convince anyone you must be dealing with people ignorant of Judaism, not Hebrew.

yet I've met with or corresponded with people incredibly strong in Hebrew and all forms of knowledge and wisdom--Jews who converted late in life, Conservative, Orthodox, Lubavitcher, secular but with Ph.D's in Hebrew and Biblical Literature--who also disagree with you.

Claims are easy. So far you haven't shown anything other than the cut and paste from the Christian site which has errors in it. I posted the words of the commentators which prove you wrong. You just can't read them.

Let's get to the root of the issue. I think Tanakh is the sole inspired Word of God apart from the NT. You think what? Not to be assumptive, but if you believe Moses, truly, you'd be a Christian today.

I believe that on Sinai Moses received a written text and a complementary one, and that later prophets and writers wrote more books inspired by God, and that the canon of that written text closed well before Jesus was born. If you actually knew how to read the written one, you would abandon your Christianity.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So post 270 that says "that Jesus had plural deaths" is about a contradiction between the plural deaths of Jesus and your insistence that the text is singular. Got it.

Ah, but they don't. They complement what I said. Since you don't understand how the Jewish commentaries work, you miss that.

Not only does this ignore that the word is grammatically and unambiguously in the plural, but it plays both sides of the fence. If it is in the plural, then I can say X, but if it is in the singular, then X is not the case. If that's how you want to inject your interpretation, feel free. Your hypothetical is hedging, not belief.

I have made an appeal to authority, and you tried to do the same but you don't understand the authorities (and you have cited people as authorities who are not). Your claim of "most" is without statistical support. So each time you insist that you understand things better than the authorities I cite, I just giggle.



Well, interpolated.


So even all the Christian experts aren't as keen as you. Wow. In the presence of genius we are.


Well, YOUR understanding. So much for the claim to genius.


Feel free to observe what you want. The tradition of translations that have the text's meaning wrong is not new.

No, I said that for you to convince anyone you must be dealing with people ignorant of Judaism, not Hebrew.

Claims are easy. So far you haven't shown anything other than the cut and paste from the Christian site which has errors in it. I posted the words of the commentators which prove you wrong. You just can't read them.

I believe that on Sinai Moses received a written text and a complementary one, and that later prophets and writers wrote more books inspired by God, and that the canon of that written text closed well before Jesus was born. If you actually knew how to read the written one, you would abandon your Christianity.

The hypothesis method is how I tackle most challenges. It's not equivocating. I honestly tried to examine your claims, and felt that if the text says plural, it aligns with what I know about Messiah's atonement. Before either of us score a "win", however, you've little addressed just one or two of the 25 or so points I've made about Jesus from Isaiah 52-53.

Most Christian experts don't look at type and shadow. I recently read all of Tanakh and noticed quite a few foreshadowings of Messiah I've missed in the past. If you're interested, I can tell you more. For example, constantly our Tanakh heroes and patriarchs kneel and stretch their hands as they pray, just as Messiah's legs were turned above the mercy seat, His hands stretched out. Of course, Isaiah says, "All day long I've stretched out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people". And was Isaiah speaking of Gentiles? Unfortunately not.

I'm trying to understand where your anger is rooted. You say very hurtful things above. Why? I feel both that if truth is on my side, there's no need for insults, and my Master desires kindness from me. Tanakh commands us both to love our neighbor and indeed, our fellow Jews!

I have a great love of learning and when I first went to university long ago, desired nothing more than meaningful talk and study, not (primarily) pursuits of the flesh. I didn't make my decision lightly in university, and knew my family would sit shiva for me. My fellow Jews who are not yet lovers of Yeshua excoriate me, heap abuse on me. Meanwhile, both Jews and Gentiles who are truly born again are kind, Ruach-filled, peaceable, gentle, loving. Those who know Ha Shem through His Son are obvious, evident.

Here is your opportunity to be kind to me, I give you a 1% chance of taking it, to be honest, from past experience. I've had Jews tell me I'm not a Jew, a piece of garbage, etc. I get it--I'm on my third visit to Vad Yashem as soon as the Holy Land reopens for tourists. I really get it. The most hateful thing imaginable to me, however, is to be told I'm not a real Jew.

I realized something recently, though--if being a Jew has to do with birth and circumcision and pride (that goes before destruction) and being a Christian is a loving relationship with Ha Shem and my fellow humans, call me a Christian.

PS. Moses had a complementary text? Are you talking JDEP as in What Really Happened at Mount Sinai? - TheTorah.com ?

 

[rosends]

The hypothesis method is how I tackle most challenges. It's not equivocating. I honestly tried to examine your claims, and felt that if the text says plural, it aligns with what I know about Messiah's atonement.

But if it doesn't then what you know doesn't comport with texts. You want to have it both ways. That's fine.

Before either of us score a "win", however, you've little addressed just one or two of the 25 or so points I've made about Jesus from Isaiah 52-53.

There is no "win" here and the claims about the "chapters" (itself an error) have been dealt with time and time again. Your misunderstanding of context along with a refusal to read myriad resources which explain the actual Hebrew, instead relying on erroneous translations makes it impossible to address things in the way you want them addressed.

Most Christian experts don't look at type and shadow. I recently read all of Tanakh and noticed quite a few foreshadowings of Messiah I've missed in the past. If you're interested, I can tell you more. For example, constantly our Tanakh heroes and patriarchs kneel and stretch their hands as they pray, just as Messiah's legs were turned above the mercy seat, His hands stretched out. Of course, Isaiah says, "All day long I've stretched out my hands to a disobedient and obstinate people". And was Isaiah speaking of Gentiles? Unfortunately not.

So let me get this straight -- the biblical figures kneeled and then later, Jesus (who, I guess we can assume) knew the biblical figures' behaviors, kneels and therefore the earlier instances are foreshadowing Jesus? If I find that Harry Potter kneeled or stretched, I guess you would concede the foreshadowing there, too.

I'm trying to understand where your anger is rooted. You say very hurtful things above.

No. I say things that you are hurt by. There is a big difference.

Here is your opportunity to be kind to me, I give you a 1% chance of taking it, to be honest, from past experience. I've had Jews tell me I'm not a Jew, a piece of garbage, etc. I get it--I'm on my third visit to Vad Yashem as soon as the Holy Land reopens for tourists. I really get it. The most hateful thing imaginable to me, however, is to be told I'm not a real Jew.

I don't know what you are, only what you say. I can't judge a person online by anything else. Based on what you say, and by definitions set by people more authoritative than I, you have (if you were ever Jewish, who knows) denied core tenets of your Judaism and embraced a system which is diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive of Jewish belief. If you were truly to be honest about it, you would admit this and not try to present the two theologies as reconcilable.

I realized something recently, though--if being a Jew has to do with birth and circumcision and pride (that goes before destruction) and being a Christian is a loving relationship with Ha Shem and my fellow humans, call me a Christian.

Fair enough. You are a Christian. Be sure to change the label on your profile.

PS. Moses had a complementary text? Are you talking JDEP as in What Really Happened at Mount Sinai? - TheTorah.com ?

No, I 'm not. That you don't know what I'm talking about and think that I am referencing the documentary hypothesis is very telling.

 

[BilliardsBall]

But if it doesn't then what you know doesn't comport with texts. You want to have it both ways. That's fine.

There is no "win" here and the claims about the "chapters" (itself an error) have been dealt with time and time again. Your misunderstanding of context along with a refusal to read myriad resources which explain the actual Hebrew, instead relying on erroneous translations makes it impossible to address things in the way you want them addressed.

So let me get this straight -- the biblical figures kneeled and then later, Jesus (who, I guess we can assume) knew the biblical figures' behaviors, kneels and therefore the earlier instances are foreshadowing Jesus? If I find that Harry Potter kneeled or stretched, I guess you would concede the foreshadowing there, too.

No. I say things that you are hurt by. There is a big difference.

I don't know what you are, only what you say. I can't judge a person online by anything else. Based on what you say, and by definitions set by people more authoritative than I, you have (if you were ever Jewish, who knows) denied core tenets of your Judaism and embraced a system which is diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive of Jewish belief. If you were truly to be honest about it, you would admit this and not try to present the two theologies as reconcilable.

Fair enough. You are a Christian. Be sure to change the label on your profile.

No, I 'm not. That you don't know what I'm talking about and think that I am referencing the documentary hypothesis is very telling.

The biblical figures knelt and prayed with arms outstretched, in dozens of perfect pictures of the crucifixion. Jesus didn't kneel to prove foreshadowing, He was put on a cross which had at its base the Roman "mercy seat", to release blood onto it, yet another Tanakh picture. Issac was a yachid son of Abraham whose sacrifice was replaced by a substitute atonement--the next time we hear of Issac (Jesus) after the sacrifice, his father commissions his servant to get his yachid son a bride (!) and Issac/Yeshua is sacrificed on Moriah where Abraham said God will provide Himself, the lamb . . . etc. with Issac being stretched out upon wood laid in order that he carried up Moriah for his own sacrifice! Samson stretches out his arms to deliver his people from the Philistines and dies to release them from bondage, Moses stretches his hands with wood in hand to do any and all wonders . . . there are seemingly countless pictures of Yeshua's life and sacrifice in Tanakh.

I was merely checking/curious to see if you are revisionist, some Jews believe the JDEP theory. I still haven't gotten from you whether you think Tanakh is God's Word in the way I believe it is . . . you seem certain that commentary is somehow on a par with holy Torah and Tanakh. I never touched tzitit to Talmud for a berachah or to honor God's Word!

The "two theologies are reconcilable" because they are one theology! There are hundreds of NT mishnah to this point, defining how convenants/testaments require blood and the death of the testator, how salvation in both testaments comes from trusting God and not mitzvot, etc.

I should think you should be less concerned with "change your profile to Christian" then my actual statement, that Jews are obsessed with laws and rituals and traditions of men, and Jewish and Gentile Christians with loving men!

 

[rosends]

The biblical figures knelt and prayed with arms outstretched, in dozens of perfect pictures of the crucifixion. Jesus didn't kneel to prove foreshadowing, He was put on a cross which had at its base the Roman "mercy seat", to release blood onto it, yet another Tanakh picture. Issac was a yachid son of Abraham whose sacrifice was replaced by a substitute atonement--the next time we hear of Issac (Jesus) after the sacrifice, his father commissions his servant to get his yachid son a bride (!) and Issac/Yeshua is sacrificed on Moriah where Abraham said God will provide Himself, the lamb . . . etc. with Issac being stretched out upon wood laid in order that he carried up Moriah for his own sacrifice! Samson stretches out his arms to deliver his people from the Philistines and dies to release them from bondage, Moses stretches his hands with wood in hand to do any and all wonders . . . there are seemingly countless pictures of Yeshua's life and sacrifice in Tanakh.

Isaac used the word "the"! Jesus used the word "the"! There you have it! Isaac rode next to another person, Jesus did also. And they both breathed oxygen! It's clear as day! Just a side note -- Isaac wasn't stretched out on anything. He was bound. Abraham stretched his hand to do the killing. Just like Jesus! Isaac was to be slaughtered, not crucified, because crucifixion is an inappropriate method for slaughter. Isaac got married and had kids. Jesus didn't. The differences make your case, right?

you seem certain that commentary is somehow on a par with holy Torah and Tanakh. I never touched tzitit to Talmud for a berachah or to honor God's Word!

You seem certain that the gospels are somehow on par with the holy Torah and Tanach. I never worshiped a dead man on a stick to honor anything.

The "two theologies are reconcilable" because they are one theology! There are hundreds of NT mishnah to this point,

Wow -- that's not even a thing. "NT mishna"? Do you stay up nights inventing the silliest things ever?

I should think you should be less concerned with "change your profile to Christian" then my actual statement, that Jews are obsessed with laws and rituals and traditions of men, and Jewish and Gentile Christians with loving men!

You can accuse Judaism of whatever you want. You have explicitly excluded yourself from it, in writing. I would think you should be more concerned with honesty than with my opinion.