Sin and Repentance

[Bird123]

Yeah, unless they get their noses cut, they cannot see Emperor's new clothes. I have no such urge.

I stated a Fact. There is nothing anyone is going to require of you. Urge any way you please. I'm happy.

 

[Bird123]

How can they, when it is a fictitious, non-existent entity?
If you see, then you should realize the reason also.Bible God is the earlier version of Nostradamus? And Bible is like his "Les Prophéties"?

Don't you understand? Beliefs do not matter. It has never ever been about Believing. Now, what actually exists, will be Discovered. It's all going to be OK!

That's what I see. It's very clear!

 

[Harel13]

@BilliardsBall what I believe @rosends is saying is that you both agree that there are a number of entities mentioned in this chapter. You disagree however on the identity of these entities. In your case to disprove rosends, you've misconstrued the verses because you've replaced all the words that refer to different entities with "Israel" which of course makes no sense. Rosends, however, never intended for that to be so. I'll give you an example.

4 Indeed, he [Israel] bore our [Israel's] illnesses, and our [Israel's] pains-he [Israel] carried them, yet we [Israel] accounted him [Israel] as plagued, smitten by God and oppressed.

5 But he [Israel] was pained because of our [Israel's] transgressions, crushed because of our [Israel's] iniquities; the chastisement of our [Israel's] welfare was upon him [Israel], and with his [Israel's] wound we [Israel] were healed.

That's what you wrote for v. 4-5. Now watch what happens when I exchange everything for "Jesus":

4 Indeed, he [Jesus] bore our [Jesus's] illnesses, and our [Jesus's] pains-he [Jesus] carried them, yet we [Jesus] accounted him [Jesus] as plagued, smitten by God and oppressed.​

5 But he [Jesus] was pained because of our [Jesus's] transgressions, crushed because of our [Jesus's] iniquities; the chastisement of our [Jesus's] welfare was upon him [Jesus], and with his [Jesus's] wound we [Jesus] were healed.​

Do you see the error? You've identified all individual entities as one and the same, making out @rosends's view to be ridiculous, though that's not the intended case, which I'm sure you're aware of.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Again, you go against your claim and replace "our" also. You wrote "Replace "Him" in Isaiah 53 with "Israel" and you get bizarre statements like "Israel took upon Israel Israel's sin" or "My people Israel rejected Israel when Israel died for Israel's sin"." But you also replaced "our" and "we" to create what makes no sense to you.

Same thing. Israel was pained because of OUR (the first person speaker, which is the kings who are the "we" of the direct quote "Who can believe what we have heard? Upon whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?" Note the subject and the object -- this continues the narrative of the previous verse) transgressions, not Israel's. If you don't understand and can't follow rules that you, yourself set, then don't expect anything to make sense.

I didn't "duck" anything -- I pointed out how your claim is a lie and you manipulated text, and said that other issues belong on another thread. Of course, you could look at certain historical situations in which Jews, no matter how they lived among the rich, were killed and buried in inglorious places and ways. Your translation is really messed up. The plural "deaths" indicates that it refers to the deaths of individual Jews among the nation. Maybe try not misquoting and misstating the text and you will start to understand. Start with honesty and move from there to accuracy.

I'm being honest.

How do you know verse 1 is "kings"? Isaiah seems upset that his report with God is not believed by Jewish people--that is, the testimony regarding Moshiach. And which kings do you think are the "our" of Isaiah 53?

If the suffering servant is instead Israel and not Moshiach, ISRAEL DIED, not individual Jews who "we suppose were buried in inglorious places". Israel has revived in the land but not RESURRECTED. After King Messiah died, He rose to count His descendants, exactly as Isaiah foretold.

Chabad verse 12 says HE POURED OUT HIS SOUL TO DEATH (singular), not HE POURED OUT HIS SOUL TO DEATHS (plural).

You also claim above that "Jews LIVED among the rich" but Isaiah said "with the rich in His DEATH", which is further not DEATHS, plural.

Unfortunately, my Jewish brothers must manipulate what God's Word says to avoid the simplicity of prophecy regarding Yeshua.

Unfortunately, without a leg to stand on, Jews accuse me of dishonesty.

 

[BilliardsBall]

@BilliardsBall what I believe @rosends is saying is that you both agree that there are a number of entities mentioned in this chapter. You disagree however on the identity of these entities. In your case to disprove rosends, you've misconstrued the verses because you've replaced all the words that refer to different entities with "Israel" which of course makes no sense. Rosends, however, never intended for that to be so. I'll give you an example.

That's what you wrote for v. 4-5. Now watch what happens when I exchange everything for "Jesus":

4 Indeed, he [Jesus] bore our [Jesus's] illnesses, and our [Jesus's] pains-he [Jesus] carried them, yet we [Jesus] accounted him [Jesus] as plagued, smitten by God and oppressed.​

5 But he [Jesus] was pained because of our [Jesus's] transgressions, crushed because of our [Jesus's] iniquities; the chastisement of our [Jesus's] welfare was upon him [Jesus], and with his [Jesus's] wound we [Jesus] were healed.​

Do you see the error? You've identified all individual entities as one and the same, making out @rosends's view to be ridiculous, though that's not the intended case, which I'm sure you're aware of.

Thanks for your help. Unless Rosends can explain his (without basis) claims that "our" are some kings, added to the [modern] myth that "He" isn't Moshiach but Israel . . . Let me redact this passage to give the actual sense, since many Jews claim Israel is suffering for sin, not Jesus:

4 Indeed, he [Jesus] bore our [Israel's] illnesses, and our [Israel's] pains-he [Jesus] carried them, yet we [Israel] accounted him [Jesus] as plagued, smitten by God and oppressed.

5 But he [Jesus] was pained because of our [Israel's] transgressions, crushed because of our [Israel's] iniquities; the chastisement of our [Israel's] welfare was upon him [Jesus], and with his [Jesus's] wound we [Israel] were healed.

Note also this has been FULFILLED: most Jews account Jesus as a troublemaker who was smited by God, but not for Israel's sin.

Now all Rosends (or you) need do is explain why the JEWISH leaders Rosends claims are "our" in the passage ACCOUNTED ISRAEL AS SMITED BY GOD and then realized, NO, ISRAEL WAS CRUSHED BY GOD TO PAY FOR THE SIN OF ISRAEL's KINGS.

 

[metis]

In Deutero-Isaiah, references to the "suffering servant" is a symbolic reference to Israel personified. It clearly is not a reference to Jesus, but many Christian theologians believe it "prefigured", to use one Christian commentary, such a person.

We gotta remember that even though revelation is linear, there's this "flashback" approach that's often used within Judaism, such as Jesus being the "new Adam" or the "new Moses", etc. And the early Church did much the same.

 

[rosends]

I'm being honest.

How do you know verse 1 is "kings"? Isaiah seems upset that his report with God is not believed by Jewish people--that is, the testimony regarding Moshiach. And which kings do you think are the "our" of Isaiah 53?

You call it "verse 1" as if it begins a new idea. The chapter breaks are a late and Christian addition. What you call verse one begins in the plural and you think it refers to Isaiah? The plural antecedent is the kings of the end of what you think of as the preceding chapter. If you want to be slave to the verse division and then invent a new speaker, feel free. It is just wrong.

Chabad verse 12 says HE POURED OUT HIS SOUL TO DEATH (singular), not HE POURED OUT HIS SOUL TO DEATHS (plural).

Sure, but if you look at the actual verse to which I was referring, verse 9, the word is motav not moto (his deaths, not his death -- plural). The Chabad site has in verse 9 "kinds of death" to account for the plural, but if you subscribe to that, then you are subscribing to the explanation of Rashi, the rabbinic commentator and, to be consistent, you would have to understand other things according to his understanding and that would exclude Jesus as the subject. Your choice.

You also claim above that "Jews LIVED among the rich" but Isaiah said "with the rich in His DEATH", which is further not DEATHS, plural.

And I thought you subscribed to rashi who wrote
"and to the will of the ruler he subjected himself to all kinds of death that he decreed upon him, because he did not wish to agree to (denial) [of the Torah] to commit evil and to rob like all the heathens (nations [mss., K’li Paz]) among whom he lived"

So do you read according to Rashi who doesn't see it as "deaths" or not? You seem confused.

You changed the wrong pronouns and don't understand the actual references of the pronouns (we and our as not referring to Israel, but to the kings/speaker), you misunderstand the divisions of the text, and you can't decide if you accept the rabbinic interpretation or not. So sad the handsprings you turn to try to read what you need into the text.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You call it "verse 1" as if it begins a new idea. The chapter breaks are a late and Christian addition. What you call verse one begins in the plural and you think it refers to Isaiah? The plural antecedent is the kings of the end of what you think of as the preceding chapter. If you want to be slave to the verse division and then invent a new speaker, feel free. It is just wrong.

Sure, but if you look at the actual verse to which I was referring, verse 9, the word is motav not moto (his deaths, not his death -- plural). The Chabad site has in verse 9 "kinds of death" to account for the plural, but if you subscribe to that, then you are subscribing to the explanation of Rashi, the rabbinic commentator and, to be consistent, you would have to understand other things according to his understanding and that would exclude Jesus as the subject. Your choice.

And I thought you subscribed to rashi who wrote
"and to the will of the ruler he subjected himself to all kinds of death that he decreed upon him, because he did not wish to agree to (denial) [of the Torah] to commit evil and to rob like all the heathens (nations [mss., K’li Paz]) among whom he lived"

So do you read according to Rashi who doesn't see it as "deaths" or not? You seem confused.

You changed the wrong pronouns and don't understand the actual references of the pronouns (we and our as not referring to Israel, but to the kings/speaker), you misunderstand the divisions of the text, and you can't decide if you accept the rabbinic interpretation or not. So sad the handsprings you turn to try to read what you need into the text.

I'm aware "Chapter 52" begins the SONG OF THE SUFFERING SERVANT. But I've just prior said the "our" of verse 1 is Isaiah and God -- and, by the way, the other prophets who all testify of Yeshua. Who has believed their reports? Issac carried his own wood up Mount Moriah and this yachid son of Father Abraham was willing to sacrifice himself. Isaiah stretched out his hands--like Yeshua on His cross--all day to his stubborn and obstinate people. Jeremiah bought a field for silver. David was "surrounded by Gentiles, they both divided and gambled for my clothing, and pierced my hands and feet,". Moses warned we'd be in DIASPORA if we rejected the prophet like him! Etc., etc. Who has believed their report?

I've noticed, by the way, you haven't explained how "our" are actually "Israel's kings" or which kings or how our people are suffering to atone for their royal house.

Isaiah has more to tell us in 52-53. Are you going to address how the Jewish people have never all DIED? How we've not been with the rich IN OUR DEATH? When were the Jewish people PIERCED for the sin of our kings? Who can honestly say the Jewish people HAVE DONE NO VIOLENCE?

Isaiah had more to say, are you sure this is still "plural"?

Behold, My Servant shall deal prudently;
He shall be exalted and extolled and be very high.
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;
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.

...Aligns with multiple Tanakh prophecies that the Messiah, despised by many of His own, would become a light to the goyim.

 

[rosends]

But I've just prior said the "our" of verse 1 is Isaiah and God -- and, by the way, the other prophets who all testify of Yeshua. Who has believed their reports?

OK, you have said that. So what? The text doesn't say that. You then give a short list of things you have decided somehow presage the Jesus story. So what? I could find stories that presage Harry Potter if I worked backwards and twisted things enough.

I've noticed, by the way, you haven't explained how "our" are actually "Israel's kings" or which kings or how our people are suffering to atone for their royal house.

I never claimed that they were "Israel's kings" so imputing that and claiming I haven't defended it is just more dishonesty on your part. The "many" of 52:14, and the "many nations" of 52:15 both lead to the "kings" of 52:15, making these the kings of many nations and people. These leaders interpret things (in future times) and understand that Israel's suffering was because of their (those nations') sins.

Isaiah has more to tell us in 52-53. Are you going to address how the Jewish people have never all DIED?

But Jewish people have. Remember, "deaths" in the pural is there -- I gave you the Hebrew.

How we've not been with the rich IN OUR DEATH?

Jews were often among the highest classes of society when they were killed for still being Jews.

When were the Jewish people PIERCED for the sin of our kings?

First, "our kings"? What are you talking about?
Second, "pierced"? The Hebrew is דַּכְּאוֹ֙. Why is that "pierced"?
דָּכָא (v) heb

1. 1. to crush, be crushed, be contrite, be broken
      1. (Niphal)
         1. to be crushed
         2. to be contrite (fig.)
      2. (Piel) to crush
      3. (Pual)
         1. to be crushed, be shattered
         2. to be made contrite
      4. (Hithpael) to allow oneself to be crushed

Source: מקור:Open Scriptures on GitHub

Who can honestly say the Jewish people HAVE DONE NO VIOLENCE?

You should probably read the Metzudat David on that phrase
Isaiah 53:9

ר״ל ובחנם גזר עליו המיתה לא על החמס שעשה ולא על המרמה שבפיו

Isaiah had more to say, are you sure this is still "plural"?

Behold, My Servant shall deal prudently;
He shall be exalted and extolled and be very high.
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;
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.

No, that's in singular (well, besides the "many nations" and "kings") because that aligns with the oft biblical practice of speaking of a group as a collective or even non-collective singular (cf Judges 20:17)

...Aligns with multiple Tanakh prophecies that the Messiah, despised by many of His own, would become a light to the goyim.

Can you show me other of what you consider messianic prophecies which have the messiah being despised and becoming a light to nations?

 

[tayla]

It strikes me that sin and repentance play an important part in most faiths.

If sin is defined as actions that displease God or in disobedience to God, then, there is no such thing as sin. There can be repentance for the things we have done that harm others.

 

[BilliardsBall]

OK, you have said that. So what? The text doesn't say that. You then give a short list of things you have decided somehow presage the Jesus story. So what? I could find stories that presage Harry Potter if I worked backwards and twisted things enough.

I never claimed that they were "Israel's kings" so imputing that and claiming I haven't defended it is just more dishonesty on your part. The "many" of 52:14, and the "many nations" of 52:15 both lead to the "kings" of 52:15, making these the kings of many nations and people. These leaders interpret things (in future times) and understand that Israel's suffering was because of their (those nations') sins.

But Jewish people have. Remember, "deaths" in the pural is there -- I gave you the Hebrew.
Jews were often among the highest classes of society when they were killed for still being Jews.

First, "our kings"? What are you talking about?
Second, "pierced"? The Hebrew is דַּכְּאוֹ֙. Why is that "pierced"?
דָּכָא (v) heb

1. 1. to crush, be crushed, be contrite, be broken
      1. (Niphal)
         1. to be crushed
         2. to be contrite (fig.)
      2. (Piel) to crush
      3. (Pual)
         1. to be crushed, be shattered
         2. to be made contrite
      4. (Hithpael) to allow oneself to be crushed

Source: מקור:Open Scriptures on GitHub


You should probably read the Metzudat David on that phrase
Isaiah 53:9

ר״ל ובחנם גזר עליו המיתה לא על החמס שעשה ולא על המרמה שבפיו

No, that's in singular (well, besides the "many nations" and "kings") because that aligns with the oft biblical practice of speaking of a group as a collective or even non-collective singular (cf Judges 20:17)

Can you show me other of what you consider messianic prophecies which have the messiah being despised and becoming a light to nations?

52:15 says kings will be silent before Him, not kings will disbelieve.

There are multiple prophecies that Messiah would be a light unto the Gentiles. There are prophecies that Messiah would experience derision and be despised by Israelites. However, I'd prefer you deve al with the passage at hand and stop goalpost shifting.

Your claim is that 53 is not Moshiach but Israel, so "Israel had deaths" is not acceptable. It's not that way in any English translation based on the earliest extant manuscripts.

Nor can you find dead Jews who counted their descendants after they died.

When I meet fellow Jews during evangelism, I ask if I can read them some scripture, then I read Isaiah 53. They almost always say, "Sure, that describes Jesus, but I don't believe the NT." Then I point out that I've read them Tanakh.

It will still happen that way if I use your inappropriate "deaths" as I read.

 

[rosends]

52:15 says kings will be silent before Him, not kings will disbelieve.

Except that the next verse starts "Who can believe what we have heard". So unless you decide that the "we" is totally disconnected...

There are multiple prophecies that Messiah would be a light unto the Gentiles.

No, no there aren't. The phrase "l'or goyim" appears twice, both in Isaiah and neither in a verse that speaks of the messiah, unless you decide that the servant is the messiah and ignore what the text says.

There are prophecies that Messiah would experience derision and be despised by Israelites. However, I'd prefer you deve al with the passage at hand and stop goalpost shifting.

No, there are things you have decided mean that. That's your interpretation. I wish you would stop asserting your imaginings as objective fact.

Your claim is that 53 is not Moshiach but Israel, so "Israel had deaths" is not acceptable.

First, the word is in the plural. You shouldn't ignore that. second, there are commentators who explain it as "kinds of death" with the plural on the kinds, not the death. Third, Israel has had deaths in that the nation has had its people murdered, and yet it, as a whole has been able to see its descendants.

It's not that way in any English translation based on the earliest extant manuscripts.

Sure, I wouldn't want the Hebrew to get in the way of your English translation.

Nor can you find dead Jews who counted their descendants after they died.

Well, since Jesus had no descendents and died, you run into a similar problem.

When I meet fellow Jews during evangelism, I ask if I can read them some scripture, then I read Isaiah 53. They almost always say, "Sure, that describes Jesus, but I don't believe the NT." Then I point out that I've read them Tanakh.

When I meet Christians who try to evangelize, I point out the Hebrew of 53 and the problems with their reading and they have no answers. Then they start making false assertions and drawing dishonest conclusions. Crazy, right?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Except that the next verse starts "Who can believe what we have heard". So unless you decide that the "we" is totally disconnected...

No, no there aren't. The phrase "l'or goyim" appears twice, both in Isaiah and neither in a verse that speaks of the messiah, unless you decide that the servant is the messiah and ignore what the text says.

No, there are things you have decided mean that. That's your interpretation. I wish you would stop asserting your imaginings as objective fact.

First, the word is in the plural. You shouldn't ignore that. second, there are commentators who explain it as "kinds of death" with the plural on the kinds, not the death. Third, Israel has had deaths in that the nation has had its people murdered, and yet it, as a whole has been able to see its descendants.

Sure, I wouldn't want the Hebrew to get in the way of your English translation.

Well, since Jesus had no descendents and died, you run into a similar problem.

When I meet Christians who try to evangelize, I point out the Hebrew of 53 and the problems with their reading and they have no answers. Then they start making false assertions and drawing dishonest conclusions. Crazy, right?

All the verses of the servant passage in 52-53 apply to King Messiah Yeshua. You prior said "a few things you collected". You're having to go to lengths to prove your case. Messiah Yeshua was obviously acquainted with grief, stricken for sin, despised by Israel, with sinners in His death, a rich man in His tomb, etc., etc., ETC. all of it. ALL OF IT. EVERY VERSE.

In response to your (rhetorical?) question, I'd point you to Isaiah 11 et al where Moshiach is honored by Gentiles, and how the only Jewish person ever to be honored so by the Gentiles comes from David's line, etc. but I've asked that we not goalpost shift.

Jesus died BEFORE He counted His descendants. You reversed the Isaiah passage order, as Israel did not count descendants, nor did some Jewish people other than Moshiach, AFTER they died! I trusted Jesus for salvation and am His child/descendant.

I didn't ignore the word in the plural. I pointed to the earliest manuscripts which you ignored, not me. We both know the Masoretic text is centuries after our people parted ways with their Messianic brethren. You'll always go from this anti-Jesus text and will never accept Sea Scrolls or Septuagint . . .

I can overlook your sarcasm and hand waving. You are hiding from light. I get it, I did that. I knew my family would sit shiva for me if I converted. Don't be afraid of where a text leads you.

Next, you'll tell me that even though 483 360-day years between the decree to rebuild Jerusalem adds to Pesach 30 AD when Yeshua died, that He is not the fulfillment of Daniel 9. It's ridiculous!

I hear what you're saying about your Hebrew knowledge, now explain WHY every Jew I've read Isaiah 53 to says, "THAT'S OBVIOUSLY JESUS, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IN THE NT"?

 

[Harel13]

I hear what you're saying about your Hebrew knowledge, now explain WHY every Jew I've read Isaiah 53 to says, "THAT'S OBVIOUSLY JESUS, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IN THE NT"?

Because they're ignorant of scripture. Try missionizing to some learned Jews, you may get different results.

 

[Thief]

As you say, he's only a human being,

the Messiah as per Christian faith?
is more than human
so goes that faith

I say....sin means.....without

so.....we are born without God
we are born into sin

and life is a collection of errors
of which we learn not to repeat

that is.....repent

 

[Rival]

Because they're ignorant of scripture. Try missionizing to some learned Jews, you may get different results.

See: This thread.

 

[rosends]

All the verses of the servant passage in 52-53 apply to King Messiah Yeshua.

No, they don't. See, simply asserting it is not persuasive.

You're having to go to lengths to prove your case.

Since the text never mentions the messiah, you are going to have to jump through hoops to justify something which isn't there. The text DOES identify the servant with ISRAEL, explicitly. So why do I have to prove that an unnamed option is worse?

Messiah Yeshua was obviously acquainted with grief, stricken for sin, despised by Israel, with sinners in His death, a rich man in His tomb, etc., etc., ETC. all of it. ALL OF IT. EVERY VERSE.

Since he wasn't the messiah, wasn't stricken for sin, and doesn;t qualify to be a messiah, the only thing that is obvious is that he doesn't fit the text.

In response to your (rhetorical?) question, I'd point you to Isaiah 11 et al where Moshiach is honored by Gentiles, and how the only Jewish person ever to be honored so by the Gentiles comes from David's line, etc. but I've asked that we not goalpost shift.

Can you show me where in chapter 11 the word "light" is? I could ask you where the word "messiah" is also but then you'd be forced to say that the messianic individual is there by dint of rabbinic interpretation so I'd have to say that it is strange that you pick and choose when rabbinic interpretation is persuasive to you and when the rabbis are hiding stuff or using inferior texts. So we won't go down that path.

Jesus died BEFORE He counted His descendants. You reversed the Isaiah passage order, as Israel did not count descendants, nor did some Jewish people other than Moshiach, AFTER they died! I trusted Jesus for salvation and am His child/descendant.

Jesus died. Therefore he didn't count any descendants, not that he had any, before or after his death.

I didn't ignore the word in the plural. I pointed to the earliest manuscripts which you ignored, not me.

Earliest manuscripts? You mean the translations you use. You prefer those to the Hebrew? Got it. You are saying that the DSS don't have the plural? Or that the septuagint for the prophets which was written well later is more authoritative. OK. You'll always run to your translations and your "the Hebrew must be wrong because it undercuts what I need to believe" and never accept the Hebrew.

I can overlook your sarcasm and hand waving. You are hiding from light. I get it, I did that. I knew my family would sit shiva for me if I converted. Don't be afraid of where a text leads you.

I can ignore your ignorance and arrogance. You are hiding behind a series of lies that you truly and really need. i see that. I pity you for it. You shouldn't be afraid to confront your errors and accept your mistakes.

Next, you'll tell me that even though 483 360-day years between the decree to rebuild Jerusalem adds to Pesach 30 AD when Yeshua died, that He is not the fulfillment of Daniel 9. It's ridiculous!

Next you'll tell me that a year is 360 days long. Ridiculous. You will cite some invention of a "prophetic year" which is a reverse engineering made out of a need to make Daniel's statements fit a predetermined timeframe.

I hear what you're saying about your Hebrew knowledge, now explain WHY every Jew I've read Isaiah 53 to says, "THAT'S OBVIOUSLY JESUS, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IN THE NT"?

Maybe you have read to uneducated Jews? Maybe you are just lying and you haven't read it to anyone?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It strikes me that sin and repentance play an important part in most faiths.

Nope.

 

[ppp]

It strikes me that sin and repentance play an important part in most faiths.

Seems like. Makes the exceptions really stand out.

 

[Redemptionsong]

Nope.

See post 82!