The Collective Messiah - Isaiah 53

[SethZaddik]

It was Jesus who said He would be killed first then Paul, Peter and others. The blood of Jesus, since He is God incarnate, is perfect. As such, He was the only one who could buy mankind back from their mad-dash to serve Satan thru their sins. God became a man and died once for all of mankind. Jesus fulfills Isaiah and other OT books/Prophets.


So why did Mohammad kill so many people, if that is not, as you said, what God needs/wants his servants to do. Please, do reply to this.



Maybe not in what you believe but it does in what Christians believe. And it stands to reason that God would only send His servants and His Messiah to the Jewish people (God's 'chosen' people) in order to convince and convict them to come back to Him. But, they wouldn't so Paul went to the Gentiles, which is predicted in the OT and fulfilled in the NT. Plus, the Bible has about 2,000 predictive prophecies that have been fulfilled. The Koran has... how many prophecies? And how many came true? Splitting the moon, as everyone knows, is impossible- to Science and imo.

Your hilarious. All over Islam but don't even understand it.

Jesus never said he died for your sins, he said obey the commandments to get to the Kingdom of God, not Paul.

Paul was king of antichrists and invented Christianity.

And something tells me that you have never read the Quran.

I have read the Bible though and the Quran, Mohammed was fulfilling prophecies of Jesus like bringing the sword, for instance.

Now who thinks the moon is to split in two? I don't think you know what you are talking about or understand Islam AT ALL.

It is not like Revelation has ever predicted anything accurately, Jesus disciples never saw what he promised them would happen before his generation passed away, fact.

By your standards Jesus is a false prophet and the Bible void.

 

[Brickjectivity]

You do understand that you are talking to a Muslim right?

My views on Issa (PBUH) aren't at all inflexible, but I can't speak for everyone.

The fact is that Mary (PBUH) is mentioned more in the Quran than in the NT and I think even than Issa, though I have not counted. Point being that there are few facts about the life of Issa in the Quran and none NEED to change, but speculation is not foreign to Muslims and neither is diversity of beliefs about Issa.

The relevant information about Issa to Islam is sufficient. He was a Prophet, human though virgin born and possessing miraculous Power from God he was not crucified and didn't ressurect.

He is not God.

That does not sound flexible.

Exactly what needs to be changed about this? Certainly makes more sense than the Christian version of events.

That also does not sound flexible. You aren't being reasonable about it, because you do not have permission to change your mind. It doesn't mean your wrong, but you are not flexible enough to claim you are reasoning if you aren't allowed by God to think otherwise.

.....It is just obvious to me that Isaiah is fulfilled.

The world is obviously flat, too. It is the same kind of argument.

Jewish people are definitely, or at least were for most of history, captives of foreign empires and suffering servants is a great way to describe past Israel.

The same could be said about many other countries, including any of the nine bows of Egypt (except for the servant part). Suffering is only part of the definition. Which country has served while suffering? Which country was made of slaves in another country and then was brought out? That seems like Isaiah's meaning.

However are you going to deny that historically speaking and most of the time Muslims were kind to Jews, much like Cyrus?

I doubt you could prove that, since there have been hiccups such as the way almost all Jews were recently forced out of Iran and Iraq. It is only tangentially related to the topic anyway.

It would be a good idea to at least acknowledge that Babylon was the head of the Jewish world during Muslim times and before and were treated well by Muslims in general both being slaughtered wholesale in Palestine by Europeans while existing in peace.

And before the 6 days war same thing. Different invader. Yaphethite Jews claiming that God gave them the "Title deed" to Israel or under the impression that this was justified, even though Palestinians did not deserve to be invaded and had lived with the Jews for generations before WW2 ended and they started planning to take it by force.

The Jews were demmis, meaning they paid a servant tax to show they were under subjugation. Your argument that they did not suffer for maintaining their way of life or that they were not recently servants of other countries is pretty thin. Its almost like they invented Islam to make sure they'd be stuck serving other countries so they could fulfill this. (Not really suggesting that).

 

[SethZaddik]

He took God's Promise Land for Israel and its God. He didn't kill (or, murder) for no reason.


Paul was a murderer in God's eyes even tho he had permission from the church leaders.


Were you?


Ok. But you need to do some more research into Mohammad/Islam, imo. You are either misleading others here or you don't know much about your own religion. I'm not sure which but it is one of the two.


Muhammad’s atrocity against the Qurayza Jews

Also,
did mohammad kill 900 jews - Bing
There is no reason to not believe those who have done the research. If, however, you can prove otherwise I will change my stance.

You obviously just don't like Islam is all.

Not that at all. Has nothing to do with Islam or Mohammad, just the ffacts or reality. I could say the same of you toward the Jews/Christianity. But I don't for the sake of honest discussions both ways- which you haven't done, I think.
Also, you have, obviously, not studied as much as you assert. The way I see it is the history of Mohammad/Islam is rife with the needless killing others.[/QUOTE]

Excuse me if I don't regard your hypocrisy as anything to concern myself with but when you read the Quran and are capable of understanding that nothing in it or Islam is worse than the Bible or Judaism or Christianity.

All have spilled blood, NONE more than Christianity though which killed more Jews than anyone in history.

Sorry to spoil your little "I hate Islam" party but Christianity has done what you are saying Mohammed did times a million and Islam WAS IN FACT kind to other Abrahamic religions. I know you were brainwashed to think otherwise but it just isn't true.

Christianity never stopped doing what Islam did not do, which is persecute Jews and mass murder them.

 

[SethZaddik]

That does not sound flexible.
That also does not sound flexible. You aren't being reasonable about it, because you do not have permission to change your mind. It doesn't mean your wrong, but you are not flexible enough to claim you are reasoning if you aren't allowed by God to think otherwise.

The world is obviously flat, too. It is the same kind of argument.

The same could be said about many other countries, including any of the nine bows of Egypt (except for the servant part). Suffering is only part of the definition. Which country has served while suffering? Which country was made of slaves in another country and then was brought out? That seems like Isaiah's meaning.

I doubt you could prove that, since there have been hiccups such as the way almost all Jews were recently forced out of Iran and Iraq. It is only tangentially related to the topic anyway.

The Jews were demmis, meaning they paid a servant tax to show they were under subjugation. Your argument that they did not suffer for maintaining their way of life or that they were not recently servants of other countries is pretty thin. Its almost like they invented Islam to make sure they'd be stuck serving other countries so they could fulfill this. (Not really suggesting that).

Do you have any interest in anything other hating on Islam because I never said a bad word about anyone until I was singled out for mentioning that Mohammed said return evil with kindness, which he did and I said we all should?

If you want to turn it in to a "whose religion killed the most people" contest it is hands down Christianity, no matter how many people Mohammed killed in war Romans and Jews fought in wars too.

And Mohammed was actually a kind person, whether you are willing to accept it isn't my problem, complaining about things he did that are in comparison to Christianity or OT carnage miniscule is not going to make your argument, whatever it even is.

As I sit here, having solicited no ill will but attacked for speaking the truth nonetheless, I pity you.

And everyone who said, "Hey, a Muslim, let's harass him about things he didn't do for mentioning historical facts about the kindness of the Muslims towards Jews throughout history."

Fun, right?

We all pay taxes today, and don't live in that world. That doesn't change the fact that I am not just making up stuff, only it means you don't want to hear about kindness from Muslims, though true, or just don't know about it and search for negativity in others religion.

With a plank in the eye of yours.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Do you have any interest in anything other hating on Islam because I never said a bad word about anyone until I was singled out for mentioning that Mohammed said return evil with kindness, which he did and I said we all should.

Disagreeing with Islam is not hating on it.

If you want to turn it in to a "whose religion killed the most people" contest it is hands down Christianity, no matter how many people Mohammed killed in war Romans and Jews fought in wars too.

You repeatedly turn the conversation into that when the topic is Isaiah.

And Mohammed was actually a kind person, whether you are willing to accept it isn't my problem, complaining about things he did that are in comparison to Christianity or OT carnage miniscule is not going to make your argument, whatever it even is.

I never mention him. It is beside the point. The point is Isaiah does not seem to be fulfilled.

As I sit here, having solicited no ill will but attacked for speaking the truth nonetheless, I pity you.

See? Any debate is construed as an attack which is not reasoning. It is just preaching. Isaiah does not seem to be fulfilled.

 

[Ben Avraham]

So you can't answer the question.... Try not to make so many statements, if they can't be backed up with evidence.

Rubbish, you've already shown consistently not to look at information presented or to answer the questions asked.

Isaiah 41:8 refers to Jacob son of Abraham specifically by name.
Isaiah 44:1-2 Jacob again as the servant, and Israel his Chosen.

Isaiah 44:21 is saying Israel is the servant.

So this statement is just wrong; there are some statements in Isaiah that are assigned to Israel, yet not all.

Could prove a case; yet honestly don't think you're interested in learning.

You could be right if the learning is against the Torah or the whole of the Tanach.

 

[SethZaddik]

Disagreeing with Islam is not hating on it.

You repeatedly turn the conversation into that when the topic is Isaiah.

I never mention him. It is beside the point. The point is Isaiah does not seem to be fulfilled.

See? Any debate is construed as an attack which is not reasoning. It is just preaching. Isaiah does not seem to be fulfilled.

Make all the

Disagreeing with Islam is not hating on it.

You repeatedly turn the conversation into that when the topic is Isaiah.

I never mention him. It is beside the point. The point is Isaiah does not seem to be fulfilled.

See? Any debate is construed as an attack which is not reasoning. It is just preaching. Isaiah does not seem to be fulfilled.

But you are not jst disagreeing you are forcing me to defend myself from the side effects

Disagreeing with Islam is not hating on it.

You repeatedly turn the conversation into that when the topic is Isaiah.

I never mention him. It is beside the point. The point is Isaiah does not seem to be fulfilled.

See? Any debate is construed as an attack which is not reasoning. It is just preaching. Isaiah does not seem to be fulfilled.

Here is the story.

I said return evil with good and was quoting Mohammed, I had yet to receive a hostile reply.

Ever since it has been my responsibility to defend Mohammed so naturally I mentioned Paul the mass murderer and founder of Christianity in its form as we know it, which is not merely my opinion but a great deal of well respected scholars and some of them Christian, my personal favorite is Eisenman because he is damn good and freed the scrolls that were being held back at the time, another tale.

Constantine also was a vicious murderer of even family and is the most important person in the history of the RCC which was Christianity and is its established history starting with Nicea owes everything to him.

Jesus was not the power, Paul was not the power (just theological provider) it was the Flavians starting with Vespasian and Titus, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Constantine, all Titus Flavis.... etc.

Josephus the Jewish turncoat and Saul/Paul were both connected with the Aristocracy of Rome, Herodion, Aristobulus, many people in that Royal court are named by Paul. A Titus is the recipient of an epistle, not a coincidence either.

So I will not just sit back and say nothing when attacked for mentioning legitimate historical facts about Mohammed and Islam, so I am revealing the disturbing facts about Christianity and how it is not the religion of Jesus.

Not what I intended, but oh well.

Christianity is worse, it's history more bloody its characters don't agree and has more holes in it than any other religion, Jews usually are sensible about what Christians fight, that some stories are myths written later than they say, have contradictions and weren't really meant to be literal, I can respect that.

Christians know their religion is nonsense but fight to the death that it's great and historically true, fooling themselves.

Islam is far less mythological and most of it borrowed from the Bible, but at least it has a verifiable founder and when you get down to it is much less bloody scripturally and in history than we are led to believe, certainly he did lead wars but Islam was the scientific golden ages innovators because they resurrected the Greek Wisdom philosophy which is also what and when, why, the Jews did too leading to the Zohar.

So don't tell me what you are saying is not hate, just disagreeing. You are looking for and only for the negative, not acknowledging the positive at all.

Because I have not said anything wrong or untrue about Islam or anything unless I theorized something which is not even relevant to this point.

Have a great day.

 

[Brickjectivity]

So I will not just sit back and say nothing when attacked for mentioning legitimate historical facts about Mohammed and Islam, so I am revealing the disturbing facts about Christianity and how it is not the religion of Jesus.

Not what I intended, but oh well.

I did not mention him, nor was I defending things Christians did. I only mentioned dhimmi status, because it was relevant.

Christianity is worse, it's history more bloody its characters don't agree and has more holes in it than any other religion, Jews usually are sensible about what Christians fight, that some stories are myths written later than they say, have contradictions and weren't really meant to be literal, I can respect that.

Way, way off topic and also way off topic.

Christians know their religion is nonsense but fight to the death that it's great and historically true, fooling themselves.

Christians, such as myself, have a parabolic language. That is, we have parables built into our words. For example if I say "The blood of the lamb" it is not really about blood of lambs but means something deeper. (Christians do not eat blood uncooked, generally.) If I say "This is the blood and body of Jesus" it is for a reason. It is to remind me of something, but you can say it is nonsense if you prefer. Of course to your ears it will sound that way. Now if I am at a protestant church people will not say that. Instead they will be more explicit and say it is a metaphor, but it is possible that by embracing that definition they are missing something. Maybe they should still be saying "This is the body and blood of Jesus." The practice of saying that is ancient.

Islam is far less mythological and most of it borrowed from the Bible, but at least it has a verifiable founder and when you get down to it is much less bloody scripturally and in history than we are led to believe, certainly he did lead wars but Islam was the scientific golden ages innovators because they resurrected the Greek Wisdom philosophy which is also what and when, why, the Jews did too leading to the Zohar.

Every religion has things that are not debatable. You cannot debate the meaning of Isaiah 53, because you absolutely must read it a certain way. Don't try to tell me that you can reason about it when you are clearly not permitted to change your mind. Debate something else with me, like nukes or money or something that you may change your mind about.

So don't tell me what you are saying is not hate, just disagreeing. You are looking for and only for the negative, not acknowledging the positive at all.

Disagreement is not hate, and preaching is not reasoning.

Because I have not said anything wrong or untrue about Islam or anything unless I theorized something which is not even relevant to this point.

Have a great day.

Thanks for the sermon.

 

[SethZaddik]

Disagreeing with Islam is not hating on it.

You repeatedly turn the conversation into that when the topic is Isaiah.

I never mention him. It is beside the point. The point is Isaiah does not seem to be fulfilled.

See? Any debate is construed as an attack which is not reasoning. It is just preaching. Isaiah does not seem to be fulfilled.

It is not debating when merely for quoting a man who was not evil I have to hear about alleged instances of murder of Jews which did not happen, Mohammed didn't kil 800 Jews for being Jewish or at all, he did not persecute Jews or Christians or Sabaens, this is a fact.

You have no idea how much propaganda about Mohammed is Christian in origin, more so than Jews who don't have to like us but also don't lie about our religion, just about other things which is whatever, Christians are the biggest liars when Islam is the topic and most of the time for that matter.

Islam is a simple religion, 5 pillars, nothing Christians don't do except Shahada and a religion that is a lot less silly about Jesus and his allegedly being godman.

There is more focus on God than anything or anyone, even Mohammed and by a lot.

If we aren't Christians it doesn't matter, it's like Scientology with its fair game policy, no lie is too extravagant.

They do it to Jews too.

 

[SethZaddik]

I mean do people really think it is a coincidence that Titus Flavius was the name of Josephus, Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria and Constantine?

That's a dynasty of Romans who created Christianity, not Jews, who were even accused of copying it from the Romans which could be the truth if it was the religion we have today and if not they co opted it with Jewish collaborators like Paul if he was even real and not just a guy based on Josephus Saul, who both dissappear from history in 66AD.

I see a lot of Philo of Alexandria, of the Jewish Aristocratic Alexander family that was married to other Aristocratic families like the Herods, as thes thing go.

The Word or Logos is Platonic but it was Philo, not John, who made it the creative force called Son and other striking parallels to Christ like association with Melchizedek and the whole art of allegorical interpretation seems owe much to him as well allowing for the finding of convenient prophecies connecting Jesus to the Old Testament as well.

 

[SethZaddik]

I did not mention him, nor was I defending things Christians did. I only mentioned dhimmi status, because it was relevant.

Way, way off topic and also way off topic.

Christians, such as myself, have a parabolic language. That is, we have parables built into our words. For example if I say "The blood of the lamb" it is not really about blood of lambs but means something deeper. (Christians do not eat blood uncooked, generally.) If I say "This is the blood and body of Jesus" it is for a reason. It is to remind me of something, but you can say it is nonsense if you prefer. Of course to your ears it will sound that way. Now if I am at a protestant church people will not say that. Instead they will be more explicit and say it is a metaphor, but it is possible that by embracing that definition they are missing something. Maybe they should still be saying "This is the body and blood of Jesus." The practice of saying that is ancient.

Every religion has things that are not debatable. You cannot debate the meaning of Isaiah 53, because you absolutely must read it a certain way. Don't try to tell me that you can reason about it when you are clearly not permitted to change your mind. Debate something else with me, like nukes or money or something that you may change your mind about.

Disagreement is not hate, and preaching is not reasoning.

Thanks for the sermon.

It was my pleasure.

 

[SethZaddik]

I did not mention him, nor was I defending things Christians did. I only mentioned dhimmi status, because it was relevant.

Way, way off topic and also way off topic.

Christians, such as myself, have a parabolic language. That is, we have parables built into our words. For example if I say "The blood of the lamb" it is not really about blood of lambs but means something deeper. (Christians do not eat blood uncooked, generally.) If I say "This is the blood and body of Jesus" it is for a reason. It is to remind me of something, but you can say it is nonsense if you prefer. Of course to your ears it will sound that way. Now if I am at a protestant church people will not say that. Instead they will be more explicit and say it is a metaphor, but it is possible that by embracing that definition they are missing something. Maybe they should still be saying "This is the body and blood of Jesus." The practice of saying that is ancient.

Thanks for the sermon.

You don't have to thank me.

I also already debated, to a close, Isaiah and the Servant. So don't say I can't or didn't. I did so and more often if not more accurately than anyone else.

 

[SethZaddik]

How many "genuine" letters are Christian scholars down to, 4? That is, of Paul and his ridiculous ideas about human sacrifice and deification of a man who did not want to be considered equal with or even close to equal with God, by the Gospel accounts and his words like "Only God is good" which is absolutely denying being God, he was talking about his Father in Heaven and not himself and even rebuked someone in this manner when called "good" and sternly.

Constantly prayed to God, which means if they are equal God must pray to another God, ad infinitum or they are separated and not equal at all as Jesus says his Power comes FROM God, he was created BY God and a creation is not equal to a Creator, no matter how divine.

Or was it 7? I know the genuine so called letters are the most vicious attacks on the 12 Apostles, really Peter and James the Judaizing circumcision faction that should finish the job, go Eunuch if they love it so much. Men from James sent to spy on his freedom in Christ, boasting about delivering someone to Satan himself, I guess they were friends or something.

This is not a joke. He also said "Slaves, treat your masters not as men and women but as God and Christ." And ordered them to be happy about being slaves.

Great guy. He also says he is not the least inferior to the chief apostles who are false apostles masquerading as apostles of Christ but are servants of satan, no wonder, even Satan masquerades as an angel of light.

Jesus said Satan can't cast out Satan, a divided kingdom can't stand, he can't act as his own exorcist and nowhere is he ever depicted as an angel of light, and there was and is no Lucifer in Greek or in Judaism for that matter, Helel ben Shachar is a human King called son of the morning star in Hebrew, Venus or the Canaanite goddess Shachar, not Satan,for symbolic reasons. So...

 

[Brickjectivity]

You don't have to thank me.

I also already debated, to a close, Isaiah and the Servant. So don't say I can't or didn't. I did so and more often if not more accurately than anyone else.

Walk-away bargaining is not debate. Preaching is not reasoning.

 

[Dawnofhope]

And if that messiah turns out to be the 2nd coming of Christ?

Then the fulfilment of prophecy is complete. Christ partially fulfilling prophecy 2,000 years ago does not negate His claims to be the Promised One.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Would you be so kind as to share with me the Messianic prophecies you claim were fulfilled by Jesus?

No problem. I'm having a mental block but here's a few for starters

Jesus' name will be 'Immanuel'. Matthew 1:22-3, Isaiah 7:14

'Out of Egypt I called my son'. Mt 2:18. Hos 11:1

A ruler will come from Bethlehem. Mt 2:6, Mic 5.2

The massacre of the innocents. Mt 2:18, Jer 31:15

Beyond the Jordan, the people who sat in darkness saw a great light. Mt 4:15, Isa 9:1-2

He Himself took our infirmities/ and bore our sicknesses. Mt 8:17, Isa 53:4

Prophetic praise of Jesus, His character and ministry to the Gentiles. Mt 12:18-21, Isa 42:1-4

He will speak in parables. Mt 13:35, Ps 78:2

The Messiah will enter Jerusalem on a donkey. Mt 21:4-5, Zech 9:9

Daniel 9:24-27
There were 490 years from when the decree to rebuild Jerusalem was issued from Artaxerxes in 457 BC to when Christ was crucified at age 33. This makes up 490 years or seven times seventy days.

 

[SethZaddik]

Walk-away bargaining is not debate. Preaching is not reasoning.

T

Walk-away bargaining is not debate. Preaching is not reasoning.

This isn't even an accurate critique of anything that I have said which means you are at a loss for words.

Certain things have answers, like who Isaiah was talking about, so it doesn't take a genius to debate something that is a known fact of scholarship with someone who has no clue.

Critiquing my response that I did in fact do something you accused me of not doing and did it well is just telling you what really happened.

Nothing sinister, just how it is.

 

[SethZaddik]

Walk-away bargaining is not debate. Preaching is not reasoning.

This is just complaining about the fact that you don't like that I answered a question according to well known interpretation of Isaiah by scholars of every school.

The Talmud is not clear that the servant is the Messiah, I think I read otherwise actually, but that doesn't change who Isaiah was talking about and they know this better than anyone.

They will consider reinterpreting scripture but not change old meaning as they have several layers of interpretation which Christianity knows little to nothing about.

 

[SethZaddik]

Judaism actually has no one belief about the Messiah, you have Sabbateans and Frankists who think Jacob Frank was the reincarnation of the Messiah Sabbatai Svi who reversed the commandments and declared himself the Messiah until the Turkish Sultan had enough and made him convert to Islam.

[[Christians don't know what they believe or read the Bible. Less than atheists who do it out of spite, honestly, and never in order so they don't ever understand scripture.]] wrong place, too lazy.

That was 1666 or so and they have not gotten over it ever since.

 

[Sonny]

Actually, I never said Islam caused the fall of Rome but Catholicism itself, and no, Rome fell around 600AD, 400 was a generation removed from Constantine and they were thriving at the time.

So it actually does line up chronologically, the rise of Islam and the fall of the Roman Empire.

400AD is when you think Rome fell?

Yikes are you off by a couple centuries.

Really? Noi, but your knowledge of Rome is about the same as your knowledge of Islam/Mohammad.
When Did Rome Fall?
In his masterwork, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, historian Edward Gibbon names the date AD 476 as the year Rome ceased to exist. That date has been generally accepted because that's when the Germanic king of the Torcilingi Odoacer deposed the last Roman emperor to rule the western part of the Roman Empire.

What Factors Caused the Fall of the Roman Empire?

The fall was prophesied in the book of Daniel when he was speaking about the 5 great nations that would come and go.