Peanut Gallery-Formal Debate-Isaiah 53 is Messianic and Yeshua (Jesus) alone...

[AbbaLove]

If I wanted to spend time having a conversation, I wouldn't do it in place that would censor what I said for their own benefit.

Why would I waste my time?

Have you picked up on the taste of any sour grape juice coming from either Yonah or pshun2404 ?

 

[Truthfrees]

Here, no; but this member has requested clarification here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7825104/#post65712909; and I have no problem allowing an academic answer to an academic question.

I desire to keep debates fair; and to be fair to those who observe these discussions. It's not fair for them to leave with misconceptions.

I know this is a new concept, but let's indulge a member who wants to learn, instead of ones who all they want to do is stuff their own agenda down everyone's throat.

Hi Mark,
The link you gave was to the formal debate thread.

Here's the link to my question: http://www.christianforums.com/t7825105/#post65773649

Thank you for allowing Yonah to answer. I didn't realize it was an out-of-bounds question normally.

I'm interested in this debate. http://www.christianforums.com/t7825104/#post65712909

I want to understand why our Jewish brothers DON'T see the LORD Y’shua is the Messiah.

And what Paul will say to address their concerns.

I appreciate how civil it is.

Thanks to Tishri1 and MarkRohfrietsch for advertising it.

I also appreciate the position Yonah is articulating.

I'm very interested in hearing him explain why our Jewish brothers are prone to NOT see the suffering Messiah in Isaiah 53.

 

[Truthfrees]

Mark,

I have enough trouble keeping myself on topic to cover what I need to cover for the debate. If I have time at the end, I'll try to put together a more comprehensive statement of why I generally do not believe in Jesus and why Jews generally reject the concept that Jesus was the Messiah.

Regards,
YM

I'd be very interested in reading a comprehensive statement, even if it's after the debate is concluded.

Thanks for taking the time you do for the formal debate.

The LORD bless you my brother.

 

[Truthfrees]

I think my problem is mostly that I am a Hillbilly


I can't never keep the rules straight, can't understand big words in general, slow witted, and I guess it feels too frustrating to follow acedimic stuff when I can't even spell it.


If I could take a speaking class or improve myself, I might enjoy professional debating, just to slow it seems.

The thing I like about formal debates is there seems to be more care and thought put into WHAT is presented.

It slows the process down, but I believe it tends to produce a higher quality discussion between people who have well-defined beliefs.

Generally speaking though, most of us are having off-the-cuff discussions to formulate WHAT we believe. IOW, we're still de-fining and re-fining some of our beliefs through discussion with others.

I too appreciate smaller words over bigger words.

The pen is mightier than the sword ONLY if the readers can understand what is being said.

 

[AbbaLove]

Isaiah 53 speaks of the servant being beaten, bruised, sick, disfigured, abused, etc. It may come as a surprise to those who do not read Isaiah’s prophecies as a whole text, but from the very beginning of the prophecy of Isaiah these very word images are applied to Israel.

We thus understand that “sickness,” “beating” and the like is a metaphor for desolation of the land. When it says that the “servant” (identified throughout the prophecy of Isaiah as Israel) was beaten, disfigured, abandoned, abused and forsaken, we are to understand that this is speaking of the abandonment of the land and the dissolution of the people who had inhabited it.

With respect to Yonah's position couldn't the singular subjective noun ("servant") refer to more than one of Yahweh's male prophets including Yeshua?

Luke 11:49-52 (CJB)
Therefore the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and emissaries; they will kill some and persecute others’; so that on this generation will fall the responsibility for all the prophets’ blood that has been shed since the world was established, from the blood of Hevel to the blood of Z’kharyah, who was killed between the altar and the Holy Place. Yes, I tell you, the responsibility for it will fall on this generation! “Woe to you Torah experts! For you have taken away the key of knowledge! Not only did you yourselves not go in, you also have stopped those who were trying to enter!”

Look at Isaiah 1.5-6 (NIV) here:
Why should you be beaten anymore?
Why do you persist in rebellion?
Your whole head is injured,
your whole heart afflicted.
From the sole of your foot to the top of your head
there is no soundness—
only wounds and welts
and open sores,
not cleansed or bandaged
or soothed with olive oil.

This is poetic language, and it might be difficult for us to understand what the prophet meant if he had not immediately followed these two verse with this (Isaiah 1.7-9 [NIV]):

Your country is desolate,
your cities burned with fire;
your fields are being stripped by foreigners
right before you,
laid waste as when overthrown by strangers.
Daughter Zion is left
like a shelter in a vineyard,
like a hut in a cucumber field,
like a city under siege.
Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us some survivors,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah.

Isn’t the land of Israel and it’s people most often referred to with the use of either the singular feminine pronoun or noun such as “Daughter” in Isaiah 1:8 as well as these other reference examples.

Isaiah 51:18 (CJB)
There is no one to guide her among all the sons she has borne. Not one of all the children she raised is taking her by the hand.

Isaiah 54:1-3 (Israel will be restored like a barren woman who bears many children)
Isaiah 54:4-6 (Israel will be restored like a widow who is rescued from her reproach)

Jeremiah 3:9 (CJB)
The ease with which Isra’el prostituted herself defiled the land, as she committed adultery with stones and with logs.

Amos 5:2 (CJB)
The virgin of Isra’el has fallen; she will not rise again. She lies abandoned on her own soil with no one to lift her up.

 

[aniello]

I'd be very interested in reading a comprehensive statement, even if it's after the debate is concluded.

Thanks for taking the time you do for the formal debate.

The LORD bless you my brother.

I also would much appreciate a concise summary of both sides when the debate is finished. This has been a most polite debate and it is welcomed.

I particularly appreciate the knowledge of both gentlemen and Yonah's knowledge of the Hebrew is unparalled, most helpful indeed.

 

[aniello]

Yonah's latest response, post #9 over in the formal debate regarding Isa. 53, was just posted last night.

Much respect for both gentlemen. I think Yonah's expertize with Hebrew lends much clarity to the subject passage.

I don't necessarily agree 100% with where YM may come down on the subject but I don't necessarily disagree either, I can certainly clearly see his reasoning, well I think I can. It is much as I had learned 60+ years ago in the Conservative I learned at, whenever, and that rarely, the subject ever came up. In the early 1950s Israel had just been re-born and we saw that as fulfillment!

Anyway, y'all should follow the debate, I am finding it most interesting, not silly like maybe a few of the topics in this MJ forum. ScheezieCheezie!

 

[Tishri1]

I agree its been really good

 

[Truthfrees]

I also would much appreciate a concise summary of both sides when the debate is finished. This has been a most polite debate and it is welcomed.

I particularly appreciate the knowledge of both gentlemen and Yonah's knowledge of the Hebrew is unparalled, most helpful indeed.

QUESTION:
The first apostles and believers were ALL Jews.

Then the gentiles were added through Paul's ministry.

What happened to cause our Jewish brothers to change their minds about Y'shua?

When and why did they back out as the majority?

Or is it a numbers game - there's more gentiles on earth, so as the gospel spread, the gentile believers in Y'shua began to outnumber the Jewish believers in Y'shua?

Why did the Jews see Y'shua as their Messiah in the apostles' day, but don't now?

 

[Truthfrees]

Yonah's latest response, post #9 over in the formal debate regarding Isa. 53, was just posted last night.

Much respect for both gentlemen. I think Yonah's expertize with Hebrew lends much clarity to the subject passage.

I don't necessarily agree 100% with where YM may come down on the subject but I don't necessarily disagree either, I can certainly clearly see his reasoning, well I think I can. It is much as I had learned 60+ years ago in the Conservative I learned at, whenever, and that rarely, the subject ever came up. In the early 1950s Israel had just been re-born and we saw that as fulfillment!

Anyway, y'all should follow the debate, I am finding it most interesting!

QUESTION:
What does Pre Pauline means?

You accept the NT writings EXCEPT for Paul's writings?

Because his ministry was to the gentiles and not to the Jews like the rest of the apostles?

 

[aniello]

QUESTION:
What does Pre Pauline means?

You accept the NT writings EXCEPT for Paul's writings?

Because his ministry was to the gentiles and not to the Jews like the rest of the apostles?

Copied from Miryam-Webster the following:

pre-

prefix : earlier than : before
: in advance





Full Definition of PRE-

1
a (1) : earlier than : prior to : before <Precambrian> <prehistoric> (2) : preparatory or prerequisite to <premedical>
b : in advance : beforehand <precancel> <prepay>

2
: in front of : anterior to <preaxial> <premolar>


Merely my reflection upon where, in the Book of Acts, I came to believe that Y'shua was/is/and ever shall be the Messiah prophecized.

My Mom was a Jew. Her memory is a blessing.

 

[yonah_mishael]

Can these questions be asked in a thread that is not the peanut gallery for the debate? Interesting questions and all, but why not open a new thread for them?

 

[AbbaLove]

Paul's latest rebuttal reply is his strongest positive post yet.

Also took issue with Yonah's previous opinion of Yeshua never having been sick. Does Yonah know for fact that Satan never tried to take Yeshua's life via a sickness during his childhood or as a young man. If Yonah truly believes that Yeshua never got sick isn't he as much as admitting that Yeshua was very possibly the Messiah ... the Son of Yahweh, born of a virgin.

In all actuality Yeshua was more heart sick than we can possibly comprehend.

Yerushalayim! Yerushalayim! You kill the prophets! You stone those who are sent to you! How often I wanted to gather your children, just as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, but you refused!
(Matt: 23:37 CJB)

 

[daq]

Paul's latest rebuttal reply is his strongest positive post yet.

Also took issue with Yonah's previous opinion of Yeshua never having been sick. Does Yonah know for fact that Satan never tried to take Yeshua's life via a sickness during his childhood or as a young man. If Yonah truly believes that Yeshua never got sick isn't he as much as admitting that Yeshua was very possibly the Messiah ... the Son of Yahweh, born of a virgin.

In all actuality Yeshua was more heart sick than we can possibly comprehend.

Yerushalayim! Yerushalayim! You kill the prophets! You stone those who are sent to you! How often I wanted to gather your children, just as a hen gathers her chickens under her wings, but you refused!
(Matt: 23:37 CJB)

Actually it is indeed possible that Yeshua was a leper. There is a passage which suggests just such a thing to be the case, (Mark 8:1-4). The priests bore the sins of the people, all of them, for that is one of the prescriptions of their duties in Torah, (every priest or son of Ahron was to bear the iniquities of both the people and his priesthood). However, that bearing up of the sins was only temporary and not imputed to the priests themselves. In fact this was the duty of the Kohen Gadol once per year at Yom Kippurim when he would temporarily "bear the sins of the people" so as to put them upon the head of the goat which was chosen by lot to be sent away into the desert with all the sins of the congregation upon its mortally wounded head. Likewise the Kohen Gadol bore the sins upon his shoulders, (not his head) just as he bore the names of the twelve tribes, (six on a side) upon the stones upon his shoulders. Yeshua did no different than every Kohen Gadol when he likewise temporarily bore the sins of the people and nailed them to the stake:

Matthew 8:1-4
1. When he was come down from the mountain, great multitudes followed him.
2. And, behold, there came a leper and bowed to him, saying, Master, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.
3. And Yeshua put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean! And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
4. And Yeshua saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moshe commanded, for a testimony unto them.

It seems Yeshua traded places with this leper when he touched him and said "I will".
It seems Yeshua knew at this point it would cost him his life . . .

That's absolutely right. Everyone should get involved in the process of debate. You will be able to surprise yourself. It's even better to adopt a position opposite of what you actually believe and do what you can to defend it. For example, I could take up the position that Paul was Torah observant and believed in Torah observance, and someone else from here could do their best to prove that Paul didn't believe in keeping Torah. We could go back-and-forth and see how well we could each hold our own in our respective positions. Personally, I would love to have this discussion.

As it is, I agree that others should jump into the debate forum and get involved.

Because your goal is to win and to think through the position as fully as possible. Have you never heard of this?

This is an excellent practice inmo. Many debates have likewise occurred between me, myself, and i. One day the topic of this very debate thread arose between me, myself, and i, and myself said to i, "The main problem with you is that after nearly two millennia you and your genos are still not willing to admit that HaMashiach has come!" And i replied to myself, "And the main problem with you and is that, despite the clear evidence written, you and your genos are not willing to admit that right there in the midst of the suffering servant songs HaMashiach is clearly surnamed Christos Kyros!" So at that point me steps in and says to i, "Ok then, meet yourself half way and bring yourself to admit that HaMashiach has come in the name of the Father seeing that you already know his surname is kurie Kuros." Then me turns to myself and says, "You too, meet yourself half way and bring yourself to admit that the surname given HaMashiach is master Cyrus seeing that you already know that HaMashiach has come; for not everyone who says to him "kurie, Kurie!" shall enter into the kingdom of the heavens, as he said, but rather he that does the will of the Father who is in the heavens." And then me says to the both of us, "If the two of you will do these things then you too will see eye to eye!" i therefore agreed and undertook to implement the advice and counsel of me too but myself replied that he could not agree to agree with the two of us and continued burning incense to nchushtan while spreading the false report that Cyrus II, king of Persia, had fulfilled all those things written in Esaias concerning Kurus. And it came to pass that hamelek, at the advice and counsel of hanavi, went and took the image of nchushtan, and smashed it, marring its face beyond recognition: and when i saw this, i stoned myself with sharp words and thrust him from my house. And, wouldn't you know it, in the same day Sar Shalom paid a visit to my house! (O Father, let only the wise hearted understand what i said!)

 

[Truthfrees]

Can these questions be asked in a thread that is not the peanut gallery for the debate? Interesting questions and all, but why not open a new thread for them?

New thread started here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7827661/#post65816271

 

[yonah_mishael]

I&#8217;m sorry, but I&#8217;ve never heard anyone suggest that Jesus was sick once in his life &#8211; or, especially, that he was a leper. These are non-standard things to say. They actually seem ad hoc to me.

To suggest that in order for Jesus to heal someone he had to &#8220;trade places with them&#8221; is very interesting. Does this mean that Jesus took on a bleeding condition when he healed it from the woman who touched the hem of his garment? Does it mean that he became dead when he raised up Lazarus? Does it mean that he became demon-possessed when he cast out demons? Are you suggesting that Jesus could not heal someone without some sort of transfer of the illness? To me, that seems rather absurd. The whole idea is that he was able to heal, not to absorb. Again, it seems ad hoc as a counter against my statement, but it doesn&#8217;t seem like anything that a sound theologian would ever state. I&#8217;m not interested in countering every ad hoc concept that someone might throw out to wriggle out of an argument. I&#8217;m interested in the standard and accepted teachings of the Christian religion and of Messianic Judaism.

 

[Hoshiyya]

I’m interested in the standard and accepted teachings of the Christian religion and of Messianic Judaism.

"the standard and accepted teachings of ... of Messianic Judaism"

Good luck with that !

 

[yonah_mishael]

That's true. But, there are sets of accepted teachings within Messianic Judaism. Some believe this way; others believe that way. But, there are things that are not taught by either group and not considered standard for Messianics to believe. This is what I'm talking about.

 

[AbbaLove]

I&#8217;m sorry, but I&#8217;ve never heard anyone suggest that Jesus was sick once in his life &#8211; or, especially, that he was a leper. These are non-standard things to say. They actually seem ad hoc to me.

To suggest that in order for Jesus to heal someone he had to &#8220;trade places with them&#8221; is very interesting. Does this mean that Jesus took on a bleeding condition when he healed it from the woman who touched the hem of his garment? Does it mean that he became dead when he raised up Lazarus? Does it mean that he became demon-possessed when he cast out demons? Are you suggesting that Jesus could not heal someone without some sort of transfer of the illness? To me, that seems rather absurd. The whole idea is that he was able to heal, not to absorb. Again, it seems ad hoc as a counter against my statement, but it doesn&#8217;t seem like anything that a sound theologian would ever state. I&#8217;m not interested in countering every ad hoc concept that someone might throw out to wriggle out of an argument. I&#8217;m interested in the standard and accepted teachings of the Christian religion and of Messianic Judaism.

​

The Christian belief of Yeshua "trading places with us" is viewed more as an atonement for our sins in order to redeem us from the curse of the law. The curse of the law included sickness.

But he was wounded because of our crimes,
crushed because of our sins;
the disciplining that makes us whole fell on him,
and by his bruises* we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5 CJB)

But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our guilt and iniquities; the chastisement [needful to obtain] peace and well-being for us was upon Him, and with the stripes [that wounded] Him we are healed and made whole. (AMP)

 

[Hoshiyya]

That's true. But, there are sets of accepted teachings within Messianic Judaism. Some believe this way; others believe that way. But, there are things that are not taught by either group and not considered standard for Messianics to believe. This is what I'm talking about.

I would say "Messianic Judaism" is a term used to refer to a set of tendencies that are not yet matured and ready to be truly analyzed and treated as a finished product. It's more like early, early Gnosticism, or Mormonism in its first decade; simply not matured yet, simply not in its final / true form yet. Hence I would try to be consciously not treating it as a finished or fully expressed thing. It's like criticizing a musician who has just not yet "found his style".