\He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.
- We know that Israel was violent. It was because sheer violence that Israel was established in the first place. Israel is not blameless.
Jesus whipped people out of the Temple, a violent act. So.... whatever justification you use for Jesus doing that, just apply it to Israel and there we go.
No comparison. This was righteous anger. Those trading in the temples were committing blasphemy. Now the Israelites, they left corpses everywhere trying to conquer lands that weren't theirs. Yes, Israel was occupied before the Israelites even got to Israel. Not to mention just how evil the current Israel is. What deceit came out of Jesus' mouth? Was Israel violent? Yes or no? If you say yes, then this cannot be referring to Israel.
Yep.
Isaiah 41: "But you, Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I have chosen, the offspring of Abraham, my friend; you whom I took from the ends of the earth, and called from its farthest corners, saying to you, “You are my servant, I have chosen you and not cast you off.”" We see here a change from the beginning of Isaiah to the servant songs. It's comes down to what is said in Isaiah 49: "The redeemer will come to Zion, to those in Jacob who repent of their sins," declares the LORD.
The servant represents those who have repented of their sins and turned back. When we say the servant is Israel, we're talking about people who have turned back and have been called back to our home.
Actually what I'm contending is that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus. Clearly this is about Israel.
I see a bunch of quotes in the New Testament where Jesus says things and cries out. So... whatever justification you use for Jesus doing that, just apply it to Israel and there we go.
That is in reference to when Jesus was led to be crucified. He did not defend Himself. He had no resistance. Israel is not like that.
- The whole of Israel died with the wicked yet Israel was wicked herself? Israel was not peaceful and was deceitful. The whole of Israel did not die.
I refer to my Isaiah 41 and 49 quotes above.
Can't change the fact that Israel was not peaceful and was deceitful.
- So Isaiah says that the suffering servant was offered as a guilt offering for sin. Since Israel was full of sin, it could not be Israel that is the guilt offering. The suffering servant has killed and brought back to life because of the sins of transgressors. Sounds like Jesus.
Actually, it sounds nothing like Jesus. His days were not prolonged nor did he have physical children, which Isaiah references by using the Hebrew word for seed/sperm. I'd also point out that the word death in the Hebrew used in Isaiah 53 is plural, it's DEATHS. How many times did Jesus die?
Please stop dodging the part that Israel cannot be be a guilt offering. The word for offering is asham referring to the Law where the offering had to be without blemish. It most certainly does not apply to Israel. I'm just like to mean that in verse 8, it says the suffering servant was cut off. Cut off means execution. Israel was not executed. Now about seed. It was probably meant in a figurative way.
“. . . the final promise that he will see his offspring and that his work will bear fruit in the end would imply that he lives on in the prophetic following dedicated to perpetuating his message.”
You should not have a problem with deaths being mentioned in the plural. It was the same with Israel. The Lord addressed it in the plural and singular as well.
Isaiah 43:10
"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.
So in Isaiah, the suffering servant which is Jesus is referred to in the singular and associated with the plural deaths.
Another example is
Ezekiel 28:8
They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas.
So we can see a person can die "deaths".
"Babylonian Talmud: "The Messiah --what is his name?...The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, `surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted...'" (Sanhedrin 98b)"
Man, I hope whoever ripped that from the text took it to dinner before having their way with it. The Talmud does say that but also applies Isaiah 53 to Moses, David, Isaiah himself, Israel, and all righteous people who suffer. Moses, David, and Isaiah certainly weren't killed for the sins of the world.
It appears both you and me forgot about the leper part.
"The Talmud also "records" a supposed discourse between the great Rabbi Joshua ben Levi and the prophet Elijah. The rabbi asks "When will the Messiah come?" And "By what sign may I recognize him?" Elijah tells the rabbi to go to the gate of the city where he will find the Messiah sitting among the poor lepers. The Messiah, says the prophet, sits bandaging his leprous sores one at a time, unlike the rest of the sufferers, who bandage them all at once. Why? Because he might be needed at any time and would not want to be delayed. Elijah says he will come "Today, if you will listen to his voice." (Sanhedrin 98a)
Okay, so this is definitely not about Israel.
"Where did this "Leper Messiah" idea come from? This odd concept must have arisen from the rabbis as they struggled with Isaiah 53. They either saw the Messiah's sufferings as leprosy or split the Messiah in two, one a sufferer and one a conqueror. (See the section on the "
Two-Messiahs" theory.) The Hebrew words in Isaiah 53:4, stricken (nagua) and smitten (mukkay) are interpreted as referring to a leprous condition. Either word
can refer to being stricken with a disease, yet they need not be understood in that way, much like our English work "stricken" can refer to stricken with disease or just simply stricken, as with a fist. Either way, Jesus was stricken. He was certainly made sick by the Roman floggings and beatings and the tortuous ordeal of crucifixion. He was certainly stricken with the Roman lash. As a leper was despised and rejected of men, so also was the Messiah despised and rejected. And still today there are many who see Jesus as being as repugnant as leprosy and his followers as those who should be isolated and shunned."
http://www.chaim.org/leper.htm
Where did you get the idea that Isaiah 53 may be talking about Moses, David, etc?
"Rabbi Moses Maimonides: "What is the manner of Messiah's advent....there shall rise up one of whom none have known before, and signs and wonders which they shall see performed by him will be the proofs of his true origin; for the Almighty, where he declares to us his mind upon this matter, says, `Behold a man whose name is the Branch, and he shall branch forth out of his place' (Zech. 6:12). And Isaiah speaks similarly of the time when he shall appear, without father or mother or family being known,
He came up as a sucker before him, and as a root out of dry earth, etc....in the words of Isaiah, when describing the manner in which kings will harken to him,
At him kings will shut their mouth; for that which had not been told them have they seen, and that which they had not heard they have perceived."(From the Letter to the South (Yemen), quoted in The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, Volume 2, pages 374-5)"
Nothing inconsistent with the modern Jewish view at all. Not sure what you're getting at. Isaiah 53 is clearly describing the Messianic age where Israel is redeemed.
Messiah:
"the promised deliverer of the Jewish nation prophesied in the Hebrew Bible."
Israel can't deliver Israel.
"Rabbi Mosheh Kohen Ibn Crispin: This rabbi described those who interpret
Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel as those: "having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined after the `stubbornness of their own hearts,' and of their own opinion, I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah....This prophecy was delivered by Isaiah at the divine command for the purpose of making known to us something about the nature of the future Messiah, who is to come and deliver Israel, and his life from the day when he arrives at discretion until his advent as a redeemer, in order that if anyone should arise claiming to be himself the Messiah, we may reflect, and look to see whether we can observe in him any resemblance to the traits described here; if there is any such resemblance, then we may believe that he is the Messiah our righteousness; but if not, we cannot do so." (From his commentary on Isaiah, quoted in The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, Volume 2, pages 99-114.)"
Nothing inconsistent with the modern Jewish view at all. Not sure what you're getting at. Isaiah 53 is clearly describing the Messianic age where Israel is redeemed.
"Rabbi Mosheh Kohen Ibn Crispin: This rabbi described those who interpret
Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel as those: "having forsaken the knowledge of our Teachers, and inclined after the `stubbornness of their own hearts,' and of their own opinion, I am pleased to interpret it, in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah....This prophecy was delivered by Isaiah at the divine command for the purpose of making known to us something about the nature of the future Messiah, who is to come and deliver Israel, and his life from the day when he arrives at discretion until his advent as a redeemer, in order that if anyone should arise claiming to be himself the Messiah, we may reflect, and look to see whether we can observe in him any resemblance to the traits described here; if there is any such resemblance, then we may believe that he is the Messiah our righteousness; but if not, we cannot do so." (From his commentary on Isaiah, quoted in The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, Volume 2, pages 99-114.)"
The book is in error as the guy was not some kind of prominent rabbi. That book is in error and I could even provide you a few Messianic sites that have conceded that this is the case.
Sure, give me those sites. I am assuming you are expecting a messiah to redeem Israel?
All Jews ARE Israel. What do you think we're discussing? The Nation State?! Israel IS the Jewish people.
That is wrong. There are very few Jews out there that come from the Abrahamic line. In fact, they come from the Khazar Jews.
"The “Jews” of America, Europe, and Israel are descendants not of Father Abraham but of King Bulan and the people of ancient Khazaria. Khazaria was an amalgam of Turkic clans who once lived in the Caucasus (Southern Russia) in the early centuries CE. These Turkic peoples were pagans who converted to Judaism in the eighth century. As converts, they called themselves “Jews,” but none of their blood comes from Israel."
How else do you think you get white Jews?
http://www.texemarrs.com/042013/jews_not_descendants_of_abraham.htm
