what messianic prophecies where not fulfilled by jesus?

[razeontherock]

None of the disciples, Jewish leaders, or anybody except Jesus ever commented on the messiah coming to die for sins (unless I'm missing someone). Were it a common element, it would have been mentioned I imagine.

John 18:14 Now Caiaphas [High Priest that year] was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people."

"And one of them, [named] Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, (John 11:50) Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death."

Now understand that growing up, I discussed things of this nature with Jews, a LOT. I just find it odd that not once, was it ever mentioned that Judaism looks at things so differently as you portray. It's a rather sudden adjustment for me, seeing as this text here is what I hold to be authoritative.

 

[razeontherock]

None of the disciples, Jewish leaders, or anybody except Jesus ever commented on the messiah coming to die for sins (unless I'm missing someone). Were it a common element, it would have been mentioned I imagine.

Also, I find it mentioned throughout the OT. Moses, (including Genesis) Job, Psalms ...

 

[LoAmmi]

John 18:14 Now Caiaphas [High Priest that year] was he, which gave counsel to the Jews, that it was expedient that one man should die for the people."

"And one of them, [named] Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, (John 11:50) Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad. Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death."

Now understand that growing up, I discussed things of this nature with Jews, a LOT. I just find it odd that not once, was it ever mentioned that Judaism looks at things so differently as you portray. It's a rather sudden adjustment for me, seeing as this text here is what I hold to be authoritative.

What kind of Jews did you speak with previously? If it were Reform or similar, they may not even know classical Judaism's stance. There are slight concepts where a righteous man dies and that causes people to come back to HaShem and, perhaps, even not perish. When Josiah was killed in battle, the Babylonian Exile was delayed a generation because the people turned back to HaShem in mourning. However, they want to kill him so that does not seem to fit. There is nothing within Judaism that I know of that would make this make sense. Unless it was a Sadducee thing. We don't have them anymore.

Two things though:
Obviously they didn't think he was the messiah. Secondly, they didn't mention anything about being saved from sin. I still hold that the messiah coming to die for sins is a foreign concept.

 

[LoAmmi]

Also, I find it mentioned throughout the OT. Moses, (including Genesis) Job, Psalms ...

I am sure we would completely disagree on that. However, I still say that it was foreign. When Jesus told the disciples that he had to die, they didn't go "Of course! You, the messiah, must die for our sins!" They said "Heaven forbid!".

 

[Enkil]

Israel is not the one speaking this part. It is still the kings of the nations speaking. "We" is the kings. "He' is Israel. It is also not wounded for our transgressions, it should be wounded FROM or BECAUSE OF our transgressions. Israel in exile has suffered under the kings of the world. It is their crimes that caused the sufferings. The pogroms, the Holocaust.

The preceding chapter is the Prophet speaking, relaying the words of God:

Isa 52:3 For thus saith the LORD...

And the voice does not change in any way throughout the narrative, so it is more logical to conclude that the Prophet continues speaking. There is no indication that suddenly the Prophet takes on the voice of the King's perspective.

Also, Israel was not crushed for the crimes of the Kings, but for their own crimes. The apostasy of the Jews during and before the war was great and profound. As I've noted previously, even the High Priest at that time served illegally, and the Temple was profaned by the Zealots. The scripture also says, according to you, that Israel was sentenced to prison and taken as a lamb to slaughter, even though He committed no crime and there was no word of deception from His mouth. Yet, that certainly wasn't the case with the Zealots. None of this fits for Israel.

In each instance, whenever Israel was bound and set into exile, it was always as a consequence of its own crimes against God. He promised blessings for when they followed the law of God, and punishments for when they did not. There is never any instance where Israel is punished for a crime it did not commit, and surely the destruction of the Temple could only mean the highest crime possible had been punished.

Furthermore, around the time that land became a province, there was only one Shiloh who was born, and that is Christ:

Gen 49:10 The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

So all these things have come and gone, and yet there is no evidence that Israel could ever fulfill that prophecy. I will not claim that the Jews deserved the hate of the socialists, both national and international, or the Muslims who were earlier, or the Catholics or anyone else who persecuted them. But I also will not believe that those murdered Jews were doing the Gentiles a favor somehow!

Isiah states earlier that Israel received a double portion of our punishment for our sins. Why is this? Israel is to be a nation of priests and priests bear the iniquity of the sanctuary, so Israel must bear the iniquity of the world. The world suffers less because Israel suffers more.

Soon there may be a world war, and it will only be because America is the ally of Israel, which the communists over many years have painted as a great Satan in order to unite the Middle East against our interests. If Israel were to fall, the suffering would be world wide, as the war would be universal. And I do not see how World War 2 was confined only to the Jewish people. I seem to recall millions of other people also dying, though the Jews were the special target of the Holocaust.

Again, history does not seem to back up these statements. If they were true, killing a Jew each day would guarantee a lot of peace. The Muslims, however, enjoy variation in their murders and do not confine them to you all.

All your doctrine is doing is taking the prophecy of Jesus Christ and applying it to the entirety of Israel, while at the same time ignoring the role of the Messiah.

 

[LoAmmi]

The preceding chapter is the Prophet speaking, relaying the words of God:

Isa 52:3 For thus saith the LORD...

And the voice does not change in any way throughout the narrative, so it is more logical to conclude that the Prophet continues speaking. There is no indication that suddenly the Prophet takes on the voice of the King's perspective.

Read the END of 52 and the beginning of 53. The kings of the world are saying the first line of 53. It is pretty clear to me. I am sorry if we are simply going to have to agree to disagree on this matter.

 

[Enkil]

And so He is. Our Messiah is not our savior. Our Messiah does not come to die for our sins. That is a concept foreign to Judaism and, as you can see in the New Testament, always has been.
5. For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."

Note the past tense of the verse. It is speaking about Hezekiah, not the messiah. The child was already born as it is in past tense in the Hebrew. Also, it is stating that HaShem called him the prince of peace.

"Shall" be called. This is future tense. Hezekiah is also not The Mighty God of whose Kingdom there is no end.

 

[LoAmmi]

All your doctrine is doing is taking the prophecy of Jesus Christ and applying it to the entirety of Israel, while at the same time ignoring the role of the Messiah.

I could just as easily say that all your doctrine is doing is taking the prophecy of Israel and applying it to a single man, Jesus, while at the same time ignoring the clear prophecies listed for the messiah that Jesus did not fulfill.

 

[LoAmmi]

"Shall" be called. This is future tense. Hezekiah is also not The Mighty God of whose Kingdom there is no end.

Do you know Biblical Hebrew? If you are merely quoting the English translation, I'm afraid you will need to do better than that. Those whom I know that do know Biblical Hebrew have assured me that it is past tense in grammar, as the translation I posted showed. Also, it is saying that HaShem shall call this person the "prince of peace", listing multiple titles for HaShem. I have also been assured this is a proper rending of the Hebrew.

 

[razeontherock]

What kind of Jews did you speak with previously?

Well I doubt there was a single Orthodox. This was NJ! Forgive me, but are you Orthodox?

Two things though:
Obviously they didn't think he was the messiah. Secondly, they didn't mention anything about being saved from sin.

Agreed to the first part very much. Being saved from sin? the High Priest prophesied to that effect, but not any less vaguely than is in the OT.

 

[Enkil]

Read the END of 52 and the beginning of 53. The kings of the world are saying the first line of 53. It is pretty clear to me. I am sorry if we are simply going to have to agree to disagree on this matter.

I was the one who quoted the end of Isaiah 52 in the first place, noting that the Kings of the gentiles would "shut their mouth up at him" and "consider" what they had never heard before.


Isa 52:15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

Where exactly do the Kings who shall shut their mouths begin speaking?

 

[razeontherock]

I am sure we would completely disagree on that. However, I still say that it was foreign. When Jesus told the disciples that he had to die, they didn't go "Of course! You, the messiah, must die for our sins!" They said "Heaven forbid!".

Right! It was in the text, but hidden. Veiled. On purpose. Otherwise nobody would've ever gone through with it, and satan would never have fulfilled his role.

 

[LoAmmi]

How many times did Jesus die?

 

[razeontherock]

Read the END of 52 and the beginning of 53. The kings of the world are saying the first line of 53. It is pretty clear to me. I am sorry if we are simply going to have to agree to disagree on this matter.

Don't apologize! It;'s good to get your perspective. In this way of looking at things, are the Kings corrupt, or just?

 

[LoAmmi]

Right! It was in the text, but hidden. Veiled. On purpose. Otherwise nobody would've ever gone through with it, and satan would never have fulfilled his role.

So...

You would have to agree that it would have been something foreign to Judaism then, logically?

 

[razeontherock]

I was the one who quoted the end of Isaiah 52 in the first place, noting that the Kings of the gentiles would "shut their mouth up at him" and "consider" what they had never heard before.

A clear reference to what LoAmmi is saying is a foreign concept to Judaism, that Caiaphas got a glimpse of when he prophesied ...

 

[razeontherock]

How many times did Jesus die?

In the text? With every blood sacrifice. With Abel. With Isaac. With Job's suffering. In the furnace of the book of Daniel, w/ the 3 children, none of whom died.

Physically? Once, tasting death for every man.

 

[LoAmmi]

Don't apologize! It;'s good to get your perspective. In this way of looking at things, are the Kings corrupt, or just?

They are the ones attacking Israel. For good or ill, they simply are. They are then shown the error of their ways. The shut their mouth, which is not shut up but cover their mouth in shock. Then it is their voice in the beginning of Isaiah 53. The problem is that Hebrew to English doesn't work 100%. There are clues in the text that show that the "he" being spoken of is plural. I know VERY little Hebrew, so I have to rely on those that do know it, but the people I trust have gone over this with me.

There are deaths spoken of, not a single death. The word used for children is the one exclusively used for biological children. It literally means sperm/seed.

 

[LoAmmi]

Using Young's Literal Translation of Isaiah 9 I get:
6 For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.

Even though it is still being rendered to say that HaShem calls him all these titles, which I have been told can work either way in Hebrew, the beginning is clear: it is past tense.

 

[razeontherock]

So...

You would have to agree that it would have been something foreign to Judaism then, logically?

Foreign to Jews yes; to Judaism? No. And yet, this conversation has made me see it in a light I never have before; thank you.

There is an interesting question:

"And Philip ran thither to [him], and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? (Acts 8:31) And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.
The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.

And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?"

The question being, did any of the Prophets really know what they were saying, or writing? Did Moses get a glimpse? He wound up talking with Jesus, on the Mount of Transfiguration. Had he seen this coming, and it was just an exhilarating moment for him to finally see it come to pass?

Or was it entirely foreign to him?