Jesus, THE Messiah?

[david]

Quote (david @ Nov. 22 2007,10:23)

I know I've commented on these things before, but I want to discuss them. By Jesus’ day the Jews had suffered for centuries under a series of harsh Gentile rulers. They longed for a political deliverer. But to the great disappointment of the Jews, Jesus was no political hero. On the contrary, he claimed that his Kingdom ‘was no part of the world.’ (John 18:36) Furthermore, Jesus did not then usher in the glorious Messianic age foreseen by the prophet Isaiah. (Isaiah 11:4-9) And when Jesus was put to death as a criminal, the nation as a whole lost interest in him. Undeterred by these events, Jesus’ followers continued to proclaim him as the Messiah. What accounted for their remarkable zeal? It was the belief that Jesus’ death fulfilled prophecy, specifically the prophecy of Isaiah 52:13–53:12. This reads in part: “Behold, My servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, . . . for he shot up right forth as a sapling, and as a root out of a dry ground . . . He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: He was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried . . . He was crushed because of our iniquities: The chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed. All we like sheep did go astray, we turned every one to his own way . . . He was oppressed, though he humbled himself and opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, . . . he was cut off out of the land of the living. . . . And they made his grave with the wicked.”—JP. While some have asserted that this servant spoken of was Israel, Israel was a sinful servant. (Isaiah 42:19; 44:21, 22) Encyclopaedia Judaica draws this contrast: “The real Israel is sinful and the Servant [of Isaiah 53], free of sin.” (Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971, Volume 9, page 65.) The Suffering Servant in Rabbinical Writings Over the centuries a number of respected Jewish authorities have applied the prophecy of Isaiah 52:13–53:12 to the Messiah: The Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel (1st century C.E.). In its rendering of Isaiah 52:13, the Targum says: “Behold, my servant, the Anointed One (or, the Messiah) shall prosper.” The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 98b) (c. 3rd century C.E.): “The Messiah—what is his name? . . . The Rabbis say, The leprous one [; those] of the house of Rabbi [say, The sick one], as it is said, ‘Surely he hath borne our sicknesses.’”—Compare Isaiah 53:4.24 Moses Maimonides (Rambam) (12th century): “What is to be the manner of Messiah’s advent, and where will be the place of his first appearance? . . . In the words of Isaiah [52:15], when describing the manner in which the kings will hearken to him, At him kings will shut their mouth.” Moses ibn Crispin Cohen (14th century): “I am pleased to interpret [Isaiah 53], in accordance with the teaching of our Rabbis, of the King Messiah, and will be careful, so far as I am able, to adhere to the literal sense: thus, possibly, I shall be free from the forced and farfetched interpretations of which others [Jewish commentators] have been guilty.” In what way did the servant suffer ‘because of our iniquities’? (Isaiah 53:5) What do you think towshab? Thousands of Jews came to see undeniable parallels between the Suffering Servant and Jesus of Nazareth. Like that Servant, Jesus was of humble origin. Ultimately, he was despised and shunned. Though he carried out no political conquest, he bore the diseases of others, miraculously curing their ailments. Though innocent, he died as a result of judicial miscarriage—a fate he accepted without protest. Towshab, why would Messiah have to die? Explains Isaiah 53:10: “But the LORD chose to crush him by disease, that, if he made himself an offering for guilt, he might see offspring and have long life, and that through him the LORD’s purpose might prosper.” (Ta) This alluded to the Levitical practice of offering up animal victims to atone for sin or guilt. Messiah would suffer a disgraceful death, but like a sacrificial victim, his death would have atoning merit. If Messiah died, though, how could he fulfill the prophecies about his glorious rule, much less “see offspring and have long life”? Logically, by a resurrection from the dead. (Compare 1 Kings 17:17-24.) Messiah’s resurrection would also resolve the seeming contradiction between Daniel 7:13, which predicted that the Messiah would triumphantly come on the clouds of heaven, and Zechariah 9:9, which said that he would humbly arrive on an ass. The Talmud tried to explain this paradox by asserting: “If they are meritorious, he will come with the clouds of heaven; if not, lowly and riding upon an ass.” (Sanhedrin 98a) But this would mean that the prophecy at either Daniel 7:13 or Zechariah 9:9 would remain unfulfilled. [/B]Yet, Messiah’s resurrection would allow him to fulfill both prophecies. Initially, he would come humbly to suffer and die. After his resurrection, he would return in glory and usher in the heavenly Messianic rule. Before, towshab, it seemed obvious to me that Jesus was mentioned in the tulmud, but you didn't believe this, as I remember. Though Jesus is barely mentioned in the Talmud, what little is said tries “to belittle the person of Jesus by ascribing to him illegitimate birth, magic, and a shameful death.”—The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1910, Volume VII, page 170. Says Israeli scholar Pinchas Lapide: “Talmudic passages about Jesus . . . were mutilated, distorted, or obliterated by church censors.” It is thus “more than likely that Jesus originally had a much greater impact on rabbinical literature than the fragments we have today bear witness to.”—Israelis, Jews, and Jesus,by Pinchas Lapide, 1979, pages 73-4. Something else, Towshab. You look at Gen 3:15 and see allegory. Yet, The Palestinian Targum applied the fulfillment of Gen 3:15 to “the day of King Messiah.” Neophyti 1, Targum Palestinense, Ms de la Biblioteca Vaticana, Génesis, 1968, Volume I, pages 503-4; The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation, by Samson H. Levey, 1974, pages 2-3. Under the pressure of Christendom’s conversion efforts, Judaism reassessed its views. Many Scripture texts that had long been applied to the Messiah were reinterpreted. The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah, by Christopher R. North, First Edition, 1948, page 18; The Jewish People and Jesus Christ, by Jakób Jocz, 1954 (first published in 1949), pages 205-7, 282; The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, 1929-36, Volume I, page 202; Palestinian Judaism in New Testament Times, by Werner Förster, translated by Gordon E. Harris, 1964, pages 199-200 As modern times dawned, under the influence of higher criticism of the Bible, some Jewish scholars concluded that the Messianic hope does not appear in the Bible at all! Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971, Volume 11, page 1407; U.S. Catholic, December 1983, page 20. The Talmud says: “When thou seest a generation overwhelmed by many troubles as by a river, await [the Messiah].” (Sanhedrin 98a) I believe the generation beginning in the past century is a very troubled generation. The Messianic hope was born and nurtured with the Jews. Among them that hope has grown dim. Its brilliance has been nearly extinguished by centuries of suffering and disappointment. Ironically, millions among the nations, or Gentiles, have come to seek and ultimately to embrace a Messiah. Is it just a coincidence that Isaiah said of the Messiah: “Unto him shall the nations [Gentiles] seek”? (Isaiah 11:10, JP) Should not Jews also seek the Messiah themselves? It is in vain, however, to seek a future Messiah. Were he to arrive, how could he establish himself as a bona fide descendant of King David? Though such records existed in Jesus’ day, his claim of being a legitimate descendant of David was never successfully challenged. (See The Life of Flavius Josephus, 1:1-6.) Could any future Messianic claimant ever produce such credentials? One must therefore seek the Messiah who came in the past.

The idea of a suffering messiah doesn't fit in with the Jewish idea of a polital savior or the COMLETE image of the messiah that the Bible paints.

[david]

Quote (david @ Nov. 22 2007,10:29)

towshab, I'm wondering where I can find the geneological records that can be traced back to david? Are there any websites that you know of that have these?

Also, wondering about this.

[david]

Quote (david @ Nov. 22 2007,11:01)

Over the centuries, Bible prophets supplied specific requirements that the Messiah would have to meet, identifying him unmistakably. As the prophets supplied these details over the centuries, a picture of the Messiah gradually emerged. Henry H. Halley observed: “Suppose a number of men of Different Countries, who had never seen, nor in any way communicated with, one another, would walk into a room, and each lay down a piece of Carved Marble, which pieces, when Fitted Together, would make a Perfect statue—how account for it in any other way than that Some One Person had drawn the Specifications, and had sent to each man his part?” “How can this Amazing Composite of Jesus’ Life and Work, put together by Different Writers of Different Centuries, Ages Before Jesus Came, be explained on any other basis than that ONE SUPERHUMAN MIND supervised the Writing?” A defining Messianic detail appeared in the book of Daniel. Pinpointing the very year of the Messiah’s appearance, the prophecy states: “You should know and have the insight that from the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Leader, there will be seven weeks, also sixty-two weeks. She will return and be actually rebuilt, with a public square and moat, but in the straits of the times.”—Daniel 9:25. Persian King Artaxerxes gave “the word” to restore and rebuild Jerusalem in the 20th year of his reign. His reign began in 474 B.C.E., so his 20th year would be 455 B.C.E. (Nehemiah 2:1-8) Thus, a period of 69 (7 plus 62) prophetic weeks would separate the command to restore and rebuild Jerusalem and the appearance of the Messiah. Sixty-nine literal weeks, of course, equal only 483 days, or less than two years. But when the stated prophetic rule of “a day for a year” is applied, it reveals that the Messiah would appear 483 years later, in 29 C.E.—Ezekiel 4:6. Hey, isn't that the year Jesus was baptized (annointed) with holy spirit, becoming the Christ (annointed one)? Let's look at this more closely. The 70 weeks are a prophetic time period referred to at Daniel 9:24-27 during which Jerusalem would be rebuilt and Messiah would appear and then be cut off; following that period the city as well as the holy place would be made desolate. In the first year of Darius “the son of Ahasuerus of the seed of the Medes,” the prophet Daniel discerned from the prophecy of Jeremiah that the time for the release of the Jews from Babylon and their return to Jerusalem was near. Daniel then diligently sought Jehovah in prayer, in harmony with Jeremiah’s words: “‘And you will certainly call me and come and pray to me, and I will listen to you. And you will actually seek me and find me, for you will search for me with all your heart. And I will let myself be found by you,’ is the utterance of Jehovah. . . . ‘And I will bring you back to the place from which I caused you to go into exile.’”—Jer 29:10-14; Da 9:1-4. While Daniel was praying, Jehovah sent his angel Gabriel with a prophecy that nearly all Bible commentators accept as Messianic, though there are many variations in their understanding of it. Gabriel said: “There are seventy weeks that have been determined upon your people and upon your holy city, in order to terminate the transgression, and to finish off sin, and to make atonement for error, and to bring in righteousness for times indefinite, and to imprint a seal upon vision and prophet, and to anoint the Holy of Holies. And you should know and have the insight that from the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Leader, there will be seven weeks, also sixty-two weeks. She will return and be actually rebuilt, with a public square and moat, but in the straits of the times. And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah will be cut off, with nothing for himself. And the city and the holy place the people of a leader that is coming will bring to their ruin. And the end of it will be by the flood. And until the end there will be war; what is decided upon is desolations. And he must keep the covenant in force for the many for one week; and at the half of the week he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease. And upon the wing of disgusting things there will be the one causing desolation; and until an extermination, the very thing decided upon will go pouring out also upon the one lying desolate.”—Da 9:24-27. If these were literal weeks of seven days each, either the prophecy failed to be fulfilled, which is an impossibility (Isa 55:10, 11; Heb 6:18), or else the Messiah came more than 24 centuries ago, in the days of the Persian Empire, and was not identified. In the latter case, the other scores of qualifications specified in the Bible for the Messiah were not met or fulfilled. So it is evident that the 70 weeks were symbolic of a much longer time. Certainly the events described in the prophecy were of such a nature that they could not have occurred in a literal 70 weeks, or a little more than a year and four months. The majority of Bible scholars agree that the “weeks” of the prophecy are weeks of years. Some translations read “seventy weeks of years” (AT, Mo, RS); ; the Tanakh, a new Bible translation published in 1985 by the Jewish Publication Society, also includes this rendering in a footnote.—See Da 9:24, ftn When did these weeks begin? Nehemiah was granted permission by King Artaxerxes of Persia, in the 20th year of his rule, in the month of Nisan, to rebuild the wall and the city of Jerusalem. (Ne 2:1, 5, 7, 8) In his calculations as to the reign of Artaxerxes, Nehemiah apparently used a calendar year that began with the month Tishri (September-October), as does the Jews’ present civil calendar, and ended with the month Elul (August-September) as the 12th month. Whether this was his own reckoning or the manner of reckoning employed for certain purposes in Persia is not known. Some may object to the above statement and may point to Nehemiah 7:73, where Nehemiah speaks of Israel as being gathered in their cities in the seventh month—the monthly order here being based on a Nisan-to-Nisan year. But Nehemiah was here copying from “the book of genealogical enrollment of those who came up at the first” with Zerubbabel, in 537 B.C.E. (Ne 7:5) Again, Nehemiah describes the celebration of the Festival of Booths in his time as taking place in the seventh month. (Ne 8:9, 13-18) This was only fitting because the account says that they found what Jehovah commanded “written in the law,” and in that law, at Leviticus 23:39-43, it says that the Festival of Booths was to be in “the seventh month” (that is, of the sacred calendar, running from Nisan to Nisan). However, as evidence indicating that Nehemiah may have used a fall-to-fall year in referring to certain events, we can compare Nehemiah 1:1-3 with 2:1-8. In the first passage he tells of receiving the bad news about Jerusalem’s condition, in Chislev (third month in the civil calendar and ninth in the sacred calendar) in Artaxerxes’ 20th year. In the second, he presents his request to the king that he be permitted to go and rebuild Jerusalem, and he is granted permission in the month Nisan (seventh in the civil calendar and first in the sacred), but still in the 20th year of Artaxerxes. So Nehemiah was obviously not counting the years of Artaxerxes’ reign on a Nisan-to-Nisan basis. To establish the time for the 20th year of Artaxerxes, we go back to the end of the reign of his father and predecessor Xerxes, who died in the latter part of 475 B.C.E. Artaxerxes’ accession year thus began in 475 B.C.E., and his first regnal year would be counted from 474 B.C.E., as other historical ev idence indicates. The 20th year of Artaxerxes’ rule would accordingly be 455 B.C.E. The prophecy says there would be 69 weeks of years “from the going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Leader.” (Da 9:25) Jesus came to John and was baptized, thereby becoming the Anointed One, Messiah the Leader, in the early autumn of the year 29 C.E. ((Jesus evidently was born in the month of Ethanim (September-October) of the year 2 B.C.E., was baptized about the same time of the year in 29 C.E., and died about 3:00 p.m. on Friday, the 14th day of the spring month of Nisan (March-April), 33 C.E. The basis for these dates is as follows: Jesus was born approximately six months after the birth of his relative John (the Baptizer), during the rule of Roman Emperor Caesar Augustus (31 B.C.E.–14 C.E.) and the Syrian governorship of Quirinius, and toward the close of the reign of Herod the Great over Judea.—Mt 2:1, 13, 20-22; Lu 1:24-31, 36; 2:1, 2, 7.)) [[Two registrations under Quirinius. Bible critics have said that the only census taken while Publius Sulpicius Quirinius was governor of Syria was about 6 C.E., which event sparked a rebellion by Judas the Galilean and the Zealots. (Ac 5:37) This was really the second registration under Quirinius, for inscriptions discovered at and near Antioch revealed that some years earlier Quirinius had served as the emperor’s legate in Syria. (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, by W. Ramsay, 1979, pp. 285, 291) Concerning this, the Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament in Crampon’s French Bible (1939 ed., p. 360) says: “The scholarly researches of Zumpt (Commentat. epigraph., II, 86-104; De Syria romana provincia, 97-98) and of Mommsen (Res gestae divi Augusti) place beyond doubt that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria.” Many scholars locate the time of Quirinius’ first governorship as somewhere between the years 4 and 1 B.C.E., probably from 3 to 2 B.C.E. Their method of arriving at these dates, however, is not solid, and the actual period of this governorship remains indefinite. (See QUIRINIUS.) His second governorship, however, included 6 C.E., according to details reported by Josephus.—Jewish Antiquities, XVIII, 26 (ii, 1). So historian and Bible writer Luke was correct when he said concerning the registration at the time of Jesus’ birth: “This first registration took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria,” distinguishing it from the second, which occurred later under the same Quirinius and to which Gamaliel makes reference as reported by Luke at Acts 5:37.]] Anyway, calculating back from this vantage point in history, we can determine that the 69 weeks of years began in 455 B.C.E. In that year the significant “going forth of the word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem” took place. In Nisan (March-April) of the 20th year of Artaxerxes’ rule (455 B.C.E.), Nehemiah petitioned the king: : “If your servant seems good before you, . . . send me to Judah, to the city of the burial places of my forefathers, that I may rebuild it.” (Ne 2:1, 5) The king granted permission, and Nehemiah made the long journey from Shushan to Jerusalem. On about the fourth of Ab (July-August), after making a night inspection of the walls, Nehemiah gave the command to the Jews: “Come and let us rebuild the wall of Jerusalem, that we may no longer continue to be a reproach.” (Ne 2:11-18) Thus, “the going forth of the word” to rebuild Jerusalem, as authorized by Artaxerxes, was put into effect by Nehemiah in Jerusalem that same year. This clearly establishes 455 B.C.E. as the year from which the 70 weeks would begin to count. The repair work on the walls was completed on the 25th day of Elul (August-September), in just 52 days. (Ne 6:15) After the rebuilding of the walls, the repairing of the rest of Jerusalem went forward. As to the first seven “weeks” (49 years), Nehemiah, with the help of Ezra and, afterward, others who may have succeeded them, worked, “in the straits of the times,” with difficulty from within, among the Jews themselves, and from without, on the part of the Samaritans and others. (Da 9:25) The book of Malachi, written after 443 B.C.E., decries the bad state into which the Jewish priesthood had by then fallen. Nehemiah’s return to Jerusalem following a visit to Artaxerxes (compare Ne 5:14; 13:6, 7) is thought to have taken place after this. Just how long after 455 B.C.E. he personally continued his efforts in building Jerusalem, the Bible does not reveal. However, the work was evidently completed within 49 years (seven weeks of years) to the extent necessary, and Jerusalem and its temple remained for the Messiah’s coming. As to the following “sixty-two weeks” (Da 9:25) these, being part of the 70 and named second in order, would continue from the conclusion of the “seven weeks.” Therefore, the time “from the going forth of the word” to rebuild Jerusalem until “Messiah the Leader” would be 7 plus 62 “weeks,” or 69 “weeks”—483 years—from the year 455 B.C.E. to 29 C.E. As mentioned above, in the autumn of that year, 29 C.E., Jesus was baptized in water, was anointed with holy spirit, and began his ministry as “Messiah the Leader.”—Lu 3:1, 2, 21, 22. Centuries in advance Daniel’s prophecy pinpointed the exact year of the Messiah’s arrival. Perhaps the Jews in the first century C.E. had made calculations on the basis of Daniel’s prophecy and were therefore on the alert for Messiah’s appearance. The Bible reports: “Now as the people were in expectation and all were reasoning in their hearts about John: ‘May he perhaps be the Christ?’” (Lu 3:15) Although they were expecting the Messiah, they evidently could not pinpoint the exact month, week, or day of his arrival. Therefore, they wondered whether John was the Christ, even though John evidently began his ministry in the spring of 29 C.E., about six months before Jesus presented himself for baptism. “Cut off” at the half of the week. “After the sixty-two weeks Messiah will be cut off, with nothing for himself.” (Da 9:26) It was sometime after the end of the ‘seven plus sixty-two weeks,’ actually about three and a half years afterward, that Christ was cut off in death on a torture stake, giving up all that he had, as a ransom for mankind. (Isa 53:8) Evidence indicates that the first half of the “week” was spent by Jesus in the ministry. On one occasion, likely in the fall of 32 C.E., he gave an illustration, apparently speaking of the Jewish nation as a fig tree (compare Mt 17:15-20; 21:18, 19, 43) that had borne no fruit for “three years.” The vinedresser said to the owner of the vineyard: “Master, let it alone also this year, until I dig around it and put on manure; and if then it produces fruit in the future, well and good; but if not, you shall cut it down.” (Lu 13:6-9) He may have referred here to the time period of his own ministry to that unresponsive nation, which ministry had continued at that point for about three years and was to continue into a fourth year. Covenant in force “for one week.” Daniel 9:27 states: “And he must keep the covenant in force for the many for one week [or seven years]; and at the half of the week he will cause sacrifice and gift offering to cease.” The “covenant” could not be the Law covenant, for Christ’s sacrifice, three and a half years after the 70th “week” began, resulted in its removal by God: “He has taken it [the Law] out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake.” (Col 2:14) Also, “Christ by purchase released us from the curse of the Law . . . The purpose was that the blessing of Abraham might come to be by means of Jesus Christ for the nations.” (Ga 3:13, 14) God, through Christ, did extend the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant to the natural offspring of Abraham, excluding the Gentiles until the gospel was taken to them throug h Peter’s preaching to the Italian Cornelius. (Ac 3:25, 26; 10:1-48) This conversion of Cornelius and his household occurred after the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, which is generally considered to have taken place in about 34 C.E.; after this the congregation enjoyed a period of peace, being built up. (Ac 9:1-16, 31) It appears, then, that the bringing of Cornelius into the Christian congregation took place about the autumn of 36 C.E., which would be the end of the 70th “week,” 490 years from 455 B.C.E. Sacrifices and offerings ‘caused to cease.’ The expression ‘cause to cease,’ used with reference to sacrifice and gift offering, means, literally, “cause or make to sabbath, to rest, to desist from working.” The “sacrifice and gift offering” that are ‘caused to cease,’ according to Daniel 9:27, could not be Jesus’ ransom sacrifice, nor would they logically be any spiritual sacrifice by his footstep followers. They must refer to the sacrifices and gift offerings that were offered by the Jews at the temple in Jerusalem according to Moses’ Law. “The half of the week” would be at the middle of seven years, or after three and a half years within that “week” of years. Since the 70th “week” began about the fall of 29 C.E. at Jesus’ baptism and anointing to be Christ, half of that week (three and a half years) would extend to the spring of 33 C.E., or Passover time (Nisan 14) of that year. This day appears to have been April 1, 33 C.E., according to the Gregorian calendar. The apostle Paul tells us that Jesus ‘came to do the will of God,’ which was to ‘do away with what is first [the sacrifices and offerings according to the Law] that he may establish what is second.’ This he did by offering as a sacrifice his own body.—Heb 10:1-10. Although the Jewish priests continued to offer sacrifices at the temple in Jerusalem until its destruction in 70 C.E., the sacrifices for sin ceased having acceptance and validity with God. Just before Jesus’ death he said to Jerusalem: “Your house is abandoned to you.” (Mt 23:38) Transgression and sin terminated. Jesus’ being cut off in death, his resurrection, and his appearance in heaven resulted in ‘terminating transgression and finishing off sin as well as in making atonement for error.’ (Da 9:24) The Law covenant had exposed the Jews as sinners, condemned them as such, and brought upon them the curse as covenant breakers. But where sin “abounded” as exposed or made evident by the Mosaic Law, God’s mercy and favor abounded much more through his Messiah. (Ro 5:20) By Messiah’s sacrifice, transgression and sin of the repentant sinners can be canceled and the penalty thereof be lifted. A Jewish View. Professor E. B. Pusey, in a footnote on one of his lectures delivered at the University of Oxford, remarks on the Masoretic accenting: “The Jews put the main stop of the verse under העב? [seven], meaning to separate the two numbers, 7 and 62. This they must have done dishonestly, םינימה ןעמל (as Rashi [a prominent Jewish Rabbi of the 11th and 12th centuries C.E.] says in rejecting literal expositions which favored the Christians) ‘on account of the heretics,’ i.e. Christians. For the latter clause, so divided off, could only mean, ‘and during threescore and two weeks street and wall shall be being restored and builded,’ i.e. that Jerusalem should be 434 years in rebuilding, which would be senseless.”—Daniel the Prophet, 1885, p. 190. Evidently because of their rejection of Jesus Christ as the Messiah, the Masoretes accented the Hebrew text at Daniel 9:25 with an ’ath·nach′, or “stop,” after “seven weeks,” the Septuagint translation, made by Jewish scholars in the first three centuries B.C.E., reads, at Daniel 9:25, “From the going forth of the command for the answer and for the building of Jerusalem until Christ the prince there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: and then the time shall return, and the street shall be built, and the wall.” (LXX, Bagster) Thomson’s Septuagint reads, in part: “seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks. They shall indeed return and a street shall be built and a wall.” An editorial note by James Strong in Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Da 9:25, ftn, p. 198) says: “The only justification of this translation, which separates the two periods of seven weeks and sixty-two weeks, assigning the former as the terminus ad quem of the Anointed Prince, and the latter as the time of rebuilding, lies in the Masoretic interpunction, which places the Athnac [stop] between them. . . . and the rendering in question involves a harsh construction of the second member, being without a preposition. It is better, therefore, and simpler, to adhere to the Authorized Version, which follows all the older translations.”—Translated and edited by P. Schaff, 1976.

Also, don't want to forget about this prophecy.

[Towshab]

Quote (kenrch @ Nov. 26 2007,09:06)

Quote (Towshab @ Nov. 27 2007,00:08) Sorry, Jer 31:34 got cut off in the last post Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. That's right God's children know the Father because they accept what their God has done giving the supreme sacrifice. So yes from the greatest of HIS children to the least of HIS children we know God. Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Is God all in all NO! Their are more children to be born but when the last child comes (that could be you and Stu) then the end will come. And God will be all in all! Tow will no longer exist but a New Creature. The one TOW himself longs for! You speak of things you don't know, TOW

Too bad this verse is not even about you. You are neither of the house of Israel or the house of Judah. And you certainly don't see where none will need to be taught because there sure is alot of (false) teaching going on.

You are the one who speaks in ignorance.

[Towshab]

Quote (david @ Nov. 26 2007,17:09)

Quote (Towshab @ Nov. 24 2007,15:34) Quote (david @ Nov. 23 2007,21:53) Quote If there was only Adam and Eve and then Cain and Abel, explain this: Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch. I await the typical apologetics. You have got to be kidding. Are you kidding? Seriously? You're not serious, are you? GENESIS 5:3-4 “And Adam lived on for a hundred and thirty years. Then he became father to a son in his likeness, in his image, and called his name Seth. And the days of Adam after his fathering Seth came to be eight hundred years. Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters.” So Adam had more kids willing to hang out with someone who murdered their brother? Yes I'd want to do that. I think you are the one that is kidding. It is not my job to explain why women today or of the past stay with men who go as far as to beat them. We KNOW it happens. That's indisputable. We KNOW that many women would stay with their husband even if he's a murderer. It happens all the time. We know that the Bible tells us the history of Adam having “sons and daughters.” (Not sure if you just missed that part or don't understand it.) We are not told, however the order.

According to scripture Cain and Abel were the first. Did Cain take some with him? It does not say he did but that he went to another land, Nod.

Quote

I imagine they must have had many. We don't know the order or the names of most of these. We do know of cain and abel because we're told something relevent about them. We do also know about Seth because we're told about his line of descent. So whether cain married a neice or a sister before or after he murdered abel, we are also not told. What the Bible does actually say is that Adam had “son's and daughters.” So, that would be your answer. Cain had married one of these “daughters” or perhaps a niece etc…

Perhaps. Or perhaps not.

Quote

Quote Yes I'd want to do that. Despite what “you” would want to do, oh confused one, we know that many women actually are involved in bad relationships, with murderers. So, your arguments are as unsound as your attack of the Bible–and not just the GT, but the whole Bible now.

I do not 'attack' the Jewish scriptures I just read and interpret them as allegorical in many places. After all, Moses was not there. If Moses wrote Genesis he worked off of oral tradition.

Quote

I think it's proper that you be labeled for what you are–someone who is on here to erode peoples faith in God and the Bible as a whole.

Then why is my faith in YHVH strong? Seems you want to throw off the fact that Jesus is the one who there is little faith in.

Quote

You remove his name, you alegorize and question His Word, the Bible. How can you possibly defend yourself?

Easily. Does G-d have wings?

Rth 2:12 The LORD recompense thy work, and a full reward be given thee of the LORD God of Israel, under whose wings thou art come to trust.

Psa 17:8 Keep me as the apple of the eye, hide me under the shadow of thy wings,

Psa 36:7 How excellent is thy lovingkindness, O God! therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of thy wings.

Are those literal David? If you say symbolic or allegorical I will have to accuse you of questioning the Bible.

[Towshab]

Quote (david @ Nov. 26 2007,17:17)

Quote (david @ Nov. 22 2007,10:29) towshab, I'm wondering where I can find the geneological records that can be traced back to david? Are there any websites that you know of that have these? Also, wondering about this.

Not at the moment. I've tried to find something like this myself. Many Jews are not concerned about this because lineage will be a minor thing IF someone actually starts fulfilling messianic prophecies. Since no one has yet, lineage is a moot point.

[Towshab]

David,

The 70 weeks in Daniel is a very difficult undertaking. It is well beyond my level of understanding. I encourage you to check out this site. It is very extensive and your head will hurt when you are through but it is one of the most thorough I have ever seen.

[david]

Quote

According to scripture Cain and Abel were the first.

mmm. No, it doesn't actually say that. It says:

In time she gave birth to Cain and said: “I have produced a man with the aid of Jehovah.” 2 Later she again gave birth, to his brother Abel.

The “later” could have 5 unmentioned daughters before it.
It doesn't say “and next,” but rather “later.”

Since the story related to us is of Cain and Abel, what benefit would it be to list the children inbetween?
Again, for some odd reason, you demand all the details of a persons life to be included.

Just as an excercise, I want you to tell me the story of your life in one page. (If you told me the whole story in the detail you demand of the Bible, it would fill 10,000 pages.) But I want you to give me a history of yourself. Then, I'll point out all the apparent contradictions, after I ask for more details. Ok? And maybe then you'll get it. Could you please do this for me?

Quote

According to scripture Cain and Abel were the first. Did Cain take some with him? It does not say he did but that he went to another land, Nod.

Right, “it does not say.” Just as your “biography” wouldn't say a whole lot about you.
But since we are told that:
“that Cain went away from the face of Jehovah and took up residence in the land of Fugitiveness to the east of E′den. Afterward Cain had intercourse with his wife and she became pregnant and gave birth to E′noch.”

It doesn't say he took someone with him, but he obviously did. This is not a contradiction. It is another case of your demanding every detail.

The books of the Hebrew Scriptures do not appear in our Bibles in the order in which they were written. This must confuse you greatly.

Quote

If Moses wrote Genesis he worked off of oral tradition.

PROVERBS 30:5-6
“Every saying of God is refined. He is a shield to those taking refuge in him. Add nothing to his words, that he may not reprove you, and that you may not have to be proved a liar.”

The men used to write the Scriptures cooperated with the operation of Jehovah’s holy spirit. They were willing and submissive to God’s guidance (Isa 50:4, 5), eager to know God’s will and leading. (Isa 26:9)

Quote

I do not 'attack' the Jewish scriptures I just read and interpret them as allegorical in many places.

Did any of the miracles of the Bible happen?

Quote

Then why is my faith in YHVH strong?

If your faith in him is strong, why do you question his words?

Quote

Are those literal David? If you say symbolic or allegorical I will have to accuse you of questioning the Bible.

The figurative usage of wings demonstrates that we are protected by Jehovah. What does the figurative narrative of all the alegories you suggest demonstrate?

[david]

Quote (Towshab @ Nov. 27 2007,11:57)

Quote (david @ Nov. 26 2007,17:17) Quote (david @ Nov. 22 2007,10:29) towshab, I'm wondering where I can find the geneological records that can be traced back to david? Are there any websites that you know of that have these? Also, wondering about this. Not at the moment. I've tried to find something like this myself. Many Jews are not concerned about this because lineage will be a minor thing IF someone actually starts fulfilling messianic prophecies. Since no one has yet, lineage is a moot point.

OK, but when they do start of fullfill the prophecies, it won't be a mute point then. so, where are the geneological records?

I kept saying they were destroyed in jerusalem in 70 ce. You objected.

Please provide your evidence.

[david]

Quote

The 70 weeks in Daniel is a very difficult undertaking. It is well beyond my level of understanding.

How convenient.

[david]

And what of the suffering Messiah at the top of this page? You are very queit about him.

Your thoughts?

(I'm going to edit this and say the top of the last page.)

[Towshab]

Quote (david @ Nov. 26 2007,19:21)

And what of the suffering Messiah at the top of this page? You are very queit about him. Your thoughts? (I'm going to edit this and say the top of the last page.)

Can you show me 'moshiach' anywhere in Is 52-53? No. 'Suffering servant' NOT 'suffering messiah'.

[david]

But before (a couple weeks ago) when I posted the same information, you said I presented a case for a suffering Messiah.

Are you now deciding it would be better just to reject that this could refer to the Messiah?

[Towshab]

Quote (david @ Nov. 26 2007,19:27)

But before (a couple weeks ago) when I posted the same information, you said I presented a case for a suffering Messiah. Are you now deciding it would be better just to reject that this could refer to the Messiah?

I never agreed it was the Moshiach. Perhaps that is the case YOU presented but that does not mean I agree.

[david]

Quote

I never agreed it was the Moshiach.

–tow

You're right. You never agreed it was the Messiah, but only said that I “presented a case for a suffering Messiah.”–Oct 31/ page 20

[david]

Quote (Towshab @ Oct. 31 2007,12:14)

Quote (david @ Oct. 30 2007,18:01) Belief in Messiah's arrival was nurtured among the Jews for centuries. Yet, when Jesus of Nazareth came, most Jews ultimately rejected him as Messiah. To the Jewish mind, Jesus did not live up to expectations. Among Jews the term “Messiah” came to stand for a descendant of King David who would usher in a glorious rule. (2 Samuel 7:12, 13) By Jesus’ day the Jews had suffered for centuries under a series of harsh Gentile rulers. They longed for a political deliverer. –The Messiah Idea in Jewish History, by Julius H. Greenstone, 1973 (originally published in 1906), page 75. So when Jesus of Nazareth presented himself as the long-awaited Messiah, there was naturally much initial excitement. (Luke 4:16-22) But to the great disappointment of the Jews, Jesus was no political hero. On the contrary, he claimed that his Kingdom ‘was no part of the world.’ (John 18:36) Furthermore, Jesus did not then usher in the glorious Messianic age foreseen by the prophet Isaiah. (Isaiah 11:4-9) And when Jesus was put to death as a criminal, the nation as a whole lost interest in him. Undeterred by these events, Jesus’ followers continued to proclaim him as the Messiah. What accounted for their remarkable zeal? It was the belief that Jesus’ death fulfilled prophecy, specifically the prophecy of Isaiah 52:13–53:12. This reads in part: “Behold, My servant shall prosper, he shall be exalted and lifted up, . . . for he shot up right forth as a sapling, and as a root out of a dry ground . . . He was despised, and forsaken of men, a man of pains, and acquainted with disease, and as one from whom men hide their face: He was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely our diseases he did bear, and our pains he carried . . . He was crushed because of our iniquities: The chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his stripes we were healed. All we like sheep did go astray, we turned every one to his own way . . . He was oppressed, though he humbled himself and opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, . . . he was cut off out of the land of the living. . . . And they made his grave with the wicked.”—JP A Suffering Messiah? Did Isaiah here foretell a suffering, dying Messiah? Most modern Jewish commentators say no. Some claim that the Suffering Servant was the nation of Israel itself during its Babylonian exile. Others relate the suffering to periods such as the Crusades or the Nazi Holocaust. –Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971, Volume 9, page 65; Soncino Books of the Bible—Isaiah, edited by A. Cohen, 1949, page 260; You Take Jesus, I’ll Take God, by Samuel Levine, 1980, page 25. But does this explanation stand up to close scrutiny? It is true that in some contexts Isaiah does speak of Israel as God’s “servant.” But he speaks of Israel as a wayward, sinful servant. (Isaiah 42:19; 44:21, 22) The Encyclopaedia Judaica thus draws this contrast: “The real Israel is sinful and the Servant [of Isaiah 53], free of sin.” –Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971, Volume 9, page 65 Some, therefore, argue that the Servant represents a ‘righteous elite’ in Israel that suffered on behalf of the sinful Jews. But Isaiah never spoke of any such elite. On the contrary, he prophesied that the whole nation would be sinful! (Isaiah 1:5, 6; 59:1-4; compare Daniel 9:11, 18, 19.) Besides, during periods of affliction, Jews suffered whether they were righteous or not. Another problem: For whom did the Servant suffer? The Jewish Soncino commentary suggests the Babylonians. If so, who confessed that the Servant suffered ‘because of our iniquities’? (Isaiah 53:5) Is it reasonable to believe that the Babylonians (or any other Gentiles) would make such an astounding admission—that the Jews suffered in their behalf? –Soncino Books of the Bible—Isaiah, edited by A. Cohen, 1949, page 261. Interestingly, some first-century rabbis (and a number since then) identified the Suffering Servant with the Messiah. –The Book of Isaiah, commentary by Amos Chakham, 1984, page 575; –The Targum of Isaiah, edited by J. F. Stenning, 1949, page 178; –The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah, by Christopher R. North, First Edition, 1948, pages 11-15; –Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971, Volume 9, page 65. Thousands of Jews came to see undeniable parallels between the Suffering Servant and Jesus of Nazareth. Like that Servant, Jesus was of humble origin. Ultimately, he was despised and shunned. Though he carried out no political conquest, he bore the diseases of others, miraculously curing their ailments. Though innocent, he died as a result of judicial miscarriage—a fate he accepted without protest. A Dying Messiah? Why would Messiah have to die? Explains Isaiah 53:10: “But the LORD chose to crush him by disease, that, if he made himself an offering for guilt, he might see offspring and have long life, and that through him the LORD’s purpose might prosper.” (Ta) This alluded to the Levitical practice of offering up animal victims to atone for sin or guilt. Messiah would suffer a disgraceful death, but like a sacrificial victim, his death would have atoning merit. If Messiah died, though, how could he fulfill the prophecies about his glorious rule, much less “see offspring and have long life”? Logically, by a resurrection from the dead. (Compare 1 Kings 17:17-24.) Messiah’s resurrection would also resolve the seeming contradiction between Daniel 7:13, which predicted that the Messiah would triumphantly come on the clouds of heaven, and Zechariah 9:9, which said that he would humbly arrive on an ass. The Talmud tried to explain this paradox by asserting: “If they are meritorious, he will come with the clouds of heaven; if not, lowly and riding upon an ass.” (Sanhedrin 98a) –The Babylonian Talmud, translated by Dr. H. Freedman, 1959, Volume II, page 664. This would mean that the prophecy at either Daniel 7:13 or Zechariah 9:9 would remain unfulfilled. Yet, Messiah’s resurrection would allow him to fulfill both prophecies. Initially, he would come humbly to suffer and die. After his resurrection, he would return in glory and usher in the heavenly Messianic rule. Hundreds of Jewish eyewitnesses testified that Jesus experienced a resurrection from the dead. (1 Corinthians 15:6) Can such claims be brushed aside? Judaism and Jesus Most first-century Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah. Still, he had a profound impact upon Judaism. Though Jesus is barely mentioned in the Talmud, what little is said tries “to belittle the person of Jesus by ascribing to him illegitimate birth, magic, and a shameful death.” –The Jewish Encyclopedia, 1910, Volume VII, page 170. (Says Israeli scholar Pinchas Lapide: “Talmudic passages about Jesus . . . were mutilated, distorted, or obliterated by church censors.” It is thus “more than likely that Jesus originally had a much greater impact on rabbinical literature than the fragments we have today bear witness to.” –Israelis, Jews, and Jesus, by Pinchas Lapide, 1979, pages 73-4) Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner admits that these tales “seem as though they are deliberately intended to contradict events recorded in the Gospels.” –Jesus of Nazareth—His Life, Times, and Teaching, by Joseph Klausner, 1947 (first published in Great Britain in 1925), page 19. And with good reason! The Catholic Church had exacerbated Jewish aversion to Jesus by its anti-Semitism. I t further alienated Jews by declaring Jesus to be a supposed ‘God the Son’—part of an incomprehensible Trinity—in direct contradiction to Jesus’ own teachings. At Mark 12:29, Jesus quoted the Torah, saying: “Hear, O Israel; the Lord our God is one Lord.”—King James Version; Deuteronomy 6:4. Though Judaism resisted conversion, “Christianity affected Judaism considerably. It forced the Rabbis to change their emphasis and in some instances to alter their views.” –The Jewish People and Jesus Christ, by Jakób Jocz, 1954 (first published in 1949), page 153. Rabbis of earlier generations believed that the Messianic hope permeated the Scriptures. They saw glimmers of that hope in such Bible texts as Genesis 3:15 and 49:10. The Palestinian Targum applied the fulfillment of the former verse to “the day of King Messiah.” –Neophyti 1, Targum Palestinense, Ms de la Biblioteca Vaticana, Génesis, 1968, Volume I, pages 503-4; The Messiah: An Aramaic Interpretation, by Samson H. Levey, 1974, pages 2-3. The Midrash Rabbah said of the latter verse: “This alludes to the royal Messiah.” –Midrash Rabbah, translated and edited by Dr. H. Freedman and Maurice Simon, 1961 (First Edition 1939), Volume II, page 956; Chumash With Targum Onkelos, Haphtaroth and Rashi’s Commentary, translated by A. M. Silbermann and M. Rosenbaum, 1985, pages 245-6. The Talmud also applied prophecies of Isaiah, Daniel, and Zechariah to the Messiah. –The Babylonian Talmud, translated by Dr. H. Freedman, 1959, Volume II, pages 663-5, 670-1 (Sanhedrin 98a, 98b). “All the prophets have prophesied only for the days of the Messiah,” Talmud, Sanhedrin 99a. –New Edition of the Babylonian Talmud, edited and translated by Michael L. Rodkinson, 1903, Part IV, Volume VIII, page 312 (Tract Sanhedrin); The Babylonian Talmud, translated by Dr. H. Freedman, 1959, Volume II, page 670 (Sanhedrin 99a). But under the pressure of Christendom’s conversion efforts, Judaism reassessed its views. Many Scripture texts that had long been applied to the Messiah were reinterpreted. –The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah, by Christopher R. North, First Edition, 1948, page 18; The Jewish People and Jesus Christ, by Jakób Jocz, 1954 (first published in 1949), pages 205-7, 282; The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, edited by Dr. J. H. Hertz, 1929-36, Volume I, page 202; Palestinian Judaism in New Testament Times, by Werner Förster, translated by Gordon E. Harris, 1964, pages 199-200. As modern times dawned, under the influence of higher criticism of the Bible, some Jewish scholars concluded that the Messianic hope does not appear in the Bible at all. –Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971, Volume 11, page 1407; U.S. Catholic, December 1983, page 20. The Messianic hope, however, underwent something of a rebirth with the creation of the State of Israel in 1948. Writes Harold Ticktin: ‘Most Jewish factions regard the emergence of the State of Israel as a great prophetic event.’ –U.S. Catholic, December 1983, page 21; What Is Judaism?, by Emil L. Fackenheim, 1987, pages 268-9. Nevertheless, the issue of when the long-awaited Messiah is to arrive has remained unresolved in Jewish thought. The Talmud says: “When thou seest a generation overwhelmed by many troubles as by a river, await [the Messiah].” (Sanhedrin 98a) –The Babylonian Talmud, translated by Dr. H. Freedman, 1959, Volume II, page 663. However, the Jewish Messiah did not come during the dark night of the Holocaust nor during the tumultuous birth of the State of Israel. One wonders, ‘What further troubles must the Jewish people yet undergo before the Messiah will come?’ Seeking the Messiah The Messianic hope was born and nurtured with the Jews. Among them that hope has grown dim. Its brilliance has been nearly extinguished by centuries of suffering and disappointment. Ironically, millions among the nations, or Gentiles, have come to seek and ultimately to embrace a Messiah. Is it just a coincidence that Isaiah said of the Messiah: : “Unto him shall the nations [Gentiles] seek”? (Isaiah 11:10, JP) Should not Jews also seek the Messiah themselves? Why should they deny themselves their long-cherished hope? It is in vain, however, to seek a future Messiah. Were he to arrive, how could he establish himself as a bona fide descendant of King David? Were not genealogical records destroyed along with the second temple? Though such records existed in Jesus’ day, his claim of being a legitimate descendant of David was never successfully challenged. (See: The Works of Josephus, translated by William Whiston, 1987, “The Life of Flavius Josephus,” 1:1-6, and “Flavius Josephus Against Apion,” footnote on 7:31, 32.) Could any future Messianic claimant ever produce such credentials? One must therefore seek the Messiah who came in the past. This requires taking a fresh look at Jesus, dispensing with preconceived notions. The effeminate ascetic of church paintings bears little resemblance to the real Jesus. The Gospel accounts—written by Jews—show him as a powerful, vibrant man, a rabbi of extraordinary wisdom. (John 3:2) Actually, Jesus surpasses any dream the Jews ever had of a political deliverer. As a conquering King, he will usher in, not some fragile political state, but an invincible heavenly Kingdom that will restore Paradise to the entire earth and under which “the wolf shall dwell with the lamb.”—Isaiah 11:6, JP; Revelation 19:11-16. You make a case for a suffering messiah now see if you can make a case from the Jewish scriptures for a resurrected messiah who will return after saying he'll return quickly .

I'm not trying to make a case for the resurrected Messiah yet. I'm trying to get you, who has a very Jewish mentality on this that the Messiah would have to suffer.

Also, here you said I made a case for a suffering messiah. But it's based largely on Is 53, and now you have backed out of the idea that the one spoken of there could ever be the Messiah.

As what I posted states, some first-century rabbis (and a number since then) identified the Suffering Servant with the Messiah.
–The Book of Isaiah, commentary by Amos Chakham, 1984, page 575;
–The Targum of Isaiah, edited by J. F. Stenning, 1949, page 178;
–The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah, by Christopher R. North, First Edition, 1948, pages 11-15;
–Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971, Volume 9, page 65.

[david]

Quote

Ah, the ‘Suffering Servant’. Israel (Jacob), not Jesus.

–Oct 30, tow

So you do believe that this is referring to Israel.

But notice what I said to you before:

Quote

But does this explanation stand up to close scrutiny? It is true that in some contexts Isaiah does speak of Israel as God’s “servant.” But he speaks of Israel as a wayward, sinful servant. (Isaiah 42:19; 44:21, 22) The Encyclopaedia Judaica thus draws this contrast: “The real Israel is sinful and the Servant [of Isaiah 53], free of sin.” –Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971, Volume 9, page 65

[david]

So?

[Worshipping Jesus]

Quote (david @ Nov. 27 2007,13:25)

Quote Ah, the ‘Suffering Servant’. Israel (Jacob), not Jesus. –Oct 30, tow So you do believe that this is referring to Israel. But notice what I said to you before: Quote But does this explanation stand up to close scrutiny? It is true that in some contexts Isaiah does speak of Israel as God’s “servant.” But he speaks of Israel as a wayward, sinful servant.  (Isaiah 42:19; 44:21, 22) The Encyclopaedia Judaica thus draws this contrast: “The real Israel is sinful and the Servant [of Isaiah 53], free of sin.” –Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971, Volume 9, page 65

David

Good points.

I didnt realize he has now backed out of the Messiah being a suffering Messiah.

I tried to point out that its obvious that Isaiah 52 and 53 dosnt mention Jocob and only mentions Israel in one verse which clearly shows that the context is speaking of someone else besides Israel/Jacob.

I said…
Isa 52:12
For ye shall not go out with haste, nor go by flight: for the LORD will go before you; and the God of Israel will be your reward.

The God of Israel will be whose reward? Seems like he is talking to someone besides Jacob. So now verse 13 as you show can not be referring to Israel because verse 12 clearly shows he is talking to someone else.

Of course I asked him to show me how it can be Israel/Jacob the nation that is spoke of in Isa 53…

I said…
But since you insist on your interpretatiion of Isa 53, then tell us when or how by “Israels” stripes “Israel” will be healed? Isa 53:5
How will Israels soul be an offering for sin. Isa 53:10
How will Israel bear the sins of many? Isa 53:12

He has not explained this but evaded it. I still have to answer him on his post and when I feel like it I will.

[Towshab]

Quote (david @ Nov. 26 2007,20:21)

I'm not trying to make a case for the resurrected Messiah yet. I'm trying to get you, who has a very Jewish mentality on this that the Messiah would have to suffer. Also, here you said I made a case for a suffering messiah. But it's based largely on Is 53, and now you have backed out of the idea that the one spoken of there could ever be the Messiah.

Are you thinking of someone else or are you imagining this? I never even suggested that Is 52-53 is about a single person. Is 52-53 is about Israel plain and simple. Please find a single post from me supporting the idea that this passage is about any one single person.

Quote

As what I posted states, some first-century rabbis (and a number since then) identified the Suffering Servant with the Messiah. –The Book of Isaiah, commentary by Amos Chakham, 1984, page 575; –The Targum of Isaiah, edited by J. F. Stenning, 1949, page 178; –The Suffering Servant in Deutero-Isaiah, by Christopher R. North, First Edition, 1948, pages 11-15; –Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971, Volume 9, page 65.

What am I supposed to run out and buy those books? Please list more than page references from some obscure books.

[Author]

Posts