- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (kerwin @ May 20 2010,22:30) Gollamundi, John 1:9 is a poor translation of the common Greek language as the word translated sin in it is not the same word translated sin in 1 John 2:1 when John is definitely speaking about the sin act and using the word if indicating some do and some do not sin.
I do not see John contradicting himself after just a few verses.
Offhand I am of the opinion that John 1:9 is speaking of the nature of sin that Paul refers to as the “flesh” or “old man”. I have not confirmed this though it would be consistent with other scriptures.
I did not intend to state Christians cannot commit sins. My attention was to state that a fully mature Christian would not even though they are tempted just like everyone else. An immature Christ most likely will sin as they have not learned how to fully live according to the spirit.
The Messianic Age has not started and may not start until after the Secound Resurection. I am unclear on the End of Days so I may be incorrect but since the Thousand year is said to end with a battle between the forces of evil and those of God I can not see how the Messianic Age will start before that. I am not certain about anything as I am rather ignorant about the End of Days.
Hi brother Kerwin,
You seem to differ with mainline Christianity in terms of sin and Messianic kingdom. Most of the Christians believe that Christian can commit sin but they can be forgiven by God through the blood of Jesus. Millennial(Messianic) Kingdom will start after First resurrection but not after second resurrection as you mentioned above.Peace and love
AdamAdam,
I do disagree with what is referred to as mainline Christianity on the issues of sin and forgiveness. I go by what God told Ezekiel on the issue and not by what mankind tells me. In Ezekiel 33:14-16 we are instructed by God that it is only after a wicked man changes his ways and does what is right that he will be forgiven by God. A man who continues to sin and claims he has repented is a liar and cannot expect to be forgiven by God. It was said that the proof of the pudding in the eating and I find that to be true when applied to repentance because the proof of the repentance is in the living.
As for those that are referred to as mainline Christians they seem to have a incomplete understanding of why Peter taught those at Pentecost “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” His next words aid in giving a more in-depth understanding as they are “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
The promise he speaks of is the promise of the spirit of holiness or phased another way a righteousness that is like God’s. If you believe that promise and do as you are instructed to receive it and live by it then you like Abraham will be credited with righteousness. In order for you to believe that promise you must believe that by the power of God you can and will stop sinning. If you so believe then the rest is up to God and since he will as he stated through his Son it is as if it is already done and thus you will forgiven.
It is sad but from what I have seen every so called mainline Christian sect seems to have subtracted that promise from the message they teach.
I do not believe the Millennial is the Messianic age because there will still be wicked even though it is a time of peace. From my limited understanding it is only after the Second Resurrection that the new earth and the new heaven will come to be. It is quite possible that Jesus’ Kingdome that exists in those thousand years will be a foretaste of how the new earth and new heaven will be.
Quote (kerwin @ May 21 2010,15:45) Adam, I do disagree with what is referred to as mainline Christianity on the issues of sin and forgiveness. I go by what God told Ezekiel on the issue and not by what mankind tells me. In Ezekiel 33:14-16 we are instructed by God that it is only after a wicked man changes his ways and does what is right that he will be forgiven by God. A man who continues to sin and claims he has repented is a liar and cannot expect to be forgiven by God. It was said that the proof of the pudding in the eating and I find that to be true when applied to repentance because the proof of the repentance is in the living.
As for those that are referred to as mainline Christians they seem to have a incomplete understanding of why Peter taught those at Pentecost “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” His next words aid in giving a more in-depth understanding as they are “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
The promise he speaks of is the promise of the spirit of holiness or phased another way a righteousness that is like God’s. If you believe that promise and do as you are instructed to receive it and live by it then you like Abraham will be credited with righteousness. In order for you to believe that promise you must believe that by the power of God you can and will stop sinning. If you so believe then the rest is up to God and since he will as he stated through his Son it is as if it is already done and thus you will forgiven.
It is sad but from what I have seen every so called mainline Christian sect seems to have subtracted that promise from the message they teach.
I do not believe the Millennial is the Messianic age because there will still be wicked even though it is a time of peace. From my limited understanding it is only after the Second Resurrection that the new earth and the new heaven will come to be. It is quite possible that Jesus’ Kingdome that exists in those thousand years will be a foretaste of how the new earth and new heaven will be.
Hi brother Kerwin,
Infact John says in 1John1:10 the Christian who says he doesn't have sin is a liar. The only difference he says is that the one who is born of God keeps himself pure by obeying to God's commandments but that doesn't mean he never sins. As long as you are in this body you are liable to commit sin irrespective what Christianity claims that they are born again. I don't think what you quoted above is different from the mainline of Christianity as far is repentence and confession of sin is concerned. They will all quote the same way but the practicality is entirely different.About Messianic kingdom: Revelation 20 says that the Satan who is the culprit for commiting sin will be bound in the bottomless pit so no more sin during those 1000 years. Therefore what mainline Christianity says can also be true.
Adam,
I do not know what version of scripture you are using but according to both the King James version and the New International version the correct translation of “Hamartano” in the context of 1 John 1:10 is sinned indicating past sins and not present ones. I assure you that all human beings but Jesus have sinned and have fallen short of the glory of God. That is why there is a need to repent but that repentance takes place when one is immersed into the name of Jesus. “Hamartano” is also the word translated into “sin” in at least one, and probably both the cases that occur in 1 John 2:1,
On the other hand the word “Hamartia” which can be translated into “offense, sin, sinful” and possibly other words is the word used in 1 John 1:7,8,9; 1 John 2:2,12; 1 John 3:4,5,8.9 and others
I believe that “sinful”, as in tending to commit sin, should have been the word “Hamartia” was translated to in 1 John 1:8 instead of “sin”.
You do have an argument that Mainline Christianity may be correct though I have doubts because of the reasons I stated earlier. As I have previously stated I am not well informed in this area.
Do you know all Epistles are written to Believers but not for unbelievers. When John or Paul who ever talks about confession of sins do you think there are for unbelievers no they are for believers who commited sin. Here I want to say that a believer can commit sin and confess to God for forgiveness. We should be honest and practicable as John mentioned in his Epistles. In the same way in Messianic Kingdom there can be sin therefore the necessity of animal sacrifices for the atonement as spoken by Ezekiel in Chapters 40-48 in the context of future Temple. Please accept this truth even many Christian scholars agree with the literal sacrifices in the future Temple. They only interpret them to be of shadow in nature to reflect Jesus death in the past.
Adam,
You are correct that the letters and in fact the whole New Testament was written to those who not only believed that Jesus is the Anointed One of God but who also knew the background teachings that are not included in those writings. We on the other hand are unfortunate in that we often have to scrounge in order to even find rumors of those background teachings. One example of this is the third heaven Paul mentions in one of his letters and another example is the argument between an archangel and Satan over the body of Mosses.
As for John speaking of confession of one or more sins, he states “if” which means one of his readers, a Christian, may or may not commit a sin or sins. In the case the Christian commits a sin and is shown to be immature then the Christian is to confess his sins instead of hiding it or saying he did not commit it. When a Christian confesses then God will cleanse him of the desire to fulfill his evil desires even though those evil desires will still exist as they did with Jesus. In my experience this is more of a process that takes time than an automatic change. It may be different for others. This seems to work to some extent even to those who have not yet received the spirit of holiness. On the other hand a fully mature Christian is like Jesus in that they are fully tempted and yet do not sin. That is my goal and the goal of everyone that truly serves God.
As for the Messianic Era, It is a Jewish belief that no one will sin. I just pointed out that the New Testament instructs us on how Jesus makes that possible. It is obvious that the tenet that Ezekiel speaks of the Third Temple in chapters 40-48 is inconsistent with the Jewish teaching about the Messianic Era unless the Third Temple is built before the Messianic Age. It is because of that inconsistency and the time in which Ezekiel writes that I believe he speaks of the Second Temple and not the Third. I also have heard evidence that a temple of the dimensions mentioned in Ezekiel has previously been built and destroyed. This may have also been an attempt by Simon bar Giora to build the Third Temple.
Quote (kerwin @ May 22 2010,15:38) Adam, You are correct that the letters and in fact the whole New Testament was written to those who not only believed that Jesus is the Anointed One of God but who also knew the background teachings that are not included in those writings. We on the other hand are unfortunate in that we often have to scrounge in order to even find rumors of those background teachings. One example of this is the third heaven Paul mentions in one of his letters and another example is the argument between an archangel and Satan over the body of Mosses.
As for John speaking of confession of one or more sins, he states “if” which means one of his readers, a Christian, may or may not commit a sin or sins. In the case the Christian commits a sin and is shown to be immature then the Christian is to confess his sins instead of hiding it or saying he did not commit it. When a Christian confesses then God will cleanse him of the desire to fulfill his evil desires even though those evil desires will still exist as they did with Jesus. In my experience this is more of a process that takes time than an automatic change. It may be different for others. This seems to work to some extent even to those who have not yet received the spirit of holiness. On the other hand a fully mature Christian is like Jesus in that they are fully tempted and yet do not sin. That is my goal and the goal of everyone that truly serves God.
As for the Messianic Era, It is a Jewish belief that no one will sin. I just pointed out that the New Testament instructs us on how Jesus makes that possible. It is obvious that the tenet that Ezekiel speaks of the Third Temple in chapters 40-48 is inconsistent with the Jewish teaching about the Messianic Era unless the Third Temple is built before the Messianic Age. It is because of that inconsistency and the time in which Ezekiel writes that I believe he speaks of the Second Temple and not the Third. I also have heard evidence that a temple of the dimensions mentioned in Ezekiel has previously been built and destroyed. This may have also been an attempt by Simon bar Giora to build the Third Temple.
Good post brother Kerwin I appreciate your logic. But I am still not convinced about Messianic claims of Christianity. I only see Christianity had deviated itself from its true origins which Jesus never intended. Paul and other earliest Christians caused its new birth to be a new religion. I am studying much on Christian history in these days. I find it very much frustrating to see how Christianity taken different stand all together on so many fronts of its basic doctrines.I ask you one thing; was it necessary to make Jesus as another Savior of mankind along with God which we don't find in Hebrew scriptures?
Adam,
Perhaps you should ask the Jews why they believe the Messiah is their savior. They believe he ushers in the Messianic Age and that the Messianic Age is an age when none sin.
The Talmun uses II Samual 22:28 to support the idea of the Messiah being a Savior according to the Entry on the Jewish Messianism at Wikipedia.com.
Quote (kerwin @ May 25 2010,16:28) Adam, Perhaps you should ask the Jews why they believe the Messiah is their savior. They believe he ushers in the Messianic Age and that the Messianic Age is an age when none sin.
The Talmun uses II Samual 22:28 to support the idea of the Messiah being a Savior according to the Entry on the Jewish Messianism at Wikipedia.com.
Hi brother Kerwiun,
This is what your source says:“Tractate Sanhedrin, contains a long discussion of the events leading to the coming of the Messiah, for example:
R. Johanan said: When you see a generation ever dwindling, hope for him [the Messiah], as it is written, “And the afflicted people thou wilt save.”[II Samuel 22:28] R. Johanan said: When thou seest a generation overwhelmed by many troubles as by a river, await him, as it is written, when the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the Lord shall lift up a standard against him; which is followed by, And the Redeemer shall come to Zion.
R. Johanan also said: The son of David will come only in a generation that is either altogether righteous or altogether wicked. 'in a generation that is altogether righteous,' — as it is written, Thy people also shall be all righteous: they shall inherit the land for ever. 'Or altogether wicked,' — as it is written, And he saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor;31 and it is [elsewhere] written, For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it.[1]”It talks about belief of certain Jews where not the Messiah alone is righteous but the whole generation is expected to be righteous. How can you make Jesus fit into this logic of sinlessness?
Believe me it is merely the invention Christianity to make Jesus' sacrifice as sinless atonement to fit into their dogma.
Peace to you
AdamMaimonides' views of Jesus
According to Maimonides Jesus of Nazareth is not the Messiah.
“As for Jesus of Nazareth, who claimed to be the anointed one and was condemned by the Sanhedrin. Daniel had already prophesied about him, thus: 'And the children of your people's rebels shall raise themselves to set up prophecy and will stumble.' (Ibid. 14) Can there be a bigger stumbling block than this? All the Prophets said that the anointed one saves Israel and rescues them, gathers their strayed ones and strengthens their mitzvot whereas this one caused the loss of Israel by sword, and to scatter their remnant and humiliate them, and to change the Torah and to cause most of the world to erroneously worship a god besides the Lord. But the human mind has no power to reach the thoughts of the Creator, for his thoughts and ways are unlike ours. All these matters of Yeshu of Nazareth and of Muhammad who stood up after him are only intended to pave the way for the anointed king, and to mend the entire world to worship God together, thus: 'For then I shall turn a clear tongue to the nations to call all in the Name of the Lord and to worship him with one shoulder.'”
“How is this? The entire world had become filled with the issues of the anointed one and of the Torah and the Laws, and these issues had spread out unto faraway islands and among many nations uncircumcised in the heart, and they discuss these issues and the Torah's laws. These say: These Laws were true but are already defunct in these days, and do not rule for the following generations; whereas the other ones say: There are secret layers in them and they are not to be treated literally, and the Messiah had come and revealed their secret meanings. But when the anointed king will truly rise and succeed and will be raised and uplifted, they all immediately turn about and know that their fathers inherited falsehood, and their prophets and ancestors led them astray.”Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_messianism#Talmud
Adam,
We are taught in the New Testiment that the people will become all together wicked before the day of the Lord. There will be a remnant or perhaps a remnant of a remnant that will not follow the path of evil. Jesus referred to them as the Elect and I believe they will live by the spirit and so overcome the ways of the world.
It is still consistent with Jewish teachings.
From what I have heard some Jews believe that Jesus is not the Messiah because he violated the Sabbath.
Quote (kerwin @ May 25 2010,17:39) Adam, We are taught in the New Testiment that the people will become all together wicked before the day of the Lord. There will be a remnant or perhaps a remnant of a remnant that will not follow the path of evil. Jesus referred to them as the Elect and I believe they will live by the spirit and so overcome the ways of the world.
It is still consistent with Jewish teachings.
From what I have heard some Jews believe that Jesus is not the Messiah because he violated the Sabbath.
That is a minor allegation. Whatever you say I can not accept Jesus as Jewish Messiah for the time being since he had not fulfilled any of the Mesianic requirements in this present age. What Christianity claims is he will fulfill them in future at his second coming that is too far to claim which no Jew believes in any second coming of their Messiah. I only see lot of assumptions and incorporations on part of Christianity to make Jesus fit into Jewish Messiah. Infact that is not required for them if they want to have a separate religion from the one which was revealed in the Hebrew Bible.For 2,000 years Jews have rejected the Christian idea of Jesus as messiah. Why?
Please read the following:
http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.htmlAdam,
Why don't you ask questions of what these so called Jews teach? These so called Jews do not believe Jesus is the Messiah because they adhere to a false doctrine.
Rabbi Shraga Simmons writes:
Quote Christians counter that Jesus will fulfill these in the Second Coming, but Jewish sources show that the Messiah will fulfill the prophecies outright; in the Bible no concept of a second coming exists.
What scriptures supports this Rabbi's tenet that the Messiah will fulfull the prophecies outright? I do not see it here. That may mean at most is that scripture neither supports or denies that the Messiah will appear twice.
Lets see what Peter used to support the idea that the Messiah would rise from the grave. In Acts he quoted from Psalms 16 which is a miltam of David. Now Peter stated truly that David did see decay and so this Psalms could not be speaking of him. Peter also claimed that David was a prophet. In this instance Peter was displaying a common Jewish belief that is even held to this day according to this Rabbi.
So if this Rabbi speaks the truth and King David was a prophet then who do you think he was speaking of if not the furture Anointed One who wil not be left to rot in his grave but will instead be resurected.
So if David speaks of the Messiah then when is the Anointed One said to die and be resurected and placed at the right hand of God?
Hi brother Kerwin,
The Rabbi you quoted never claims that Jesus is Messiah. David was a prophet doesn't make any difference unless Christians pick and choose David's prophecies to fit into their so called fulfillment with Jesus. No jew will claim them as prophecy towards their Messiah as if he will die and raise again. Jews beleive only resurrection for all at the end not for any special human before that. Even Paul believed that Jesus' resurrection could have begun the resurrection of the dead as per 1 Cor 15. He even claimed resurrection would happen in his own day as per 1 Thess 4 but sadly it never happened as he preached so the so called forged letter to Peter claimed that Jesus will certainly come as per God's time table that is a day=1000 years. It was purely Christianity's frustration to cover up this failure and fit Jesus into Jewish scriptures.Adam,
Peter used logical reasoning in the straightforward Greek style to show that David was not speaking of himself. I merely pointed out that Peter's claim that King David is a prophet is a Jewish idea and so claiming that David was prophesizing in Psalms 16 is consistent with Jewish thought. As far as I know neither his argument or scripture has or can be broken. The question is do you believe it. It is perhaps this scripture and others that Jesus based his teaching that the Anointed One would die and be resurected on the third day. I have no idea if that particular tenet origionated with Jesus or if it was around before he taught it.
In case you do not realize it both Jesus and Peter are Jews.
Jesus stated he would did not know the time of his return so how did his servants. You read into the writings of the New Testiment than which those same writers claim they did not know.
Quote (kerwin @ May 25 2010,21:28) Adam, Peter used logical reasoning in the straightforward Greek style to show that David was not speaking of himself. I merely pointed out that Peter's claim that King David is a prophet is a Jewish idea and so claiming that David was prophesizing in Psalms 16 is consistent with Jewish thought. As far as I know neither his argument or scripture has or can be broken. The question is do you believe it. It is perhaps this scripture and others that Jesus based his teaching that the Anointed One would die and be resurected on the third day. I have no idea if that particular tenet origionated with Jesus or if it was around before he taught it.
In case you do not realize it both Jesus and Peter are Jews.
Jesus stated he would did not know the time of his return so how did his servants. You read into the writings of the New Testiment than which those same writers claim they did not know.
So do you expect uneducated and un-schooled Peter could quote Greek LXX and claim David talked about Jesus' resurrection on the third day unless the writer of Acts puts words into innocent Peter's mouth? Know for sure that these writers of N.T are well educated and clever in their ideas on Jesus and could go to any extent and interpret Hebrew scripture to suit their dogma. But no one could expect peagents of Galilee could quote scriptures from Greek version of Hebrew scriptures and give such lengthy speaches as claimed by the writer of Acts.Adam,
Please check your heart and make sure you are not searching for faults in the New Testament but are instead testing to see what it states is true. Peter’s education level is not relevant to such a test since what matters is the doctrine taught and the accounts of whether or not those who taught that doctrine lived according to it.
I will address Peter’s qualification as an intellect by pointing out that I have no idea what version or versions Peter was familiar with or even if he was literate at the time he spoke in Acts 2. I do know he wrote at least two letters later but I have no idea what languages or when or if he learned to write as a scribe may have ghost written them for him. I also do not know what language he spoke on that day in Acts but I do know that many heard what he stated in their own (native) language.
I do know that Peter was not unschooled as he studied at least three years under the tutelage of Jesus. I have my doubts that even before that he was unschooled since being a Jew he was instructed to get schooling in scripture and the priests and perhaps others were instructed to school the laity. I know at the least that Jews had and still maintain a custom of the laity reading from scriptures in the synagogues on those occasions when they meant. Jesus does it once and Paul mentions that women are forbidden to speak in the church, a ban that is traditionally linked to the custom of reading scripture.
I also see you use the loaded word “dogma”. That indicated prejudgment on your part. Do you have a reason to so prejudge the doctrine of Jesus and his servants? If so maybe we should address that instead of the education level of the people of God. I agree that like most Jews, Jesus and his students, as well as most others, did interpret God’s word in accordance with the doctrine they believed and taught. That in itself means nothing at what really counts is whether or not they are interpreting it according to God’s intent.
I am not sure what you think a “peagent” is and as far as I can tell it is a misspelling but there are a few words you may have misspelled. Never the less I believe you speak too confidently on an issue you do not know enough about. I do know that people even today are able to memorize and quote lines from a script and times were different in the necessity for doing so was more pressing in the First Century.
How do you know what version of scripture Peter was quoting from?
Isaiah (Yeshayahu)
* Isaiah 7.14
“Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign, behold, the young woman shall conceive and bare a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”
Christian Claim: This verse was a prophecy of Jesus' birth through the virgin Mary. Instead of translating the Hebrew word “almah” as young woman, they translate it as “virgin.”
Jewish Refutation: The word “almah” in biblical Hebrew means “young woman.” The Hebrew word for virgin is “betulah.” This is supported by Isaiah 37.22, where the word betulah is used to denote a virgin.
There are several other reasons why Isaiah 7.14 could not have been referring to Jesus:
1 – The event spoken of in Isaiah 7 is that of the king Ahaz seeking comfort due to the alliance of Rezin, king of Aram, and Pekah, son of the king of Israel, against him. It makes no sense whatsoever that the sign of comfort G-d gives Ahaz would be the birth of Jesus some 700 years later.
2 – In Isaiah 7.14, the woman who bore the child was supposed to call him “Immanuel,” not “Jesus.”
3 – Isaiah 7.15 says “Curd and honey shall he eat when he knoweth to refuse the evil and choose the good.” Would the messiah/god need to “choose” good and refuse evil? Does such a choice occur to the Christian god?
4 – Immanuel was born in Isaiah 8.8.
In addition to these reasons, knowing that Jesus did not do in the world what the Jewish messiah is supposed to do when he comes, fitting Jesus into Isaiah 7.14 becomes all the more impossible. (For a more comprehensive explanation of why Jesus could not have been the Messiah, see the section “The Messiah” in Part II of this FAQ.)
* Isaiah 11.1
“And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a branch out of his roots shall be fruitful.”Christian Claim: The branch and the root refer to Jesus, who was both the supposed son of god (hence the “root”), and the offspring of king David (hence the “branch”). This prophecy was supposedly fulfilled in Mathew 1.6 and Luke 3.23-32.
Jewish Refutation: Anyone who reads Isaiah 11 (especially verse 4) will notice that the “branch” is to judge the poor, reprove the meek, smite the earth, and slay the wicked. The Christian Bible makes no mention of Jesus doing any of these things.
In addition, a few verses later, we see that the wolves were to lie in peace with the lambs, the people of Israel and Judah would be gathered from the four corners of the earth, and the world was to be “filled with knowledge of the Lord.” None of this was fulfilled since the time Jesus supposedly came to the earth.
Christians claim that the things that were supposed to happen in accordance with Isaiah 11, will indeed happen upon Jesus' “second coming.” Besides the fact that this second coming is not mentioned in any Christian holy scripture, and that Jesus himself said everything would happen in his lifetime (see “The Messiah” in Part II of this FAQ), a glance at this chapter will reveal the forced nature of this assertion. When Christians claim that verses 1 to 5 definitely do refer to Jesus' first coming, but verses 6 to 9 (containing the prophecy about the wolf living in peace with the lamb) refer to his second coming, they are choosing to ignore verses 9 and 10, which both include the words “in that day”, meaning that those prophecies were to be fulfilled during the messiah's life on earth.
The true messiah will be the root of a new era of redemption, and a branch from the line of king David. We Jews await him each and every moment of our lives. All nations will indeed follow him, and the Jews will lead the world to know the true G-d:
Zechariah 8.23: “Thus saith the Lord of hosts: In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you, for we have heard that G-d is with you.”
* Isaiah 11.10
“And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, standing as a banner of the peoples: the nations shall seek it; and his resting-place shall be glory.”
Christian Claim: The branch and the root refer to Jesus, who was both the supposed son of god (hence the “root”), and the offspring of king David (hence the “branch”). This prophecy was supposedly fulfilled in Mathew 1.6 and Luke 3.23-32.
Jewish Refutation: Anyone who reads Isaiah 11 (especially verse 4) will notice that the “branch” is to judge the poor, reprove the meek, smite the earth, and slay the wicked. The Christian Bible makes no mention of Jesus doing any of these things.
In addition, a few verses later, we see that the wolves were to lie in peace with the lambs, the people of Israel and Judah would be gathered from the four corners of the earth, and the world was to be “filled with knowledge of the Lord.” None of this was fulfilled since the time Jesus supposedly came to the earth.
Christians claim that the things that were supposed to happen in accordance with Isaiah 11, will indeed happen upon Jesus' “second coming.” Besides the fact that this second coming is not mentioned in any Christian holy scripture, and that Jesus himself said everything would happen in his lifetime (see “The Messiah” in Part II of this FAQ), a glance at this chapter will reveal the forced nature of this assertion. When Christians claim that verses 1 to 5 definitely do refer to Jesus' first coming, but verses 6 to 9 (containing the prophecy about the wolf living in peace with the lamb) refer to his second coming, they are choosing to ignore verses 9 and 10, which both include the words “in that day”, meaning that those prophecies were to be fulfilled during the messiah's life on earth.
The true messiah will be the root of a new era of redemption, and a branch from the line of king David. We Jews await him each and every moment of our lives. All nations will indeed follow him, and the Jews will lead the world to know the true G-d:
Zechariah 8.23: “Thus saith the Lord of hosts: In those days it shall come to pass, that ten men shall take hold out of all languages of the nations, even shall take hold of the skirt of him that is a Jew, saying, We will go with you, for we have heard that G-d is with you.”
* Isaiah 28.16
“Therefore, thus saith the Lord G-d, behold I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a costly corner-stone of sure foundation; he that believeth shall not make haste.”
Christian Claim: In 1 Peter 2.6 the author claims that this verse means that anyone who trusts and believes in Jesus will obtain salvation and glory from G-d. 1 Peter 2.6 translates the last part of Isaiah 28.16 as: “And the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”
Jewish Refutation: The hebrew of the last part of the verse is “hama'amin lo yochish,” which means “the believer will not make haste,” not “the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”
This passage is referring to king Chizkiyahu who reigned after Ahaz. In the days of Ahaz, king of Judah, there were many Jewish leaders and advisors who lost their faith in G-d and ridiculed the heritage they received from Him. G-d said that He would bring a righteous king to set Judah straight, but before that He would judge the Judeans harshly for their faithlessness:
Isaiah 28.17: “Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet, and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.”
The words “the believer will not make haste” in Isaiah 28.16 were meant to convey that those who believe in G-d's word were not to think that the new era to be inaugurated by king Chizkiyahu would come about immediately, for He intended to punish the sinning Judeans first.
* Isaiah 29.13
“And the Lord said: Forasmuch as this people draw near, and with their mouth and with their lips do honor Me, but have removed their heart far from Me, and their f
ear of Me is a commandment learned by rote.”Christian Claim: Mark 7.7 translates the same verse as follows: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain, their teachings are but rules taught by men.”
Jesus supposedly cites this passage in opposition to the pharisees, after being asked why his disciples do not observe Jewish traditions.
Jewish Refutation: The verse was simply mistranslated in the Christian Bible in order to provide the Christian savior (Jesus) with a more convincing argument against the rabbis, who were responsible for preserving the Judaism all of Israel was taught by Moses in his generation.
In Isaiah 29.13, the Hebrew words “yirosam osi mitzvas enoshim melumodoh” mean that the fear of G-d to some insincere Jews became a mere commandment devised by man, lacking proper Jewish devotion.
There is no mention anywhere in that verse, or even before or after it, of G-d rebuking the Jewish leaders for their traditional teachings. The Talmud and other Jewish sources of traditional teachings are filled with utmost praise of G-d and the holiness of Jewish life. G-d did not rebuke Jewish leaders at any time for continuing to teach the Torah we received at Sinai to the Jewish people, both its oral and written parts.
* Isaiah 40.3
“A voice of one calling in the desert, prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.”
Christian Claim: Matthew 3.3 says this verse in Isaiah represents John the Baptist, who as he says “In those days, John the baptist came preaching in the desert of Judea” (Matthew 3.1).
Jewish Refutation: In Isaiah 40.5, we read the following: “And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all these shall see it together.”
This could not have been what John the Baptist had in mind, because Jesus was not seen or heard by most of the world when he allegedly lived. Even today, a very large portion of the world's population are ignorant of his alleged importance.
In addition, in Isaiah 40.10, we find: “The Lord G-d will come as a mighty one …” If John the Baptist was the one who proclaimed this in the wilderness, he certainly erred, for Jesus came as a lonely, rejected one.
In 40.3 Isaiah was comforting the Jews due to the pending exile of the ten tribes of Israel. He was saying that G-d will yet restore them. Isaiah 41.8-13 is the culmination of the comforting and a promise by G-d that all will be restored. The voice in the wilderness is G-d's voice accompanying the ten tribes in the wilderness and comforting them.
* Isaiah 53
Christian Claim: The Christian Bible mentions Isaiah 53 in three places:
– Luke 22.37
– Acts 8.32-33
– 1 Peter 2.22This chapter in Isaiah has been established by Christians as the “suffering servant” chapter. To Christians, it is an explicit prophecy of Jesus, who suffered for the sins of others on the cross. It allegedly contains several key indicators that leave no doubt in Christian minds as to its reference to Jesus.
Jewish Refutation: While Christians believe their case for Isaiah 53 representing Jesus is absolutely supported by the verses, a more careful and serious reading of Isaiah 53 will inevitably support no such belief.
Isaiah 53 in the broader scope of the Tanach tells us of a nation that suffered at the hands of others for many years. It tells of a people stricken by G-d with famine and disease, and a people who continued on and on without ever abandoning its heritage completely. It is the story of how the nations bruised and scarred that people, for they thought it was right to do so. Yet they were astonished in the end to find out how wrong they were. Only in the era of Israel's final redemption did the nations begin to understand how all of Israel's suffering was on their behalf. Israel represented the peoples of the world before G-d and was punished in their stead, for their sins. It was Israel's job to see to it that the world became a place where G-d was welcomed among all. They were to be a light unto the gentiles (Isaiah 42.6, Isaiah 60.3), and when they failed to be that, they were held responsible for the nations' failures.
The Jewish view of Isaiah 53 is supported extensively in several ways. The following paragraphs contain some of the more outstanding reasons why the Jewish view of Isaiah 53 is in complete harmony with the Jewish scriptures. There are more reasons for such, but a more complete examination of this issue is beyond the scope of this FAQ. For a more comprehensive presentation of the Jewish view of Isaiah 53 in accordance with the Jewish scriptures, you are invited to read Michoel Drazin's book “Their Hollow Inheritance: A Comprehensive Refutation of Christian Missionaries” at his website.
1 – For one thing, the “servant” spoken of in Isaiah 53 was already identified throughout the book of Isaiah. Would G-d suddenly change his subject for one chapter within the book of Isaiah? The rational individual would answer in the negative.
Isaiah 41.8: “But thou, Israel, art My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham My friend.”
Isaiah 41.9: “Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou art My servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away.”
Isaiah 43.10: “You are My witnesses, says the Lord, and My servant whom I have chosen …”
Isaiah 44.1: “But now hear, O Jacob, My servant, and Israel, whom I have chosen.”
Isaiah 44.21: “Remember these things, O Jacob and Israel, for you are My servant. I formed you, you are My servant, O Israel, you will not be forgotten by Me.”
Isaiah 45.4: “For the sake of My servant, Jacob, and My chosen, Israel, I call you by your name …”
Isaiah 48.20: “Go forth from Babylon, flee from Chaldea, declare with a shout of joy, proclaim it, send it forth to the end of the earth, say: 'The Lord has redeemed His servant, Jacob'.”
Isaiah 49.3: “And He said to me: 'You are My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified'.”
2 – The following verse eliminates Jesus as the subject of Isaiah 53:
Isaiah 42.19: “Who is blind but My servant, or deaf as My messenger, whom I send? Who is blind as My dedicated one, or blind as the servant of the Lord?”
If we accept that the chapters leading up to Isaiah 53 are consistent in their message, Isaiah 42.19 poses a dilemma for any Christian who wants to call Jesus the servant of G-d in reference to Isaiah's prophecies.
3 – Chapter 53 in Isaiah contains an abundance of indicators that incontrovertibly invalidate Jesus as the subject. Here follow some such indicators:
(a) Isaiah 53.3: “A man of pains and acquainted with disease …”
In the Christian Bible, Jesus was not said to have been afflicted with any disease, and the only time he could have felt any pain was on the cross. Isaiah 53.3 is referring to pain that is continuous and which spans a lifetime, for the entire chapter speaks of a matter that took place over time, and not an isolated event.
(b) Isaiah 53.7: “And opened not his mouth, like a lamb that is led to the slaughter … yea, he opened not his mouth.”
This could not have been referring to Jesus due to the following Christian Bible verses:
Matthew 27.46: “And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice saying, 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani'? that is to say, 'My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me'?”
Matthew 26.39: “And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed saying, 'O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt'.”
According to these verses, the Christian Bible recorded that Jesus did not go so willingly to his death, and did speak out in protest against it.
 Isaiah 53.9: “Although he had done no violence …”
In the Christian Bible, it is recorded that Jesus was indeed violent:
Matthew 21.12: “And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves.”
(d) Isaiah 53.10: “To see if his soul would offer itself in restitution …”
Was it possible that the Christian god would not offer itself for the good of all of mankind? Was the Christian god testing the Christian god?
(e) Isaiah 53.10: “That he might see his seed, prolong his days …”
Even though the Christian Bible claims that Jesus did offer his soul for restitution, Jesus had no offspring, and his days were not prolonged.
(f) Isaiah 53.12: “Therefore, I will divide him a portion among the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the mighty …”
Would the Christian god's reward for offering himself to himself be a mere portion among the great? Who were the other “greats” who were to share the reward with him? Were they equal to him? And if he receievd a portion, then wasn't the one distributing it greater than he?
Thus, it is clear from the proofs presented above that Isaiah 53 has nothing to do with Jesus. It makes far better sense when the subject of that chapter is Israel, who as a nation watched its seed carrying on from generation to generation despite attempts by the nations to destroy it. Israel suffered the sins of all, for they were G-d's model people affected by every wrong that occurred in the world. Israel is and always has been G-d's chosen servant, and there is no other.
Deuteronomy 7.6: “For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy G-d; the Lord thy G-d hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Him, above all people that are upon the face of the earth.”
* Isaiah 55.3
“Incline your ear and come unto Me, hear and your soul shall live, and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.”
Christian Claim: Acts 13.34 translates the last part of that verse as follows: “I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.” The author of Acts claims that that verse speaks of Jesus, who was allegedly raised from the dead by G-d and was not left to decay.
Jewish Refutation: The Hebrew for that verse indicates no such thing. It says: “ve'echresoh lochem bris” (“and I will make a covenant with you”), whereby “lochem” is “you” in the plural form. G-d was not speaking to the messiah, but to those of Israel, who will obey His word. He tells them that He has appointed one from David's lineage as their future king.
Isaiah 55.3 makes no mention of anything having to do with the avoidance of decay in a grave.
Adam,
I believe that Jewish mystic reasoning was used in the books of Matthew and Hebrews. This makes sense as according to some accounts I have heard Jewish mysticism was more common amoung those who called themselves Jews at that time. According to this Jewish source mysticism has been part of Jewish from the earliest days and is wide open to personal interpretation. The question then becomes is that interpretation from God or from the evil desires of the individual doing the interpreting. Jesus was a mystic or Jewish magician. For some reason mainstream Christiany has attributed evil to Jesus' practices by differentiating Jewish magic from God's miracles.
So using mystiic reasoning instead of the straight forward Greek reasoning your source used on Isaiah 7:14 can show how Matthew, a Jew, decided it applied to Jesus. His conclusion being since Jesus was conceived of a virgin then it must be a miracle and a miracle in itself is a sign of God. Mary was a maiden when she conceived Jesus and so all the criteria in Isaiah 7:14 were meant and since that is true it follows that God must have been referring to Jesus' conception and birth.
That is a perfectly reasonal though mystical argument.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
