Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Originally posted by NewGuy
"using the force" is new-age.
The whole batch o' movies is ridden with new age philosophy. -That is NOT following Christ. It is NOT Christian.
Originally posted by ajwps
It becomes obvious that your Isaiah 53:1-3 verses do not refer to Jesus but to the Jewish people as the suffering servant of the L-rd. [/B]
Originally posted by NewGuy
NewGuy you have the most unbelievable ability to turn meanings into something that had no resemblence to what was actually said in the original Hebrew text (which I can read). Let me try again.
The fifty-third chapter of Isaiah describes profoundly and movingly the career of a Servant who, through his acts and suffering, fills a role in G-d's plan for mankind. The Christian Church has always pointed to this passage as a prophetic description of the life and death of Jesus of Nazareth. Most Christian scholars now honestly believe that Jesus was not, and could not have been, the Servant depicted in this scripture, and I would like to show why I believe thus, and whom I believe is the actual suffering Servant of G-d Himself.
By examining certain key phrases, basing our understanding on the original Hebrew-text, Christian scholars from all denominations see most clearly that any christological interpretation of this chapter is, at best, forced and baseless. For example, verse 10 in the Hebrew reads: " im taseem asham nafsho " (if his soul offers itself as a sin offering), "yireh zera, yaarikh yamim" (he shall see seed, prolong days). In other words, on the condition that the Servant willingly offers his soul as a sin offering, he shall have descendants and live a long life. Jesus died childless at the age of about thirty. Moreover, the passage says, "if", which means that the Servant has a choice - to obey or not to obey! According to Mark 14:36, Jesus was unwilling, yet did not have a choice. The same scripture says: " Ve HaShem (G-d) hafetz dakeo heheli " (and G-d desires to oppress him with disease). Jesus was never stricken by any oppressive disease. Verse 8 says: " mipesha ami nega lamo " (as the result of My people's sin were they... stricken). In other words, the Servant is a "they", not a "he"; a collective Servant, not a single person. Verse 9 says: " ve-et asheer bemotav..." (and with the wealthy, in his deaths...). "Motav" in Hebrew is plural, more than one death... many deaths, even millions of deaths! Verse 3 says: "he is despised and rejected of men". According to the Gospel tale, Jesus was popular and admired by the masses. This same verse describes the Servant as being a "man of pains", ( makhovot), "chronically diseased" (yedua holi). Neither of these descriptions fit Jesus. Moreover, verse 11 and 12 were never fulfilled in Jesus' life. He died frustrated and defeated.
Who, then is the despised, unattractive (verse 2) Servant who was considered, in every generation, to be stricken and punished by God (verse 4); when in reality he was being stricken by the sinning nations? Which Servant was labeled 'heretic' by the Church and burnt during the inquisition, the Crusades, the pogroms, etc...? In Chapter 52, verse 15, the kings of the Gentiles are the ones whose mouths shut in amazement, and these very rulers of the Gentiles confess and proclaim in Chapter 53, "Who would have believed what we've heard? Those coarse, "unbelieving" Jews who were led like sheep to the slaughter in gas chambers, infants and mothers, were the Servant(s) of G-d!
For centuries, the Jew has suffered because the gentiles sinned against him. Now it can be told! "Behold thou, Israel, My Servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham, My friend!" Isaiah 41:8. "Who is blind, but My Servant? Or deaf, as My messenger that I send" (chap. 42:10).
To get the identity of the servant, one must read the chapters beginning with 41 of Isaiah. Who do the Hebrew Scriptures of Israel reveal as the servant of the ETERNAL CREATOR? Beginning in chapter 41, the CREATOR's servant is Israel or Jacob, which is comprised of both Houses of Israel, Ephraim, and Judah.
Isa. 41:8-9 "But thou, Israel, art My servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham My friend. 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."
Here is the identity of the famous suffering servant. There is no need to speculate or hypothesize. The identity is clearly revealed as the nation of Israel. The servant is not a man at all, but an entire nation of people. Next, this servant is to be led by the Spirit of the CREATOR to bring judgment to the gentiles. How very plain that is. Isa. 42: 1-4 "Behold My servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom My soul delighteth; I have put My Spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. He shall not cry, nor lift up, nor cause his voice to be heard in the street. A bruised reed shall he not break, and the smoking flax shall he not quench: he shall bring forth judgment unto truth. He shall not fail nor be discouraged, till he has set judgment in the earth: and the isles shall wait for his law."
It is very interesting to see the views of some bible commentaries on this issue. To define the issue in 'Christian' terms we will first quote a 'Christian.' Clark's Commentary says:
"That this chapter speaks of none but 'Jesus' must be evident to every unprejudiced reader who has ever heard the history of his suffering and death. The Jews have endeavored to apply it to their sufferings in captivity; but, alas for their cause! they can make nothing out in this way. Allowing that it belongs to our blessed 'Lord' (and the best men and the best scholars agree in this), then who can read verses 4 through 10 without being convinced that his death was a vicarious sacrifice for the sins of mankind?"
Dr. Clark as a Christian and attempts to defend the doctrines and traditions of his church. It has been noted that "the best men and scholars" he refers to are also Christian. His comments are clearly biased toward his personal beliefs, as his opening remarks illustrate.
From a different point of view note what the Collegeville Bible Commentary says:
"...this focuses on the coming transformation of the servant from extreme humiliation to glory. Since this change will be witnessed by kings and nations, ...the servant is the Israelite nation or someone who represents it."
Not to be deterred by the facts note that the Interpreters Bible states that 'Christians' are unconcerned:
"For the 'Christian' community this passage has a supreme significance; it depicts the life history of the 'Lord.' The church is not disturbed over discrepancies between the OT portrait [of this passage being about Israel and not a man] and the NT reality."
In other words, 'Christians' do not seem to mind that their claims of the servant being a man from Galilee are in clear contradiction to the context in Hebrew Scriptures for preceding chapters. This study will first show how these prophecies in Isaiah cannot possibly refer to the Galilean. Next, it will show how they do apply to the nation of Israel, which remember was made up of twelve tribes originally. Lastly, it will show that the tribe of Judah (the Jews of today) are specifically being refereed to in parts of Chapters 52 and 53 of Isaiah. If you begin by examining a few key verses and see how they cannot possibly refer to the man from Galilee.
Isaiah 52:14
Isa. 52:14 "As many were astonished at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men."
This verse is supposed to show the Galilean's ordeal and crucifixion. 'Christian' ministers have stated that he was so badly beaten by the Romans that even Mary Magdalene did not recognize him in the garden. The book of Luke, however, dispels this notion at once:
Luke 24:13-17,13 "And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, 'Jesus' himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him."
If the Galilean had been beaten unrecognizable to even his closest friends, why did he have to supernaturally conceal himself from these men? Yet, according to Luke, he clearly could be recognized, so the 'Christian' argument of Isa. 52:14 being a prophecy of the disfigurement of a Galilean fades away.
No Jesus was not the Messiah in Isaiah.....
Originally posted by -=d=-
I think God would be pissed that you leave the 'o' out of His name.
Originally posted by Mustafa
Originally posted by NewGuy
NewGuy you have the most unbelievable ability to turn meanings into something that had no resemblence to what was actually said in the original Hebrew text (which I can read). Let me try again.
I cannot read Hebrew.
That will not change in the next couple days, for sure.
I CAN research your point and verify wether you are correct, however.
THAT I will do.
Until then, I will reserve judgement on the validity of your post.
Regardless of your logic or interpretation, until the exact originality of text is determined, all further dialog is pointless.
I have argued many times the original Hebrew claimed what I said it did as by all of my evidence, I was correct.
Now you force me to dig deeper.
Rest assured, I will find the answer. When I do, I will post a reply.
Originally posted by Mustafa
Thou Shalt Not Take The Name of Thy God In Vain
But you two would have no concept of the meaning of this one of the ten commandments.
This means that you may use his name for things dealing with holyness and not profane it by conversing with idolators.
in vain:
1. To no avail; without success: Our labor was in vain.
2. In an irreverent or disrespectful manner: took the Lord's name in vain.
Originally posted by Mustafa
Isaiah 52:14
Isa. 52:14 "As many were astonished at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men."
This verse is supposed to show the Galilean's ordeal and crucifixion. 'Christian' ministers have stated that he was so badly beaten by the Romans that even Mary Magdalene did not recognize him in the garden. The book of Luke, however, dispels this notion at once:
Luke 24:13-17,13 "And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs. And they talked together of all these things which had happened. And it came to pass, that, while they communed together and reasoned, 'Jesus' himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were holden that they should not know him."
If the Galilean had been beaten unrecognizable to even his closest friends, why did he have to supernaturally conceal himself from these men? Yet, according to Luke, he clearly could be recognized, so the 'Christian' argument of Isa. 52:14 being a prophecy of the disfigurement of a Galilean fades away.
No Jesus was not the Messiah in Isaiah.....
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian doctrine."
guess who said this.
Originally posted by gop_jeff
acludem?
Originally posted by DKSuddeth
besides him LOL
Originally posted by gop_jeff
Upon His resurrection, Jesus's body had been supernaturally reconstructed, so that the wounds from His scourging were healed (though the Bible clearly says that the holes in His hands and feet were still there). It also states that Jesus is able to appear and disappear with His human body, in a way no other human can. So it is no stretch to me to see that Jesus would have been able to disguise Himself to the point where He would not be recognizable. Sorry, your attempt to disprove Isaiah 53 fails again, ajpws/mustafa.
Originally posted by NewGuy
Adams and Washington are rumored to both have said it.
Adams in a document (Tripoli?), and Washington in a speech of some sort, but I have not yet seen proof or context.
Originally posted by Mustafa
Thou Shalt Not Take The Name of Thy G-d In Vain
But you two would have no concept of the meaning of this one of the ten commandments.
This means that you may use his name for things dealing with holyness and not profane it by conversing with idolators.
Originally posted by Avatar4321
Taking the Lords name in Vain is more than that. Besides you can speak His name if you arent profaning it.
But like i said its more than that. When we are baptized we make a covenant with God and take His name upon us. We profane His name when we willfully violate those covenants and pretend to be a disciple of Christ when we really arent.
Originally posted by Mustafa
You are speaking like a gentile who has no idea of why G-d's name is not spelled out in full.
The commandment not to erase or deface the name of G-d comes from Deut. 12:3. In that passage, the people are commanded that when they take over the promised land, they should destroy all things related to the idolatrous religions of that region, and should utterly destroy the names of the local deities. Immediately afterwards, we are commanded not to do the same to our G-d. From this, we inferred that the commandment not to destroy any holy thing, and not to erase or deface the name of G-d.
But feel free to write out anything you want.
Originally posted by NewGuy
