Zone1 Explaining Jesus to a Jew

[irosie91]

Could you elaborate? What are you saying? I didn't quite get that.

fret not, Red----you are not alone

 

[Red Front]

Nope----the name of "the messiah" is not "david"----"david" is the name of
the second king of Israel---he was so ANNOINTED. The theoretical messiah is
by custom a descendant of David----David is of the Tribe of JUDAH---Jacob names
his son JUDAH as successor king of his community----to wit, the CHILDREN OF ISRAEL,
thus Judah is supposed to be the founder of a ROYAL LINE. The Remmant of Israel is the
SURVIVORS-----like me

The Hebrew Bible, does use the name of David for the Messiah symbolically.

1. 
   Jeremiah 30:9 : "But they shall serve YHWH their God and David their king, whom I will raise up for them."
2. Ezekiel 34:23-24: "And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd. And I, YHWH, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them. I, YHWH, have spoken."
3. Ezekiel 37:24-25: "My servant David will be king over them, and they will all have one shepherd. They will follow my laws and be careful to keep my decrees. They will live in the land I gave to my servant Jacob, the land where your ancestors lived. They and their children and their children's children will live there forever, and David my servant will be their prince forever."
4. Hosea 3:5: "Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek YHWH their God, and David their king, and shall come in fear to YHWH and to his goodness in the latter days."

In these passages, "David" is not necessarily a reference to King David himself but rather to a future leader from his lineage. This concept is further developed in the New Testament where Jesus is identified as this messianic figure from the lineage of David.

 

[BreezeWood]

In My not so Humble Opinion The people who can explain JESUS

surly ...



not so ...

but give it a whirl ...

 

[irosie91]

surly ...



not so ...

but give it a whirl ...

Later----I do not want to aggravate the jelly bean crowd

 

[BreezeWood]

the fallacy of christianity will accomplish nothing than servitude and self pity.

Could you elaborate? What are you saying? I didn't quite get that.

all three desert religions ...

jesus taught liberation theology, self determination, the religion of antiquity - parable of noah ... during the 1st century events. jesus in not found in the 4th century c-bible.

 

[irosie91]

all three desert religions ...

jesus taught liberation theology, self determination, the religion of antiquity - parable of noah ... during the 1st century events. jesus in not found in the 4th century c-bible.

Jesus did not leave a single written word in a time when jews of his station
were LITERATE and PRODUCTIVE of scholarly output----in aramaic. Even some
of the people who claim to QUOTE him in their writings----never met him and were
not literate in Aramaic eg. LUKE

 

[theHawk]

It doesn't have to have the word "messiah" to be of the messiah. The Hebrew Bible identifies the messiah as David. It uses the word David in more than one verse, yet we know that the Messiah isn't literally David. The Hebrew Bible can use different words, symbolically, and metaphorically, to refer to something else. The suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, without being identified literally as the Messiah. It's not identified literally as Israel or the remnant of Israel either, yet you believe it's exclusively Israel. Another interpretation is that it is the prophet Isaiah himself, who is also identified as the servant of God in the book of Isaiah.

The righteous remnant of Israel and the Messiah are one according to Daniel 7.

This is the tap dancing game revisionist Jews have to play. Isaiah gives them headaches.

 

[rosends]

:6)It doesn't have to have the word "messiah" to be of the messiah.

OK, great. Step one is we can agree that there is no mention of a messiah in Isaiah 53. Except that there is, and it doesn't refer to Jesus.

The Hebrew Bible identifies the messiah as David.

Not exactly -- David was a messiah in that he was anointed. In other cases the term "David" (or Son of David) is used as a generic term for an anointed king.

The suffering servant in Isaiah 53 is the Messiah, without being identified literally as the Messiah.

No it isn't.

It's not identified literally as Israel

Really? You are looking at Isaiah 53 as if it is a discrete section. But chapter headings are a later and Christian innovation. The Jewish texts had no chapter divisions. Here is some helpful information (using your chapter headings)
The word-root for servant (ayin-vet-dalet) is used many times in various forms in Isaiah. The text identifies the following servants:
Isaiah, himself (20:3, 49:6)
Elyakim (22:20)
The Nation (24:2)
Servants of Chizkiyahu (37:5)
David (37:35)
Israel -- 9 times (either immediately or by linked pronouns) between 41 and 52.

So yes, among others, the servant IS identified as Israel. No Jesus mentioned. In fact, no mention of the messiah as a servant. The closest is the reference to people by name who were anointed.

The word root for messiah (mem-shin-chet) is used in Isaiah to refer to
anointing a shield (21:5)
Koresh (45:1)
Isaiah (61:1)

References to David include
The house of David (7:2)
The chair of David (9:6)
The tent of David (16:5)
The city of David (22:9)
The merciful acts of David (55:1)

How you can, from all this, see any conenction to Jesus is inexplicable.

The remnant of Israel and the Messiah are one according to Daniel 7.

I'm not sure where in Daniel 7 you read that, or why you think it matters.

 

[irosie91]

This is the tap dancing game revisionist Jews have to play. Isaiah gives them headaches.

wrong again-----at no point is the putative "messiah" named David----not by Isaiah or
anywhere else in Jewish literature. "HOUSE OF DAVID" or "BEN DAVID" ----but not
DAVEY-----you are thinking of Davey Crochet who killed a bear when only three

 

[irosie91]

OK, great. Step one is we can agree that there is no mention of a messiah in Isaiah 53. Except that there is, and it doesn't refer to Jesus.


Not exactly -- David was a messiah in that he was anointed. In other cases the term "David" (or Son of David) is used as a generic term for an anointed king.

No it isn't.

Really? You are looking at Isaiah 53 as if it is a discrete section. But chapter headings are a later and Christian innovation. The Jewish texts had no chapter divisions. Here is some helpful information (using your chapter headings)
The word-root for servant (ayin-vet-dalet) is used many times in various forms in Isaiah. The text identifies the following servants:
Isaiah, himself (20:3, 49:6)
Elyakim (22:20)
The Nation (24:2)
Servants of Chizkiyahu (37:5)
David (37:35)
Israel -- 9 times (either immediately or by linked pronouns) between 41 and 52.

So yes, among others, the servant IS identified as Israel. No Jesus mentioned. In fact, no mention of the messiah as a servant. The closest is the reference to people by name who were anointed.

The word root for messiah (mem-shin-chet) is used in Isaiah to refer to
anointing a shield (21:5)
Koresh (45:1)
Isaiah (61:1)

References to David include
The house of David (7:2)
The chair of David (9:6)
The tent of David (16:5)
The city of David (22:9)
The merciful acts of David (55:1)

How you can, from all this, see any conenction to Jesus is inexplicable.

I'm not sure where in Daniel 7 you read that, or why you think it matters.

our pre-revolutionary forebears-----signed letters as "YOUR SERVANT _______"
it's on old formula. Hebrew literature has a PLETHORA of old formulas of writing
and address

 

[theHawk]

Jesus did not leave a single written word in a time when jews of his station
were LITERATE and PRODUCTIVE of scholarly output----in aramaic. Even some
of the people who claim to QUOTE him in their writings----never met him and were
not literate in Aramaic eg. LUKE

Did Adam and Eve write their accounts? Noah? Abraham?
Nope, their accounts were not written by eyewitnesses and weren’t written for hundreds or even thousands of years.

The disciples of Jesus witnessed him first hand. Paul, a Jewish Pharisee, encountered Christ himself and he wrote most of the New Testament. The disciples had followers they taught directly and passed their witnessed testimonies to them per oral and probably written as well. Those followers then put them together in an orderly fashion. Even Jewish prophets did this hundreds of years earlier.

Quite the double standard you have there.

 

[irosie91]

Did Adam and Eve write their accounts? Noah? Abraham?
Nope, their accounts were not written by eyewitnesses and weren’t written for hundreds or even thousands of years.

The disciples of Jesus witnessed him first hand. Paul, a Jewish Pharisee, encountered Christ himself and he wrote most of the New Testament. The disciples had followers they taught directly and passed their witnessed testimonies to them per oral and probably written as well. Those followers then put them together in an orderly fashion. Even Jewish prophets did this hundreds of years earlier.

Quite the double standard you have there.

Did I suggest that I take the legend of ADAM AND EVE literally or even that most rabbis do?
PS Paul never met Jesus except in an HYPNAGOGIC HALLUCINATION

 

[Meriweather]

This is the tap dancing game revisionist Jews have to play. Isaiah gives them headaches.

Isaiah makes perfect sense, especially when read from the perspective of the time it was written. The suffering servant is indeed Israel. Isaiah was writing to the people of his own time about the trials and tribulations of that time.

What I love about the Gospel of Matthew is that he sees the entire Jewish history (dating back to the beginning of mankind) as a foreshadowing--not a prediction--of Jesus and his life. If you know the history of the Jews--or, if you know the life of Jesus--you know the other. Even the genealogy in Matthew tells the story of the Jewish people (that is if you know the genealogy).

No need for you to agree with this. Years ago I was talking about this with a faithful Jew. He told me that while Matthew may have done that, it means nothing because he could write a story about the life of the average rooster and relate it to Jewish history. I never challenged him to start writing (he had made his point) and I still find it hilarious.

There is absolutely no need to quarrel over Isaiah. It also happens to be one of my favorite books in the Old Testament precisely because it writes so eloquently of Jewish history of that time.

 

[irosie91]

fret not, Red----you are not alone

not alone in taking the ramblings of Mr. Breezie as------a bit vague

 

[irosie91]

Isaiah makes perfect sense, especially when read from the perspective of the time it was written. The suffering servant is indeed Israel. Isaiah was writing to the people of his own time about the trials and tribulations of that time.

What I love about the Gospel of Matthew is that he sees the entire Jewish history (dating back to the beginning of mankind) as a foreshadowing--not a prediction--of Jesus and his life. If you know the history of the Jews--or, if you know the life of Jesus--you know the other. Even the genealogy in Matthew tells the story of the Jewish people (that is if you know the genealogy).

No need for you to agree with this. Years ago I was talking about this with a faithful Jew. He told me that while Matthew may have done that, it means nothing because he could write a story about the life of the average rooster and relate it to Jewish history. I never challenged him to start writing (he had made his point) and I still find it hilarious.

There is absolutely no need to quarrel over Isaiah. It also happens to be one of my favorite books in the Old Testament precisely because it writes so eloquently of Jewish history of that time.

So true----the poetry of Isaiah is ELEGANT ----and kinda attributable to lots of stuff as is
lots of other sublime poetry----like the poetry of Milton ----Paradise Lost

 

[Mr Natural]

Here’s how it went down:

The people on earth were sinning so God sends His only son to straighten things out. The son fails at his mission, gets executed in a horrific way, and the sinners essentially get off scott free.

 

[theHawk]

Did I suggest that I take the legend of ADAM AND EVE literally or even that most rabbis do?
PS Paul never met Jesus except in an HYPNAGOGIC HALLUCINATION

^^ more excuses to dismiss parts of the Bible that make you uncomfortable.

Does that mean Abraham’s story is not to be taken literally?

Is most of Jewish belief on…..fiction?

Paul was a Jewish Pharisee, who converted. That’s why Jews hate him the most and have to lie and slander him.

 

[rosends]

Paul was a Jewish Pharisee, who converted. That’s why Jews hate him the most and have to lie and slander him.

actually, we don't talk about him because we don't care. But if you need paranoia to keep afloat, rock on.

 

[irosie91]

Here’s how it went down:

The people on earth were sinning so God sends His only son to straighten things out. The son fails at his mission, gets executed in a horrific way, and the sinners essentially get off scott free.

nice story-----did it come in your easter bunny book? Jesus was a
Carpenter-----I colored cartoons of Jesus hold a lamb in Sunday Jelly
bean school

 

[Meriweather]

The people on earth were sinning so God sends His only son to straighten things out. The son fails at his mission, gets executed in a horrific way, and the sinners essentially get off scott free.

True, except for the part that Jesus fails at his mission. He changed my life--and the lives of many others.