291 thoughts on “Isaiah 53 – I see Jesus (eisegesis) or exegesis – who is the suffering servant?”

1. Very thorough work Gev.

   I was reading about rabbis who came to believe in Yeshua.

   Here is a paragraph from Max Wetheimer’s story:
   http://www.ha-gefen.org.il/len/aalphabetic%20presentation/c13764/63088.php

   “For long periods Wertheimer locked himself in his library studying, meditating, and supplicating God for light. As he searched the Scriptures his thoughts were repeatedly directed to Isaiah 53. Again and again his attention focused on the central figure of the chapter—“the righteous servant.” He knew the rabbinical interpretation of the title “righteous servant,” which was said to refer to the people of Israel, because they were required to bear the iniquities of the Gentiles. But as he read and pondered the passage he saw clearly that the prophet could not be referring to the people of Israel, since in his first chapter he speaks of Israel as the most sinful nation on earth.”

   So, in Chapter 1, “Israel” is the execration of God’s eye. Then, in Chapter 52-53, we have a suffering servant, who, in contrast to “Israel,” could only have come from a different “moral” planet.

   I think that one of the issues that we need to deal with in the Isaiah 53 debate is the Jewish613 belief that the “Yechida” of a Jew was created purer than all other nations. So, they may reason that this is one more bit of evidence that Isaiah 53 is about “Israel.”

   Reply ↓

   • Thanks bography. There is more to be discovered in this Isaiah 53 journey.

     Reply ↓

2. Gev,

   Great work!!! This was really good information!! May all the servants of HaShem strive to be like His One and Only Begotten Son “The Righteous Servant Yeshua HaMashiach”!!

   Reply ↓

   • Cheers Rey

     Reply ↓

3. Yep read it and I see Jesus there too!

   Reply ↓

4. Looks like Jesus to me.

   Great article!

   Reply ↓

5. I have some problem with:
   [i]“the view that Isaiah’s servant is and can only exclusively be Israel was first formalised and recorded by Rashi – Rabbi Sholomo Yitschaki in the 11th Century”[/i]
   It has become a common misconception among some Jews believing in Yeshua as the anointed one, and a convenient deceptive statement of those Jews who rather not wan to see or let see any connection between Yeshayahu and the Mashiach.
   Rashi worked many years on his commentaries on TaNaCH and the Talmud Bavli. He made Yeshayahu 53 refer to Yisrael as the subject as is known to us from the Mikraoth Gedoloth. But(!) his commentary in his comment on [Talmud] Bavli Sanhedrin 98a. R. Joshua b. Levi met according to that tradition Elijahu, and after he had done his first question to him “אימת אתי משיח? אמר ליה: זיל שייליה לדידיה. והיכא יתיב? אפיתחא דרומי. ומאי סימניה? יתיב ביני עניי סובלי חלאים, – He then asked him, ‘When will the Messiah come?’ — ‘Go and ask him himself,’ was his reply. ‘Where is he sitting?’ — ‘At the entrance’. And by what sign may I recognise him?’ — ‘He is sitting among the sufferers of diseases …’.” Rashi comment: “סובלי חלאים – מנוגעים, והוא נמי מנוגע דכתיב (ישעיה נג) והוא מחולל מפשעינו וכתיב (שם) חליינו הוא נשא. – THE SUFFERERS OF DISEASES (Bavli Sanhedrin) – of leprosy. And he is also a leper, as is written: But he was wounded because of our transgressions (Yesjayahu 53:5). Our diseases he did bear (idem :4).”. So Rashi did also see the text as concerning the Mashiach.

   Reply ↓

   • Thanks Shmuel HaLevi, interesting, seems he held two views but only one of the gained priority in rabbinic thinking.

     Reply ↓

6. Shmuel haLevi,

   yes i have read this quote by Rashi (Sanhedrin 98a) about The Leper referring to The Messiah!! I wonder why he wound say one thing in one place and another somewhere else???

   Reply ↓

7. I wonder whether the RambaN knew about Rashi’s “double” view on Is 53. RambaN didn’t seem to know – unless he was keeping mum – in his debate with Fr Paul at Barcelona, where RambaN said that Is. 53 is about Israel.

   From wickedpedia:

   According to a report by Nahmanides,

   Friar Paul claimed: “Behold the passage in Isaiah, chapter 53, tells of the death of the messiah and how he was to fall into the hands of his enemies and how he was placed alongside the wicked, as happened to Jesus. Do you believe that this section speaks of the messiah?

   I said to him: “In terms of the true meaning of the section, it speaks only of the people of Israel, which the prophets regularly call ‘Israel My servant’ or ‘Jacob My servant.’”

   Reply ↓

8. RaMBaN also alluded it to Mashiach. Among his collected writings (not his commentary on Five Books of Moshe), commonly called “כתבי רמבן Kitvei RaMBaN – the writings of Rabbi Moshe ben Nachman” you can find his comment on “הנה ישכיל עבדי – HINEI YASKEEL AVDI”. In the past this was the name of the parshat of Yesyayahu 52:13 till 53:12, named after the begin words of the first sentence thereof.
   The reason for Rashi to have 2 opinions doesn’t have to be contradictions. Midrash in earlier times points to the sufferings divided in three portions: One the Patriarchs and all the generations of man took; one , the generation [of Israel] of that lived in the time of Hadrian took; and, one the Mashiach will take (see Midrash Shemuel 19:1; midrash Tehillim 2:9 and 16:4 and Yalkut Shimeoni 2:620.

   Reply ↓

   • It is advisable when distorting facts you do so when no one is looking. WRT the Ramban see: http://judaismsanswer.com/Ramban.htm

     Reply ↓

     • Shalom Moshe, my favorite Anti-missionary (I mean it in a good way).

       Have a great Sukkot.

     • We’ll, I didn’t point in anyway to whom the Mashiach would be, but that it is about Mashiach: RaMbaN said at the start of his comment: “The right view respecting this Parashah is to suppose that by the phrase ‘my servant’ the whole of Israel is meant, as in xliv. 2, xlix. 3, and often. As a different opinion,
       however, is adopted by the Midrash, which refers it to the Messiah, it is necessary for us to explain it in conformity with the view there maintained. The prophet says, The Messiah, the son of David, of whom the text speaks, will never be conquered or perish by the hands of his enemies. And, in fact, the text
       teaches this clearly.”
       Leaves that the question why thought it necessary “to explain it in conformity with the view there maintained”, since he had himself already “The right view respecting this Parashah”. Where those later rabbis of better quality than the former to put aside what had been kept in view for ages? Further on, he seems less sure there of since he still find it necessary “to explain it in conformity with the view there maintained”. THis same kind of attitude we find with other respected rabbis like Moshe Alsheich: “I may remark, then, that our Eabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the King
       Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view.”.
       I’m not trying to proof of which person Yeshayahu speaks, but that it is not incorrect to see the passage as about Mashiach. Denying so, would be without respect for our Tanaim and Amoraim and rabbi thereafter, included those who refere to it and think of Menachem Schneerson as the Mashiach.

     • No big question Shmuel. He was involved in debates where those Midrashim were mentioned. He actually said in his debate (as I pointed out) that these do not support the Christian position even though he does not agree that they are the pshat (literal meaning).

9. I was home visiting some relatives and we ended up talking about the Messiah because they heard I was following Y’shua, and I ended up reading Isaiah 53 to them, about five folk aged 25-60, all intellegent London Jewish people with a bit of schule experience, but no scholars, I asked them who they thought had written what I had just read out – they all said Matthew? Mark? Luke? Paul? ‘Who is it about?’ I followed – ‘Jesus’ unanimous. I said, that wasn’t the New Testament that was Isaiah 53, 700 years before – they just couldn’t believe it.

   Reply ↓

   • Benjamin, your experience begs the deeper question: Did G-d write the Bible for only rabbis to interpret, or for the average intelligent reader to comprehend on his own? Isn’t that what really separates Rabbinic Judaism from Messianic Judaism?

     Reply ↓

     • Yes I agree Marylou. A distinctive of Messianic Judaism is prioritising the Scriptures over the rabbinical teachings, and encouraging people to engage with the Tanakh for themselves. I first read Isaiah 53 as a Jewish teenager before anyone had told me it was a messianic prophecy that had been discussed for centuries. So to me it was just another chapter of the Bible. I thought to myself ‘this is a prophecy about Jesus! I’ve got to tell people about this – here’s a prophecy about Jesus hundreds of years before his time!’

   • It’s amazing how someone without a prejudice can understand the text, and yet someone with teaching and prejudice can’t.

     After all, Isaiah was trying to make his message clear and simple.

     A children could read this and come to obvious the conclusion that Jeusu is the Messiah of Isaiah 53.

     Reply ↓

     • Actually Levitt the main point is that they are totally ignorant of what is in the Tenach. That is their problem. Had they the knowledge they would know that it was not about Jesus.

     • “Had they the knowledge they would know that it was not about Jesus.”

       Moshe you’re clearly very knowledgeable; could you please tell us why you disagree with the very detailed exegetical work in Gev’s post?

     • Dov there are two issues that are essential to understanding any passage.verse in the Tenach:

       1. Context – what is being discussed, who is being talked about etc.

       2. Comparison – Is there other places in the Tenach which say the same thing.

       In this case the case that Isaiah 53 is about Israel (not withstanding some legitimate questions that are raised) is indisputable.

       Context: Isaiah 53 appears in the middle of what scholars call the second Isaiah. (They claim the author is different which is false.) From chapter 40 on, the subject matter is pretty consistent, and it has consistent themes. One of the main themes, which appears from the very beginning, is that while the nation had sinned causing exile:

       1. They will be redeemed from exile and returned to the land, and property and all kinds of good things.

       2. While punishment for the nation in exile was required, much of it was undeserved.

       Comparison: There are many verses and passages about Israel being in exile, and their exaltation afterwards, in addition to G-d’s anger at the nations.

       There is much more i can add, but this is the basics.

     • Thanks Moshe. So you admit Israel sinned: how then can she also be the sinless servant of Isaiah 53?

     • The servant is not ‘sinless’. The servant suffers undeservedly.

       BTW here is a serious problem Christians have. What does it mean that ‘Israel’ a nation has sinned, as opposed to I have sinned? What is the difference between a nation suffering and an individual suffering?

     • Dov,

       My last post for the day. There are a number of cases we J sinned. Most serious in my eyes is the fact that in Matthew he eats bread on Pesach which carries the penalty of Kores. The Greek used in Matthew is Artos and refers to bread. The Torah is very specific when it tells us to eat unleavened bread and the word the Torah uses is Matzah. Luke recognises this and uses the word Azumos to represent the unleavened bread.

       Someone once tlod me that Artos is ok because the showbread which is unleavend was also referred to as Bread. However, re the unleavened bread for Pesach this term is very specific in Torah. The word Matzah (Azumos) is used over and over again. We are required to eat Matzah (Azumos) and not bread (Artos). Therefore, Jesus sinned and was spiritually cutoff as per Exodus 12.

       Russ

     • The bread of affliction -halachma anya, is a reference to matzah in the Haggadah!

     • “The servant is not ‘sinless’. The servant suffers undeservedly.”

       No MOshe Is. 53:9 says the servant had done no violence and there was no deceit in his mouth. Is. 57:4-5 makes it clear that this cannot be a reference to Israel.

     • @ Russ – all your last comment tells me is that you choose to believe Matthew’s account rather than Luke’s. So do you believe everything else Matthew wrote about Yeshua, or only what suits your argument?

     • @ Russ – have now checked the Greek:

       Matt 26:17 and Luke 22:1 both refer to the Feast of Unleavened Bread (azumon)

       Matt 26:26 and Luke 22:19 both refer to Yeshua taking “artos”.

       So whoever told you there is a discrepancy between Matthew and Luke was mistaken.

       The burden is on you to show that “artos” can NEVER mean matzah.

     • @ Russ:

       If artos could refer to unleavened bread in the Tanakh (showbread) it can refer to unleavened bread in the gospels. Plus, as Gev says, “The bread of affliction -halachma anya, is a reference to matzah in the Haggadah”. So does this mean the Haggadah is contrary to Torah?

     • PS Russ, as a friend of mine pointed out to me this morning, I don’t think your assumption stands up linguistically. We often use a general term rather than a specific one – for example, I talk about my computer as a “computer” and not always as a “Dell PC.” I only use the more specific word when it’s important for what I’m trying to say (as it is in the Torah passages where instructions are being given about what sort of bread is required). “Bread” in the context of a seder at the time of Yeshua would obviously have been unleavened – there was no need to use the more specific word.

     • Hi Dov,
       The term Artos (Greek: Áρτος, “leavened loaf”) refers to a loaf of leavened bread that is blessed during services in the Eastern Orthodox andEastern Catholic Churches. A larger Artos is baked especially for use at Pascha (Easter), smaller round loaves (used five at a time) are blessed during the All-Night Vigil in a ritual called Artoklasia.

       Artos in Ancient Greek meant “cake” or “loaf of wheat-bread”, but in Modern Greek now only refers to bread used in church. The earliest form of the word is the Mycenaean Greek a-to, written in Linear b syllabic script. (From Wikipedia).

       However Dov, the whole Seder as described in the gospels was actually a sham. A few problems, there is no reference to eating of bitter herbs or the paschal lamb (both a requirement). The Paschal lamb btw isn’t J (am I guessing your response??) The paschal lamb had to be roasted over a fire. J did not meet this requirement unless I missed him getting roasted somewhere. The penalty of kores stands.

       However, you incorrect assumption is that the servant needs to be sinless. Therefore the obvious question is did J sin.

       Needless to say besides the verses that I have shown that cannot be applied to J this argument just gives me more ammunition that J cannot possibly be the suffering servant as he did sin – a number of times. Besides being spiritually cut-off for eating leavened bread on Pesach there are many other places showing J sinning. I’ll give one more example:

       Harvesting on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:1-6). Deuteronomy 5:21 states that on the Sabbath, “in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest.”
       I reiterate that there are other examples of J sininning. So in terms of your definition this is just another example of why Is 53 cannot be referring to J.

     • apologies its not Deut 5:21–?Its Ex 34:21

     • Gev raises a good point re Ha Lachma Anya. This is my take on it.

       It says, Ha lachma anya, d’akhla avatana b’ar’a d’mitzrayim.
       This is the bread of affliction, which our fathers ate IN THe LAND of Egypt.

       Note Ha lachma anya was eaten in Egypt whilst our ancestors were slaves there.
       Again, Ha Lachma anya, was the bread eaten IN Egypt as SLAVES.

       This is quite different to the Matzah, the unleavened bread eaten at the Passover Seder as Per Exodus 12. And you shall watch over the unleavened cakes, for on this very day I have taken your legions out of the land of Egypt, and you shall observe this day throughout your generations, [as] an everlasting statute.

       The Matzah was unleavened because of the rush out of Egypt and had no time to rise. I have heard that Ramchal (I think) says it was the same as Ha lachma anya. However, it might not be

       The whole point of the Seder is to relive the Exodus including the Ha Lachma anya. this cannot be done with Artos, which is delicious leavend bread.

       Again I refer you to Wikipedia: The term Artos (Greek: Áρτος, “leavened loaf”) refers to a loaf of leavened bread that is blessed during services in the Eastern Orthodox andEastern Catholic Churches. A larger Artos is baked especially for use at Pascha (Easter), smaller round loaves (used five at a time) are blessed during the All-Night Vigil in a ritual called Artoklasia.
       Artos in Ancient Greek meant “cake” or “loaf of wheat-bread”, but in Modern Greek now only refers to bread used in church. The earliest form of the word is the Mycenaean Greek a-to, written in Linear b syllabic script. (From Wikipedia).

       Clearly Artos is leavened anyway and the punishment of Kores still stands. Again, the word Matzah is very specific here. The Torah never uses the word Lechem to describe the unleavened bread to be consumed over Pesach.

     • Nice try Russ

       Deut. 16:3 refers to the bread to be eaten over Pesach as “matzot lechem ani” (matzah, the bread of affliction). In the Septuagint, the Greek phrase is “azumah arton kakoseus”, I.e. Arton can in fact mean “matzah”.

       personally I prefer to go to Torah rather than Wikipedia & the modern Greek Orthodox church but I guess you feel differently?

     • Good grief, Dov. Wiping egg off my face now. However, I won’t concede the point I’ll just called it a Machlocet . I think Matthew got away with murder there.

       However, it doesn’t exonerate J from sinning. There are others so let’s get back to Is 53. Where do you want to start?

     • It’s ok Russ you are allowed to eat the egg in the Seder you know

10. Well done Gev!! “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
    Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Matthew 16:15-16 NIV

    Reply ↓

    • Thanks David

      Reply ↓

11. True story:

    A college professor typed Isaiah 53 on paper and made copies but without giving it’s source, he didn’t add Book, chapter, verse, nothing but the text itself. The professor passed out the copies to all his students in his history class and asked them to answer who was the text about and where is the text from? For the first question: Who is the text speaking of ? 98% of the students answered Jesus!! The second question, where is the text found: The percentage was only taken from those who answered Jesus. 99% of the students answered that the text was found in The New Testament!!

    Reply ↓

    • I’m not surprised in the least. We live in a very Christian society where Christian theology is ingrained.

      I guarantee you run this experiment in Saudi Arabia and no-one will think that Isaiah 53 is talking about Jesus.

      The upshot of Isaiah 53 is that you certainly can’t use it as a prooftext for Jesus. That initial feeling you get that ts talking about Jesus begs the question, because nobody can definitively demonstrate that Jesus died for our sins.

      This does not even take in the fact that countermissionaries bring very convincing arguments that Is. 53 couldn’t be talking about Jesus.

      Reply ↓

      • Interesting idea for an experiment, maybe some Saudis that happen upon this site would like to comment!

    • Very few people know the details of what happened to King Hezekiah, so they don’t recognize how Isaiah 53 is about him in so many ways.

      Kenneth Greifer
      http://www.messianicmistakes.com/

      Reply ↓

12. Goy figure!

    Reply ↓

13. To see how varied the interpretations among us Jews in the past was you should read the quite thorough Studie from the 19th century of Neubauer en Driver “The Fifty-third chapter of Isaiah according to the Jewish interpreters”. This old Oxford University Press release has 2 volumes and has been written by two academics, Neubauer doing the original greek, hebrew, aramaic, french an ladino text part. And the translations by Neubauer and Driver.
    A part of the texts is not common, or forgotten in temporary Judaism. Other text will be seen as from apostasies, being from Karaite hand.
    The two volumes can be downloaded in pdf from the following URL’s:
    http://www.archive.org/details/fiftythirdchapte01neub

    http://www.archive.org/details/fiftythirdchapte02neub
    bography, you can find RaMBaN comment also among them, hebrew text in the first book on pages 75 to 81 (followed by a translation of the refutation you mentioned, which we must see in polemic context) and in the second book in English translation on pages 78 to 84.

    Reply ↓

    • Shmuel haLevi,

      Can you send me an email? israel at jerusalemcouncil dot org.

      Reply ↓

    • Shmuel, I love you.

      Reply ↓

14. lollol good one bography!

    Reply ↓

15. Rey is replying to my goyishe joke (mea bulka). Now, I’ll just have to love you to Rey. And if anyone is feeling left out, I love the whole caboodle of Yew.

    Reply ↓

16. Shmuel your post of 29 sept above:
    “We’ll, I didn’t point in anyway to whom the Mashiach would be, but that it is about Mashiach…”

    Much appreciated.

    Reply ↓

17. Moses God was not God of the Jews — 3:10 Come now therefore and I will send thee unto Pharaoh that thou mayest bring forth My people the children of Israel out of Egypt.’

    Reply ↓

    • Wanita, I don’t understand how this connects – to what?

      Reply ↓

18. Want to get even more confused about what G-d meant when He told us, through Isaiah, that Israel is His chosen people and His servant?

    Then read http://yeshuamatters.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/israel-my-servant/. Don’t try to post no stinkin’ comments there, though. The missionary “rabbi” there brooks no dissent.

    Reply ↓

    • Anon, we await your own comments on the very detailed exegetical work in Gev’s post with baited breath.

      Reply ↓

19. Joseph and Gev, your patience with ANON’s venom is noted.

    Reply ↓

    • Anonymous can only answer the answers you have heard a million times before, so why bother answering. Can’t you just look up the usual traditional answers on Messiah Truth or something. Uri Yosef has written out most of the usual anti-missionary arguments except about Daniel 9 the seventy weeks. If you want to read real alternative explanations look at my site for the chapters on Isaiah 42 and 49 and Isaiah 52 and 53. It would actually take concentration on your part. Not all of my ideas involve dividing the letters differently, you know. I have a lot of regular arguments too.

      P.S. I think Uri Yosef has done a great job explaining the traditional Jewish arguments, so you don’t need to bother Anonymous.
      Kenneth Greifer

      http://www.messianicmistakes.com/

      Reply ↓

    • Here is the link to Uri’s articles:

      http://www.virtualyeshiva.com/counter-index.html

      I think it would be great if he wrote an article about Daniel’s seventy weeks too. I don’t know if he has yet or not.

      Kenneth Greifer

      Reply ↓

20. Thanks all you frum blokes for putting all my – and Jesus’ – transgressions on your broken back.

    Reply ↓

    • bagrophy,

      I hope you won’t count this as my “venom”, but I ain’t carrying your load on my back, bro. I couldn’t if I wanted to. Personal accountability, man. Like it says in the good book:

      “Each person dies for his own sins.” (Deut. 24:16, Jer. 31:30 and 2 Kings 14:6–wow, must be important!)

      Reply ↓

      • Anon

        The popular Jewish view of Isaiah 53 is that the “we,” “us” are the Gentiles, and the servant is “Israel.” So, God has put a Gentiles words into Isaiah’s mouth. And so, Isaiah – according to this Jewish view – must have been fully aware of this, unless he was under some kind of Koranic spell (automatic writing). So this is how Isaiah you read 53 is read, not so?:

        [4] Surely he(the Jew) has borne our (goyim) griefs
        and carried our (goyim) sorrows;
        yet we (goyim) esteemed him (the Jew) stricken,
        smitten by God, and afflicted.
        [5] But he (the Jew) was wounded for our (goyim) transgressions;
        he (the Jew) was crushed for our (goyim) iniquities;
        upon him (the Jew) was the chastisement that brought us (goyim) peace, and with his (the Jew) stripes we (goyim) are healed.

        I said in my previous post that you (because you’re a Jewish, I think) were carrying my and Jesus’ sins. From one point of view that is not true because Jesus and I have Jewish mothers (I have a Jewish father too!). From another point of view, though, some frum Jews believe that when a Jew becomes a Christian/Messianic, God – takes back his Jewish DNA-Neshamos and gives him a goyishe one.
        http://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/bogology-the-genetics-of-conversion-to-judaism/

      • Bo, you misunderstand. Being Jewish is not a genetic distinction but a legal (Biblical/Rabbinic) one. The Bible (and pre-rabbinic Judaism) did not consider a Jew who abandoned Torah observance and followed another religion as being ‘Jewish’. That is why the roman general who was under Titus was never called a ‘Jew’. The Rabbis decreed that , notwithstanding the Biblical standing of such Jews, to allow them to be absolved of their Biblical responsibilities would allow one to be ‘rewarded’ for sinning. (If one could just decide to stop keeping the obligations of the Torah then anyone who thought it ‘too hard’ could just become a member of another religion and be absolved.) They therefore decree ‘once a Jew always a Jew’ with regards to the obligations, no matter what sin one did.

        What this means is that Biblically, Messianics are not Jewish, but because of the Rabbis decree, they still have a relationship to Israel. It is legal, and not genetic.

      • “they still have a relationship to Israel. It is legal, and not genetic.”

        I see. So you’re really a kind of a lawyer, rather than a family counselor, then.

      • Bogo,

        In view of the verse I mentioned to you, above, which the Bible’s Author considered so central important as to warrant repetition in triplicate, you cannot possibly be correct in your presumption that Isaiah 53 tells a tale of third party suffering in lieu of the justice due the gentiles. It must be that Is. 53:1 is not a declaration of the possibility of vicarious atonement, since Is. 53 is at best unclear, and we have three other extremely clear places in Scripture that rule it out: “Each person dies for his own sins.” Thus, your persistence in learning out a message from an unclear text that contradicts a thrice repeated clear text is not so much an example of exegesis as it is of raping my Bible. It’s unseemly, and you should stop that. Please respect the word of G-d, and trample it no more.

        Rather, if you want to discuss what is happening in Is. 53:5, you need to begin with the predicate of Deut. 24:16 et al. An untilted reading of Is. 52-3 makes clear that the gentile monologue there is their expression of shock at the sudden recognition that their previous belief–that they had been “justified” by heaping scorn on and lashing the Jews (for instance, a “christ killers” libel that turned into self-righteous Christian oppression of innocent Jews)–they had in fact not achieved an iota of atonement. So, Is. 53:5 is actually a prophesy conveying the exact opposite of the immoral message you seek to forcibly extract from it by ignoring Deut. 24:16.

      • Joseph,

        Did you ever answer my question about how you became a Christian, following your deep exposure to and education in traditional Judaism? I would like to hear that personal account story from you, because I know it will tug at my heart strings and shore up my doubts about Christianity as an intellectually superior alternative for Jews to Judaism.

      • I’m happy to tell you about my faith.

        Now tell me about yours.

        Or are you too ashamed of yourself to tell us who you are and what you believe?

        How long have you been a Jew?

        Not longer than a couple of years, at a pinch.

      • Joseph,

        Since you’re obviously not going to answer the simple question I’ve now asked you on numerous occasions (for the simple, obvious reason that you were breastfed on Christianity and haven’t a clue about the Jewish religion), let’s instead focus not on how ignorant you were in your decision to remain Christian and engage in anti-Semitic blogging, but rather on why you count among your friends a missionary so hateful to your Jewish people that he literally announces himself as an “Aryan” on Jewish-themed Web sites. How do you escape the shame of retaining such a gross comrade?

      • Joe, I don’t know what you mean by this: “So you’re really a kind of a lawyer, rather than a family counselor, then.”

      • Moshe, you say of Messianic Jews: “they still have a relationship to Israel. It is legal, and not genetic.”

        So your job as an anti-missionary involves helping these Jews with essentially a legal problem (they are legally bound to Israel), not a family problem (as they are no longer genetically attached to Israel).

        Most anti-missionaries though see themselves as restoring Jews to their own Jewish family.

      • When the ‘legal’ issues are dealt with, we can deal with the family ones. The problem with a non-legal approach is that what does one do with converts? You can’t adopt ancestry.

21. Joseph, there isn’t a Jew around that feels threatened by that question;
    but thats all ya got to throw at Anon because you cannot respond in
    kind in the Jewish Arena

    Reply ↓

    • No I just want to know how long Anon has been a Jew. Two, three years? Less?

      Reply ↓

      • …and, has s/he been a Jew longer or shorter than the amount of time Ken Thomas has been an “Aryan”?

      • That’s an interesting point too!

        Changing the subject slightly, what do you make of Tovia Singer?

      • What about him?

      • I was asking Anon. I know Tovia Singer occasionally gets ex-Xian Noahides and Gentiles in the process of converting to leave anti-Messianic comments for Outreach Judaism.

        Shannon Orand is one example, there are many others. Maybe Anonymous is one of these people too. I dunno, I’m asking.

22. Joseph,

    Let’s change the subject back to my question: how do you feel about your colleague Ken Thomas’ declarations not only to be a lover of the Jews and gentile Christian missionary, but also an “Aryan”? Is that an association you’re comfortable with?

    Reply ↓

    • No. Obviously not – we said we’d ban him if he kept saying that, because of how offensive it is to Jewish people. So he took our point and stopped talking about Aryan stuff, and apologized too. What more do you want? Now you carry on about it.

      I’m still interested in how long you’ve been Jewish (2, 3 years?), and what you think about Tovia Singer.

      Are you associated in any way with Outreach Judaism?

      Reply ↓

      • I’m associated with standing up to Nazis like Ken Thoms, and not accepting insincere apologies. I’m associated with saying “Never Again” and meaning it. I’m associated with reviling people who call themselves “Aryans”, because that’s a claim that would only come to mind for a die hard bigot. You ought to be ashamed of keeping his company, even if he has agreed to bury the “Aryan” hatchet merely as a tactic, purely as window dressing to better prosecute his anti-Semitic mission (a mission he has in common with you). You ought to re-think what depravity you’ve become associated with.

      • Anonymous.

        Are you associated in any way with Outreach Judaism?

23. Joseph do you think every Jew who is against christian missionaries
    is associated with Outreach Judaism? Don’t give too much credit
    to antimissionary organizations; there are plenty of Jews who feel
    strongly about this without having to get the ok from any particular
    “professional” Antimissionary

    Reply ↓

    • Bubby, you must understand the term “anti-missionary” is used in a specific context. In my opinion anti-missionary, as defined by useage and by example here on the Rosh Pina Project, does not refer to any Israeli or any Hebrew religiously opposed to Christian missionary activity in Israel. The term “anti-missionary” as used here means a person who advocates or commits unlawful acts to censor the EVANGELISTIC activity of missionaries.

      I believe there no one here who objects to opposition to our missions. In fact we welcome you! Thanks for joining the dialog about Jesus Christ, Whom we believe to be Israel’s Messiah, the only One Who forgives sins and offers eteranl life. We believe you will one day meet Him face to face. I pray you will rejoice and celebrate with us in the presence of God.

      Reply ↓

24. Just rereading this Gev, it really is great work

    Reply ↓

    • I just read this, as it was linked in a discussion of Chabad on another page of this website.

      I have never read such Gobbldy-gook in my life. Please explain to me how this leads you to believe Jesus was the Messiah?

      If you are to rad the passage from Isaiah as referring to a historical human being who has lived, why not Martin Luther King or any other person who was at times despised and whose actions led people into freedom? What exactly did Jesus do for the Jews? (Of course, besides the Inquisition).

      Reply ↓

      • “I have never read such Gobbldy-gook in my life. Please explain to me how this leads you to believe Jesus was the Messiah?”

        What is it about Gev’s post that you think is gobbledeegook Hannah? Could you please give some specific examples of where you think his argument is flawed? Thank you.

25. Ugh–I tried, I really tried. This is just nonsense. What am I arguing with? You site a whole bunch of verses and claim they are about Jesus. But you admit they never mention Jesus. I just don’t get it.

    I literally cannot follow it. Apparently this is all crystal clear to some people, but I am lost. And I am, by profession, a tax attorney. I make sense out the tax code, but this eludes me. I can literally not read some of it, because the Hebrew characters are corrupt, but I also don’t get the pattern behind the bold and I don’t get the main argument. What I read is : (1) Isaiah describes X, (2) many people believe it was talking about Israel or Moshiach or someone else, (3) read what Isaiah says, (4) Isaiah seems to be talking about the Servant of God, (4) It doesn’t mention Jesus, (5) I see Jesus. Therefore, Jesus is Moshiach.

    The Lord is the Saviour and Redeemer as only God can save us, there is none other.

    “We read however of the righteous servant who we get a hint of as being His Holy One קְדֹושֹׁ֗ו

    Isaiah 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

    Who is the Servant?”

    I grew up with this BS, and there is absolutely nothing I can do to refute it. If you repeat something enough, people will believe you and you will come to believe it yourselves.

    Reply ↓

    • Hanna you state, >>>”The Lord is the Saviour and Redeemer as only God can save us, there is none other.”<<<

      There is only one true and living Elohim.

      “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”

      Deuteronomy 6:4 NIV

      The word "one" (Hebrew "echad") may be used for two different meanings.

      Rabbi Tovia Singer explains that, "The word echad in the Hebrew language functions in precisely the same manner as the word "one" does in the English language. In the English language it can be said, "these four chairs and the table constitute one dinette set," or alternatively, "There is one penny in my hand." Using these two examples, it is easy to see how the English word "one" can mean either many things in one, as in the case of the dinette set, or one alone, as in the case of the penny."
      Rabbi Tovia Singer

      http://www.outreachjudaism.org/trinity.html

      Tovia concludes the Lord is one alone or He is a singularity. But dose this agree with Mose in the Torah?

      In Genesis 1:26 Moses quotes Yehovah Elohim who speaks to Himself in the plural. Why did the Spirit of God illuminate Moses’ mind to choose the word Elohim a plural noun for God and quote the triune God speaking to Himself in the plural? Moses specifically writes about the plural nature of Elohim in Genesis,

      Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness…” Genesis 1:26 NASB

      1. “Let Us make man”
2. “in Our image”
3. “according to Our likeness”

      http://adventofmessiah.wordpress.com/2010/07/21/the-lord-our-god-the-lord-is-one-%E2%80%9D/

      Reply ↓

26. Ugh–I tried, I really tried. This is just nonsense. What am I arguing with? You site a whole bunch of verses and claim they are about Jesus. But you admit they never mention Jesus. I just don’t get it.

    I literally cannot follow it. Apparently this is all crystal clear to some people, but I am lost. And I am, by profession, a tax attorney. I make sense out the tax code, but this eludes me. I can literally not read some of it, because the Hebrew characters are corrupt, but I also don’t get the pattern behind the bold and I don’t get the main argument. What I read is : (1) Isaiah describes X, (2) many people believe it was talking about Israel or Moshiach or someone else, (3) read what Isaiah says, (4) Isaiah seems to be talking about the Servant of God, (4) It doesn’t mention Jesus, (5) I see Jesus. Therefore, Jesus is Moshiach.

    The Lord is the Saviour and Redeemer as only God can save us, there is none other.

    “We read however of the righteous servant who we get a hint of as being His Holy One קְדֹושֹׁ֗ו

    Isaiah 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

    Who is the Servant?”

    What does this mean? How does this description of a “despised person” lead you to Jesus and not to another despised person.

    I grew up with this idiocy, and there is absolutely nothing I can do to refute it. If you repeat something enough, people will believe you and you will come to believe it yourselves.

    Reply ↓

    • Hannah regarding your comment, >>>“We read however of the righteous servant who we get a hint of as being His Holy One קְדֹושֹׁ֗ו

      Isaiah 53:3 He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

      Who is the Servant?”

      What does this mean? How does this description of a “despised person” lead you to Jesus and not to another despised person.

      I grew up with this idiocy, and there is absolutely nothing I can do to refute it. If you repeat something enough, people will believe you and you will come to believe it yourselves.<<<

      Hannah in the book of Daniel chapter 9, the angel Gabriel tells us that the Moshiach would come and atone for sins before the destruction of the Second Temple and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. But this is not the only place that we read about God's righteous Servant the Moshiach who would atone for sin and then be "cut off" and afterwards rise again and rule forever. These important prophecies are through the Torah and the rest of TaNaKh. Below are just a few.

      http://adventofmessiah.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/god%E2%80%99s-prophetic-70-weeks/

      Yeshua is the Lamb of God who came to take away the sins of world.
      Isaiah tells us that God's Servant, " 7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
      yet he did not open his mouth;
      he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
      and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
      so he did not open his mouth.
      Isaiah 53:7 NIV

      King David writes about Messiah's sacrificial death in Psalms 22 NIV
      16 Dogs surround me,
      a pack of villains encircles me;
      they pierce my hands and my feet.
      17 All my bones are on display;
      people stare and gloat over me.
      Isaiah prophecies that God's Servant (Messiah) will be "disfigured beyond that of any human being and his form marred beyond human likeness—
      15 so he will sprinkle many nations, Isaiah 52:14-15 NIV
      Messiah was "pierced for our transgressions,
      he was crushed for our iniquities;" Isaiah 53:5

      Gabriel an angelic messenger from God explained to Daniel (while he was in exile in Babylon);

      That Moshiach would "atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness" and then be "cut off" (be executed) "the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing" before the destruction of Jerusalem and the second temple by the Roman army in 70 A.D.
      Daniel 9: 24 – 27 NIV

      Messiah did come and atone for sin and brought in eternal righteousness before the destruction of Jerusalem and the second temple by the Roman army in 70 A.D.

      Isaiah writes prophetically in great detail about Messiah's sacrificial death;
      3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
      a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
      Like one from whom people hide their faces
      he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
      4 Surely he took up our pain
      and bore our suffering,
      yet we considered him punished by God,
      stricken by him, and afflicted.
      5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
      he was crushed for our iniquities;
      the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
      and by his wounds we are healed.
      6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
      each of us has turned to our own way;
      and the LORD has laid on him
      the iniquity of us all.
      7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
      yet he did not open his mouth;
      he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
      and as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
      so he did not open his mouth.
      8 By oppression[a] and judgment he was taken away.
      Yet who of his generation protested?
      For he was cut off from the land of the living;
      for the transgression of my people he was punished.[b]
      9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
      and with the rich in his death,
      though he had done no violence,
      nor was any deceit in his mouth.
      10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
      and though the LORD makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
      he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
      and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
      11 After he has suffered,
      he will see the light of life[d] and be satisfied[e];
      by his knowledge[f] my righteous servant will justify many,
      and he will bear their iniquities.
      12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great,[g]
      and he will divide the spoils with the strong,[h]
      because he poured out his life unto death,
      and was numbered with the transgressors.
      For he bore the sin of many,
      and made intercession for the transgressors.
      Isaiah 53:3-12 NIV

      29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.”
      John 1:29 NIV

      Reply ↓

    • Look, this is quite obviously an emotional issue for you, but there’s no point having a go at us about it. You say you’re not angry with your parents for teaching you about all this, but we seem to be getting a lot of your displaced frustrations about Yeshua.

      Reply ↓

    • Hannah try changing your browser – I have no problems making out the Hebrew.

      I’ll reply to your other points tomorrow.

      Reply ↓

    • Hannah,

      Just for fun, maybe you would look at my site http://www.messianicmistakes.com/

      I am curious if you can understand my arguments that Isaiah 53 is about King Hezekiah.

      Kenneth Greifer

      Reply ↓

      • Ken you commented, >>>”I am curious if you can understand my arguments that Isaiah 53 is about King Hezekiah. “<<<

        Ken do you really think King Hezekiah is the Righteous Servant written about in Isaiah?

        Was Hezekiah “pierced through for our transgressions”?
        Was he “crushed for our iniquities”?
        Did the “chastening for our well-being” fall upon Hezekiah?
        Were we healed by Hezekiah’s scourging?
        When was King Hezekiah scoured?
        Did the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all
        To fall on Hezekiah?
        Isaiah 53:5-6 NASB

        On the other hand Y’shua the Moshiach was “pierced through for our transgressions”.
        Y’shua was “crushed for our iniquities”.
        The “chastening for our well-being” did fall upon the Moshiach.
        We were healed by Y’shua’s scourging.
        The LORD caused the iniquity of us all
        To fall on Y’shua the Moshiach.
        Isaiah 53:5-6 NASB

        Gabriel explains in the book of Daniel that the Moshiach would come and “make atonement for iniquity” and be “cut off” (executed) before the destruction of the second temple and the city of Jerusalem; which happened in 70 A.D. Daniel 9:24-26 NASB

      • David,

        I have around 30 pages on my site discussing the details like how the word “pierced” is used in Psalm 109:22 “my heart is pierced within me”. Is that meant literally? Was the person in Isaiah 53 literally crushed? COuld it say he was profaned, and does that have to mean made unholy or is the word used in other ways? I have looked at many details that you probably have not even considered? Maybe you should look at my site to see many many more details than what you have heard before. Youmight want to skip around the more boring parts to see details that you need to think about too. I also have a chapter on the “seventy weeks” in Daniel 9.

        Kenneth Greifer
        http://www.messianicmistakes.com/

      • Jesus says in Luke 22:37
        It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.”

        Kenneth, you will say that Jesus didn’t really say that (or you might say he did say this, and therefore is a fake; but only the most foolhardy Jew ever takes that route), whereas you did say what you said – in your book.

        Who would I rather believe about Isaiah 53, Jesus or you? I think that you will agree, the choice one makes determines where one will spend eternity.

      • Bography,

        Your argument does not make any sense. Who should you believe, me or J? You can believe whoever you want to. That does not make it true. Supposedly, you should consider the evidence, but that might take effort that you don’t think is worth it. Your argument is the weakest I have heard so far.

        Kenneth Greifer
        http://www.messianicmistakes.com/

      • Ken I did read through a considerable amount of your work last night.

        While Israel was in exile in Babylon, in response to Daniels contrite confession of his sin and the sins of his people God sent Gabriel with a special communiqué from the Almighty about the advent of an anointed Prince who would atone for the iniquity of us all – the promised Messiah.

        24“Seventy weeks have been decreed

        for your people and your holy city,

        to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin,

        to make atonement for iniquity,

        to bring in everlasting righteousness,

        to seal up vision and prophecy

        and to anoint the most holy place.

        Daniel 9:24 NASB

        Gabriel tells Daniel (Daniel 9:24-26) that the Moshiach would come atone for iniquity and bring in everlasting righteousness and then be “cut off” executed. Compare this prophecy to what the Spirit of the Lord tells us through Isaiah in Chapter 52-53.

        Gabriel told Daniel that Moshiach would come 69 weeks (483 years, Jewish Calender years) after the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem.
        The decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem was issued by Artaxerxes Longimanus on March 14, 445 B.C. [1]

        From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem on March 14, 445 B.C. by Artaxerxes Longimanus until Yeshua arrives and is presented in Jerusalem as the Messianic King on April 6, 32 A.D.; we discover that when we calculate 69 weeks of years (or 483 years and correct for leap years) it figures out to be 173,880 days to the day. [11]

        According to what we read in Daniel 9 that the Moshiach must come around 32 A.D. and atone for sin and then be “cut off” executed. Since
        King Hezekiah’s reign was between c. 715 and 686 BC he could not possibly be the Moshiach who was to come and atone for sin and bring in everlasting righteousness.

        http://adventofmessiah.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/god%E2%80%99s-prophetic-70-weeks/

        [1] Anderson, Robert, The Coming Prince, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1894. The classic work on the Seventy Weeks of Daniel.

        [11] Missler, Chuck, “Daniel’s 70 Weeks”, Koinonia House, 2004. (Also, the recording of “Expositional Commentary on Daniel”)

      • David,

        You are mixing two different subjects together. I don’t think Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah suffering for sins. It is about Hezekiah only during his lifetime. You decided it is about the Messiah. It never says it is about the Messiah, and I never even mention Hezekiah being the Messiah. You are so used to seeing every quote as being about the Messiah, you can’t just see Isaiah 53 as a description of a man who suffered because other people sinned.

        Daniel 9 is a whole different story and has nothing to do with Isaiah 53.

        Kenneth Greifer
        http://www.messianicmistakes.com/

      • Kenneth regarding your comment, >>>”You are mixing two different subjects together. I don’t think Isaiah 53 is about the Messiah suffering for sins. It is about Hezekiah only during his lifetime. You decided it is about the Messiah. It never says it is about the Messiah, and I never even mention Hezekiah being the Messiah. You are so used to seeing every quote as being about the Messiah, you can’t just see Isaiah 53 as a description of a man who suffered because other people sinned. Daniel 9 is a whole different story and has nothing to do with Isaiah 53.”<<<

        Kenneth why dose it come to any surprise to you that such an important event as the atonement for sins of His people and the bringing in of everlasting righteousness would spoken of by more than one prophet?

        Why do you doubt the fact that these prophets speaking under the inspiration of the Spirit of the Lord would be in agreement?

        You state, "you can’t just see Isaiah 53 as a description of a man who suffered because other people sinned."

        Evidently, this is what you attempting to do; but this is not what the scripture says. Isaiah tells us that the Righteous Servant of the Lord "would render Himself as a guilt offering" (Isaiah 53"10 NASB)

        "That He was cut off out of the land of the living
        For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due?"
        (Isaiah 53:8 NASB)

        "the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing" (Daniel 9:26 NASB)
        "the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing" (Daniel 9:26 NIV)

        "to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness" (Daniel 9:24 NASB)

        "the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many, As He will bear their iniquities." (Isaiah 53:11 NASB)

        God's Righteous Servant is not just "a man who suffered because other people sinned", as you state. But God's Righteous Servant the Moshiach gave "Himself as a guilt offering", He was the righteous one to "bear their iniquities", through His suffering and death He made "atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness". As a result "the Righteous One, My Servant, will justify the many".

        The Messiah was "cut off" i.e. crucified and then He rose from the dead on the third day and walked upon earth for forty days giving many convincing proofs that He is alive.

        Y'shua is the Lamb of God who came to take away the sins of the world. Moshiach is our Passover Lamb. This is taught both in the TaNaKh and the New Covenant scriptures.

        5But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
        He was crushed for our iniquities;
        The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
        And by His scourging we are healed. (Isaiah 53:5 NASB)

        King David also writes of Moshiach suffering and His death giving His life;

        16For dogs have surrounded me;
        A band of evildoers has encompassed me;
        They pierced my hands and my feet. (Psalms 22:16 NASB)

        Here is what a Messianic Jew named Peter who was an eye witness of Moshiach's crucifixion said;

        22WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH;
        23and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously; 24and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed. (1 Peter 2:22-23 NASB)

        What the Spirit of the Lord spoke through Isaiah, Daniel (quoting the angel Gabriel), King David and the apostle Peter are all in agreement.

        http://roshpinaproject.com/2010/08/06/god%E2%80%99s-prophetic-70-weeks/

        http://adventofmessiah.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/god%E2%80%99s-prophetic-70-weeks/

        http://roshpinaproject.com/2010/05/28/abram-believed-the-lord/

      • bography (elraphy) I’m with you bro, I am placing my faith in the Moshiach instead of a pseudo intellectual doubter who is attempting to lead people away from faith in Elohim’s revealed truth in the TaNaKh and God’s promised Moshiach; who alone has atoned for our sins.

        bography you are correct Moshiach quotes a part of Isaiah 53:12 here in this scripture;

        37″For I tell you that this which is written must be fulfilled in Me, ‘AND HE WAS NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS’; for that which refers to Me has its fulfillment.” Luke 22:12 NASB

        He is indicating to His disciples that He is getting ready to fulfill what the Spirit of the Lord revealed long ago through the prophet Isaiah.

        Because He poured out Himself to death,
        And was numbered with the transgressors;
        Yet He Himself bore the sin of many,
        And interceded for the transgressors.
        Isaiah 53:12 NASB

        Thank you Bography for pointing out this scripture, I had not seen this before; I appreciate this insight. Shalom aleichem!

      • David,

        I did not insult you. Why do you have to call me “a pseudo-intellectual doubter”? Just stick to your half-truths that you think are total-truths. Maybe if you actually dug a little deeper you would see that your easy answers to everything are easy because you don’t look at the details to see if what you are saying is the whole story. Maybe you just can’t understand what I am saying so you call it “pseudo-intellectual”. If you can’t understand something then it would be more honest to say that you can’t understand if I am right or wrong than to say that I am stupid. I don’t think you are stupid if you don’t understand my ideas because you might not be able to check my Hebrew arguments. Sometimes I get mad and I insult people , but I am not mad at you for not knowing Hebrew. I think you just assume that what I am saying is wrong as a way of dealing with ideas that you can’t argue against because you might not understand them.

        Kenneth Greifer
        http://www.messianicmistakes.com/

      • Is 53 refers to Israel. Isaiah makes reference to the servant a number of times identifying the servant as Israel.

        Isaiah 41:8-9
        Isaiah 44:1
        Isaiah 44:21
        Isaiah 45:4
        Isaiah 48:20
        Isaiah 49:3

        No amount of Xstian circular reasoning is going to change that fact. However, let’s assume that its not Israel (It is, but we’ll assume otherwise), can it really be applied to Yoshka. I mean if the Xstian wants the suffering servant to refer to Yoshka they have to accept it in its entirety not pick the verses that best suits their needs.

        Consider:

        Is 52:14 : As many wondered about you, “How marred his appearance is from that of a man, and his features from that of people!” This verse states that the servant is ugly. So the natural question, “was Yoshka ugly?” Personally I doubt the guy existed. All references to him are hearsay, but that aside, Yoshka is depicted as a good looking bloke. He could enter a fair few beauty contests and win them based on the idolatrous images that Xstianity has given us. So he fails the test in this verse.

        52:15 So shall he cast down many nations; kings shall shut their mouths because of him, for, what had not been told them they saw, and [at] what they had not heard they gazed. This is pretty easy to understand. I’ve been told (as opposed to not been told) about Yoshka, I’ve been told (as opposed to not been told) he is a good looking bloke, I just don’t believe it. So he fails the test in this verse.

        53:2. And he came up like a sapling before it, and like a root from dry ground, he had neither form nor comeliness; and we saw him that he had no appearance. Now shall we desire him? No comeliness. See above. He fails the test of this verse too.

        53:4. Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains-he carried them, yet we accounted him as plagued, smitten by G-d and oppressed. Smitten by G-d? Nope. Smitten by Jews?? Some say yes some say no… Smitten by Romans, according to the gospels. He fails the test of this verse.

        53:7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he would not open his mouth; like a lamb to the slaughter he would be brought, and like a ewe that is mute before her shearers, and he would not open his mouth. Not quite according to the gospels. Yoshka cried like a baby and was certainly not mute. Does “my G-d, my G-d, why have you forsaken me” ring a bell? (As opposed to the Jewish martyrs who sang as they were being led to
        the gas chambers or Rabbi akiva saying the Shema as his skin was being raked off by the Romans etc). Needless to say yoshka fails the test of this verse too.

        53: 8 From imprisonment and from judgment he is taken, and his generation who shall tell? For he was cut off from the land of the living; because of the transgression of my people, a plague befell them.

        53:10 And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and G-d’s purpose shall prosper in his hand. He shall see his children?? Yoshka had no children. He fails the test of this verse. Incidently when read in the hebrew it is evident that the children refers to physical children. The word used is :זֶרַע. Did I mention he fails the test of this verse?

        Missionaries promote the silly argument that it was only after Rashi that the Jews saw the suffering servant as applying to Israel (this is not true). Even if we drop the assumption that the suffering servant is Israel (which it is) we see that it still cannot apply to Yoshka.

      • Kenneth regarding “a pseudo-intellectual doubter”. It is a case of the proverbial forest for the trees, “not seeing the forest for the trees”. You have been given a great intellect you see the meticulous details but not the overall picture. You seem to have many of the facts but can’t put them together so they mean something.

        The issue is not are you an expert in Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, English, Spanish, French, Russian, Manderian, or the Bengali language. Through the Torah, and the other Scriptures in the TaNaKh you have been given much revelation by Elohim. But instead of believing and receiving the Moshiach like Saul of Tarsus you have rejected Him. Sadly, evidently you sincerely seem to think you are doing the will of HaSham by attempting to convince people both Jew and gentile the God’s promised Moshiach is a false messiah.

        Reality is the Moshiach came about 2000 years ago, and is soon to return.

        Have you ever read the New Testament, the truth you are attempting to counter?

        9 The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

        14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:9-14 NIV

      • Russ (do you mind if I call you Roshka?)

        Isaiah 41:8-9
        Isaiah 44:1
        Isaiah 44:21
        Isaiah 45:4
        Isaiah 48:20
        Isaiah 49:3

        It is clear that these passages are talking about Israel.

        “Remember these things, Jacob,
        for you, Israel, are my servant.” Isaiah 44:21 NIV

        4 For I knew how stubborn you were;
        your neck muscles were iron,
        your forehead was bronze. Isaiah 48:4 NIV

        8 You have neither heard nor understood;
        from of old your ears have not been open.
        Well do I know how treacherous you are;
        you were called a rebel from birth.
        9 For my own name’s sake I delay my wrath;
        for the sake of my praise I hold it back from you,
        so as not to destroy you completely. Isaiah 48:8-9 NIV

        But the Righteous Servant in Isaiah 52:13-53 is the Moshaich. In all the previous verses you reference Isaiah is specific which servant he is speaking about, he clearly identifies either Jacob or Israel or both.
        But in chapters 52:13-53 Isaiah uses a different adjective My righteous servant.

        “my righteous servant will justify many,
        and he will bear their iniquities.” Isaiah 53:11 NIV

        “the Righteous One,
        My Servant, will justify the many,
        As He will bear their iniquities.” Isaiah 53:11 NASB

        If the servant in Isaiah 52-53 is Israel, how can unrighteous stubborn Israel who needs their sins and iniquities atoned for, be the Righteous Servant who atones for Israel’s own sins? Roshka isn’t that “circular reasoning” you are trying to avoid?

        13 See, my servant will act wisely;
        he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. Isaiah 52:13 NIV

        Yeshua was “raised” to life on the third day after He was “cut off” and atoned for His peoples sins. Yeshua is “highly exalted” He is seated at the right hand of His Father in heaven. (see Psalms 110:1)

        When Yeshua Ha’Moshiach returns on the clouds and sets up His millennial reign from the third temple in Jerusalem He will be “highly exalted” on earth and bring in the era of peace we all long for. (see Isaiah 11)

        13″I kept looking in the night visions,
        And behold, with the clouds of heaven
        One like a Son of Man was coming,
        And He came up to the Ancient of Days
        And was presented before Him.
        14″And to Him was given dominion,
        Glory and a kingdom,
        That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
        Might serve Him
        His dominion is an everlasting dominion
        Which will not pass away;
        And His kingdom is one
        Which will not be destroyed.
        Daniel 7:13-14 NASB

        Roshka regarding you comment,

        >>>”Consider:

        Is 52:14 : As many wondered about you, “How marred his appearance is from that of a man, and his features from that of people!” This verse states that the servant is ugly. So the natural question, “was Yoshka ugly?” Personally I doubt the guy existed. All references to him are hearsay, but that aside, Yoshka is depicted as a good looking bloke. He could enter a fair few beauty contests and win them based on the idolatrous images that Xstianity has given us. So he fails the test in this verse.”<<<

        Russ consider:

        14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him–
        his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any human being
        and his form marred beyond human likeness—
        15 so he will sprinkle many nations, Isaiah 52:14 NIV

        This scripture is not saying that the Moshiach was born "disfigured" but that after He endured the beatings by the Temple guard, scourging by the Romans, and the agony of the crucifixion on the cross for our sins He was "disfigured" and “How marred his appearance is from that of a man, and his features from that of people!”

        Y'shua is the Moshiach. The question Russ, is will you "fail the test" (of faith in God's Moshiach) because you rejected God's Moshaich you gave His life to atone for your sins when you stand before Him at your judgement?

        Consider:

        Jesus Messiah – by Chris Tomlin

      • @ Russ: it is difficult to take you seriously if you deliberately use the pejorative term “Yoshka”, but I will try.

        It is also difficult to take you seriously because you clearly didn’t read Gev’s post, which shows that a number of different people are referred to as “servant” in Isaiah, so it is not automatic that the servant of Isaiah 53 is Israel. Nevertheless, even though it seems you can’t read, I will try to take you seriously.

        It is also difficult to take you seriously because your argument about Isaiah 53:7 is clearly contradictory. One rabbi (Yeshua) doesn’t fulfil the verse because he quoted Scripture when he died, but another rabbi (Akiva) who quoted Scripture when he died does fulfil it! Seriously, did you read what you wrote before posting it?

        Finally, it is difficult to take your comment about Isaiah 53:10 seriously because it seems you are unfamiliar with the rest of the book. The word “zera” is used in Isaiah 1:4 (“a seed of evildoers”), 14:20 (again, “seed of evildoers”), 57:3 (“seed of the adulterer”), and 57:4 (“seed of falsehood”). What do you think: do all these phrases refer to the actual physical children of adulterers and evildoers, or are they being used in a metaphorical way to talk about the characteristics of the people Isaiah was speaking to? And, if the latter, why can’t the word be used in a physical or metaphorical way in 53:10?

        So, Russ, got anything sensible to say?

      • Sorry should have said “why can’t the word be used in a SPIRITUAL or metaphorical way in 53:10?”

      • David,

        Saul was not convinced by his intellect, but by a vision. So, the Tanakh didn’t prove anything to him.

        Kenneth GReifer

      • Davka you can call me Roshka.

        Forget about if Israel is the servant or not focus on applying the passages to Yoshka and see the difficulties that emerge.

        Your reply says nothing. You attempted to answer 1 of the problems showing why Is53 cannot apply to Yoshka and it was a poor answer. You didn’t even try and tackle the others. This thread deals with Is 53.

        You said: This scripture is not saying that the Moshiach was born “disfigured” but that after He endured the beatings by the Temple guard, scourging by the Romans, and the agony of the crucifixion on the cross for our sins He was “disfigured” and “How marred his appearance is from that of a man, and his features from that of people!”

        Of course just because you say it doesn’t make it so.

        Scripture is quite clear, The Romans verbally abused Yoshka, put a crown of thorns on his head, beat him and spat on him. However, were his features so marred to the point that he was unrecognisable from that of people? I think not Davka( At least not in the Mel Gibson movie.)

        Secondly, ps 110. Oy vey! You don’t speak Hebrew do you?

        NIV Version:
        Psalm 110

        Of David. A psalm.

        1The Lord says to my Lord:

        “Sit at my right hand

        until I make your enemies

        a footstool for your feet.”

        Hebrew translation:
        1. Of David a psalm. The word of the Lord to my master; “Wait for My right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool at your feet.”

        Who is my master in the Psalm? (Hint: its not Yoshka). Of course if it is Yoshka, then he is obviously not part of the trinity as he is sitting separately from it.

        A very clever mistranslation. The Xstian bible is a theological rape scene and often purposefully mistranslates to make a point.

        The mistranslated word is לַאדֹנִי

        Which means “my master”.

        I used to call my teachers at school Adon as a sign of respect. Here it is saying my master.

        The first “Lord” is a translation for the Tetragrammaton and is translated correctly. The second “lord” in NIV is translated incorrectly. It should read master not Lord.

        If you want we can do a full analysis, but I think you get the point. So instead of bombarding me with a whole lot of bible verses let’s debate one at a time. So in that vein, please just stick with Is 53 and how it can possibly apply to Yoshka.

      • Hi Dov,

        Seed as used in this context is physical children. Your verses prove my point. take Is 57:

        3. And you, draw near hither, children of sorcery; children who commit adultery, and played the whore. ג.

        In Hebrew:בְּנֵי עֹנְנָה

        The word Bnei is used i.e. children of sorcery. Zerah is not used until after i.e. the physical seed of adulters, prostitutes etc because they are the physical seed of the ones who had made the transgression. You’re making my point for me.

        Russ

      • Kenneth you are correct in saying that, “Saul was not convinced by his intellect, but by a vision. So, the Tanakh didn’t prove anything to him.”

        At least initially, Saul’s knowledge of the TaNaKh and religious fervor lead him to jump to the wrong conclusion about Y’shua (no doubt he was swayed by the religious leaders of his day). But as we all know, religious leaders are not infallible they are human.

        But later after Saul’s encounter with the risen Moshiach his study under Rabbi Gamilia proved to be a great blessing, in that then the Spirit of the Lord helped Paul connect the dots of things he had learned of the Moshiach in the TaNaKh and the revelation he received of Y’shua both by the Spirit of the Lord and later through discussions with the apostles in Jerusalem.

        God chose Saul (Paul) to bring the good news to both to his own Jewish people and to the gentile nations. His intellect and training were used for the glory of God to write the majority of the New Testament.

      • Dov,

        Second point. I guess Rabbi Akiva nor J fulfilled Is53:7 then. However, you cannot deny that their respective approaches to death were radically different (Dov, be intellectually honest here)

        Russ

      • Alright then Roshka it is.

        Regarding your comment;

        >>>”Secondly, ps 110. Oy vey! You don’t speak Hebrew do you?

        NIV Version:
        Psalm 110

        Of David. A psalm.

        1The Lord says to my Lord:

        “Sit at my right hand

        until I make your enemies

        a footstool for your feet.”

        Hebrew translation:
        1. Of David a psalm. The word of the Lord to my master; “Wait for My right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool at your feet.”

        Who is my master in the Psalm? (Hint: its not Yoshka). Of course if it is Yoshka, then he is obviously not part of the trinity as he is sitting separately from it.

        A very clever mistranslation. The Xstian bible is a theological rape scene and often purposefully mistranslates to make a point.

        The mistranslated word is לַאדֹנִי

        Which means “my master”.”<<<

        Jesus quotes Psalms 110:1-2 written by David the shepherd lad who became the second king of Israel. The proper name of the G-d of Israel in Hebrew is יְהֹוָ then transliterated into English is Yhvh pronounced (yeh-ho-vaw’) sometimes used as Yehovah or Jehovah. Another name for Lord in Hebrew is אֲדֹנָי in English the word is Adonai meaning “my lord” in the singular.

        Yehovah said to my Adonai, “sit at My right hand, until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet.”

        Yehovah said to my Lord, that is Father God said to His Son the Messiah, “sit at My right hand, until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet.”

        The reason King David calls Him “My Lord” is because Messiah is the KING of Kings and the LORD of Lords. Yeshua Ha’Mashiach (Jesus Christ) is the Son of the living God and the promised Messiah.

        The Moshiach is "my master" — Davka

        http://adventofmessiah.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/the-lord-said-to-my-lord/

      • And this relates to Is 53 how?
        So you don’t understand hebrew?
        And your interpretation of Psalm 110 is incorrect.

        http://www.kosherjudaism.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=850 :

        The Psalms provide the Bible with some of its most beautiful poetry, and have been loved by generations of its readers. Psalm 110 in particular is a Psalm that is often cited by the Messianic Jewish-Christian movement as being evidence of the Holy Trinity. But, is this the truth? Does Psalm 110 really provide evidence for the Holy Trinity? An analysis of the verse, and its wording, will shed some light on whether this claim is true.
        The Argument Over The Verse

        The primary argument between Judaism and Messianic Judaism-Christianity is over the first verse of Psalm 110. The verse reads as follows:

        “A Psalm of David. The L-RD saith unto my lord: ‘Sit thou at My right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.’”

        Now, the point of contention between the two groups is over the second “lord.” Both sides agree that the first L-RD, rendered in Hebrew with the Holy Name Y-H-V-H, can only refer to G-d. However, the second “lord” is spelled “A-D-N-Y”, which when referring to a great or powerful person is pronounced “Adoni” and when referring to G-d is generally pronounced “Adonai”. The Rabbis have always understood the correct pronunciation to be “Adoni”, but Messianic Jewish-Christian leaders disagree with this. There is obviously two entities referred to in the sentence, there is no disagreement about this. So, how do we understand the term “lord”/”L-RD”, rendered A-D-N-Y, when it is referring to a second entity interacting with the L-RD, rendered Y-H-V-H? Should it be read “L-RD” and understood as referring to G-d (and support the idea of the Holy Trinity), or “lord” and referring to a human, a non-Divine being (thus not supporting the Holy Trinity)? The best way to know how the Hebrew should be viewed is whether we see similar wording elsewhere in the Bible. For instance, are there other examples where we find “L-RD” (Y-H-V-H) followed by “lord”/”L-RD” (A-D-N-Y) in the Bible? And, if we find these cases, who is the second “lord”/”L-RD” referring to?

        Biblical Use of the Term

        The first questions that we have to ask ourselves regarding the verse from Psalms is whether there is another example when the L-RD (Y-H-V-H) ever talks or interacts with the “lord”/”L-RD” (A-D-N-Y)? The answer is “yes”! When the families of Gilead address Moses regarding their fears of losing land through the marriage of Zelophehad’s daughters, the Bible says in Numbers 36:

        “2: and they said: “‘The L-RD (Y-H-V-H) commanded my lord(A-D-N-Y) to give the land for inheritance by lot to the children of Israel; and my lord(A-D-N-Y) was commanded by the L-RD (Y-H-V-H) to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother unto his daughters.”

        So, here we have an example L-RD (Y-H-V-H) talking to a “lord” (A-D-N-Y), and the second “lord” is Moses. This verse uses similar phrasing to the verse in Psalms. Though Moses was a great man, he certainly was not Divine. When we look through the Bible, we in fact find multiple times when the L-RD (Y-H-V-H) interacts with a “lord” (A-D-N-Y) and the second “lord” is clearly a person. This is not an uncommon occurrence in the Bible. For instance, we see the L-RD blessing a “lord” in the Book of Genesis, as Eliezer says regarding Abraham:

        “35: And the L-RD (Y-H-V-H) hath blessed my lord (A-D-N-Y) greatly; and he is become great; and He hath given him flocks and herds, and silver and gold, and men-servants and maid-servants, and camels and asses.”

        So, here we see that Abraham is a “lord” (to his servant Eliezer) who is being blessed by the L-RD. There is no connotation of the “lord” being anything but Abraham. Like the above verses regarding Moses, there is no possible way to argue that the “lord” (A-D-N-Y) that is interacting with the L-RD (Y-H-V-H) is Divine. In I Samuel 25, verse 30-31, we see another example as Abigail addresses David in the following manner:

        30: And it shall come to pass, when the L-RD (Y-H-V-H) shall have done to my lord(A-D-N-Y) according to all the good that He hath spoken concerning thee, and shall have appointed thee prince over Israel;

        31: that this shall be no stumbling-block unto thee, nor offence of heart unto my lord (A-D-N-Y), either that thou hast shed blood without cause, or that my lord (A-D-N-Y) hath found redress for himself. And when the L-RD (Y-H-V-H) shall have dealt well with my lord (A-D-N-Y), then remember thy handmaid.”

        Similarly, we see the L-RD avenging a “lord”, namely David, in II Samuel 4:”

        8 And they brought the head of Ish-bosheth unto David to Hebron, and said to the king: ‘Behold the head of Ish-bosheth the son of Saul thine enemy, who sought thy life; and the L-RD (Y-H-V-H) hath avenged my lord(A-D-N-Y) the king this day of Saul, and of his seed.’”

        So, the Books of Samuel gives us clear examples with a set of verses, in which the term “lord”, rendered A-D-N-Y, should be understood as a great and powerful human, when interacting with the L-RD, rendered Y-H-V-H. Specifically, for these examples the “lord” (A-D-N-Y) is David.

        This concept is repeated in I Kings, when again David is the second “lord” (A-D-N-Y) next to the L-RD (Y-H-V-H):

        “36: And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada answered the king, and said: ‘Amen; so say the L-RD (Y-H-V-H), the G-d of my lord(A-D-N-Y) the king.

        37: As the L-RD (Y-H-V-H) hath been with my lord(A-D-N-Y) the king, even so be He with Solomon, and make his throne greater than the throne of my lord(A-D-N-Y) King David.’”

        As a final example, we see the L-RD (Y-H-V-H) removing a “lord” (A-D-N-Y) in the II Kings 2, as Elisha learns that Elijah will soon be departing:

        “3: And the sons of the prophets that were at Beth-el came forth to Elisha, and said unto him: ‘Knowest thou that the L-RD (Y-H-V-H) will take away thy lord (A-D-N-Y) from thy head to-day?’ And he said: ‘Yea, I know it; hold ye your peace.’…5: And the sons of the prophets that were at Jericho came near to Elisha, and said unto him: ‘Knowest thou that the L-RD(Y-H-V-H) will take away thy lord (A-D-N-Y) from thy head to-day?’ And he answered: ‘Yea, I know it; hold ye your peace.’”

        Overall, we see that the Bible gives ample examples of the L-RD (Y-H-V-H) speaking and interacting with “lords” (A-D-N-Y), and in every case the “lords” are people. Great people, true, but no more human than you or I. This allows us to understand that Psalm 110 is not referring to G-d, but to some great human, and disproves the use of this verse to support the idea of the Holy Trinity.

        Who Is The Verse Referring To?

        As we can see, the Bible provides ample evidence that when The L-rd (Y-H-V-H) interacts with the “lord” (A-D-N-Y), that we understand it as a human. So, who is “lord” in Psalm 110? In Judaism, there are three thoughts on the subject. The most common is that this is referring to David, who is often referred to in the Bible as “lord” (A-D-N-Y), as we saw in a number of examples above. The term in the Psalm, LeDavid, translated at the top as “of David”, can also mean “regarding David.” Sitting at the “right hand” is used in the Bible as a term of distinction, so it would make sense to see G-d’s beloved David, in a distinguished position at the side of G-d.

        Modified by Drashi:Also included in this verse. Rashi makes a note that Avraham was the first person to be called “Adoni” in the Torah (parshah Chai Sarah), to indicate that “Adoni” is not simply a term for G-d, but for our leaders as well. It is also worthwhile reading the Targum for this verse as well

        Abraham is often called a “lord” (A-D-N-Y) in the Bible; the example I gave with Eliezer is only one of the many times this occurs. A third option is that this is talking about the Messiah, however, every single Rabbi who came to this conclusion did not believe that the Messiah is Divine. All of these Rabbis accepted that the Messiah is a human, and recognize that G-d is clear that G-d is not human, as seen in verses such as Hoshea 11:9 and Numbers 23:19.

      • Roshka regarding your point;

        >>>”53:4. Indeed, he bore our illnesses, and our pains-he carried them, yet we accounted him as plagued, smitten by G-d and oppressed. Smitten by G-d? Nope. Smitten by Jews?? Some say yes some say no… Smitten by Romans, according to the gospels. He fails the test of this verse.”<<<

        Is it not true that God is the King of sovereign the universe? Did He not chasten and correct rebellious Israel by using nations more wicked than her such as Assyria and Babylon? Even though it was Nebuchadnezzar's army that conquered Israel it was God bringing correction and judgement to His people through the Babylonian army.

        Likewise, Moshiach was smitten by both the Jewish temple guards and the Roman soldiers but God was sovereignly working His own prophetic plan through rebellious wicked people so that His righteous Servant the Moshiach could atone for our sins just as Gabriel explained to Daniel that He would in Daniel 9.

        http://adventofmessiah.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/god%E2%80%99s-prophetic-70-weeks/

        By the way Roshka, the Moshiach is at the right hand of His Father in heaven, this does in no way exclude Him from being divine and a part of the triune Elohim.

        http://roshpinaproject.com/2010/04/15/is-the-messiah-divine/

        http://roshpinaproject.com/2010/07/23/%E2%80%9Cthe-lord-our-god-the-lord-is-one-%E2%80%9D/

      • Hi Russ

        I’ll deal with your comments in turn.

        “Seed as used in this context is physical children. Your verses prove my point. take Is 57:

        3. And you, draw near hither, children of sorcery; children who commit adultery, and played the whore. ג.

        In Hebrew:בְּנֵי עֹנְנָה

        The word Bnei is used i.e. children of sorcery. Zerah is not used until after i.e. the physical seed of adulters, prostitutes etc because they are the physical seed of the ones who had made the transgression. You’re making my point for me.”

        It’s possible that they are intended literally but, in the context, it seems that they are metaphorical descriptions of what these people were like i.e. wicked, adulterous, dishonest people. Isaiah 57:5 backs this up, the people Isaiah was addressing are those who inflame themselves among the terebinths and slay children in the valleys.

        “Second point. I guess Rabbi Akiva nor J fulfilled Is53:7 then. However, you cannot deny that their respective approaches to death were radically different (Dov, be intellectually honest here)”

        Sorry not sure what you’re getting at here.

        Oh and finally – did you actually read Gev’s original post?

      • Davka, you’re just being Davka now.

      • PS Russ there’s another contradiction in your argument: given that Isaiah describes his audience in those terms in Isaiah 57, how can Israel be the innocent sinless servant of Isaiah 53?

      • Hi Dove,

        Gev’s original post ends: However the name of Yeshua is not mentioned in Isaiah so does this mean that Isaiah 53 is not about him, that he is not the righteous servant? Well just read Isaiah 53 and tell me who you see because… I see Jesus.

        Well I’ve shown that there are verses that cannot apply to J

        You said: It’s possible that they are intended literally but, in the context, it seems that they are metaphorical descriptions of what these people were like i.e. wicked, adulterous, dishonest people. Isaiah 57:5 backs this up, the people Isaiah was addressing are those who inflame themselves among the terebinths and slay children in the valleys.

        Contextually this not correct Zerah always always always applies to physical seed. But let’s deal specifically with Is 53:10. in a different way:

        It says יִרְאֶה זֶרַע i.e he shall see his seed.

        whenever there is a verb attached to the word זֶרַע in the Torah, the reference is always actual physical descendants from seed. there are a number of examples, but just consider Genesis 38:8.

        זֶרַע
        refers to sperm. It can’t be much clearer. You can twist and turn but you really can’t get away from that. I’m afraid it is very literal. Is 53:10 simply was not fulfilled by J.

        In term of 53:7, it dosn’t aspply to J. He was not a mute when he was killed. Really as simple as that.

        Russ

      • Dov,

        I don’t care who the servant is. I’m just showing it can’t be J.

        Russ

      • Russ you now say “I don’t care who the servant is.”

        Earlier today you said “Is 53 refers to Israel. Isaiah makes reference to the servant a number of times identifying the servant as Israel.”

        Make up your mind!

      • Russ you caqn’t just say

        “You said: It’s possible that they are intended literally but, in the context, it seems that they are metaphorical descriptions of what these people were like i.e. wicked, adulterous, dishonest people. Isaiah 57:5 backs this up, the people Isaiah was addressing are those who inflame themselves among the terebinths and slay children in the valleys.

        Contextually this not correct Zerah always always always applies to physical seed.”

        Contextually it IS correct! Look at the end of 57:4: how are “transgression” and “falsehood” meant to produce physical seed?

      • Dov,

        What are you my mother!

        Read my posts again, the premise is to assume that the servant is not Israel. If you free yourself from this box, it should allow you to see that Is53 is not referencing J. It can be referencing someone else and that is for a another discussion (maybe South Africa’s illustrious Julius Malema), but it is certainly not referenicng J.

        Russ

        Under that assumption, I don’t care if the servant is Ghandi or Gaddafi , i’m just showing it can’t be J.

      • “What are you my mother!”

        Don’t worry I have no physical seed

      • Dov,
        Is 57:4 On whom will you [rely to] enjoy yourselves; against whom do you open your mouth wide; against whom do you stick out your tongue? Are you not children of transgression, seed of falsehood?

        Children of transgression : יִלְדֵי-פֶשַׁע
        Seed of Falsehood: זֶרַע שָׁקֶר

        It is referencing the sins of the parents and using the word זֶרַע

        The reason it is using זֶרַע is because they were physical children of parents that had sinned.

      • Roshka regarding your point;

        >>>”53:10 And the Lord wished to crush him, He made him ill; if his soul makes itself restitution, he shall see children, he shall prolong his days, and G-d’s purpose shall prosper in his hand. He shall see his children?? Yoshka had no children. He fails the test of this verse. Incidently when read in the hebrew it is evident that the children refers to physical children. The word used is :זֶרַע. Did I mention he fails the test of this verse?”<<<

        Roshka admittedly this scripture is somewhat difficult to interpret in that it has many personal pronouns.

        Y-H-V-H will see His offspring (i.e. His Son Y'shua). Y'shua was born of a virgin. Y'shua is God's offspring, Y-H-V-H's Son. Y'shua is Immanuel – God with us. Y'shua is the physical incarnation ie the holy "Seed" of Y-H-V-H.

        10But the LORD was pleased
        To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
        If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
        He will see His offspring,
        He will prolong His days,
        And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.
        Isaiah 53:10 NASB

        10 Yet it was the LORD’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
        and though the LORD makes his life an offering for sin,
        he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
        and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.
        Isaiah 53:10 NIV

        Here is the interpretation;

        10But the Y-H-V-H was pleased
        To crush Y'shua, putting Y'shua to grief;
        If Y'shua would render Himself as a guilt offering,
        Y-H-V-H will see His offspring (i.e. His Son Y'shua),
        Y-H-V-H will prolong Y'shua's days, (Y'shua rose again)
        And the good pleasure of the Y-H-V-H will prosper in His hand.
        Isaiah 53:10 NASB

      • But it is clear from 57:5 that Isaiah is talking about the sins of that generation, not the parents

      • Davka you said:

        Roshka admittedly this scripture is somewhat difficult to interpret in that it has many personal pronouns.

        Not really. We’re right you’re wrong

      • PS Is 53:10 says that the servant will “see” offspring, not “father” offspring, which puts it into a different category from Genesis 38:8

      • Dov,

        Jesus never fathered children so he never saw them. It is still a verb attached to a noun and refers to sperm. Same category. The verse does not refer to J.

      • Roshka regarding your confident comment, “Not really. We’re right you’re wrong”.

        God is always right in His judgement (Psalms 51:4). I am learning day by day line upon line; percept upon precept as His Spirit teaches me.

        1Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?
        2Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God. 3What then? If some did not believe, their unbelief will not nullify the faithfulness of God, will it? 4May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written,
        “THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS,
        AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED.”

        Romans 3:1-4 NASB

      • Bo you said: “Who would I rather believe about Isaiah 53, Jesus or you?” Now I understand the difficulty between him and Jesus. But if you add me the choice is then I am the obvious choice.

      • Russ you are correct in saying Psalms 110:1 “L-RD”, “Both sides agree that the first L-RD, rendered in Hebrew with the Holy Name Y-H-V-H, can only refer to G-d.”

        Russ you wrote: >>>Who Is The Verse Referring To?
        As we can see, the Bible provides ample evidence that when The L-rd (Y-H-V-H) interacts with the “lord” (A-D-N-Y), that we understand it as a human. So, who is “lord” in Psalm 110? In Judaism, there are three thoughts on the subject. The most common is that this is referring to David, who is often referred to in the Bible as “lord” (A-D-N-Y), as we saw in a number of examples above. The term in the Psalm, LeDavid, translated at the top as “of David”, can also mean “regarding David.” Sitting at the “right hand” is used in the Bible as a term of distinction, so it would make sense to see G-d’s beloved David, in a distinguished position at the side of G-d.<<<

        So the question is; “Who is the Verse Referring To?” (Psalms 110:1)

        1. Psalm 110:1 is about David. (Shepherd-Warrior-King of Israel)
        2. Psalm 110:1 is about Avraham (Abraham).
        3. Psalm 110 is about the Moshiach (Messiah).

        Russ of the three options considered by various Rabbis I agree with #3, Psalm 110:1 is David calling the Moshiach “my lord/L-rd” or “my Adoni/Adonai.

        Russ: says, [However, the second “lord” is spelled “A-D-N-Y”, which when referring to a great or powerful person is pronounced “Adoni” and when referring to G-d is generally pronounced “Adonai”.]

        1. If Psalms 110:1 is about the Moshiach, then is he only human?
        2. If Psalms 110:1 is about the Moshiach, then is He divine and human?

        Let’s look at the CONTEXT of Psalms 110 and also COMPARE with other Messianic Psalms.

        Russ, Psalms 110 is clearly David writing about the Moshiach, let me explain.

        David wrote Psalm 110, but he is not writing about himself, but instead he is clearly writing about the Moshiach who was to come; who David calls “my L-RD”, “my Adonai”.

        In verse 4 David talks about an eternal priest, who is this eternal priest? It is certainly not David talking about himself. It is not the L-rd (Y-H-V-H) telling David, “You are a priest forever
        According to the order of Melchizedek.” It is the L-rd (Y-H-V-H) telling His Son the Moshiach, “You are a priest forever
        According to the order of Melchizedek.”

        4The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind,
        “You are a priest forever
        According to the order of Melchizedek.”

        King David is not an eternal priest of the order of Melchizedek, but the Moshiach is an eternal Priest of the order of Melchizedek.

        Here is NT commentary on Psalms 110 from the book of Hebrews;

        9And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes,
        10for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
        11Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?
        12For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.
        13For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar.
        14For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.
        15And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek,
        16who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life.
        17For it is attested of Him,
        “YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER
        ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.”
        18For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness
        19(for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.
        20And inasmuch as it was not without an oath
        21(for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,
        “THE LORD HAS SWORN
        AND WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND,
        ‘YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER’”);
        22so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. Hebrews 7:9-22 NASB

        Going back to Psalms 110;

        5The Lord is at Your right hand;
        He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath.
        6He will judge among the nations,

        The Moshiach is seated at the right hand of His Father, the Moshiach “will shatter kings in the day of His wrath. He will judge among the nations” when He returns.

        In Psalms 2 we read about the Moshiach who is given “the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession.
        ‘You shall break them with a rod of iron…

        Psalms 2 is also talking about the Lord’s Anointed (Moshiach) who is the Son of God, who will rule the nations with a rod of iron.

        1Why are the nations in an uproar
        And the peoples devising a vain thing?
        2The kings of the earth take their stand
        And the rulers take counsel together
        Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,
        3″Let us tear their fetters apart
        And cast away their cords from us!”
        4He who sits in the heavens laughs,
        The Lord scoffs at them.
        5Then He will speak to them in His anger
        And terrify them in His fury, saying,
        6″But as for Me, I have installed My King
        Upon Zion, My holy mountain.”
        7″I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD:
        He said to Me, ‘You are My Son,
        Today I have begotten You.
        8′Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance,
        And the very ends of the earth as Your possession.
        9′You shall break them with a rod of iron,
        You shall shatter them like earthenware.’”
        Psalms 2 NASB

        Yeshua the Moshiach Himself, confirms that Psalms 110 is about the Moshiach.

        Russ in a debate with the Pharisees (perhaps some of your ancestors) Yeshua quoted Psalms 110:1 and indicates the Psalm is about the son of David – the Moshiach; Psalm 110:1 is talking about Yeshua the one who is talking. So, Yeshua the Moshiach is giving commentary about Psalm 110.

        41Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question:
        42″What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?” They said to Him, “The son of David.”
        43He said to them, “Then how does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying,
        44′THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,
        “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
        UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET”‘?
        45″If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his son?”
        Matthew 22:41-45 NASB

        Yeshua asks the Pharisees; “If David then calls the Moshiach, ‘Lord’ how is the Moshiach David’s son?”

        In the Greek; 2962. Kurios – lord, master, sir; the Lord.
        In verse 44 L-RD (Y-H-V-H) is translated, kurios L-RD.
        In verse 44 “my L-RD” (“my Adonai”) is translated, kurios – L-RD.
        In verse 45 call Him ‘Lord’ is translated, kurios – L-RD.

        http://roshpinaproject.com/2010/05/13/the-lord-said-to-my-lord/

        http://roshpinaproject.com/2010/12/21/is-the-messiah-divine-2/

      • DC You write too much.

        Your interpretation of Ps110 is wrong. You can add another 50 passages from the NT and you will still be wrong. The NT is not an accurate text no matter how you try and manipulate it.

        Also, you don’t understand Hebrew and the text was written in Hebrew. Secondly your sources have all mistranslated the verse. So 100 mistranslated sources are still mistranslated.

        Furthermore, your reference to Melchizedek is just plain rubbish. Your claim is not relevant to me or any other Jew. We follow Mosaic Law. Our priests are the descendants of Aaron.

      • Russ says, “Furthermore, your reference to Melchizedek is just plain rubbish. Your claim is not relevant to me or any other Jew. We follow Mosaic Law. Our priests are the descendants of Aaron.”

        Russ I am quoting Psalm 110:4
        4The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind,
        “You are a priest forever
        According to the order of Melchizedek.”
        NASB

        Why do say, “your reference to Melchizedek is just plain rubbish.”?

        Are you saying what King David wrote in Psalm 110:4 is rubbish?
        Are you saying what the L-RD said, “You are a priest forever According to the order of Melchizedek.” that this is rubbish?

        What is rubbish?

        Russ said, “We follow Mosaic Law. Our priests are the descendants of Aaron.”

        Russ I am well aware of this, this is actually my point.

        You said the Jewish position on Psalms 110:1 is that “my lord” is a reference to either, David, Abraham or the Moshiach.

        So let’s consider each in light of Psalms 110:4

        Psalm 110:4
        4The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind,
        “You (David) are a priest forever
        According to the order of Melchizedek.”

        Q: Is King David a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek?
        A: No.

        Psalm 110:4
        4The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind,
        “You (Abraham) are a priest forever
        According to the order of Melchizedek.”

        Q: Is Abraham a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek?
        A: No, Abraham paid tithes to Melchizedek (Genesis 14:18-20 NASB)

        18And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High.
        19He blessed him and said,
        “Blessed be Abram of God Most High,
        Possessor of heaven and earth;
        20And blessed be God Most High,
        Who has delivered your enemies into your hand.”
        He gave him a tenth of all.

        Psalm 110:4
        4The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind,
        “You (Moshiach) are a priest forever
        According to the order of Melchizedek.”

        Q: Is Moshiach a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek?
        A: YES! (Hebrew 7:17 NASB)

        For it is attested of Him, “YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.”

      • DC Said:Is Moshiach a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek?

        DC what’s the matter with you. Seriously!

        Moshiach is from the order of a gentile priest??

      • http://www.kosherjudaism.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=758:

        Could Jsus have been a priest like Melchitzedek?

        This one comes from the GT trying to explain that Jsus was a priest AND a king (thus he could sacrifice himself) and it misuses the term “melchi” (king) and “tzedek” (righteous) to somehow prove this.

        I have news for the authors of the Greek Text.

        J-sus was never a King.

        And the idea of a “priestly king” is not found in the Hebrew bible. Xians get this idea by trying to morph the concept of a righteous king (melchi-tzedek) into somehow being a priest king. They do this by stitching together the non-Jewish priest / king of Salem in Genesis with the fact that King David is called a melchi-tzedek (righteous king) in Psalms

        The only problem is David wasn’t a priest.

        Neither was J-sus by the way.

        So three strikes in this argument for Dr. Brown.

        1. J-sus didn’t bring peace

        2. J-sus wasn’t a king

        3. J-sus wasn’t a priest

        Brown dredges up the Melchi-tzedek connection on the same page. He says:
        “Acccording to Psalm 110:4 the L-rd made an emphatic oath that the Davidic king of Jerusalem was to be a priest forever the order of Melchitzedek.”

        Oy vey — I thought Brown was well versed in Hebrew even if he wasn’t an educated Jew. Based on this I have my doubts.

        First let’s revisit Genesis wich refers to the King of Salem as melchi-tzedek (a righteous king). The King of Salem was a priest. The GT says that Abraham made tithes to the King of Salem so this somehow makes his priesthood holier than the Jewish priesthood of Aaron.

        But is the GT right?

        Of course not.

        It wasn’t Abraham who tithed to the priest / king but Abram. This is not a minor point — Abram did not yet have a covenant with G-d!
        Genesis 14:18 -14:16 [Abram]. . .17 returned from his victory . .14:18 Malkhi-tzedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine. He was a priest to G-d, the Most High. 14:19 He blessed [Abram], and said, ‘Blessed be Abram to G-d Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth. 14:20 And blessed be G-d Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand.’ [Abram then] gave him a tenth of everything.

        So the King of Salem (Melchitzedek) brought gifts to Abram (not Abraham). Abram in turn gave him a tithe. All of this is PRE-covenant.

        Could the King of Salem’s priesthood “trump” the Jewish priesthood? Nope. The King of Salem was:

        a) not a Jew (G-d made a covenant with Abraham not with him)
        b) not a Jewish priest (since he wasn’t a Jew)
        c) not a Jewish king (since he wasn’t a Jew).

        The King of Salem was a righteous king (melchi = king and tzedek = righteous) who happened to be a priest (but not a Jewish one).

        His priesthood pre-dated the covenant with Abraham and pre-dated the Aaronic priesthood which G-d tells us is ETERNAL.

        If J-sus was a priest like the King of Salem his priesthood was not Jewish and ergo he was not a Jewish messiah.

        Now let’s move back to Psalm 110:4.

        King David is also referred to as a righteous king in the Psalms and he definitely wasn’t a priest — so you have some wrong thoughts here.

        This is not what Psalm 110 line 4 says. Not even close.

        Psalm 110:4 is not about the messiah, it is about King David. Browns assertion that it is about a priest king is wrong, and speaking Hebrew he should no better. Here is what the pertinent Hebrew words have to say:
        “You shall be a kohein forever because you are a righteous (tzedek) king (melchi).”

        Now what does this mean? The psalm is speaking of King David and saying he was a righteous king (which he was). Was David a priest?

        No. He was not. After all, the eternal priesthood was given to the descendents of Aaron of the tribe of Levi. So what you have here is a mistranslation.

        Does kohein have another meaning in the Tanach besides “priest”? Yep, it sure does! It is used to speak of rulers (which, as King, David was). And even the KJV translates it as rulers, not priests elsewhere:
        II Samuel 8:18(KJV) – And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over both the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and David’s sons were chief rulers

        Yep. The word the KJV translated as “chief rulers” was koheinim — the same word as in Psalm 110:4.

        Jsus was never a priest or a king, let alone one like the King of Salem. The Psalm is speaking of King David and calling him a ruler (which he was) and a mighty king (which he was).

      • Russ says, >>>“And the idea of a “priestly king” is not found in the Hebrew bible. Xians get this idea by trying to morph the concept of a righteous king (melchi-tzedek) into somehow being a priest king. They do this by stitching together the non-Jewish priest / king of Salem in Genesis with the fact that King David is called a melchi-tzedek (righteous king) in Psalms
        The only problem is David wasn’t a priest.”<<<

        Russ, I have wondered about the mysterious Melchaideck the priest and king whom Abraham paid tithes to in the book of Genesis.

        17 After Abram returned from defeating Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him, the king of Sodom came out to meet him in the Valley of Shaveh (that is, the King’s Valley). 18 Then Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine.

        He was priest of God Most High, 19 and he blessed Abram, saying,

        “Blessed be Abram by God Most High,
        Creator of heaven and earth.

        20 And blessed be God Most High,
        who delivered your enemies into your hand.”
        Then Abram gave him a tenth of everything.

        Genesis 14:17-20 NIV

        Is Melchizedek a priest and king who foreshadows Yeshua ha’Moschiah or was he a pre-incarnate visitation of Yeshua ha’Mashiach?

        Melchizedek (from Hebrew melech-i-tzédek, means “King of righteousness”) who certainly is an enigmatic person listed in the Torah. Melchizedek is the King of righteousness and the King of Peace. Moses does not tell us who is his father or mother, nor his genealogy. We are not told of his birth or his death, he has no beginning or ending. Who is this righteous King who is greater than Abram? He is a conundrum for those who study the scriptures, Melchizedek either foreshadows the Messiah or is a pre-incarnate appearance of Messiah at a strategic time in the embryonic phase of the birth of the Jewish people.

        Moses writes of Melchizedek in the Torah in Genesis chapter 14. Melchizedek is mentioned as the King of Salem, and priest of God Most High (YHWH, El-Elyon), in the time of the biblical patriarch Abram. This King of righteousness who also is King of Salem and a priest of YHWH, El-Elyon who brought out bread and wine, blessed Abram, then Abram gave Melchizedek tithes of all the spoils of battle he had acquired.

        King David writes both poetically and prophetically of Moshiach in Psalms 110.

        4The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind,
        “You are a priest forever
        According to the order of Melchizedek.”

        Psalms 110:4 NASB

        Russ you are correct in saying that David wasn’t a priest, at least not according to the order of Aaron. David was not a part of the kohanim who are descendants of Aaron who were chosen by God, (But God did chose a Kohein from the order of Melkesidek who is a Prophet, Priest and King; His Son Yeshua, who is the promised “Seed” of Abraham – the Moshiach! The son of David is not from Levi, but is from the tribe of Judah.)

        http://roshpinaproject.com/2010/08/08/messiah-a-priest-king-warrior-and-judge/

      • ROTFL. DC there is no doubt that you’re one of the strangest people I’ve corresponded with. You’re steadfast in your stubborness, your argument is full of holes. Your translation is incorrect but you are good for a laugh. I’ll give you that.

        BTW I think you can find Melchizedek’s genealogy somewhere in Chagiga. Let me know when you find it.

      • Russ your interpretation of Psalm 110:1 is it is written by King David; and that David writes:

        1The LORD says to my Lord:
        “Sit at My right hand
        Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”

        Yehovah said to my Adoni, “sit at My right hand, until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet.”

        Russ your interpretation is that Adoni (Lord) is King David.

        Yehovah said to my Lord King David, “sit at My right hand, until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet.”

        Russ so you think that David writes that King David is David’s (“my”) Lord?

        Adoni/Adonai

        If this is Lord-Adoni then David is writing of himself in the third person. If this were the correct interpretation why didn’t David just write “Yehovah said to me…”?

        Since David is the author of the Psalm this makes no sense.

        Adoni/Adonai

        If this is Lord-Adonai then David is writing of himself in the third person as a god. Russ think about this interpretation, this would be like the Pharaohs (kings) of Egypt who believed they were god. Or like one of the Roman Caesars who believed they were gods.

        Oy vey!?!

      • DC, ı’m headıng to bed. What’s the very fırst lıne of the psalm? Don’t bomb me wıth verses. Just gıve me the fırst lıne. I’ll read your post tom. Have a good one. Russ

      • Russ King David is not an eternal priest of the order of Melchizedek. Since David is not an eternal priest of the order of Melchizedek then you are saying that Y-H-V-H has made an oath that was false. Therefore (ergo), by your false interpretation you are saying that TaNaKh is not trustworthy.

        4The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind,
        “You are a priest forever
        According to the order of Melchizedek.”

        Psalms 110:4 NASB

      • Davıd, ı’m gonna guess that you’re on medıcatıon

      • Russ regarding your comment, “Davıd, ı’m gonna guess that you’re on medıcatıon”

        Strategy #1: Attack the message and if that doesn’t work attack the messenger.

        Russ this seems to be your M.O., thus the comment you made above and this one, “ROTFL. DC there is no doubt that you’re one of the strangest people I’ve corresponded with. You’re steadfast in your stubborness, your argument is full of holes. Your translation is incorrect but you are good for a laugh. I’ll give you that. ”

        “According to Psalm 110:4 the L-rd made an emphatic oath that the Davidic king of Jerusalem was to be a priest forever of the order of Melchitzedek.” Dr. Brown

        Or here is your shot at Dr. Brown because he disagrees with you; “Oy vey — I thought Brown was well versed in Hebrew even if he wasn’t an educated Jew. Based on this I have my doubts.”

        Russ I have not read what Dr. Brown has written on this subject (although I would like to) but I agree with his quote Dr. Brown states in that he draws this conclusion from what David wrote in Psalms 110 and wrote Moses wrote in Genesis 14.

        Strategy #2: Do the rabbinic dance. Russ you do a nice “rabbinic dance” (are you a rabbi?) by dancing around the real issue at hand and then attempting to explain why the scripture doesn’t mean what it says because of some minutia in the Hebrew grammar, or do major changes to the text if necessary.

        Psalm 110:4 NASB
        4The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind,
        “You are a priest forever
        According to the order of Melchizedek.”

        Psalm 110:4 Russ mistranslation.
        “You shall be a kohein forever
        because you are a righteous king.”

        Russ your mistranslation has a few problems, for one you changed the tense of verb from “are” to “shall be” and conveniently left out “According to the order of”, which among other things ignores the context of Psalms 110 not to mention what we know to be true in Torah from what Moses wrote in Genesis 14 about the Priest-King Melchizedek.

        18And Melchizedek king of Salem brought out bread and wine; now he was a priest of God Most High. Genesis 14:18 NASB

        Russ states, >>>Psalm 110:4 is not about the messiah, it is about King David. Browns assertion that it is about a priest king is wrong, and speaking Hebrew he should no better. Here is what the pertinent Hebrew words have to say: “You shall be a kohein forever because you are a righteous (tzedek) king (melchi).”<<<

        Strategy #3: Only the Jewish rabbis can interpret TaNaKh. Only the Jewish rabbi who are experts in Hebrew can accurately interpret the TaNaKh they are G-d’s stewards of scriptural truth; infallibility of the rabbi. Of course this is the same strategy used by the Roman Catholic Church at the Vatican. Only the Pope and Roman Catholic Priests who are experts in Latin, Greek and Hebrew can accurately interpret the Bible they are God’s stewards of scriptural truth; infallibility of the Pope.

        Russ says, "Your translation is incorrect but you are good for a laugh. I’ll give you that."

        Yes Russ, because it violates the first rule of interpretation for the educated Jewish rabbi, "it can't be about Yeshua, so who else could we dream up." The second rule of interpretation; seems to be it is clearly about Yeshau the Moshiach then "Let's figure out a creative way to make it say what we want it to say."

        But this is no better that the educated atheistic professors with numerous degree I had at the university who mock at those who trust in God and believe in His existence. They had some of the right facts but end up with the wrong conclusion because of their false presupposition namely God doesn't exist. Apart from the grace of God they will grope in darkness until the day they die.

        Russ you begin with the biased assumption that Psalm 110 is not about Moshiach because this Psalm is mentioned by Yeshua, the apostles and in the writings of the New Covenant authors therefore it must be false. Russ apart from the grace of God, you will remain blinded to the fact that Moshiah has already come, atoned for sin, and was "cut off" before the destruction of the Jerusalem and the Temple just like Gabriel said He would in Daniel 9:24-26.

        Classic strategy Russ, when are going to wake up?

      • David,

        I do find liaising with you frustrating and do apologise for attacking you. At the end of the day, we are going to disagree on this Psalm. We can examine it verse by verse if you want and see what we come up with? Perhaps start another thread on Psalm 110??

        So this is the first line:
        לְדָוִד, מִזְמוֹר
        נְאֻם יְהוָה, לַאדֹנִי–שֵׁב לִימִינִי; עַד-אָשִׁית אֹיְבֶיךָ, הֲדֹם לְרַגְלֶיךָ.

        What is your comment on 110:1. Please stick to this verse we’ll work up to 110:4 etc later.

      • Russ your comment, “David, I do find liaising with you frustrating and do apologise for attacking you. At the end of the day, we are going to disagree on this Psalm. We can examine it verse by verse if you want and see what we come up with? Perhaps start another thread on Psalm 110??”

        Russ apology accepted. I think your idea of starting a new thread on Psalm 110 is a good one. There may already be articles on RPP we could move to or I will email Joseph and ask him if we can start a new one.

        Russ said,

        “So this is the first line:
        לְדָוִד, מִזְמוֹר
        נְאֻם יְהוָה, לַאדֹנִי–שֵׁב לִימִינִי; עַד-אָשִׁית אֹיְבֶיךָ, הֲדֹם לְרַגְלֶיךָ.

        What is your comment on 110:1. Please stick to this verse we’ll work up to 110:4 etc later.”

        Ok Russ here is verse 1 of Psalms 110.

        (Of Dovid, Mizmor).
        Y-H-V-H said to my Adonai:
        “Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet.”
        Psalm 110:1 HSV

    • Hi Hannah,
      Hope you’ve had a good day and that those tax returns haven’t been too dull (I teach a bit of tax law so I’m allowed to say that )

      I don’t think there’s any point in me going through Gev’s argument with you – it seems clear enough to me but I guess it could be a bit technical if you’re not familiar with Isaiah 53 and the arguments about it. All I’d say to you is:

      of whom does that chapter speak?

      Reply ↓

27. “Bo, you misunderstand. Being Jewish is not a genetic distinction but a legal (Biblical/Rabbinic) one. The Bible (and pre-rabbinic Judaism) did not consider a Jew who abandoned Torah observance and followed another religion as being ‘Jewish’.”

    OY, Moyshe, Moyshe,

    By the same token then, a Goy who observes Torah and follows the Jewish religion is a Jew?…..

    Reply ↓

    • A goy is forbidden to keep the Torah unless they have formally joined the Jewish nation. Legally that is called ‘impersonation’.

      BTW you have never answered me on your language skills of Hebrew or Yiddish. I will assume my opinion is confirmed. Shitah k’hodoyah

      Reply ↓

      • “A goy is forbidden to keep the Torah unless they have formally joined the Jewish nation.”

        According to who? You? The tanach does not mandates this…

        Jewish, Yiddish…? What are you talking about?

      • Dan there are numerous instances where non-Jews are not made to stop idolatry (the book of Jonah is a real good example) Were there a requirement that is where it would have been stated.

        As to my second issue see in this thread:
        http://roshpinaproject.com/2011/03/08/the-mishechist-movement-in-poland-1940/

        I referred to two places where you used Hebrew and Yiddish, both of which were unintelligible.

28. “But he (ISRAEL) was pierced for our (US GOYIM) transgressions, he (ISRAEL)was crushed for our (US GOYIM) iniquities; the punishment that brought us (GOYIM) peace was upon him (ISRAEL), and by his (ISRAEL) wounds we (GOYIM) are healed” Isaiah 53:5.

    Don’t you all see? God was using Isaiah as a spokesman for the goyim.

    Right!

    Reply ↓

29. Dov you said: “PS Is 53:10 says that the servant will “see” offspring, not “father” offspring, which puts it into a different category from Genesis 38:8″

    I would advise you not to speak about a language you do not know.

    Reply ↓

    • Thanks MOshe, please could you explain to me how the Hebrew word “yareh” (yud-resh-aleph-heh as in Is. 53:10) means “to father”?

      Reply ↓

      • As I said, you seem to not know the language. Let me approach it another way:

        What does ‘zerah’ mean?

      • I know what it means, what’s your point?

        PS No need to patronise me, we all know you’re too good to rely on the same tactics as Anonymous

      • Dov, my point is not to patronize, but to force you to realize that you do not know Hebrew, and to argue with one who does, and try to make ‘points’ that way is a problem.

        The point I am making here is simple. Hebrew is not English. yirah zerah has a very simple meaning, it means the this person will live to see physical descendants. It is that simple. I do not recall a single example where the word ‘to father a child’ occurs. (I doubt you want to know what is literally being said in some of those expression you think are saying that.) To’father a child’ is English. Abraham is told of zerah from his loins. Other similar expressions are used. (In one place a women is said to have seed as a verb.) I can only say that a reader who is used to reading Tenach in Hebrew would immediately know what it means.

      • Moshe where else does “yireh zerah” appear in the Tanakh?

      • Ahhh. I see the point Gevr.Of course jeebers is not mentioned in the Torah at all.

      • Moshe I know you’re busy but could you please answer Gev’s question when you have a mo?

      • It appears only once. But that has little relevance. The usage of zerah as physical descendants involves all the cases of it’s use with regards to human beings (as opposed to seeds, either vegetable or human.) The number of examples are so many as to make it a joke to deny. Just look at Leviticus 22:13 referring to a women has has not had physical children.

30. Dov

    “MOshe Is. 53:9 says the servant had done no violence and there was no deceit in his mouth.”

    As to this particular suffering Israel (the nation) was sinless.

    “Is. 57:4-5 makes it clear that this cannot be a reference to Israel.:

    why?

    Reply ↓

31. cos Is. 57:4-5 clearly show Israel doing violence and lying!

    Reply ↓

    • Dov:

      This can be easily explained. In Tanach when the prophet speaks of Israel, he admonishes them so that they will improve.

      When the evil person speaks of Israel, he praises them, because that is how they are, relative to himself. You will find this all over. For a good example, see Numbers 23:23 where G-d throught Bilaam says that G-d saw no evil in Israel, even though Moses was complaining of them all the time!

      Also see Tzephania 3:13 which says quite explicitly that the remnant of the Jewish people are not deceitful.

      Reply ↓

      • BUt did Israel improve as a result of Isaiah’s admonitions? No – they were exiled!

      • Actually we do not know about what the results were. That is not important. We do know that the main king then, Hezekiah was righteous. Also later king Josiah let a general repentance of the people of Judah. But the decree for exile had already been sealed at that time.

        As I said before, you have a serious lack of understanding what the prophetic books are for, and why these ones we have have been handed down to us to learn. I can tell you one thing, they are not for history, either of the events or of the spiritual status of the people.

    • Dov, good question. It is unfortunate that you have been taught Tenach by non-Jews, who not only misunderstand what is said, but have no idea of the purpose of it.

      I want you to look at verse 1 there. There are obviously righteous people in Israel. Do you think those verses refer to Isaiah? Of course not. Look at what Bilaam said about Israel in Numbers 23:21. This is G-d’s view of Israel.

      Reply ↓

      • Moshe the righteous people of 57:1 are Spared from evil. The servant of Isaiah 53 clearly isn’t spared from evil, so what’s your point? you really are tying yourself in knots here!

      • David not righteous ‘people’, only one of them. Many let over, like Isaiah. You seem to have ignored all the passages I pointed to.

32. Don’t ask a Jew what Is. 53 means, ask a Goy, for it’s the latter – according to the majority Jewish view – who is asking (the Jew?) “Who has believed our report” (verse 1).

    Reply ↓

    • Actually Bo, the exact opposite is the truth. The books of the Tenach were not meant for gentiles. It is nice that you find some spiritual solace in them, but they were not for you. That is why you don’t comprehend what they are saying.

      Unless you can give a good reason why it is that we have the words of reproach of Isaiah to Judah and not those of Elijah to Achav (who was many times worse) you really have no idea what is going on.

      Reply ↓

      • Moshe, who is this?

        “But he (ISRAEL) was pierced for our (WHO IS THIS?) transgressions, he (ISRAEL)was crushed for our (WHO IS THIS?) iniquities; the punishment that brought us (WHO IS THIS?) peace was upon him (ISRAEL), and by his (ISRAEL) wounds we (WHO IS THIS?) are healed” Isaiah 53:5.

      • Moshe, I’m a gentle, not a gentile, Jew. Also, I am one with the gentile who believes the Gospel.

      • bography,

        >>>“But he (ISRAEL) was pierced for our (WHO IS THIS?) transgressions, he (ISRAEL)was crushed for our (WHO IS THIS?) iniquities; the punishment that brought us (WHO IS THIS?) peace was upon him (ISRAEL), and by his (ISRAEL) wounds we (WHO IS THIS?) are healed” Isaiah 53:5.<<<

        Raphybog these are healing words for my mind. This is a great insight!!

        The Righteous Servant cannot be Israel since this makes zero sense to write that;

        But ISRAEL was pierced for ISRAEL'S transgressions, ISRAEL was crushed for ISRAEL'S iniquities; the punishment that brought ISRAEL'S peace was upon ISRAEL, and by ISRAEL'S wounds ISRAEL is healed. Isaiah 53:5

        But Y'shua was pierced for ISRAEL'S transgressions, Y'shua was crushed for ISRAEL'S iniquities; the punishment that brought ISRAEL'S peace was upon Y'shua, and by Y'shua's wounds ISRAEL is healed. Isaiah 53:5

        It does make sense and is theologically correct to interpret that Y'shua is the righteous servant Isaiah prophesied about in chapter 53. This agrees with what is written in Daniel chapter 9:24-26 that the Moshiach would atone for iniquities and be "cut off" (executed).

      • Bo your translation is problematic, as it losses the nuance of the Hebrew. In English it is better to translate it as ‘by our’ and not ‘for our’. Israel suffers because of the sinfulness of the nations.

      • David, just want to understand what you believe here. You believe that according to Isaiah 53 the Messiah suffers so that Israel can have atonement? But since we only know about Israel and NOT the gentiles, they all go to hell since there is pre-ordination?

33. I don’t think Isaiah 53:10 says he will offer himself as a guilt offering or that his soul will offer itself as a guilt offering, but “if his soul will make a guilt offering, he will see a seed, he will lengthen days…” Hezekiah cried (guilt offering) when he was told he would die and then he was given an extra 15 years to live, during which his son Menasseh was born (he ruled at 12). There are many more details that fit Hezekiah. He did not let his servants answer the Assyrians when they surrounded Jerusalem. (He did not open his mouth from oppression.) He had a disease (a boil) (accquainted with illness) (if it actually says this.) He interceded for the people a few times. He was hated and mocked by some of the people if you read 2 Chronicles. There are many more details on my site http://www.messianicmistakes.com/

    Instead of saying he will divide a spoil because he bared his soul to death and was counted among sinners, it could say he will divide a spoil instead of who bared his soul to death and was counted with sinners. The Assyrians died (killed by an angel) and were counted ( 185,000). There are many more details.

    Kenneth Greifer
    http://www.messianicmistakes.com/

    Reply ↓

34. Why is my comment awaiting moderation? It used to always go right through?

    Reply ↓

35. Pingback: Isaiah 53 – I see Jesus (eisegesis) or exegesis – who is the suffering servant? | Isaiah 53

36. Moshe,

    Thank you for confirmomg my point. there is no mention in the Tanach that a Goy who wants to observe Torah has to become a Jew. This is later rabbinical crap.

    עבד כי ימלוך means: a slave becomes a king. (I am surprised you don’t get it…) Anonymous id a goy who converted to Judaism and now want to be more Jewish than a Jew….Hope this helps.

    Reply ↓

    • Dan, you are very interesting. A non-Jew is forbidden to bring the Pesach offering and that is explicit. All the commandments (or most of them) say command the the children of Israel. In fact, Shabbos is explicitly a covenant between HaShem and Israel – not goyim. I coudl go on, but I doubt you haev an interest in truth.

      As “עבד כי ימלוך means: a slave becomes a king.” that is just not true. yimloch is a verb and not a noun. A closer translation would be: “a slave if he will rule”. It is a meaningless phrase.

      Reply ↓

    • I noticed you ignore my comment about your made up Yiddish words. oyb di miynst az di kanst upnarin avelt bist di a shotah.

      Reply ↓

      • Made up Yiddish words? I guess for you Moshe Tzadreite kop is Indonesian, right?

      • Di fershteist nisht yiddish mare fun loshen kodesh. Vamen zichst di tze foppin. Bist di azon minival. Vios is the teitch fun tzedreit, oyb di viyst.

37. Moshe your
    “Bo your translation is problematic, as it losses the nuance of the Hebrew. In English it is better to translate it as ‘by our’ and not ‘for our’. Israel suffers because of the sinfulness of the nations.”

    I wrote:

    But he (ISRAEL) was pierced for our (WHO IS THIS?) transgressions, he (ISRAEL)was crushed for our (WHO IS THIS?) iniquities; the punishment that brought us (WHO IS THIS?) peace was upon him (ISRAEL), and by his (ISRAEL) wounds we (WHO IS THIS?) are healed” Isaiah 53:5.

    Let us replace my “for” with your “by”

    But he (ISRAEL) was pierced BY our (WHO IS THIS?) transgressions, he (ISRAEL)was crushed BY our (WHO IS THIS?) iniquities; the punishment that brought us (WHO IS THIS?) peace was upon him (ISRAEL), and by his (ISRAEL) wounds we (WHO IS THIS?) are healed” Isaiah 53:5.

    The question remains? WHO IS THIS?

    Mechon-Mamre translates:
    5 But he was wounded BECAUSE OF our transgressions, he was crushed BECAUSE OF our iniquities: the chastisement of our welfare was upon him, and with his (ISRAEL) stripes we (WHO IS THIS) were healed.

    The identity CHrisis remains.

    Reply ↓

    • Bo, not at all! For example, the “our” – nations of the world – is nearly 1/3 Christian. Roughly one third of the world is Christian, with 1.3 billion Muslims believing, as Christians do, that Jesus will return before the end times. So, 3.5 billion people worldwide believe that Jesus will return; that’s over 58% expecting him to return, so there’s no reason for them to be in any state of shock. Straight up, by virtue of numbers, Jesus can’t be it.

      Mechon Mamre uses the old JPS, which is just an edited form of the RV and ASV, and therefore can’t be held as an authoritative Jewish translation.

      Reply ↓

      • Michael, so do you agree that the “our” in Isaiah 53 are Gentiles?

    • The ones who by causing suffering to Israel have sinned are the nations. Do I really need to start quoting verses where HaShem calls the nations sinful for making Israel to suffer?

      BTW the servant is not innocent either. That is why he brings an asham. An innocent person can’t bring an asham.

      Reply ↓

    • He was pierced for our transgressions, He was crushed by our iniquities is speaking of The Moshiach who came before the destruction of the second Temple and made atonement for iniquity and “removed the iniquity of that land in one day. Yeshau the Moshiach brought in everlasting righteousness, He is ‘The LORD our righteousness.’!

      Isaiah 53:5, Daniel 9:24-25, Jeremiah 23:5, Zechariah 3:8-9, Psalms 118:21-26, Isaiah 42:1-7

      Reply ↓

      • Still using your rolodex?? Are you capable of engaging in a serious discussion with someone who disagrees with you and raises points that disagree with you?

      • Yes Moshe I can. My comment above is a short paragraph. With quotes and references from four prophets and the Psalms. My point above is to show that throughout the TaNaKh Moshiach is the One who was to come and atone for sins and bring in everlasting righteousness and He Himself is “The LORD our righteousness.” This is one and the same as the Righteous Servant in Isaiah.

      • David, my point is that you ignored what I said. The servant of Isaiah 53 is not sinless. He could not BRING an asham (usually translated as a guilt offering) unless he had sinned.

38. Just wanted to say (I know its not appopriate in this blog but was really excited when I heard) Baruch Hashem that Bin Laden (Yemach Shemo) is dead.

    Reply ↓

    • Heaven’s justice has been served upon an evil man.

      Reply ↓

    • Russ, only Osama Bin Laden’s body’s dead.

      Be not afraid of those killing the body, and are not able to kill the soul, but fear rather Him who is able both soul and body to destroy in gehenna. (Matthew10:28).

      (“Destroy” here does not mean :annihilate”).

      Which brings us back on topic – very much so.

      Reply ↓

39. Nice Touch, Raphael

    I find it encouraged though that from your point of view that you think Is 53 has an “identity crisis.”

    You didn’t put on your Tefillin this morning did you?

    Reply ↓

    • encouraged = encouraging (I got a C+ for English) Whoops

      Reply ↓

40. Pingback: Isaiah 53 and the identity Chrisis of the suffering servant « OneDaringJew

41. Here is a bit more on my identity crisis.

    Moshe Shulman’s focus is on prepositions, mine is on pronouns, namely, who is who in “And he was pierced by (Moshe)/for our transgressions?” Who is who is indeed the main issue, is it not? The crisis, therefore, remains. In my book, and David Cook’s book, the Chrisis is the Messias. Whether the Messias is Y’shua, well, I don’t need to go there – for now, because what I have tried to show is not that “he” must refer to Y’shua, but that “he” can not refer to Israel. C’mon Moshe, give in; “he” is haMashiach, if not for salvation’s sake, at least for grammar’s sake.

    Raphael Grammargroff

    End of http://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/isaiah-53-and-the-identity-chrisis-of-the-suffering-servant/

    Reply ↓

    • Unfortunately for you, in neither the chapters which provide context (40-66) or in the rest of Isaiah do we find a suffering/dying/atoning messiah.

      However there is an explicit passage in Tenach which mirrors this one as to the suffering of Israel and their exaltation in this exile. Do you know which one?

      Reply ↓

    • Bography,

      I know I am not as educated as Moshe, but maybe you will consider my explanation of how Isaiah 53 could be about Israel as the servant. If you look at my book under “Isaiah 53″ the subcategory “Israel as the servant”, you can read my brief explanation. I don’t believe it is about Israel, but I have some ideas how it could sound like Israel, if that is what Moshe wants to believe.

      http://www.messianicmistakes.com/

      Kenneth Greifer

      Reply ↓

42. Moyshe,

    Sheyne nayes di brengen,,,Yiddish is yetzt a Loshen Kodesh…..Ha, Ha,…

    ich hot gehot a bissle koved for di, yetst ich gluibt di is tzedreit oichet, azoy mit bubby……Oy, vey…..

    Reply ↓

    • ROTFL. Enshildig az ich kan nisht zugin dus en yiddish. Fin verlacha bichel hast di gezain vos di has geshriben, az di kanst nisht. lemushal di darfs zugen ich HAB gehat, nisht ich HOT gehat. Azan tuism kimt funmentchen vos kan nisht yiddish.

      Reply ↓

      • Moshe or Dan,

        Could either of you explain what the discussion in Yiddish is about for people who don’t know it?

        Kenneth Greifer

      • Moyshe,

        Stop the sharade, by your replies you just confirming that I know how to read a nd write Yiddish, otherwise how can you understand me?

        Now, can you please provide any shred of proof that Yidiish is “Lashon Kodesh?” What is the matter with you?

      • Actually Dan, I haven’t seen any indication you understood a word I was saying as not a single response of yours showed that you addressed what I wrote in Yiddish. You only respond to the English I write, NEVER the Yiddish. I tried real hard to write things that a Yiddish speaker would respond to. You did not, and have not. Also your ‘Yiddish’ made little sense. It is what I would expect from someone who took a class or read a book but could never hold a conversation with someone who does speak the language.

43. Kenneth, one of my favourite lyrics is “I’d rather be a yankel than a goy, oy yoy yoy …. (to the tune of Ï’d rather be a sparrow than a snail – Simon and Garfunkel). Why would I prefer to be a yankel? ‘Cause to be(come) a goy, I would have to cut out my lashon kodesh (holy tongue), namely, Yiddish.

    Let me help you out. Moshe said: “Azan tuism kimt funmentchen vos kan nisht yiddish.”

    This means, “It’s zany and a truism that people have fun with canning what they think is Yiddish.”

    Reply ↓

    • BOG,

      I had a freind, a Jazz Musician from Harlem who spoke beautiful Yidish. He was a Goy who spoke “lashon Kodesh” as you and zany Moshe describe it. Tha tanach was written in Hebrew, not Yiddish.

      BTW, Moshe understood me, did he not?

      Reply ↓

      • I commented on your lack of knowledge in another post, let me add some thing here. One does not have to be a Jew to know Yiddish. There was a guy who used to work for our shul cleaning the mikvah. He was a black guy, and used to leave notes in Yiddish so that the guy taking care of the mikvah would understand what he did. So what? You don’t. I can write grammatically wrong sentences in many languages. Doesn’t mean I understand them.

    • Bo, I did not want to translate anything i wrote, as I want Dan to do it. That will show how little he knows and that he is trying to fool people. Your translation is as bad as his. If you will indulge me, after Dan fails to translate what I wrote, I will tell you what I said. Your translation while very wrong is probably better then he can.

      There is nothing wrong with not knowing Yiddish, I do. I speak it and taught in Yeshivas in it. What is wrong is to try and fool people who do not know it that you do when you don’t. My main problem with Messianics,is that, in general that is what they do with Judaism. They fake it. No one comes to the truth or G-d if they do not have a real passion for the truth and a distaste for falsehoods.

      Reply ↓

      • Moshe,

        I don’t think religious people care about truth. They only care about protecting the beliefs of their religion, even if the beliefs are wrong. That would be true for all religions and not just Messianics. They put up some people as perfect people who can’t be wrong just like Judaism does. You can’t argue against what those people said because they are automatically right. Truth hasn’t got a chance against religious beliefs.

        Kenneth Greifer
        http://www.messianicmistakes.com/

      • Ken, I am sorry that you are so cynical. Caring about the truth doesn’t always mean finding it.

44. Moshe
    your “Your translation is as bad as his” about my translation.

    You said “funmentchen.” Since when is “fun” a prefix. Do (some) Yiddish nouns have prepositional prefixes. Having fun with (from??) your Yiddish, Moshe?

    Reply ↓

    • Bo, unfortunately there is no spell checking for transliterated Yiddish. If I miss that I left out a space, it doesn’t get caught.

      ‘Fun’? Why? I feel more comfortable in it. There are a few people who read this site who know me personally and have heard me speak Yiddish.

      Reply ↓

45. Moyshe,

    With all due respect you are pulling the wool over people eyes. You understood what I wrote and replied, I did not write in Arabic. You also fail to acknowledge that like any other language Yiddish has different dialects. Jews from Poland have different dialect than Jews from Germany or Russia. Only isolated Hassidics who live inside their walled confines will not know it.

    Tzedreit means rolling around like a dreidel, kind like what you are desplaying here, a mind that is like concrete, thoroughly mixed up and permanently set…LOL!

    Reply ↓

    • Danny boy, I think I understood you, just like when a foreigner speaks English poorly one can understand what they mean because one knows the language.

      As to knowing the difference between different dialects and ‘walled Hassidics’, you are a bafoon. You couldn’t even tell us the difference between Galitzianer Yiddish (which is what I speak) and Russian (by that I mean the Ukraine where Ryzhiner or Chernoble chassidim come from.) I had no problem understanding the late Lubavitcher Rebbe, even though almost every vowel sound he used was different. The reason, is that I UNLIKE YOU, and a Yiddish speaker.

      The problem is that YOU are trying to be what you are not. IT is sad. You could have easily proven me wrong by translating anything I wrote. Maybe you should get your dictionary out and give it a try. But you didn’t, and probably won’t because just like you don’t know what tzedreit means (although you are) you don’t know what I said. (BTW tzedreit has nothing to do with a dreidle. Just like if someone says to you hak nisht kein tchunik, you don’t sing ‘if I had a hammer’.

      Now I will make a deal with you., You translate mine, and I will correct both your poor translation, and translate and correct your horrible attempt at writing Yiddish.

      Or you could just confess that you don’t really know Yiddish.

      Reply ↓

      • Moyshe,

        You forgot that I am from Israel. My family on my mother side came from Austria, my grand parents came to Austria from Galitzia. I spoke German and Yiddish before I spoke Hebrew, so get off with this stupidity. What I admit to is that I left Israel almost 50 years ago and didn’t practice my Yiddish since then.

        So where is the Chupchick of the tchainik located, do you know? And what is a bafoon?…Just kidding…

      • Dan, you need only try to translate what I wrote and we will all see what you do or do not know. My point is that you threw in words that make no sense. I call it on you and yet you never seem able to do the simple think and show you are right. Now asking for your birth certificate here. I cannot believe that you spoke Yiddish at any time and made the types of errors you did. If you did then you must really be in an advanced state of senility.

        I doubt your grandparents needed to go from Galitzia to Austia since before
        WWI it was Austria.

        I suggest you stop trying to ‘remember’ Yiddish seems a brachah l’vatulah.

46. Moshe, you say “hak nisht kein tchunik.” My Dad, Issy, had a Chinese Yiddish accent, ’cause he used to say “hak nisht kein tchainik.”

    Reply ↓

    • should have been ‘tchinik’. As I said no spell checker here.

      Reply ↓

      • Moshe “tchInik” as in English “ChIna”, and not as English “chIn” nest-ce pas? So, the English transliteration “tchainik” is better (as in the English transliteration of чай (tea) – ”chai.”

        chaio; got to chow.

      • Bo, I speak a galitziyaner Yiddish and we do say tchinik as with the same sound as in china.

47. Raphael, unfortuantely ek kan nie die taal praat nie maar I rememebr my dad talking Yiddish to his dad whilst playing klabberjass. Haha.

    Reply ↓

    • ??

      Reply ↓

    • I said in afrikaans : “I can’t speak the language” but I rememebr my dad talking Yiddish to his dad whilst playing klabberjass ( a card game popular amongst South African Jews and possibly others )

      Reply ↓

48. Hey Moyshe,

    whoever I speak Yiddish to understands me, including you. Case closed.

    Reply ↓

    • Well I think we should reopen it. Let’s let the readers here decide who is right.
      ———————————-
      Let me show how little Yiddish he really knows. (Most likely he got it from a book.)

      “Sheyne nayes di brengen,,,Yiddish is yetzt a Loshen Kodesh…..Ha, Ha,…”

      Now let’s parse this:

      “Sheyne nayes” this seems to mean ‘nice news’. Meaningless in Yiddish. He probably meant “sheyna maasos” which literally emans ‘nice stories’ and is used for what he is intimating here.

      “di brengen” I assuem he is trying to say here ‘you bring’ However according to the type of Yiddish he is trying to write he should have said: “du brengst” I woudl say “di brengst” as I speak galitziyaber Yiddish. ‘brengen’ means TO BRING

      Next he says:

      “Yiddish is yetzt a Loshen Kodesh” This is pretty good the only problem is that the ‘a’ is English and not Yiddish. HE si trying to say that ‘Yiddish is not Loshen Kodesh’. The problem is that he doesn’t understand what I wrote. What I said was:

      “Di fershteist nisht yiddish mare fun loshen kodesh.” What this means in English is that ” You don’t know Yiddish any more then you know Loshen Kodesh.” His comment confirms that he doesn’t know Yiddish.

      —————-

      Here is the next sentence:

      ich hot gehot a bissle koved for di, yetst ich gluibt di is tzedreit oichet, azoy mit bubby……Oy, vey…..

      This is such a joke I don’t know where to begin.

      “ich hot gehot a bissle koved for di” He is trying to say that “I had a little kovid for you” however he seems to not know the simplest grammer. It is not “ich hot”, but “ich hab” It’s like someone saying “I are”. Because of Yiddish grammer, if you don’t know this you cannot speak Yiddish as almost all of the past tenses are made up of forms of to have.

      ” yetst ich gluibt di is tzedreit oichet” here he is trying to say that “now I believes that you are tzedreit also”. Should be “ich geleib”, mixing persons again. After that it is just too funny. I just have to correct it because I have no idea what errors he is making. It should have said:

      “yetz ich geleib az di bist tzedreit oychet.”

      After that comes a phraze that I have no idea what he means:”azoy mit bubby” which says “just with grandma”. Your guess is as good as mine.

      In closing the word ‘faker’ (fopper) comes to mind. Why would someone want people to think they know what they do not??

      Reply ↓

49. Meaningless assesment. When someone lives in a dark cave for a long time when he sees his shadow he think that it is real. Living in isolation in a Chasidik getto one tends to think that only his group is God’s chosen, and only his Yiddish is the “holy language.” This delusional man think he is just a thud lower than God and it gives him the right to call another person a liar.

    Moyshe needs to get out from the dark shadow of his confines and smell the roses. Thinking that only his Chasidic denomination is the chosen people, and only their Yiddish is the right Yiddish…can you believe then apples? I guess the guy is fixated on my Yiddish because he is getting beat up pretty good on other subjects, rachmunes…..

    Reply ↓

    • ROTFL

      I think I proved my point. Time to move on.

      Reply ↓

      • Hi Moshe and Anon,

        Anon’s reference to the son of man made me think of psalm 146:3

        “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the SON OF MAN, in whom there is no help.” (My own emphasis:)

        Ironically I recognise my use of circular reasoning (read Xstian methodology) here and know that this is not what is being referred to, but do find it quite humurous

        Russ

      • Good point. The usage that the Nt makes of ‘son of man’ is probably closer to the usage in Ezekiel, which likewise has no ‘divine’ implication.

    • Dan,

      The real issue is not your fluency in the Jewish language, but the propriety of venerating Jesus from the standpoint of the Jewish Bible.

      The G-d of Israel stated in Num. 23:19:

      “G-d is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind.”

      Jesus, of course, was a character the Christian bible presented as a man, nicknamed the “Son of man”, and portrayed a lying and changing his mind. Now, if you want to worship him despite all that, that’s your business. But let’s not fool ourselves: you flush Num. 23:19, the word of G-d, down the toilet when you accept the testimony of Paul over that of all your ancestors.

      Reply ↓

      • Certainly the point of the discussions here is not about Yiddish,. However, when anyone posts here the value of what they say is based on their integrity. Is this person honest. Now, I disagree with David Cook, but I have no doubt as to his integrity. He is juts wrong, and I wish he would address my objections, rather then talking past me. On the other hand it is clear that Dan lacks integrity. His above comment just makes it clear. If anyone, like myself, who is really a Yiddish speaker was to see what he wrote, they would discount anything he would say.

      • Hi Moshe and Anon,

        Anon’s reference to the son of man made me think of psalm 146:3

        “Put not your trust in princes, nor in the SON OF MAN, in whom there is no help.” (My own emphasis:)

        Ironically I recognise my use of circular reasoning (read Xstian methodology) here and know that this is not what is being referred to, but do find it quite humurous

      • Russ, context is very important. Here in Daniel 7:13-14 “Son of Man” refers to the Moshiach.

        13″I kept looking in the night visions,
        And behold, with the clouds of heaven
        One like a Son of Man was coming,
        And He came up to the Ancient of Days
        And was presented before Him.
        14″And to Him was given dominion,
        Glory and a kingdom,
        That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
        Might serve Him
        His dominion is an everlasting dominion
        Which will not pass away;
        And His kingdom is one
        Which will not be destroyed.

        In other passages “son of man” refers to a human person.

        In Exodus 15:3 we read in the Torah;

        3The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name. (KJV)

        so if we interprt here the way Amon loves to with Numbers 23 we conclude that “LORD is a man”. But we both know that is not specifiably what this idiom means. Later, translators give us a better, less confusing to for some;

        3″The LORD is a warrior;
        The LORD is His name.

        Exodus 15:3 NASB

        Epistemology of words is important and so is context not just for one verse or chapter sometimes a whole book. Plus, also you look at what many of the prophets say including Moses and come to a cohesive consensus on a meaning or doctrine.

      • Moshe you said, “However, when anyone posts here the value of what they say is based on their integrity. Is this person honest. Now, I disagree with David Cook, but I have no doubt as to his integrity. He is juts wrong, and I wish he would address my objections, rather then talking past me.”

        Moshe I do thank you for the complement, since we are coming from opposing sides of very important issues this is appreciated. I will try to talk more directly to some of your astute questions and comments; hopefully a little more succinctly.

      • Anon,

        Any shmuck and his mother in law can read the Bible, it is not such a big feat. But for one to understand what they read, now, that is another story…..

      • David, I think you need to read my post again my man.

        Listen chum, now that you’ve made the promise to be more DIRECT (Hahah – yeah right) with your answers how about telling us about the genealogies again.

        Moreover, instead of bombing us with verse let’s talk one thing at a time. Where can we start? We are so spoilt for choice with your ramblings. How about your complete raping of Daniel 9, or your misquote of Psalm 51 (after Moshe told you that you were mistranslating it), or Psalm 2 which was hacked to death by yourself? Hmmm, should we analyse psalm 51.
        Let me make it very clear. In the spirit of truth we are only going to talk about psalm 51. OK?

      • Russ,

        You make an astute observation. The Jewish Bible uses the expression “son of man” to emphasize the distinction between men and G-d.

        But the King James Christian bible perverts the phrase, imbuing it with it’s own emphasis added in the form of a capital “s”, to diametrically oppose G-d’s claim in Num. 23:19 to be exclusively superhuman, and not at all a man or a son of man.

        Jews have Num. 23:19 as a familial tradition from Sinai, and that’s what has so effectively blocked missionaries from making inroads on their 2,000 year crusade against Judaism. That’s why you see the missionaries so vigorously attacking, twisting, torturing and misrepresenting Num. 23:19 and the rest of the Sinaitic tradition here–though to no avail.

      • David, no one disagrees that the term ‘bar nash’ (son of man) refers to the Messiah in Daniel. The problem is the non-Biblical interpretation that you attach to it.

        Bar Nash is the Aramaic equivalent of Ben Adam that appears in Ezekiel and the verse in Psalms that Russ pointed out. The problem is that all it means is ‘human being’. In fact that is why in C. S. Lewis’ Narnia the children are called ‘sons of Adam’. That is a direct translation of ‘benei adam’, the plural for ‘ben adam’. In fact, Daniel PROVES that the Messiah is human, because he is called that there.

      • Moshe you state,

        “David, no one disagrees that the term ‘bar nash’ (son of man) refers to the Messiah in Daniel. The problem is the non-Biblical interpretation that you attach to it.

        Bar Nash is the Aramaic equivalent of Ben Adam that appears in Ezekiel and the verse in Psalms that Russ pointed out. The problem is that all it means is ‘human being’. In fact that is why in C. S. Lewis’ Narnia the children are called ‘sons of Adam’. That is a direct translation of ‘benei adam’, the plural for ‘ben adam’. In fact, Daniel PROVES that the Messiah is human, because he is called that there.”

        So Moshe, we are agreed that “son of man” in Daniel refers to the Moshiach. As you know, I believe that Moshiach is both human and divine, the son of man and the Son of God; thus the incarnation i.e. Immanuel – with us God.

        I do agree with you that Moshiach is human. But now, since Moshiach was “cut off” killed as it says He would be in Daniel 9:24-26, and He rose again on the third day He is now in a glorified resurrected immortal body and is presently seated at the right hand of His Father. (Psalms 110:1)

        In Daniel 7:9-10 notice the description of the throne of the “Ancient of Days” (a name for our Father God, who existed from eternity past). In verse 13, the Moshiach “came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him.”

        How could a mere human being on earth approach the throne of God surrounded by myriads of angels as described in verses 9-10?

        On the other hand, if what David wrote in Psalms 110:1 is true, and I believe it is; that Moshiach (the “Son of Man”) is seated at the right hand of Yehovah;

        Yehovah said to my Adonai, “sit at My right hand, until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet.”

        Yehovah said to my Lord, that is Father God said to His Son the Moshiach, “sit at My right hand, until I put Your enemies beneath Your feet.”

        Then it would be simple for the Moshiach to come before that throne to receive dominion, glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations and men from every language might serve the Moshiach in His reign upon the throne of David. (Since He is presently seated at the right hand of the throne of His Father).

        We also observe that the kingdom of Moshiach is an “everlasting dominion
        which will not pass away; and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.” (eternal kingdom, that will not be destroyed)

        How can a mere man reign as Moshiach for a eternal kingdom?

        13″I kept looking in the night visions,
        And behold, with the clouds of heaven
        One like a Son of Man was coming,
        And He came up to the Ancient of Days
        And was presented before Him.
        14″And to Him was given dominion,
        Glory and a kingdom,
        That all the peoples, nations and men of every language
        Might serve Him
        His dominion is an everlasting dominion
        Which will not pass away;
        And His kingdom is one
        Which will not be destroyed.

        Daniel 7:13-14 NASB

        http://adventofmessiah.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/the-lord-said-to-my-lord/

50. So first I amd a liar, and now I have no integrity, and Rabbi Moyshe the Chasid is the new god.

    You know Moyshe, in order to be God one have to have followers, how many mind have you been able to change here on this blog? Let me tell you, zilch, nada, אפס . If i were you, i would have cut my loses long a go and go back to your chasidic world of 200 years ago….

    Reply ↓

    • Danny boy, time to take your meds. You are starting to lose it.

      Reply ↓

      • Moyshe, you have to make up your mind whether you are god or a medical DR….Which hat did you decide to wear today? Are both of them burning?

      • ROTFL

51. David,

    You see, you are not a threat to moyshe, you are just a Christian Goy to him, how can you Goyim compare to the enlightened Chasidics? But me, is a different story, I am Jewish Just like he is and it messes with his mind that another Jew believes that Yeshua is God’s Jewish sent Messiah. Like the movie said: He cannot handle the truth…..So whatch what is going to happen now, He will attack my Jewishness, or he will attack my poor English. typical anti-missinary tactics….OH, WELL…..

    Reply ↓

    • These are the words that missionary Dan inserts into Jews’ mouths:

      “how can you Goyim compare…?”

      This deserves attention because it is unmasks the profound, paranoid hatred seething behind the the missionary professing “I love you” to a Jew.

      Reply ↓

      • Hey Shmeckl, You classify me as a Missionary, but unlike you I am a Jew. Can you awollow that?

      • You ‘were’.

    • ROTFL. Honesty is not a quality that applies only to Jews who are chassidim. I must be really getting under your skin. Der hit brent ouf a ganiv.

      Reply ↓

      • When is the last time you looked st the mirror?

    • Dan our brother Paul tells us that “in Moshiach” (those who are born again believers in Yeshua) there is no distinction of race, social standing, gender but equality for all, neither Jew nor Goy, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one.

      26For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

      27For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

      28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

      29And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise. Galatians 3:26-29 NASB

      Reply ↓

52. David, you said: “I will try to talk more directly to some of your astute questions and comments; hopefully a little more succinctly.” I would like to restate what I did before and expand on it.

    Your claim is that the servant of Isiah 53 is sinless. I disagree, and I mentioned something in support. Let me expand on the explanation.

    In the Torah there are two types of sin sacrifices, one called the ‘Chatas’ and the other called the ‘Asham’.

    Now before explaining them I need to explain another issue. There are two classes of sacrifices, korban yachid (individual sacrifice) and korban tzibbur (communal sacrifice). The difference is simple, but significant. An individual sacrifice is one brought by an individual FOR HIMSELF. If he were a priest and knew how do slaughter then he could do all of the different parts himself, if not, then he has someone else do for him what he is incapable of doing. It is still his sacrifice. A communal sacrifice is brought by a priest as representative of the community, and with communal funds. The priest is bringing it for the community and it may not even apply to him. According to your interpretation of Isaiah the servant is performing a communal sacrifice and not an individual one. (I think the NT comparison to the Yom Kippur sacrifice is indicative of this.)

    Now there are a number of significant differences between a Chatas and a Asham, but the main one is that there is no Asham communal sacrifice. They are only Chatas. In fact in Leviticus 4:13-21 where the sacrifice for communal sin is mentioned and it is a Chatas.

    Now in Isaiah 53:10 this suffering of the servant is called an asham. From this we know two things: 1. It is an asham FOR the servant. 2. The servant is not sinless.

    As I have mentioned before and this is explicit in Isaiah 40:2, the exile and the suffering in it were the results of the nation having sinned. But also much of it was undeserved. (Isaiah says 50%) This idea is in Zechariah 1:15:
    ” And I am very sore displeased with the heathen that are at ease: for I was but a little displeased, and they helped forward the affliction” (KJV)

    Is this not what is being said in Isaiah 53, the nations have peace, but they have afflicted Israel.

    Reply ↓

    • Moshe regarding is the Servant in Isaiah 53, sinless or sinful?

      Moshe said, “Your claim is that the servant of Isiah 53 is sinless. I disagree, and I mentioned something in support. Let me expand on the explanation.”

      I appreciate you expanding on the explanation this was helpful to me, as I would imagine to others as well.

      Today, I studied a few hours on this question, I feel it is very important as you know, the apostles quote Isaiah 53 showing how Yeshua fulfilled this.

      “Asham”

      Guilt offering – “asham” H817 (Hebrew)

      I want to study this some more. Here are some of my initial thoughts Moshe on this;

      1. the interpretation of Isaiah 53:10 should agree with other insights we are given in the rest of the chapter. For example;

      Isaiah 53:9 NASB

      “Because He had done no violence,
      Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.”

      “no violence” – no “chamas”.

      H2555: “chamas” – violence.
      “CHAMAS” – violence, wrong:– meaning either, Malicious(3) violence(48) violent(6) wrong(3)

      chamas can mean “wrong”.

      “no violence” – no “chamas” – “no wrong”.

      Simon Peter one of Yeshua’s disciples who witnessed the fulfillment of Isaiah 53 as an eyewitness, who wrote in his letter; 1 Peter and quotes Isaiah 53:9.

      In the Zondervan, Greek Interlinear it reads in English word for word traslation;

      “who sin not did nor was found guile in the mouth of him”

      Other versions translate 1 Peter 2:22 as follows;

      “Who did not sin, nor was guile found in His mouth.” 1 Peter 2:22 HSV

      “WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH;” 1 Peter 2:22 NASB

      Going back to Isaiah 53:5 NASB;

      But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
      He was crushed for our iniquities;
      The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
      And by His scourging we are healed.

      In this verse we clearly see that God’s Righteous Servant was not pierced, crushed, chastened and scourged for His own sin (wrong) but for our iniquities, for our well-being so that we can be healed. Our iniquities fell upon God’s Righteous Servant.

      Here in Isaiah 53:5 even though Isaiah doesn’t us the Hebrew word “Chatas” he does give details of the Righteous Servant offering Himself as a communal sin offering – for our iniquities, for our well-being so that we can be healed. Our iniquities fell upon God’s Righteous Servant.

      In Isaiah 53:11 NASB we read;

      “…the Righteous One,
      My Servant, will justify the many,
      As He will bear their iniquities.”

      In this scripture the Servant is called the “Righteous One”, who will Justify the many and bear their iniquities.

      God made Yeshua who knew no sin, to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Moshiach. Paul writes about this atonement and great exchange of our sin for God’s righteousness;

      2 Corinthians 5:21 NASB

      “He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”

      “He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross” 1 Peter 2:24 NASB

      Our iniquities fell upon God’s Righteous Servant. Isaiah 53:5 does connotate as you said Moshe, “I think the NT comparison to the Yom Kippur sacrifice is indicative of this.” This is spoken of in great detail in the book of Hebrew chapters 7-10.

      11′For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.’ Leviticus 17:11 NASB

      http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Holidays/Fall_Holidays/Yom_Kippur/yom_kippur.html

      Reply ↓

      • I am glad to see you are trying to think about this. It is true we need to look at any verse here, in the context of Isiah 53, and also in the general context of Isaiah 40 – 66 which is where it is found. It is clear from what I quoted beforehand from Isiah 40:2, and Zech. 1:15 that while Israel has sinned (as a nation, which is another subject in and of itself) there is also the fact that with regards to the suffering inflicted by the nations on Israel in the exile, that Israel suffering undeservedly. Look at the holocaust as an example of the suffering of exile where the wickedness and sinfulness of that nation overstepped all bounds. Is that not what Zech. 1:15 is about?

        As to your verses, in the context of what I have said above, there is no challenge to what I have contended.

        Isaiah 53:9. Just as those murdered in the holocaust were not guilty of violence or robbery or anything like that, it was the wickedness of the nations and not the sins that caused exile which was involved.

        Isaiah 53:5. The sins and wickedness of the nations (Germany) was what caused the suffering and not the sins that required exile in the first place.

        Isaiah 53:11. It is the righteous of Israel, those who live and teach His Torah, which the nations will eventually recognize, which will brings the blessing of Isaiah 11 to the whole world.

        You see there is nothing in Isaiah that presents a problem, However there are a number of problems with saying that it applies to Jesus, or even the Messiah (if he were not Jesus.)

53. David, in your post you mention Daniel 9 and Psalms 110, the problem is that neither refer to the Messiah of Daniel 7. Daniel 9 refers to a person living at the time of the destruction of the temple, and Psalm 110 is about David.

    “I do agree with you that Moshiach is human.”

    This is a good start.

    “How could a mere human being on earth approach the throne of God surrounded by myriads of angels as described in verses 9-10?”

    I am surprised by this question as both Isaiah and Ezekiel had visions of the throne similar to Daniel.

    “We also observe that the kingdom of Moshiach is an “everlasting dominion
    which will not pass away; and His kingdom is one which will not be destroyed.” (eternal kingdom, that will not be destroyed)”

    The kingdom is eternal, not the ruler of that kingdom.

    Reply ↓

    • Moshe you comment, “David, in your post you mention Daniel 9 and Psalms 110, the problem is that neither refer to the Messiah of Daniel 7. Daniel 9 refers to a person living at the time of the destruction of the temple, and Psalm 110 is about David.”

      Moshe the problem is both your assumptions of what you believe to be true and your resulting theology, paradigm and overall world-view is skewed. Although, this is true in general of the sons of Adam.

      For example, an atheist presupposition, keep him from seeing the truth and reality about Elohim’s existence.

      Certainly, not all of your assumptions are false, but some are. The “elephant in the room” is that both Elijah who was to come, did come – John the Baptist was that prophet, crying in the wilderness to prepare the way of my Lord, Yeshua ha’Mopshiach.

      9As they were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, “Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man has risen from the dead.”

      10And His disciples asked Him, “Why then do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?”

      11And He answered and said, “Elijah is coming and will restore all things;

      12but I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished. So also (L)the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.”

      13Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist. Matthew 17:1-13 NASB

      The Moshiach, who your people have longed for, has come and is seated at the right hand of His Father. Plus, now Moshaich is on schedule and will return to rule the nations with a rod of iron.

      Reply ↓

      • David we ALL come with presuppositions. Are you nto coming with the presupposition that the Nt is G-d’s word, and that Jesus is the Messiah. What one needs to do, is suspend ones own presuppositions and look at what the other is saying and balance it they have a point.

        You stated: “Elijah who was to come, did come – John the Baptist was that prophet,”. There are some questions on this:

        1. How is it that John did not know he was Elijah? (John 1:21)

        2. How can he be Elijah, when Elijah never died?

        3. Even if we say that Elijah died, Luke tells us about John’s birth. Are you telling me you believe in reincarnation?

      • Moshe said, “David we ALL come with presuppositions. Are you nto coming with the presupposition that the Nt is G-d’s word, and that Jesus is the Messiah.”

        Yes Moshe, these are two of my presuppositions, and that Yeshua is the Son of the living God.

        Moshe said, “What one needs to do, is suspend ones own presuppositions and look at what the other is saying and balance it they have a point.”

        I agree Moshe, but this is not always easy to do.

        Moshe said, “You stated: “Elijah who was to come, did come – John the Baptist was that prophet,”. There are some questions on this:

        1. How is it that John did not know he was Elijah? (John 1:21)”

        John knew he was not the Moshiach, he did not think he was Elijah nor the Prophet. John did quote Isaiah 40:3

        3A voice is calling,
        “Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness;
        Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.

        John was clear on his mission to prepare the way for the coming of Moshiach by preaching a message of repentance and baptizing to prepare people to ready when Moshiach would arrive and commence His ministry. God had told John, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’ This was the sign for John to recognize who was the Moshiach; the one on whom the anointing of the Holy Spirit descended and remained upon. John does make this declaration; “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! “This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’ John also states that the Moshiach is divine; “I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.”

        The Testimony of John the Baptist about the Moshiach

        19This is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent to him priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?”

        20And he confessed and did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.”

        21They asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” And he said, “I am not ” “Are you the Prophet?” And he answered, “No.”

        22Then they said to him, “Who are you, so that we may give an answer to those who sent us? What do you say about yourself?”

        23He said, “I am A VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, ‘MAKE STRAIGHT THE WAY OF THE LORD,’ as Isaiah the prophet said.”

        24Now they had been sent from the Pharisees.

        25They asked him, and said to him, “Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”

        26John answered them saying, “I baptize in water, but among you stands One whom you do not know.

        27″It is He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie.”

        28These things took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

        29The next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

        30″This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’

        31″I did not recognize Him, but so that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water.”

        32John testified saying, “I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and He remained upon Him.

        33″I did not recognize Him, but He who sent me to baptize in water said to me, ‘He upon whom you see the Spirit descending and remaining upon Him, this is the One who baptizes in the Holy Spirit.’

        34″I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.”

        John 1:19-33 NASB

        Moshe said, “2. How can he be Elijah, when Elijah never died?”

        Good question, I have asked it as well. It may be similar to when Elisha received a double portion of the “spirit of Elijah” his mentor. (2 Kings 2:9-15)

        “…in the spirit and power of Elijah”

        A prophetic mantle was passed onto John to perform the ministry preparation for the Moshaich. Here is what the angel Gabriel told Zacharias about his son John who was not yet born;

        17″It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, TO TURN THE HEARTS OF THE FATHERS BACK TO THE CHILDREN, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” Luke 1:17 NASB

        Note that Gabriel quotes Malachi 4:6

        6″He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse.” NASB

        Of course verse Mal 4:5 says;

        5″Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the LORD. NASB

        Moshe said, “3. Even if we say that Elijah died, Luke tells us about John’s birth. Are you telling me you believe in reincarnation?”

        No, I definitely do not believe in reincarnation. The NT teaches;

        “And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment” Hebrew 9:27 NASB

        The TaNaKh tells us that Elijah went to heaven in a chariot of fire, so I believe he did not die but went to heaven.

        Elijah does appear with Moses to Yeshua and Peter, James and John on the Mount of Transfiguration. (Matthew 17:1-13)

        John’s father was a Jewish priest in Israel, who was visited by the angel Gabriel while he was offering sacrifice;

        you will give him the name John. 14″You will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. 15″For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb. 16″And he will turn many of the sons of Israel back to the Lord their God. 17″It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, TO TURN THE HEARTS OF THE FATHERS BACK TO THE CHILDREN, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” 18Zacharias said to the angel, “How will I know this for certain? For I am an old man and my wife is advanced in years.” 19The angel answered and said to him, “I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news.

        5In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth.

        6They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.

        7But they had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and they were both advanced in years.

        8Now it happened that while he was performing his priestly service before God in the appointed order of his division,

        9according to the custom of the priestly office, he was chosen by lot to enter the temple of the Lord and burn incense.

        10And the whole multitude of the people were in prayer outside at the hour of the incense offering.

        11And an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing to the right of the altar of incense.

        12Zacharias was troubled when he saw the angel, and fear gripped him.

        13But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your petition has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will give him the name John.

        14″You will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth.

        15″For he will be great in the sight of the Lord; and he will drink no wine or liquor, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit while yet in his mother’s womb.

        16″And he will turn many of the sons of Israel back to the Lord their God.

        17″It is he who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, TO TURN THE HEARTS OF THE FATHERS BACK TO THE CHILDREN, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous, so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”

        18Zacharias said to the angel, “How will I know this for certain? For I am an old man and my wife is advanced in years.”

        19The angel answered and said to him, “I am Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to bring you this good news.

        20″And behold, you shall be silent and unable to speak until the day when these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their proper time.”

        21The people were waiting for Zacharias, and were wondering at his delay in the temple.

        22But when he came out, he was unable to speak to them; and they realized that he had seen a vision in the temple; and he kept making signs to them, and remained mute.

        23When the days of his priestly service were ended, he went back home.

        Luke 1:5-23 NASB

        Here is Zacharias’s prophecy about his newborn son;

        67And his father Zacharias was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying:
        68″Blessed be the Lord God of Israel,
        For He has visited us and accomplished redemption for His people,
        69And has raised up a horn of salvation for us
        In the house of David His servant–
        70As He spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from of old–
        71Salvation FROM OUR ENEMIES,
        And FROM THE HAND OF ALL WHO HATE US;
        72To show mercy toward our fathers,
        And to remember His holy covenant,
        73The oath which He swore to Abraham our father,
        74To grant us that we, being rescued from the hand of our enemies,
        Might serve Him without fear,
        75In holiness and righteousness before Him all our days.
        76″And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High;
        For you will go on BEFORE THE LORD TO PREPARE HIS WAYS;
        77To give to His people the knowledge of salvation
        By the forgiveness of their sins,
        78Because of the tender mercy of our God,
        With which the Sunrise from on high will visit us,
        79TO SHINE UPON THOSE WHO SIT IN DARKNESS AND THE SHADOW OF DEATH,
        To guide our feet into the way of peace.”

        80And the child continued to grow and to become strong in spirit, and he lived in the deserts until the day of his public appearance to Israel.

        Luke 1:67-80 NASB

        I would imagine that both Zacharias and Elizabeth would have told their son about these things as he grew up.

      • David,

        No one can ever beat you in an argument because your side cannot be wrong. Elijah appeared even if he was someone else. In your religion, anyone could be Elijah because your man said it was true. Your man fulfilled Psalm 110 to be a king and priest when he died and became a priest in heaven according to your religion. There is no proof of this either. You just have to believe what your religion says happened in heaven. The 70 weeks of Daniel stop after 69 and can start again whenever it fits your beliefs. We are supposed to believe that something that did not happen yet, but you say will happen, is true as proof that your religion is true. Even things that are have not happened and are unproven are proof to you.You are flexible in accepting any explanation as proof of your religion.
        I don’t accept these claims as true automatically like you do. I also don’t have to quote a 1000 quotes to cover up the simple obvious problems in each of these quotes.

        Kenneth Greifer
        http://www.messianicmistakes.com/

    • Moshe says, “David, in your post you mention Daniel 9 and Psalms 110, the problem is that neither refer to the Messiah of Daniel 7. Daniel 9 refers to a person living at the time of the destruction of the temple, and Psalm 110 is about David.”

      Moshe, Psalms 110 is clearly David writing about the Moshiach, let me explain.

      Moshe please remember the basics of Biblical interpretation – as Tovia says; it’s all about context of the scripture passage in question.

      So let’s look at Psalms 110.

      David wrote Psalm 110, but he is not writing about himself, but instead he is clearly writing about the Moshiach who was to come; who David calls “my Lord”, “my Adoni”.

      In verse 4 David talks about an eternal priest, who is this eternal priest? It is certainly not David talking about himself.

      4The LORD has sworn and will not change His mind,
      “You are a priest forever
      According to the order of Melchizedek.”

      King David is not an eternal priest of the order of Melchizedek, but the Moshiach is an eternal Priest of the order of Melchizedek.

      9And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes,

      10for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

      11Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?

      12For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.

      13For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar.

      14For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.

      15And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek,

      16who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life.

      17For it is attested of Him,
      “YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER
      ACCORDING TO THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.”

      18For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness

      19(for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.

      20And inasmuch as it was not without an oath

      21(for they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him,
      “THE LORD HAS SWORN
      AND WILL NOT CHANGE HIS MIND,
      ‘YOU ARE A PRIEST FOREVER’”);

      22so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant. Hebrews 7:9-22 NASB

      Going back to Psalms 110;

      5The Lord is at Your right hand;
      He will shatter kings in the day of His wrath.
      6He will judge among the nations,

      The Moshiach is seated at the right hand of His Father, the Moshiach “will shatter kings in the day of His wrath. He will judge among the nations”

      In Psalms 2 we read about the Moshiach who is given “the nations as Your inheritance, And the very ends of the earth as Your possession.
      ‘You shall break them with a rod of iron…

      Psalms 2 is also talking about the Lord’s Anointed (Moshiach) who is the Son of God, who will rule the nations with a rod of iron.

      1Why are the nations in an uproar
      And the peoples devising a vain thing?
      2The kings of the earth take their stand
      And the rulers take counsel together
      Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,
      3″Let us tear their fetters apart
      And cast away their cords from us!”
      4He who sits in the heavens laughs,
      The Lord scoffs at them.
      5Then He will speak to them in His anger
      And terrify them in His fury, saying,
      6″But as for Me, I have installed My King
      Upon Zion, My holy mountain.”
      7″I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD:
      He said to Me, ‘You are My Son,
      Today I have begotten You.
      8′Ask of Me, and I will surely give the nations as Your inheritance,
      And the very ends of the earth as Your possession.
      9′You shall break them with a rod of iron,
      You shall shatter them like earthenware.’”

      Psalms 2 NASB

      The Moshiach Himself confirms that Psalms 110 is about Him.

      Moshe in a debate with the Pharisees (perhaps some of your ancestors) Yeshua quoted Psalms 110:1 and indicates the Psalm is about the son of David – the Moshiach; Psalm 110:1 is talking about Yeshua the one who is talking. So, Yeshua the Moshiach is giving commentary about Psalm 110.

      41Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question:

      42″What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He?” They said to Him, “The son of David.”

      43He said to them, “Then how does David in the Spirit call Him ‘Lord,’ saying,
      44′THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,
      “SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
      UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET”‘?

      45″If David then calls Him ‘Lord,’ how is He his son?”

      Matthew 22:41-45 NASB

      Reply ↓

      • David you are making assumptions. Instead of saying X is clearly about the Messiah, you need to say , I believe X is about the Messiah because…/

        Psalm 110 is about David, Psalm 2 is about David, although I have seen that Dr. Brown calls it a coronation Psalm, and applies to all Kings. I did agree as there are similarities between Psalm 2 and Psalm 89:21-38

    • Moshe you say, “The kingdom is eternal, not the ruler of that kingdom.”

      The scriptures teach that the KING of Kings and LORD of Lords is eternal and His Kingdom is eternal.

      Reply ↓

      • Yes, G-d is eternal, but the Messiah is not a god.

      • Daniel, Isaiah and Ezekiel are all in agreement as they spoke by the Spirit of the Lord, that Messiah is God’s Servant who will both atone for our sins and rule forever.

        Isaiah predicted about when God’s Servant (Messiah) will atone for our sins in chapter 53. Daniel also wrote that the Messiah will atone for sins in chapter 9. He also wrote about when Messiah would rule in a era of peace in chapter 11. The prophet Ezekiel foretold about God’s servant His Son our Messiah; “My servant David” (the descendant of David) who would rule as king forever.
        24 “‘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. 25 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. 26 I will make a covenant of peace with them; it will be an everlasting covenant. I will establish them and increase their numbers, and I will put my sanctuary among them forever. 27 My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they will be my people. 28 Then the nations will know that I the LORD make Israel holy, when my sanctuary is among them forever.’” Ezekiel 37 NIV

        The apostle John wrote about this time when Messiah would reign for a 1000 years and then on into eternity in the book of Revelation 20-21.

      • For followers of Yeshua/Jesus, the Bible (especially the NT) – not the rabbis, who reject Yeshua – should be their starting point of all Biblical interpretation, innit? That’s why, I only accept what the rabbis say if it resonates with what the Bible says. For example, if a rabbi tells me that ”very good” in the creation story in Genesis, means ”very bad,” I’ll retort, “good poetry, bad theology.”

        Surely, I’m not being anti-Jewish (anti-Judaism, of the rabbinical kind, yes; but what other kind of Judaism is there?). (Jewish) rabbis and I agree on this point: “Messianic Judaism” (in Greek ”Christian Judaism”) is an oxy-you-know-what.

    • Moshe you say, “Daniel 9 refers to a person living at the time of the destruction of the temple”

      This verse in Daniel 9:26; “the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary” is talking about when the Roman general Titus who later become emperor of the Roman empire; led a war against Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple in 66-70 A.D.

      We read in Wikipedia;

      The first Jewish–Roman War (66–70 CE), sometimes called The Great Revolt (Hebrew: המרד הגדול‎, ha-Mered Ha-Gadol), was the first of three major rebellions by the Jews of Iudaea Province (Judaea Province), against the Roman Empire (the second was the Kitos War in 115–117 CE; the third was Bar Kokhba’s revolt of 132–135 CE).

      It began in the year 66 CE initially because of Greek and Jewish religious tensions, but later grew with anti-taxation protests and attacks upon Roman citizens.[1] It ended when legions under Titus besieged and destroyed the centre of rebel resistance in Jerusalem, and defeated the remaining Jewish strongholds.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Jewish%E2%80%93Roman_War

      But Moshe obviously The Roman general Titus (who latter became Cesar) did not “make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness” as we read in Daniel 9:24; but Yeshua the Moshaich did do this through His sacrificial death on the cross for our iniquity, by His stripes we are healed.

      Moshe Daniel 9:24 is about Yeshua who Himself is the guilt offering to make atonement for our sins. John the Baptist declared that, Yeshua is the Lamb of God who came to take away the sins of the world.

      24″Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity,

      As Isaiah tells us;

      “my righteous servant will justify many,
      and he will bear their iniquities.” Isaiah 53:11 NIV

      “the Righteous One,
      My Servant, will justify the many,
      As He will bear their iniquities.” Isaiah 53:11 NASB

      http://roshpinaproject.com/2010/09/24/isaiah-53-i-see-jesus-eisegesis-or-exegesis-who-is-the-suffering-servant/#comment-20978

      Daniel 9:25 is talking about when in history will the Moshiach come;

      the 69 Weeks prophecy

      25″So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks;

      We read in this scripture that Nehemiah asks permission of the ruler of the Persian Empire, King Artaxerxes; if he may go and rebuild Jerusalem in the month of Nisan, in the twentieth year of the reign King Artaxerxes. As we read further into the chapter we find out that permission was granted, with protection for safe passage to return to his homeland and building materials were provided as requested by Nehemiah. So the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem was issued by Artaxerxes Longimanus on March 14, 445 B.C. [1] Other mandates were issued by Cyrus King of the Persian Empire, we read of one in the book of Ezra chapter 1 verses 1 through 4. Cyrus issued a decree to rebuild the Jewish Temple, but since Gabriel stipulates in Daniel chapter 9 verse 25, “with plaza and moat” to restore and rebuild the city of Jerusalem (not the temple), therefore we conclude that the decree issued by Artaxerxes Longimanus is the starting point to calculate the 69 weeks.

      Some say we should look for the anointed Prince after 7 weeks or 49 years, although when we look 49 years after the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem there is not an anointed Prince in Jerusalem who came to atone for sin. But when we look in history 69 weeks after the decree we discover who the anointed Prince is. So let’s go figure. When we think of a “week” we think of 7 days, but in Daniel 9:25 a “week” refers to seven years instead of seven days. A “week” of years is similar to a decade. A decade is ten years; but a “week” of years is seven years. So we have 7 ‘sevens’ and 62 ‘sevens’. If you add 7 weeks plus 62 weeks there is 69 weeks of years.

      69 weeks of years is 69 times 7 years which equals 483 years.

      So 69 times 7 years equals 483 years,

      and 483 years times 360-days equals 173,880 days.

      Gabriel gave insight to Daniel that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until an anointed Prince there will be seven seven-year periods plus sixty-two seven-year periods of time; which equals 483 years. Then when we multiply 483 years times 360-days this equals 173,880 days. This anointed One, the Mäshiach, who is the anointed “Prince of Peace”, the “Prince of princes”, the King of kings; came to redeem God’s people and atone for our sins; “the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him.” [5]

      The English word “prince” used here in Hebrew is “nagid” – a leader, ruler, prince, commander-in-chief, or king. [6] Isaiah tells us that Mäshiach is “Mighty God”, “Prince of Peace”. [7] He is also the “Commander of the host” of heaven, the “Prince of princes”, [8] He is the anointed “King of kings” and Lord of lords. [9]

      When did the anointed One, ha’Mäshiach the anointed King come to Jerusalem? Yeshua ha’Mäshiach rode into Jerusalem on a colt, the foal of a donkey and was presented as King on April 6, 32 A.D. [10]

      The Hebrew prophet Zachariah prophecies under the inspiration of the Spirit of the Lord;

      Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion!

      Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem!

      See, your king comes to you,

      righteous and having salvation,

      gentle and riding on a donkey,

      on a colt, the foal of a donkey.

      Zachariah 9:9 NIV

      http://adventofmessiah.wordpress.com/2010/08/05/god%E2%80%99s-prophetic-70-weeks/

      This verse in Daniel 9:26; “the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary”

      Yeshua also prophecies that this would happen as well;

      41When He approached Jerusalem,

      He saw the city and wept over it,

      42saying, “If you had known in this day,

      even you, the things which make for peace!

      But now they have been hidden from your eyes.

      43″For the days will come upon you

      when your enemies will throw up a barricade against you,

      and surround you and hem you in on every side,

      44and they will level you to the ground

      and your children within you,

      and they will not leave in you one stone upon another,

      because you did not recognize the time of your visitation.”

      Luke 19:41-44 NASB

      Both God’s messenger the angel Gabriel and Yeshua the Son God, the promised Messiah prophesied the destruction of the second temple and Jerusalem. In the Bible we see both the severity of God’s judgment and the mercy and love of our Father who is in heaven. Messiah Yeshua explained God’s plan for our redemption and salvation and how to receive eternal life.

      http://www.templemount.org/destruct2.html

      Gabriel said the Moshiach would come atone for sin and be “cut off” before the destruction of the Temple an d Jerusalem in 70 A.D.

      Gabriel was right.

      Reply ↓

      • Daniel 9 is a difficult subject to explain in a short space. We would need to divide the issues there and discuss them. I wonder if you would like to read a paper I wrote on the subject. (I have not yet added it to my website.) It concentrates on the issue of the chronology of Daniel 9, and how it was looked at historically by the early church, in addition to the Jewish interpretation of it. It points out a number of Biblical problems with the Christian interpretation, one of which is that they abandon the Biblical chronology that is the basis of Daniel. (The Christians that I mean here are the modern ones, like yourself that have abandoned the Biblical chronology of Daniel.) If you (or anyone else) wants it email me at outreachATjudaismsanswerDOTcom.

      • Yes Moshe I’m very interested in Bible prophecy and would be interested to read what you wrote on Daniel. I’ll send you an email.

54. David your

    ”Going back to Isaiah 53:5 NASB;

    But He was pierced through for our transgressions,
    He was crushed for our iniquities;
    The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him,
    And by His scourging we are healed.

    In this verse (David continues above) we clearly see that God’s Righteous Servant was not pierced, crushed, chastened and scourged for His own sin (wrong) but for our iniquities, for our well-being so that we can be healed. Our iniquities fell upon God’s Righteous Servant.”

    As I keep on saying ad peccatum (Latin grammar?), for Moshe and the majority Jewish view, ”our” in ”our iniquities” is not Israel, for they say the suffering servant is Israel. By deduction, ”our” or non-Jews, that is, the ”nations” (goyim). Which means that it is the goyim who are speaking through a Jewish book about how Israel, the sufffering servant, has suffered from them and removed their iniquities. As I said on a a previous occasion: goy figure!

    Reply ↓

    • I said ”By deduction, ”our” or non-Jews…”
      I meant “our” ARE non-Jews.

      Reply ↓

    • Latin grammar? I thought it is yiddish…LOL!

      “our” and “he”–it reminds me of the “fantom bullett” that hit seven other people before it hit President Kennedy….But this is par for Jewish interpretations, the Rabbis always had an answer for everything….OY VEY…Now, this is Latin…..

      Reply ↓

55. Raphybog said, “for Moshe and the majority Jewish view, ”our” in ”our iniquities” is not Israel, for they say the suffering servant is Israel. By deduction, ”our” or non-Jews, that is, the ”nations” (goyim). Which means that it is the goyim who are speaking through a Jewish book about how Israel, the sufffering servant, has suffered from them and removed their iniquities. As I said on a a previous occasion: goy figure!”

    Wow, I did not know that was this was the majority Jewish view.

    The majority Christian view would be one of these four options below depending on their theology;

    1. The Jewish people.
    2. The remnant of the Jewish people who believe in and receive Yeshua the Moshiach (John 1:11,12, John 3:16)
    3. The remnant of both Jewish and Gentile people who believe in and receive Yeshua the Moshiach (John 1:11,12, John 3:16)
    4. All the people who ever lived. (1 John 2:2)

    Reply ↓

56. David do your mean that your four options refer to ”our” in Isaiah 53:5?

    Reply ↓

    • Yes Raphybog, four options refer to ”our” in Isaiah 53:5. These are variations of “L” — limited atonement and unlimited atonement i.e. “our” being the elect (Jew and gentile) or “our” being “U” — unlimited atonement, that is for all the sins of all the people of the whole world. (no doubt there are other interpretations.)

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_atonement
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlimited_atonement

      Reply ↓

57. Moshe awhile back you raised an interesting question regarding the guilt “offering” (asham) mentioned in Isaiah 53:10;

    10 But the LORD was pleased
    To crush Him, putting Him to grief;
    If He would render Himself as a guilt offering,
    He will see His offspring,
    He will prolong His days,
    And the good pleasure of the LORD will prosper in His hand.
    Isaiah 53:10 NASB

    Luke posted an excellent article from “Hope in Messiah” that addresses Who is the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 52-53? [and this issue of the guilt offering (asham)];

    b. The suffering servant died for the transgressions, or sins, of the Jewish people. This is seen in the closing sentence of Isaiah 53:8, which says:

    For he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due.

    Clearly, “my people” is Isaiah’s people, the people of Israel. The passage would make no sense if the suffering servant were Israel. In that case, Israel would die for Israel’s sins. In other words, Israel would have gotten what she deserved, which makes no sense. The entire passage speaks of the suffering servant suffering and dying for, on behalf of, or in place of Israel.

    c. In verse 10, the suffering servant is offered as an “asham,” or guilt offering. Throughout the Hebrew Scriptures, or Jewish Bible, the guilt offering was never Israel, nor could it ever have been Israel. The guilt offering, or “asham,” was always offered on behalf of or in place of the one who had committed the trespass or sin.[2] It was never offered for or on behalf of the asham itself. (No one could ever be an “asham” for his or her own sins.) An asham offering was always offered by an individual and never by the nation of Israel. (See Art Scroll commentary on Leviticus, volume 1.) In addition, the offering had to be without blemish, or sinless. Because the offering was without blemish, it was always offered for the sins of someone other than the asham itself. For all of these reasons, Israel cannot be the suffering servant who offers himself as an asham offering.

    3. The “asham” always had to die. Likewise, the suffering servant clearly died. See Isaiah 53:8, 9, 10, and 12. He was “cut off out of the land of the living,” he had a grave; he was with the rich “in his death;” and he “poured out his soul unto death.” However, Israel never died. In fact, it is impossible for Israel to ever die, because G-d promised Israel that she would live forever. (See, for example Jeremiah 31:35-37.)

    4. The suffering servant suffered a vicarious and substitutionary death (Isaiah 53:4-6, 8, 10, 12). He suffers for the sins of others, so they need not suffer for their own sins. Nowhere in the Jewish Bible nor in Jewish history do we ever see Israel suffering for, on behalf of, or in place of the Gentiles, so that the Gentiles do not have to suffer. Israel often suffered at the hand of Gentiles or because of Gentiles, but never for, on behalf of, or in place of the Gentiles. Israel suffers, but she always suffers for her own sins.

    5. The suffering servant “sprinkles” many nations (or Gentiles) in Isaiah 52:15. The Hebrew word for sprinkle is repeatedly used for the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice, which was always offered for, on behalf of, or in place of Israel.[3] Israel’s blood was never “sprinkled”, as Israel could never be a sacrifice for herself.

    http://www.hopeinmessiah.org/10_Reasons.htm

    Reply ↓

58. David, your
    “For he was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of my people to whom the stroke was due.

    Clearly, “my people” is Isaiah’s people, the people of Israel. The passage would make no sense if the suffering servant were Israel.”

    Exactly.

    I knew my dad’s name as Izzy. In my old age, and him long gone, I found out that Izzy’s friends called him Srol.

    So Moshe, would your retort to David run something like this:

    “For IZZY was cut off out of the land of the living, for the transgression of SROL to whom the stroke was due. (Where the names, of course, bear no reference to my dad).

    Reply ↓

59. bography nice to see your smiling face, I’ve missed your insightful comments. Indeed, the current Rabbinic position makes no sense that the suffering servant is “IZ” (Israel) and the ”our” are non-Jews, that is, the ”nations” (goyim). I liked your insight, “Which means that it is the goyim who are speaking through a Jewish book about how Israel, the sufffering servant, has suffered from them and removed their iniquities. As I said on a a previous occasion: goy figure!”

    That He was cut off out of the land of the living
    For the transgression of my people, to whom the stroke was due? Isaiah 53:8 NASB

    We know Isaiah’s people are Israel, not the non-believing non-Jews (goyim) gentile nations. But thanks be to God His righteous suffering Servant sprinkled the nations with His blood.

    So His appearance was marred more than any man
    And His form more than the sons of men.
    15 Thus He will sprinkle many nations,
    Kings will shut their mouths on account of Him;
    For what had not been told them they will see,
    And what they had not heard they will understand.
    Isaiah 52:14-15 NASB

    Yeshua is the innocent Lamb of God who came to take away the sins of the world as Elijah told us (John the Baptist) in John 1:29.

    Elijah saw Yeshua coming to him and said,
    “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!” John 1:29 NASB

    Reply ↓

    • The Ba‘al haTurim (Ya‘akov ben Asher, ±1275-1343, in his comment on the Torah said: “יזה שבע פעמים. ואידך כן יזה גוים רבים בפרשה הנה ישכיל עבדי (ישעיה נב, טו) שמדברת בענין משיח, שעתיד הקב”ה להחזיר שתי המשפחות שכשיבא מלך המשיח תחזור ג”כ משפחת כהונה לעבודתה HE SHALL SPRINKLE SEVEN TIMES (Lev.16:14); and another one shall sprinkle many nations (Is.52:15), from the parashah Hinnei Yaskil Avdi (i.e.: Is.52:13-53:12), that talks concerning Mashiach. Because HaKadosh, Baruch Hu (the Holy One, praised be He), shall restore two dynasties, because when the King Mashiach comes shall also restore the priestly dynasty to it’s duty”.

      Reply ↓

      • Shmuel David also gives us insight into Moshiach’s two offices of both Kingship and Priesthood in Psalms 110:2-4

        As you know, so does Zechariah;

        12 Then say to him, ‘Thus says the LORD of hosts, “Behold, a man whose name is Branch, for He will branch out from where He is; and He will build the temple of the LORD. 13 Yes, it is He who will build the temple of the LORD, and He who will bear the honor and sit and rule on His throne. Thus, He will be a priest on His throne, and the counsel of peace will be between the two offices.”’ Zechariah 6:12-13 NASB

60. Or should I say He (Yeshua) sprinkled many nations (goyim), but He did not sprinkle His blood on all goyim, only on those who believe in and receive Him as Moshiach and the Son of the living Elohim.

    9 There was the true Light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and those who were His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:9-13 NASB

    Reply ↓

61. David, you have enunciated a difficult question, namely, “limited atonement” (only for those who believe) anD how it can be reconciled with John 1:9 “enlightens EVERY man.”

    “Enlighten” does not mean saving enlightenment because it would contradict many others passages that are epitomised by Romans 9. Here is the glorious unequivocal passage that so many, including messianic Jews, try to wriggle out of. The passage in question explains clearly why some believe in Christ/Mashiach and others don’t – in the context of this topic why some belief Isaiah 53 about 1. The messiah AND about 2. Jesus.
    Romans 9:10ff
    ….when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac; 11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) 12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. 13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. 14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Godforbid. 15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24 Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.
    So, David, you were correct first time: Christ’s blood was shed only for those who believe. Here’s the crunch: only those whom the Father gives to the son, which has nothing to do with whether the slave to sin has/will do anything good or bad (Romans 9:15-16) will receive saving enlightenment.

    But, but, what about my free will. My answer “Free Willie” my foot! My Calvinist foot!!

    Reply ↓

62. The truth of God’s Sovereignty, upset me as a young man; and seemed to contradict the “whosoever will” (freewill of man) may come to God through Messiah. Yet the more I read the scriptures both in the Tanach and NT I ran into the fact that God is sovereign and does what He pleases.

    This truth flies in the face of humanism that “man is at the center of all things” of his universe.

    As Nebuchadnezzar learned the hard way;

    For His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
    And His kingdom endures from generation to generation.
    35 “All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing,
    But He does according to His will in the host of heaven
    And among the inhabitants of earth;
    And no one can ward off His hand
    Or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’
    Daniel 4:35 NASB

    A redeemed Jewish Pharisee, (formerly an anti-missionary) wrote to the chosen few in Ephesus;

    Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight 9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him 11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. 13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also [r]believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory.

    Ephesians 1:3-14 NASB

    So we “who were born, not of blood (Jewish bloodline) nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God. John 1:9-13 NASB We are “born again” (regeneration) by the will of God, His sovereign chose.

    Reply ↓

63. That’s it David. Now why do most messianic Jews see a fly in the anointment?
    http://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/2010/10/16/how-to-soup-up-a-sermon-on-monergistic-regeneration/

    Reply ↓

64. Well bography, some things are hard to figure…

    We know that the “traditions of men” are not limited to Judaism, but are also in Catholicism, Protestantism and Messianic Judaism. It is by revelation of the Spirit through the Torah, Tanach and NT scriptures and by God’s grace that we have light, giving us insight into the truth of Messiah and being strengthened in our faith line upon line, precept upon precept. Replacing false presuppositions with the truth from Elohim’s Word (both the written Logos and Living Word Moshiach Himself).

    Moshe writes of the “fall of man” in Torah,

    “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” Genesis 2:16-17 NASB

    Adam and Eve did not die physically the day they eat from the knowledge of good and evil, but they did die spiritually that day. Their relationship with their Creator was broken off through sin. Adam’s sin brought forth death, spiritual death.

    Paul explains the damage from Adam’s sin in Romans 5;

    12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— 13 for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. Romans 5:12-14 NASB

    Then as you gave us a visual and written sermon on, “Dead, dead, see I am dead: How to soup up a sermon on monergistic regeneration.” explaining Ephesians 2 and Romans 9;

    1 And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. Ephesians 2:1-10 NASB

    It is interesting to me that even though Paul taught that regeneration was dependent on the will of God, and not by the will of man; that Paul still labored hard and sowed the seeds of the gospel of Moshiach broadly; to the Jew first and also to the Greek.

    Reply ↓

65. Isaiah 53:7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
    Yet He did not open His mouth;
    Like a lamb that is led to slaughter,
    And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers,
    So He did not open His mouth.

    My question is: ”Where on this earth has it ever occurred or will ever occur that Israel shuts his mouth when confronted with suffering. Besides, when it comes to any issue at all, aren’t we Jews rather vocal?

    http://onedaringjew.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/isaiah-53-the-suffering-and-insufferable-servant/

    Reply ↓

    • When Christians slaughtered them in Europe’s death camps, the Jews had neither verbally nor otherwise incited the violence against them, nor did they, in the main, even attempt to repel the insurmountable Christian armies of violent bigots surrounding them, like lions at their hands and at their feet.

      But your comment that the Jews are too loud-mouthed for your liking when Christiandom torments them unjustly is as articulate as any of your various exhibits of gross insensitivity to the suffering of G-d’s chosen servant, His people Israel.

      Reply ↓

      • Well said, Ben. And while I don’t believe this passage to be only about Am Yisrael, but also Mashiach, you’ve done well in articulating an opposing view. Indeed, the People Israel have resisted less than any other in history when faced with unimaginably horrific and completely unwarranted treatment – and continue to do so today. How many others would remain so decent, humble – even compassionate – in the face of numerous factions and countries calling for their annihilation?

        Better questions concerning Yeshayahu 53 would have been how can Israel hide its face from itself, bear the punishment that brought itself peace? How has the L-RD laid on Israel the iniquity of all of Israel and how was Israel was cut off from the living for the transgression of “my people”, Israel? How can Israel intercede for itself? We benefit tremendously from understanding that there is, as in so many other prophetic passages – especially those concerning the “servant”, a duality of fulfillment and meaning. Many of the surrounding chapters describe Israel, but 53 grammatically, physically and logically cannot.

        Insensitivity concerning the sufferings of Am Yisrael throughout history is, and ought to be, a completely separate issue. For far too long, the long shadow of Christian persecution has prevented Jews from being able to approach this essential passage with an open heart.

      • Ben your psalm 22 allusion “like lions at their hands and their feet.” I don’t understand; are you inferring that the crucifixion of Messiah Yeshua/Jesus is a typology of Christian persecution of the Jews? If so, then it would not be outrageous to suggest that the world was created for the Jews.

        Another thing; you are no doubt aware that all the Jewish suffering and decimations in the over many centuries were at the hands of the Holy one of Israel, the apple of His eye.

66. Luke,
    Chag Semeach
    I also agree with Ben and with you. We cannot overlook the overwhelming amount of surring that Israel has surfered. But we cannot also over look that Isa.53 is a very special passage!

    Moshiach as the perfect represenative of Israel (the King) represents the whole nation. Luke you bring up some great uestions, ones that cannot be fulfiiled by Israel as a whole. Moshiach perfect in virture and having no sin, died for the sins of His people.

    It is understood in the Judaism of the 1st century Moshiach (the ben Yosef, or ben Ephraim) had to die, and that His death would atone for the sins of Israel.

    The Zohar Noah 131 says: “The Tzaddik (righteous man) is, of a truth, himself a [metaphorical] offering of atonement [in the upper worlds, because he sacrificed his will unto the will of G-d]. But he who is not Tzaddik [righteous] is disqualified as an offering because he’s blemished, as it is written, ‘they shall not be accepted for you’ (Lv 22:25). So the tzadikkim alone are atonement and a sacrifice for the world”.

    The sages clearly know that Moshiach is the highest Tzaddik in this world, and that His sacrifice would atone for the whole world.

    Sanhedrin 98b: “Rav said: The world was created only on David’s account. Samuel said: On Moshe account; R. Yohanan said: For the sake of the Moshiach. What is his name? – The Rabbis said: His name is ‘the smitten scholar’ [nagah], as it is written, Surely he hath borne our grieves, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken [nagah], smitten of G-d, and afflicted.. .. those of the house of the Rabbi say: ‘the sickly’ [Cholaya], for it says, “Surely he has borne our sicknesses” (Is 53).

    We read in Shemot Rabbah 35:4
    “Moses said to G-d: Will not the time come when Israel shall have neither Tabernacle nor Temple? What will happen with them then? The divine reply was: I will then take one of their righteous men and retain him as a pledge on their behalf, in order that I may pardon all their sins”.

    Reply ↓

    • The main purpose of creation was not for the sake of the Jews (insufferable chutzpa) but for the sake of Messiah.

      “Rabbi Johanan said, ‘The world was created for the sake of the Messiah, what is this Messiah’s name?’ The school of Rabbi Shila said, ‘his name is Shiloh, for it is written, until Shiloh comes. (Genesis 49:10)’” [Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b]

      There’s more; the world was also created by the Messiah.

      John 1:1-14

      1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
      6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not…14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
       
      The creator Word of God is also the suffering servant of Isaiah 53.

      Rabbi Yochanan said, ‘The Messiah – what is his name?’… And our Rabbis said, ‘the pale one… is his name,’ as it is written ‘Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows – yet we considered him stricken by G~d, smitten by him and afflicted.’” [Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98, p. 2]

      Reply ↓

67. The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! 30 This is the one I meant when I said, ‘A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.’ 31 I myself did not know him, but the reason I came baptizing with water was that he might be revealed to Israel.” John 1:29-31 NIV Yeshua said that John (the Baptist) was the prophet who was to come…Elijah.

    Reply ↓

68. Would you like to know what is our (Pastoral) heart’s desire and prayer for the souls to whom we minister? We want to bring them to the blood of Christ. We are not content to see our churches filled, our congregations numerous, or our cause outwardly flourishing. We want to see men and women coming to the great Fountain for sin and uncleanness, and washing their souls in it, that they may be clean. Here only is rest for the conscience. Here only is peace for the inward man. Here only is a cure for spiritual diseases. Here only is the secret of a light and happy heart. No doubt we have within us a fountain of evil and corruption; but, blessed be God, there is another Fountain of greater power still, even the precious blood of the Lamb: and, washing daily in that other Fountain, we are clea n from all sin.

    ~ J.C. Ryle

    Reply ↓

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.