The Laceration of two Presidencies...Zech 12

Here’s a bullet point , we have not had a president since 11-23-63.

nice-

After-the-fact stuff is simply a matter of searching out parallels. It’s not terribly impressive.

Give me straight prediction with the same specificity.

Since on May 2 Obama “promised to start publicly assigning blame to (Israel who) he sees holding up peace and to force Israel into indefinitely extending its temporary settlement freeze”

what will specifically happen to the U.S.?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2505222/posts?page=70#70

The credentials of a prophet are established by prediction and not by analysis.

Thanks Xzins- But I am not claiming to be a prophet- I make no predictions whatever. I am only a believer in Jesus, longing for the Parousia. And all I have to deal with is “after the fact stuff” for the most part, because the predictions were already made centuries ago by God’s prophets.

However when believers insisted for centuries that there would be a resurrection of the Jewish state, they had solid ground to stand on, believing the Biblical prophets, and in May 1948 they were vindicated. God’s word is true!

It has happened a few times already...this one too.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Blogs/Message.aspx/2539

G-d will not be mocked. Thanks PBR for the post.

I think you're being a bit unfair there, xzins. To paraphrase Sir Isaac Newton, the Holy One did not give us prophecy so that men could prophesy, but so that when the prophecy came to pass, men would recognize it and praise the Eternal One. Heck, how many people understood the Messiah before He came? I think Apollos is the only one in the NT credited with getting the prophecies essentially right before receiving instruction. That doesn't mean that John, Peter, Matthew, and Luke were somehow being phoney for recognizing the prophecies and the manner of their fulfillment until after-the-fact.

Frankly, I've been pondering along the same lines as Bill. God does say flat-out that He will bless those who bless Abraham and curse those who curse him, and that those who mess with Jerusalem will be cut up. It doesn't take a prophet to say that bad stuff will continue to hit America "coincident" with us messing around with the apple of God's eye. Nor does it take a prophet to know that God is a big fan of ironic punishment and proportional retribution.

Shalom.

"the Holy One did not give us prophecy so that men could prophesy, but so that when the prophecy came to pass, men would recognize it and praise the Eternal One. .."how many people understood the Messiah"....

FRiend Buggman- That is not a very good argument. The operative statement is...when the prophecy came to pass. The man from Nazareth has not met the requirements of The Messiah and therefore can not be crowned Melech HaMashiach. Hence the need for the second coming. Until The Messiah accomplishs ALL his Messianic duties, he is to be viewed as another potential Messiah and a potential false Messiah.

Shalom Shalom

Hi Pastor Bill.

I do the Daily “Pray For The Peace of Jerusalem Thread”.

Thank You for Your Ministry!

Katrina means “Cleansing” in Greek. Interesting, as it occurred right after the Gush Katif Disaster.

I do Believe that The Gulf Oil Disaster is related to the betrayal of Israel.

Not only that but the worship of “Gaia” and the idolatry of worshiping the creation rather than having dominion and stewardship over the earth’s resources caused the deepwater drilling and foolish environmental practices leading to the disaster.

God bless you, Brother.

thank you left, and Buggman- I appreciate the encouragement!

Obviously, I disagree with you there. Unfortunately, traditional Judaism has become guilty of cherry-picking which Messianic prophecies it wishes to believe in in order to elimiate Yeshua's claim--even to the point of ignoring the earlier sages and which prophecies they said were Messianic.

Just to give one example, the current interpretation of Isaiah 53, going back to Rashi, is that it is a prophecy of Israel's suffering, not the Messiah's. Let's set aside the details that make it impossible for that interpretation to stand up under scrutiny for a moment. There is a discussion in the Babylonian Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin, folio 98a or b if I recall correctly in which the rabbis are speculating about the name of the Messiah. It serves as a very useful guide, telling us a number of prophecies that were considered Messianic by the Talmudic sages.

One of the sages calls Messiah, "the Leper of the Beit Midrash" based on Isa. 53--and even though the Talmud was compiled six centuries after the advent of Christianity, there is absolutely zero challenge to the Messianic nature of the passage.

There is, in fact, an entire thread of Messianic prophecies that speak of a suffering Messiah. The rabbis, uncertain how to reconcile these prophecies to the Kingly Son of David, speculated that there might be more than one Messiah, as described in the Jewish Encyclopedia.

Now here is my question for you: Isaiah 11 is universally held to refer to the Messiah (cf. b.Sanh. 93a-b). In v. 1, the Messiah is called “a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a twig shall grow forth out of his roots” (JPS trans.). It is this same root and shoot of Jesse that the Gentiles seek in v. 10, before the second regathering of Israel and Judah to the Land. This begs the question, which relative of Jesse were hundreds of millions of Gentiles seeking after and finding their glorious rest in even before Israel became a nation again in 1948?

Shalom.

"Obviously, I disagree with you there."

You are not diagreeing with me but G-d.

Deut 18: 22 When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken...

Deut 18:20But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded him to say, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, must be put to death."

So when Jesus prophesied in Matt 24 a list of things and said: [34] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

That generation did pass (and no alternative meaning of generation will cut it) and those things did not happen.

And Paul too.

For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will G-d bring with him. [15] For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

The writer of Hebrews makes a similar claim.

And so, Jesus had prophesied these things were to happen in his day. They did not. Jesus did not meet the prophetic requirements of Messiah of the Tanakh. That is why there had to be a second coming. Not only did he not return in that generation, it has been 2000 years. That makes him ineligible, along with a host of other reasons. Nowhere in all of scripture are we told it is acceptable to put our trust, our very souls, in the hands of a messiah who has NOT accomplished ALL his tasks. On the contrary, we are to consider him NOT of G-d.

Okay, about the Is 53 issue. First of all, the in addition to Rashi and Maimonides, the Zohar, Midrash rabbah, Talmud brochos 5a, Targum Yonatan all mention a national suffering servant. So, while some sages of old, prior to Rashi held it was an individual, that was by no means a concensus.

Certainly we know, since the time of Rashi have the benefit of history and they did not have the benefit of the future. Certainly, if those same sages were alive today, they could see how the Jews have slaughtered, without cause, for 2000 years. Culmonating in the 19th century pogroms, where hundreds of thousands of Jews were slaughtered, to the holocaust 6 million of which 1.5 million were children.

As a matter of fact, look at 52:14 Just as there were many who were appalled at him — his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness—

Now when you consider what Jesus went through, scurging and crucifiction, one thing is apparent from the Gospel texts. They all knew it was him on the cross. No one had to ask, now which one is he? 'Cause that guy is so marred he doesnt even look human! No, they all knew which one he was.

Now contrast that to the Jewish people. Who for centuries and even now, by Iran and other Islamists, consider Jews to be sons of apes and pigs, viruses, rats, untermenchen, subhuman,etc. The only way you build factories, for the express purpose of stuffing 1.5 million children into furnaces and another 4.5 million men and women, is to dehumanize them more than any group of man ever. Those Germans were not killing human beings....those were Untermenchen!

Jesus marred more than any man? No.

Is 53:7 It was the Jews who went to the gas chambers silently, Jesus did talk during his ordeal, he even lied to the high priests (John 18:20)when he said he tought nothing in secret but several times told his deciples and others not to reveal what he had told them. Jesus cried out on the cross. He wasnt silent he did open his mouth.

Is 53:10, It was G-ds will to crush G-d? G-d makes G-d a guilt offering? He will see his children? (the hebrew word there NEVER means spiritual children) Prolong his days? Jesus died at 33. So, when a person compares the text to history, it is clearly talking about the nation of Israel in the singular, just as Isaiah constantly switches from singular to plural when discussing Israel, G-ds servant. Perfect example is 43:10 "You are my witnesses," (plural) declares the LORD, "and my servant(singular) whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

11 I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no savior.(Hard to fit the god-man hybrid into that verse...)

So it is with Isaiah, singular, plural, singular....What is consistent? The servant is Israel, Jacob, Zion and NO other.

I could go on and on about Isaiah 53, it isn’t the man from Nazareth, clearly. Read a good Jewish dissertation on it and if you have an open mind at all, it is clear. The translators totally butchered the Hebrew, both in meaning and word tenses to make it chistological. On to your question. The events of Isaiah 11 has not occurred yet. It could not possibly be Jesus. Why?

The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling [a] together; and a little child will lead them.

Hasn’t happened.

9 They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD as the waters cover the sea.

The temple WAS destroyed after Jesus here so that isn’t true. And the earth is not full of the knowledge of G-d, it hasn’t happened yet.

And finally, Jesus can not possibly be of the root of Jesse. Both of Jesus’s genealogical lines are fatally flawed. Matthew has him going through the cursed king Jeconiah and Luke has him going through Nathan instead of Solomon. Jesus had no biological father and tribal affiliation is never adopted. Only property can be inherited through adoption. And even if Luke had him going through Solomon, this line is attributed to Mary and therefore is worthless. (Even though it says Joseph).

So, Isaiah 11 is another dead-end for the man from Nazareth. Isaiah 11 will be fullfilled be the Jewish Messiah and when he does ALL of Isaiah 11, then the Gentiles will say:

Jer16:19O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ends of the earth, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit.

Shalom

I don't think I am, B'man.

America forced a diplomatic evacuation, so God forced a Katrina evacuation.
Gaza was on the south, so God hit America on the south.
Gaza was on the coast, so God hit America on the coast.
Israel had to evacuate homes, so God forced Louisianans to evacuate homes.
God used numerology to prove His handprint on Katrina (evil on land from the sea)
God hit Louisiana & Mississippi because it lies between Alabama and Texas (Condolezza's state and GW Bush's state) (The fathers sin and the children's teeth are set on edge)
Gaza residents had to climb to their roof, so God forced Louisianans to their roof.
Gaza homes were demolished by the military, so God demolished Louisiana homes with a hurricane.
Israel moved graves, so God caused corpses to float in Louisiana.
Obama discussed UN vetoes against Israel, so God blew up an oil rig in the Gulf.

Then the article finishes on this wimpy note, not standing behind it's own suggestions about Divine connections:

"Who knows if there is a direct connection?

My points:

If you really want to get my attention, don't tell me after the fact that God did this. Tell me ahead of time.

And don't suggest all these connections and then wimp out on me. "Who knows..." Be a man. Stand up and say, "I think there's a Divine connection." If you think there is, then say so. If you think there is not, then say so.

As for me, tell me that since Obama (the president) and Hillary (the sec state) both hail from Chicago that something's gonna happen there due to their disrespecting Israel. (If nothing else say, "Neither the Sox nor the Cubs will make the series this year." :>)

So when Jesus prophesied in Matt 24 a list of things and said: [34] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Very true. However, there's a bit of word-play involved there: The word for "generation," genea, can mean the period of time from one begetting to another as we think of it, but it's primary meaning is that which is begotten, the family, or even a people.

So which way should we read it? "This generation shall not pass away," or "This people shall not pass away"?

The answer is both.

Yeshua prophesied the destruction of the Temple. It says so right at the beginning of the passage. To understand Him to have been speaking in apocalyptic hyperbole actually puts him right up there with Isaiah and Jeremiah, who used similarly hyperbolic language in describing, for example, the fall of Babylon. Since the destruction of the Temple happened 38-40 years later, He was absolutely correct to say it would happen to "this generation."

But Yeshua also spoke of the apocalyptic events leading up to His own Second Coming. As with most of the prophets, the "near" fulfillment satisfied the hyperbolic imagery, but the "far" fulfillment will, I suspect, fulfill even the fine details.

That's the way prophecy works. Even our father Abraham got a prophecy "wrong" by the standards you apply to Yeshua. He prophesied that the Holy One would provide a lamb for the sacrifice--only to have God provide a ram instead. Functionally the same, true--but not exactly the same. Why did the Holy One go out of his way to prove Abraham wrong? This is our remez, or hint, that there would be a greater fulfillment of the substitutionary Lamb yet to come. Abraham knew this, and named the place Hashem Yireh ("The Eternal One Shall See/Provide") and it became a proverb in Israel recorded in the Torah, "In the mountain of the Lord, He shall be provided."

Or to take another example, the prophets (especially Jeremiah) prophesied that Judah would be scattered to all nations--but when the Babylonians came, we were scattered to exactly two: Babylon, with a remnant escaping to Egypt with Jeremiah. Did this prove the prophets false, or did they look beyond the first Exile to the Diaspora and to the expulsion by the Romans which truly did take the children of Israel to all nations?

So yes, Yeshua of Nazareth was a prophet--and more than a prophet.

As for Paul, he's a separate issue, but the fact is that prophets often use imminent language and speak of "we" even when their prophecies take centuries to fulfill.

Okay, about the Is 53 issue. First of all, the in addition to Rashi and Maimonides, the Zohar, Midrash rabbah, Talmud brochos 5a, Targum Yonatan all mention a national suffering servant. So, while some sages of old, prior to Rashi held it was an individual, that was by no means a concensus.

I'm afraid that you have been misinformed. See here. Maimonides and the Zohar both apply Isaiah 53 to the Messiah. As for the Targum Yonatan, let's see for ourselves:

"Then he (my servant Messiah) will become despised, and will cut off the glory of all the Kingdoms; they will be prostrate and mourning, like a man of pains, and like One destined for sickness; and as though the presence of the Shekinah had been withdrawn from us, they will be despised, and esteemed not."

To quote Michael L. Brown:

While it is true that Rashi, Ibn Ezra and Radak all interpreted the passage with reference to Israel, other equally prominent leaders, such as Moses ben Nachman (called Nachmanides or the Ramban) felt compelled to follow the weight of ancient tradition and embrace the individual, Messianic interpretation of the Talmudic rabbis (found in the Midrash, despite his belief that the plain sense of the text supported the national interpretation). Noteworthy also is the oft-quoted comment of Rabbi Moshe Alshech, writing in the sixteenth century, “ Our rabbis with one voice accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet is speaking of the Messiah, and we shall ourselves also adhere to the same view.” This too is highly significant, since Alshech claims that all his contemporaries agreed with the Messianic reading of the text, despite the fact that Rashi, Ibn Ezra and Radak had all come out against that reading. (Answering Jewish Objection to Jesus, Michael L. Brown, Pgs. 49-50, Baker Books, 2003)

Years ago, I was visiting with an Israeli friend, and he started showing off by doing off-the-cuff translations from the Hebrew Tanakh. My now mother-in-law, in a stroke of genius, asked him to translate Isaiah 53 for us. He cheerfully accepted, got about four verses in, paused, frowned, and said, "That sounds positively Christian, doesn't it?" Three verses later he abruptly stopped and said, "I don't understand this; I have to check the commentary." The commentary, of course, gave him the answer that he wanted--but as the above proves, not the answer the ancient sages saw.

But nevertheless, he saw it for himself, without anyone leading him, reading directly from the Hebrew. Therefore, while I admit that Christian translations of the Tanakh are often (not always) a mess, coming from the Vulgate rather than the Hebrew, I don't think that's the problem here.

I agree that one can apply Isa. 53 to the Jewish people midrashically--and it's hardly a surprise that Israel should suffer as her King has suffered. But the fact is that the plain interpretation, the p'shat, points to the Messiah and His sufferings.

It was G-ds will to crush G-d?

In a sense, but that gets into an area that would take us a while to work out--it'd be like trying to explain Kabbalah in soundbites; it won't work. Let's deal with whether it speaks of the Messiah first, and then discuss the Messiah's relationship with the Most High later, if the conversation lasts that long.

Read a good Jewish dissertation on it and if you have an open mind at all, it is clear.

I have. You go read the ancient sages and their statements on Isaiah 53 for yourself . . . if you have an open mind at all, that is.

Hasn’t happened.

Neither has the Jubilee been celebrated in all of Israel's history. Does that make Moshe a false prophet, or do we acknowledge that sometimes theres a "yet" implied?

So, Isaiah 11 is another dead-end for the man from Nazareth. Isaiah 11 will be fullfilled be the Jewish Messiah and when he does ALL of Isaiah 11, then the Gentiles will say:

Indeed they will. But you've dodged, rather than answered, the salient point: Isaiah places the Gentiles seeking the Messiah before the second regathering of Israel to the Land. We are in the days of that second regathering now, so which Messianic applicant of the House of Jesse are you claiming that the Gentiles have sought out other than Yeshua?

Let me finish by saying something that will bug some of my Sunday-keeping friends here: Even if you become convinced that Yeshua of Nazareth is truly the Messiah of Israel (and that's a big "if," I know), I don't want you, or any Jew, to become a Christian. I don't want you to go to church. I don't want you to forsake the Sabbath for Sunday. I want you to be more zealous for the Torah and the traditions, not less.

That, believe it or not, is what Yeshua taught us to do.

Shalom.

So which way should we read it? "This generation shall not pass away," or "This people shall not pass away"?

As you noticed, I anticipated that you would use that defense. Problem is that is clearly an eisegetical rendering of the verse. Context determines meaning and Jesus words clearly speak for the generation at that time not a "people" or "race".

Look collectively at like verses.

34"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things take place.

48"But if that evil slave says in his heart, 'My master is not coming for a long time,'

Luke So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of G-d is nigh at hand. [32] Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

1 Corinthians 7:29 But this I say, brethren, the time [is] short:....

1 thess For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep

Heb 10 For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come, and will not tarry.

James 5 Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts: for the coming of the Lord draweth nigh

Rev22:20He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

So, if you take the meaning of Jesus words at face value (peshat) and look at the expectations of the disciples. The correct exegesis is "that generation" not people. Here is an example of clear expectation:

2 pete 3 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

And this:

28"Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom." (yes, Irealize that this was supposed to be the transfiguration but in the transfiguration Jesus just stood there. He didnt arrive from heaven and he had NO kingdom with him. Just Moses and Elijah).

And speaking of Elijah. That was another false statement by Jesus. He told the disciples that John the baptist was Elijah:

11I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist;14And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. 15He who has ears, let him hear.

11Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. 12But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." 13Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

John the Baptist did NOT restore all things. And John the Baptist said he was NOT Elijah.

21They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?" He said, "I am not." "Are you the Prophet?" He answered, "No." 22Finally they said, "Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?" 23John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, "I am the voice of one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.' "[h] 24Now some Pharisees who had been sent 25questioned him, "Why then do you baptize if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?"

Jesus says he is, John says he isnt. Thats a problem.

What is Elijah supposed to do?

Mal 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: 6And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

And what does Jesus teaching do?:

51Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

The exact opposite of Elijah! Elijah comes to repair then Jesus divides. Thats a problem.

Jesus got the temple distruction right but a whole lot else wrong. That makes him a false prophet.

"Why did the Holy One go out of his way to prove Abraham wrong?

One of two reasons I suspect. One is Abraham is on faith expecting a lamb but G-d bumps it up a notch, a Ram is more valuable. Secondly, a Ram can get caught in a thicket by his horns, a lamb cant.

"This is our remez, or hint, that there would be a greater fulfillment of the substitutionary Lamb yet to come

Not at all. The message of the Akedah, is the opposite of the Christian message. The nations of the world were engaging in child sacrifice. Shedding of innocent blood. G-d pushes Abraham to the limit in his 10th and final test. And what happens? Issac, who is his child, but is in his 30's, willingly lays down his life for his father. And what is G-ds response?

Stop! Dont hurt him! I dont want you to be like the nations and offer human sacrifice! I want a substitute by animal ONLY!

God calls Human sacrifice something that He hates, and an abomination to Him!

Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Eternal thy God: for every abomination to the Eternal, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. [Deuteronomy 12:30-31]

Dont do human sacrifice to the Eternal thy G-d.

God tells us that Human sacrifice is so horrible a concept to Him, that it did not even come into His mind!

Because they have forsaken me, and have estranged this place, and have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom neither they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of innocents; They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind: Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Eternal, that this place shall no more be called Tophet, nor The Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but The Valley of Slaughter. [Jeremiah 19:4-6]

G-d hates the shedding of innocent blood

Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils, And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. And shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and of their daughters, whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan: and the land was polluted with blood. [Psalm 106:37-38]

And yet we are to then turn around and believe that God changed His mind, and required human sacrifice, and then it was the sacrifice of His own human son that God wanted? After telling the Jews to stay away from pagan practices, and pagan beliefs, God then changes His mind and says, "Okay, now go ahead and believe in a human sacrifice, just as these very pagans believe?"

And G-d also forbids vicarious atonement

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the father. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Deut 24:16

The whole of chapter 18 of the book of Ezekiel is about this idea, that no one can die for someone else's sin.

The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live.

So,the binding of Issac teaches us, no human sacrifice (backed up with scripture) and no vicarious atonement (Issac could not die for Abrahams sin or anyones sin) and we are to use animal substitution, per the law. And to take it a step further, blood is not even required. Lev 5.

As far as Isaih 53 goes again: Yes some sages did view it that way some didnt. Certainly not all. Michael Brown is just wrong.

In the Targum numerous references are made to a ‘national interpretation’ of the suffering servant of Isaiah 53. Verses like 52:14, 53:4,8 and 10 all discuss the suffering of Israel in exile where the verse in the original discusses the suffering of the ‘servant’.

As I mentioned before,I can understand how the ancient sages thought it could refer to a single person. Without the benefit of history, they could arrive at that conclusion.

But if you take anyone of those great sages and bring them to our age, where the Jews were slaughtered in the Inquisition, the many pogroms of Europe and the horrors of the Holocaust, tell them that this suffering messiah is a god-man hybrid and G-d in the flesh and then ask them again, who is the suffering servant? Jacob, Zion, Israel just as Isaiah himself wrote.

"I was visiting with an Israeli friend,"

I have heard many ancedotes like that. That just goes to show me that he is either nominally Jewish, ie reform or is an orthodox Jew that has spent all his time in Torah and not Tanakh. No big deal there.

Again Isaiah 53 can not possibly refer to Jesus:

As I mentioned before he was nor marred beyond that of a human likeness. 6 million Jews were. The kings did shut theirs mouths at him. There was no suggestion that Jesus was not attractive, he was a man of sorrows or familiar with suffering, G-d afflicted himself?

No the people of Israel: Just a few verses back:

Sing, O heavens; and be joyful, O earth; and break forth into singing, O mountains: for the LORD hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afflicted. Isaiah 49:13

Therefore hear now this, thou afflicted, and drunken, but not with wine: 22Thus saith thy Lord the LORD, and thy God that pleadeth the cause of his people...

A few verses later:

11O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted, behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and lay thy foundations with sapphires. 12And I will make thy windows of agates, and thy gates of carbuncles, and all thy borders of pleasant stones. 13And all thy children shall be taught of the LORD; and great shall be the peace of thy children.

Micah 4: 5For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of the LORD our God for ever and ever. 6In that day, saith the LORD, will I assemble her that halteth, and I will gather her that is driven out, and her that I have afflicted; 7And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a strong nation: and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever.

12Thus saith the LORD; Though they be quiet, and likewise many, yet thus shall they be cut down, when he shall pass through. Though I have afflicted thee, I will afflict thee no more. 13For now will I break his yoke from off thee, and will burst thy bonds in sunder.

So many times, Israel is named the afflicted, just like Is 53.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,

It doesnt say pierced in the hebrew , wounded is a better rendering.

As I mentioned before, Jesus was not silent and did open his mouth several times. There was deceit in his mouth, he lied as I mentioned before. He had no children and he died young, as mentioned already. (no to the spiritual children excuse)

Just wizzing through this but the overall point is this. If you show someone who knows very little bible, sure Isaiah 53 makes sense as a Christian narrative. If you know your bible better, you can see that a human sacrifice is forbidden, the binding of Isaac enforces animal sacrfice and forbids human sacrifice. Vicarious atonement is forbidden, blood is not required for atonement, Jesus was a false prophet, his geneaologies are fatally flawed. It becomes clear, the man from Nazareth was NOT Moshaich.

*chuckle* I haven't been in one of these "post an entire book" discussions on FR for a long time. I'd forgotten how engaging they could be. Thank you for taking the time to compose such a thoughtful response.

My rebuttal will have to wait until after Shabbat, and possibly after the 4th. Until then, Shabbat Shalom and may you and yours have a good holiday weekend.

Shabbat shalom...and yes, you and I are closer in thought than your average Christian bear. I wish you well convincing your Christian brothers to be more Torah observant.....Cant say I wish any Jewish brothers to persue the Yshua route however :o)

Thanks again Pastor Bill :)

Another meeting between 0 and Bibi on Tuesday July 6
0 is expected to push Israel to sign a nuclear treaty.
I don’t want to see what horrible thing awaits this country the following day.

US Pushes Israel to Sign Nuclear Treaty

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/israel-nuclear-weapons-treaty/2010/07/04/id/363781