Oh 'captive daughter of Zion'", is used to refer to the Jewish people, then captive in Babylon.

In verse 52:10, this simply says that God will use His power. God is not powerless without the Messiah.

As to the use of 3rd person singular, this is true, but would be a natural way to refer to the people of Israel when speaking in this way.

In 53:10 "He will see His offspring," seems to speak against this being about Jesus.

I think many have overdone the search for Jesus in the Old Testament.

Perhaps disappointingly to you kind folks, the Old Testament is mostly about Jews, of all things!

There is not the overwhelming preoccupation with the Messiah that is central to Christianity.

This caused both Rabbinic Judaism to come into being, and a small sect by a Jewish man named Jesus, which seems to have done well for itself!

Yes, I realize that isolated verses, out of context, seem to point to Jesus. Particularly to Christians such as yourself who are looking for that. And Yes, the Hebrew in Isaiah 53:5 does indicate a piercing or cutting. This came up during a prevous discussion, and I carefully researched the word myself. But Jesus is not the only one who has ever been pierced. Furthermore, the word is past tense, while Jesus, from Isaiah's point of view ought to be future tense.

This still leaves unresolved the question about Isaiah 53:10. How do Christians explain the reference to "He will see His offspring,"? Since most Christians believe that Jesus had no offspring, this would exclude Jesus.

by what authority does Isaiah tells them to just 'free yourself from the chain on your neck'???....how is such a captive (or captives) supposed to free themselves all on their own?

.....except that in the 2nd half of the verse, he qualifies it to ensure "salvation"...that is extended to all other nations!.......something that could only be done by way of the Messiah, since these nations are not his 'chosen pple'

Ahemmm......it doesn't seem like its too natural for Isaiah to refer to the Jews in the 1st person singular!

........how could you fail to understand the meaning of "offspring" in this verse?....

...well okay but in case you didn't know.....JC was himself a Jew!

nearly everything in Judiasm revolves around the hope and aspiration of the Messiah's arrival!.

This caused both Rabbinic Judaism to come into being, and a small sect by a Jewish man named Jesus, which seems to have done well for itself!

....really?....which rabbinic school did JC graduate from?

Maybe you guys should start another thread on Isaiah 52/53. It sounds like that would be an interesting discussion.

RANSOM.
What is the ransom price by which man is redeemed? it is "the precious blood of Christ. " (1 Pet. 1:18,19). What does that mean? Blood is a symbol of life, (Deut. 12:23) hence it means the life of Christ; and this agrees with Christ's own words that "he came not to be ministered unto but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many" (Matt. 20:28), Christ's life then was the ransom. Now we ask, what life? His physical, earth life, or his pre-existent life, most certainly the latter, (see 1-3-52,) the simple statement of the truth then is that Jesus gave up his pre-existent life,-the "riches" and the "glory" that he possessed with the Father before the world was in order that he might become one of this fallen race, and so open up the way, as a "Forerunner," whereby "the whole creation" might ultimately be delivered. This was the sacrifice of Christ; this was the ransom and thereby is man redeemed. There was no paying a price to the devil for the rescue of man's soul or anything of that kind in all this. Man is redeemed just as the child of wise, loving and self sacrificing parents might be said to be redeemed; such a child would be saved, or, in a sense, redeemed from many of the ills and woes and sins of other children, less favorably situated, because of the wisdom and careful nurture and self sacrificing love of the parents; a child cannot be thus brought up without self sacrifice; the parents must pay a price-the price of continuous patience and care, the sacrifice of personal enjoyment and ease oftentimes, and sometimes far greater sacrifices than these; but all of this is done cheerfully and even joyfully because of the love of the parents. So God so loved the world [the order of things] that he sends his son to redeem them in the true and perfect sense-to reveal himself unto them, and to open up the way of deliverance by the Forerunner. Of course all this was in God's plan, foreknown and predetermined. Redemption was not an afterthought with God to counteract the effects of an unforseen contingency. What we call "the fall of man," with its consequences of sin and death, was a part of God's original plan of creation, and hence of course Redemption was a part of that plan. Christ entered thoroughly and fully into man's condition to redeem him, that his deliverance from the same condition might be the pledge and surety of man's deliverance. (Acts 17:31). So thoroughly did Christ enter into this fallen state that he must himself be first redeemed before he could redeem man. (See 1-4-84, 83). God must first redeem him, by "saving him out of death," (Heb. 5:7, N.V., margin) before he could redeem us; or to express it more exactly, God in redeeming him, did redeem us. God is the great original Redeemer, redeeming Jesus, the world's Redeemer, that Jesus might redeem the world. The work of Redemption then is the entire work of man's deliverance from "the bondage of corruption" and restoration to harmony with God; it is not merely the work of deliverance, but it includes the work of development, or rather the work of development is the deliverance; the process by which the "old man" is destroyed, is the process by which the "new man" is "put on;" the process of redemption covers the whole ground from Eden lost to Eden regained, it comprehends the whole work of probation, i.e. trial, education, training and perfecting, until we are ready to take the final step in the great plan,-the patting on of immortality; and the Ransom according to this view is all that it cost the Father and the Son to form and carry out this plan.

Now all this is set forth in type in the case of Moses delivering the children of Israel from Egypt. We know that Moses is a type of Christ (Acts 7:37); and we know that the deliverance of Israel from Egypt was a redemption and Moses was a redeemer; the word applied to Moses in Acts 7:35, and rendered "deliverer," really means redeemer; in the original it is the word that is usually so rendered. Now then what was the ransom price that Moses paid in order to redeem Israel? And how were they redeemed? No money, or anything of that kind was paid to the Egyptians as a ransom whereby they were induced to let Israel go; and yet a ransom was paid; what was it? It was the life that Moses might have enjoyed in Egypt as the son of the king's daughter, and a Prince of the house of the Pharaohs. Moses gave up all this, and identified himself with an enslaved degraded people, that he might redeem them from their cruel bondage; (see Heb. 11:24-26). Here is the entire work of redemption in type. So Christ left the royal courts of His Father, gave up those "riches" and that "glory." He identified himself with an enslaved and fallen race, that He might redeem them from the bondage of corruption. Thus was the ransom paid, and thus was man redeemed.

Subject: The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Message:

The Greek word translated "tree" or "cross" in various English translation is the same word.


I double checked Strong's Concordance. They're actually two different words, but you were on the right track. The word for cross is stauros (which literally means stake or pole). The word for tree in Acts is xulon which means timber, but in a more general sense is anything made of wood. I'm not sure why the translators decided to use tree. Maybe they thought it was the best word even though it doesn't convey the right meaning.

Anyway, I think that clears it up.

The wood stands for humanity so therefore could be represented as either tree or wooden cross. That Simon had to carry the cross seems more likely that it wouldn't be a crossbow type of thing, but actually a stauros.

bear45408 on 8/28/2008 717 AM
Subject: The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Message: sum1reel, please understand that my post was not intended in any way to question Christian beliefs in Jesus. Simply that the versus in Isaiah in particular, and many versus in the Old Testament that Christians take as refering to Jesus, may not.



by what authority does Isaiah tells them to just 'free yourself from the chain on your neck'???....how is such a captive (or captives) supposed to free themselves all on their own?
Obviously with the expectation of God's eventual help, as indeed happened. Isaiah is comforting them. Saying that the captivity will end.



.....except that in the 2nd half of the verse, he qualifies it to ensure "salvation"...that is extended to all other nations!.......something that could only be done by way of the Messiah, since these nations are not his 'chosen pple'
Possibly. But the Jewish people as a whole also are supposed to have this role: That's the meaning of being the 'chosen people'. We are not chosen for any personal gain, but for responsibility. To be a "light to the nations", a "holy people."
I admit that we have sometimes failed to do this well, but sometimes we have. Anyway, it is up to God to judge that.



Ahemmm......it doesn't seem like its too natural for Isaiah to refer to the Jews in the 1st person singular!
Ahem, Yes. Seems quite natural to me, given the style of Isaiah's writing. Isaiah writes in a very poetic manner. If you look at the rest of Isaiah, you'll find that this is not uncommon. Does make it difficult to analyze, but I didn't write it. I'm just a reader, like you.



........how could you fail to understand the meaning of "offspring" in this verse?....
Plausable explanation. I withdraw my objection. Thanks.



...well okay but in case you didn't know.....JC was himself a Jew!
I'm well aware of that, and am respectful of Christian belief. My point was simply that, as in this controvertial verse, there may be excess reading of messianic intent on the part of Old Testament writers where none was intended. This certainly doesn't mean that Old Testament writers didn't write about or wish for the messiah, just not quite as often as often, in my opinion, as Christians think.



nearly everything in Judiasm revolves around the hope and aspiration of the Messiah's arrival!.
There are some groups within Judaism like that. And as mentioned, there certainly is the wish for the eventual coming of the messiah. But it is not as pervasive as in Christianity. Neither today or in biblical times did "nearly everything" revolve around the hope for the messiah. There were times when the hope for the messiah was particularly strong. As it happens, the period under Roman rule was such a period. But messiah within Judaism does not mean what Christians today think of. In Judaism, it means "Annointed One", and carries the connotation of Governmental Authority, rather than Divinity. This is probably what made the Romans nervous. Another god they could have tolerated. Another Ruler, No!



This caused both Rabbinic Judaism to come into being, and a small sect by a Jewish man named Jesus, which seems to have done well for itself!




....really?....which rabbinic school did JC graduate from?

I did not mean that in any way disrespectfully. The small sect that Jesus started, of course, grew, and became the fine religion to which you belong, Christianity. As a matter of fact, Rabbinic Judaism helped. The New Testament records (Luke 13:31) that the Rabbis warned the Disciples. All evidence seems to indicate that Jesus and His group and the Rabbis were on similar paths away from the corruption of the centralized Priesthood, who had been taken over by the Romans.

Unfortunately, the Jewish-Roman wars occured, and the Jews lost. Rome prevailed and Christians had a choice to make. Mostly, and I can't say I blame them, they chose to preserve their new religion, and throw in their lot with the Romans. The gospels were written during this period, and do not favor Judaism.

Thus where there might have been a natural alliance between the new Rabbinic Judaism and the new Christianity, that didn't happen.

Of course, now Rome has long gone. Both Christianity and Judaism survive.
My suggestion is that it is high time for the two groups of fellow believers in God to come together. As you say "JC was himself a Jew!"

Like anything else, it can only be believed when seen, and that will be in the day of the Lord and not until then.

Rome has long gone. Both Christianity and Judaism survive. My suggestion is that it is high time for the two groups of fellow believers in God to come together.

The article discusses a deeper understanding regarding the 'cross of Christ' and how mankind is reconciled to God through the cross...
Ephesians 2
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God THROUGH THE CROSS, by which he put to death their hostility.

Simply that the versus in Isaiah in particular, and many versus in the Old Testament that Christians take as refering to Jesus, may not.

Saying that the captivity will end.

Possibly. But the Jewish people as a whole also are supposed to have this role: That's the meaning of being the 'chosen people'. We are not chosen for any personal gain, but for responsibility. To be a "light to the nations", a "holy people."
I admit that we have sometimes failed to do this well, but sometimes we have. Anyway, it is up to God to judge that.

In Judaism, it means "Annointed One", and carries the connotation of Governmental Authority, rather than Divinity.

Rome prevailed and Christians had a choice to make. Mostly, and I can't say I blame them, they chose to preserve their new religion, and throw in their lot with the Romans.

The small sect that Jesus started, of course, grew, and became the fine religion to which you belong, Christianity

Posted By: nightflight on 8/28/2008 12:04:47 PM
Subject: The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Message: CountIbli on 8/20/2008 505 PM

Subject: The noose or the cross.....which is it? Acts 10:39
Message:

The Greek word translated "tree" or "cross" in various English translation is the same word.

I double checked Strong's Concordance. They're actually two different words, but you were on the right track. The word for cross is stauros (which literally means stake or pole). The word for tree in Acts is xulon which means timber, but in a more general sense is anything made of wood. I'm not sure why the translators decided to use tree. Maybe they thought it was the best word even though it doesn't convey the right meaning.

Anyway, I think that clears it up.
The wood stands for humanity so therefore could be represented as either tree or wooden cross. That Simon had to carry the cross seems more likely that it wouldn't be a crossbow type of thing, but actually a stauros.

There are some groups within Judaism like that. And as mentioned, there certainly is the wish for the eventual coming of the messiah. But it is not as pervasive as in Christianity. Neither today or in biblical times did "nearly everything" revolve around the hope for the messiah. There were times when the hope for the messiah was particularly strong. As it happens, the period under Roman rule was such a period. But messiah within Judaism does not mean what Christians today think of.

Bear is unjust and inaccurate in referring to Christians and what "they" think as if "they" are a monolithic bloc. Not all Christianity is messianic.

Of course, now Rome has long gone. Both Christianity and Judaism survive. My suggestion is that it is high time for the two groups of fellow believers in God to come together.

It is a huge error to assume that the jewish religion accepts Christ as G-d, which would make it very difficult for judaism and christianity to team up.

Like anything else, it can only be believed when seen, and that will be in the day of the Lord and not until then.

Saying that the captivity will end.

..if so then this is all contingent upon acceptance of the Messiah!.....the captivity ended perhaps but not definetely, they were again conquered by the Romans....and jerusalem was laid to waste in 70AD....what then of Isaiah's prophecy as you interpret it?

...the 'chosen people'. We are not chosen for any personal gain, but for responsibility. To be a "light to the nations", a "holy people."

this is "tall" order, and failure may not be an option!.......in failing, there are heavy consequences to bear, and this is well demonstrated in all of the OT!......you were chosen because within your midst, you would usher in the Messiah....and only through him could you be the "light to all nations"..........how could the Jews themselves as a nation do that all by themselves?.......you would have to be endowed with pure righteousness as a group!.......the Jews could not do it back in 70AD (1/3 were killed, 1/3 were permanently enslaved, the other 1/3 dispersed) anymore than they could do it today!

In Judaism, it means "Annointed One", and carries the connotation of Governmental Authority, rather than Divinity.

then i'll have to ask you to provide some OT scriptural evidence for this!

.....some years ago, the Lubovitcher's sect claimed that their grand-rebbe was the Messiah (i'm not sure what their criterea was) and when he died, they were expecting him to rise from his grave (as per scripture!) and they all stood vigil.........obviously this never happened but they were expecting him to rise up and "lift" all of his followers to the 'holy land' under his eternal Kingship............this sounds somewhat "divine" to me!

Rome prevailed and Christians had a choice to make. Mostly, and I can't say I blame them, they chose to preserve their new religion, and throw in their lot with the Romans.

preserve what?........they were persecuted from the start and well after 70 AD!....after 70AD, the Coliseum was built and guess who were the featured attraction!......christianity became 'religionized' in the 300AD when Constatine came to accept it!

what many jews and christains alike believe is that JC came to form a whole other 'religion'.........this was never the case

JC himself never wrote anything down!

he was supposed to be the fullfilment of the OT promise by God's part of his covenant......that is where it all culminated as per the scriptural prophecy.......the jews may have yearned for a Nationalistic Messiah, but that was not what was prophecied!...the jewish leadership of that time chose not to accept JC, because they didn't see in him what they wanted him to be.........had they accepted him, that probably would have propelled into the next level of "higher" existence....a state in which they would have truly been viewed as "the light to all nations" and occupying a special place in realm of God.

Bear is unjust and inaccurate in referring to Christians and what "they" think as if "they" are a monolithic bloc. Not all Christianity is messianic.

Americans have a very warped view of what Christianity is because they are overwhelmed daily with raucous propaganda from the fundamentalist MINORITY of Protestantism, which is in turn a MINORITY of Christianity.

In mainstream Christianity, the emphasis is not on belief but on community

America's fundies are a lunatic fringe no less than the squatters (euphemistically called "settlers") who are illegal aliens on the West Bank with the delusion that that's what their G-d has promised them. Fundies no more speak for Christianity than Meir Kahane for Judaism.

Real Christianity, as against the splintered fundie perversions of it, is just as tribal as Judaism. If you're appropriately baptized you're in it irrevocably no less than a Jewish boy is inducted into Judaism by genital mutilation.

Darned if I know if it can be pulled off. If God wants it, perhaps He could help. Perhaps He has. I don't know. Who would have thought in 70AD that the Jewish people would be back, Rome long gone as a power, and Christianity the majority religion.

The Jewish religion is not back in my opinion and never will be. I'm not an expert on the Temple laws, but it seems to me that without the Temple in Jerusalem, the entirety of the law cannot be upheld, and if the law cannot be upheld in entirety, then the Jewish religion is not truly in existance at all, at least not in the way that they were called by God to uphold. No offence bear, but as I understand there has been no true Jewish religion based on scriptural law since AD 70, nor can there be.

JOHN: Agree that it has a post-70 date.

In a sense you are right. Many of the 613 laws of the Torah can not be fulfilled in the absence of the Temple in Jerusalem.
In my opinion, one of the strengths of the Jewish religion has been it's ability to adapt to a variety of circumstances. But basically we are in agreement. I would not like to see Judaism return to the kind of religion that features a centralized priesthood with animal sacrifice. I think we've gone beyond that point.

Naturally, as you point out, that raises the question of who is the successor? Christians feel that they are, and Jews feel the same.

I really see no reason to think that God has forsworn His covenant with the Jewish people, over events that were out of their control. I do not think that Christianity is a replacement or a successor. It may well be an addition, and we welcome you as fellow believers. As Jews, with the exception of a few extremists who really don't know Torah very well, we realize that if you act properly, this is a legitimate path towards God.

So the Jewish religion is back, but not in the form that it was.

Would you settle for the statement that the gospels were written during and after the Jewish-Roman conflict?