Einstein and Admiral discussion

[Admiral]

Admiral: My mistake. The thread is "Why Jews do not believe in Christ" about halfway down the list under Christianity and other religions. I entered a number of posts providing a Jewish perspective on Is 53 taking into account a more accurate Hebrew translation. :D

Sorry, I hope I wasn't being presumptous in starting a new thread...I am used to a different sofeware and it is easier to manuver...

If you don't mind, there is much that I would like to compare with you. A discussion as such, not a debate, but there can be some debating within the discussion. The reason that I would like to persue this is that while there is a lot that I agree with from your perspective over some principles, I am no so sure that other things were explained about Christianity as I understand them...Of course, I am the new kid on the block, and well, I do have some different perspectives...

So, what I am proposing is this, a discussion with you and I on what we think our bibles is saying. Your opinion and my opinion. A sharing of one another viewpoints. I want to assure you that I do avoid name calling as much as possible, although I have been know to state some obvious discrepancys painfully [I think] clear. As I have read your posts, you have been very civil and very curteous, to which I think that I can be just as civil and curteous.

Since time is of the essence, and since there will be others who desire to interject opinions, my main objective will be to discuss with you the differences between our religions...

If that is ok with you....

 

[einstein]

I am on my way to a lecture tonight so I won't be posting further. I would suggest you initiate the discussion, but I really would prefer not to get into a lengthy post about this since I think I have made my position quite clear in the other thread. This thread is open to anyone who wishes to contribute. I haven't forgotten about your question re Jesus' sacrifice and the copper serpent, and I hope to get to that when time permits.

 

[Admiral]

That's perfectly fine... Hope the lecture is good/goes well. .

You may bring those subjects in here, if you like, to make discussion easier....And if anyone else want to pointedly wade in, that is ok as well.

I would like to go over the Isaiah 53 text also...I have read over some of the posting that you reference, but there are some problems that I don't 1] understand 2] agree with . I know that this is probably going over the same ground, but it would help me in building a better understanding....So, if you don't mind I will start this out with a preamble quotation of Isaiah 52: 7, 12-13 and then Isaiah 53

7 How beautiful on the mountains
are the feet of those who bring good news,
who proclaim peace,
who bring good tidings,
who proclaim salvation,
who say to Zion,
"Your God reigns!"

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

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 likenessâ€â€

15 so will he sprinkle many nations, [d]
and kings will shut their mouths because of him.
For what they were not told, they will see,
and what they have not heard, they will understand.

1 Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed?

2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

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.

4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten 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 upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his 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 her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppression [a] and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken.

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 a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

11 After the suffering of his soul,
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.

Let's start with why the Jews concider this text to refer to the nation of Isreal rather than to a singlular person. Also, how is Isaiah 44:28 interpreted in lite that prophecy is directed to the nation of Isreal and not to a singular person?

That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.

 

[einstein]

Your question is regarding the singular references in Isaiah 53. I have addressed this previously on Jan 22 in the previous thread but will summarize as follows:

The fact that the servant is referred to in the singular is really not an issue since the servant is described by Isaiah in the surrounding chapters using both singular and plural references. Remember that there are 8 instances where the servant is identified unequivocally in as "Israel" or "Jacob" in Isaiah as well as elsewhere in the Tanach. But to answer your query read Isaiah 43:10: "You are my witnesses says the Lord and my servant whom I have chosen so that you will know and believe me and understand that I am He; before Me no god was formed and after Me none shall be." The verbs in this passage are in the 2nd person plural so we know that the prophet is addressing corporate Israel which can also be referred to as a collective unity, hence singular servant.

Singular and plural references are also used in the surrounding chapters 52/54 and singular metaphorical references are commonly used to describe corporate Israel in the Tanach.

Ex4:22- thus saith the Lord, Israel is My son, My firstborn.

 

[einstein]

snake

Just a short aside regarding your question of the copper snake. You approach the problem from your Christian perspective which I understand. For Christianity serpent=Satan (at least for many Christians). Judaism does not see the serpent in this way but I won't get into any lengthy discussions about this. The idea of Moshe making an ensign or pole with the copper snake which was raised up was NOT to make the ensign something to worship like the Golden Calf but to encourage the people to look heavenward towards G-d the supreme creator, the true source of the healing. There is another analogous section where Israel entered into battle and whenever Moshes arms were stretched upwards they began to win , but when he became weary and dropped his arms the enemy started to win the battle. Finally, Moshe required 2 men to hold up his arms continually and Israel was victorious. The Midrash teaches that again, there was nothing miraculous in the arms of Moshe but in reaching upward it encouraged the Israelites to remember who brought them from Egypt and who was their ultimate source of salvation, ie again in looking towards the heavens they would remember and put Hashem foremost in their minds and hearts.

As an interesting historical note this same ensign eventually became a source of idolatry for the backsliding nation and was destroyed by Hezekiah. There is also a theory that the seraphs of fiery serpent ensign was adopted by the Greeks and are still used in the medical cadeusis today.

 

[Admiral]

Re: snake

Just a short aside regarding your question of the copper snake. You approach the problem from your Christian perspective which I understand. For Christianity serpent=Satan (at least for many Christians). Judaism does not see the serpent in this way but I won't get into any lengthy discussions about this. The idea of Moshe making an ensign or pole with the copper snake which was raised up was NOT to make the ensign something to worship like the Golden Calf but to encourage the people to look heavenward towards G-d the supreme creator, the true source of the healing.

Realizing that this is an aside, and that it is late, I would like to point out from my studies a few things. While most of Christianity realizes the symbology of the Snake=Satan, many sects of Christianity also realize that the Snake= Sin. With this symbology in mind, Sin is hung on a pole for the Hebrews to look and live...IOWs, look at the sin hanging on the pole and live...For the Christian, it is obvious that the Christ was made sin for our sakes and was hung on a pole to die for our sakes....

I hope that I have made that clear...This medium of communication can be so limiting at times...
.

As an interesting historical note this same ensign eventually became a source of idolatry for the backsliding nation and was destroyed by Hezekiah. There is also a theory that the seraphs of fiery serpent ensign was adopted by the Greeks and are still used in the medical cadeusis today.

[Grin] Yes, being in the medical field, I realize that.... [smile]
Oh, and I introduce myself to l everyone that I am your local Respiratory terror...er Therapist. [smile]

More to come tomorrow as it is midnight and I must sleep. [/quote]

 

[Admiral]

Regarding Isaiah 53.

The fact that the servant is referred to in the singular is really not an issue since the servant is described by Isaiah in the surrounding chapters using both singular and plural references. [snip]
The verbs in this passage are in the 2nd person plural so we know that the prophet is addressing corporate Israel which can also be referred to as a collective unity, hence singular servant.

So, to reduce this down abit, then we can say that the bible allows the corporate to be refered to a singular entity...Or to use a mathmatical equation
A=B where A = the corporate and B=singular

The Jewish interpretation of the bible, it would seem, is seen with the emphasis of A=B.

But it occurs to me that the interpretation forgets that B=A as well. And as such, is an equally valid interpetation. Thus the singular entity can also represent the corporate entitys as well.

Thus the Christian religion, with the singular emphasis on the Messiah representing the corporate religion is equally valid.

If this...hypothosis...is correct, then we should see evidences of things happening to the single entity that can or is unlikely to happen to a corporate entity...at least without comment...Is 52:14 is such a evidence.
Isaiah 52:14 (Contemporary English Version)

14Many were horrified at what happened to him. [a] But everyone who saw him was even more horrified because he suffered until he no longer looked human.

15My servant will make nations worthy to worship me; [a] kings will be silent as they bow in wonder. They will see and think about things they have never seen or thought about before.

The visual image pictured here does not seem possible with a corporate entity..How does the jewish culture deal with this passage, specifically of a 'suffering Messiah' and , in the same passage, a Messiah who 'makes nations worthy to worship' G_d?

 

[einstein]

Thus the Christian religion, with the singular emphasis on the Messiah representing the corporate religion is equally valid.




I don' t believe this follows from what I have stated, your equations notwithstanding. All I am stating is this: The nation of Israel consists of millions, ie plural. But one can also refer to it as a collective unity, ie singular. It's really no different than referring to a dozen eggs. We know there are 12 eggs here, but we know there is a single unit called "dozen". Furthermore, as previously stated the Tanach repeatedly refers to corporate Israel with singular references in metaphorical descriptions (firstborn, son , barren woman) as part of a poetic motif or theme. Hebrew will also clarify its meaning in most cases by using verbs in the singular or the plural which helps identify the reference.

Wrt your next question, the translation you have used is OK in some passages and downright awful in others. The Hebrew of v 15- kee yazeh goyim rabim alav can in no way be translated "My servant will make nations worship me". As such I cannot begin to address your query. Could you use a standard Christian translation. There are problems with all of them, but I can try to address that issue one passage at a time.

v15 from the Hebrew reads " So shall he cause many nations to be startled". This is perfectly consistent with the Jewish perspective of the chapter, namely the surprise of the Gentile nations in the Messianic age, when they see the exalted position of Israel, in contradistinction to the dehumanized and degraded status alloted to the Jewish people by the Gentiles over the centuries. :D

 

[Admiral]

I don' t believe this follows from what I have stated, your equations notwithstanding. All I am stating is this: The nation of Israel consists of millions, ie plural. But one can also refer to it as a collective unity, ie singular. It's really no different than referring to a dozen eggs. We know there are 12 eggs here, but we know there is a single unit called "dozen". Furthermore, as previously stated the Tanach repeatedly refers to corporate Israel with singular references in metaphorical descriptions (firstborn, son , barren woman) as part of a poetic motif or theme. Hebrew will also clarify its meaning in most cases by using verbs in the singular or the plural which helps identify the reference.

Oh, but it does...

We know that 1 dozen eggs are 12 eggs...We also know that 12 eggs is 1 dozen.

See the translation differences...The concept is communicated differently, but the thought is the same.
If A=B, then it follows that B=A.

In all fairness, while We [you and I] are on the same page, our individual upbringing and education allows each to favor an emphasis that is allowed in the bible.

It seems that most of Christianity interpretation of the prophecys deal with the singularity of the prophecys [the Messiah], and the Jewish religion's emphasis is on the corporate-ness of those same prophecys. Both are correct, and both are allowed, but our backgrounds and educations favor one interpretation.

Perhaps this understanding allows us a view of G_d , namely, that G_d is bigger than our finite minds can handle and we can only view aspects of Him, and not Him in totality.

 

[Admiral]

Assuming that the previous post is not something to get bogged down in, I would like to move one toward some understanding of the above passages....

7 How beautiful on the mountains
are the feet of those who bring good news,
who proclaim peace,
who bring good tidings,
who proclaim salvation,
who say to Zion,
"Your God reigns!"

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

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 likenessâ€â€

15 so will he sprinkle many nations,
and kings will shut their mouths because of him.
For what they were not told, they will see,
and what they have not heard, they will understand

In the above and emphasized texts, my question is this....I

sreal has never been that much of a global player in the international community.
I don't understand how ... um....G_d would ...ah...feed to Isreal's pride based upon your[jewish/corporate] interpretation....So, how...what ..is the ...how do you see this passage and to what extent does this passage plays to the then future [our past] of Isreal?

Please excuse my bluntness, and my rude questions...I know I am probably walking all over some traditional more, and being culturally rude in some way, and I truely don't mean to be. I admit to being an ignorant rude borish american with no cultural background among Jewish heritage...It is just that ....I don't understand...

Also realize that while my question is to the pride of Isreal [aka the greatness of Isreal], also needed is the recognised degrenation of Isreal where "his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man".

 

[einstein]

I will deal with your your last question when I have more time. I am not disagreeing with your equations which are self-evident. What I am stating is a people or a nation can be referred to linguistically in the plural and in the singular (as a collective unity) whereas an individual such as the Mashiach can only be referred to as an individual, but never as a collective unity. Do you disagree with this statement?

I would add that there are passages in Is 53 which leave no doubt that they are referring to a collective unity since the Hebrew translation is plural. :D

 

[Admiral]

I am not disagreeing with your equations which are self-evident. What I am stating is a people or a nation can be referred to linguistically in the plural and in the singular (as a collective unity) whereas an individual such as the Mashiach can only be referred to as an individual, but never as a collective unity. Do you disagree with this statement?

Yes, I do, and I can show from your examples...

Ex4:22- thus saith the Lord, Israel is My son, My firstborn.

Here we have Isreal, a corporate/collective unity refered to as "My son" , a singular enity...Notice, it is NOT My sonS, which would indicate a corporate enity, but rather "son".indicating one individual. It is emphasised by the next thought, that the firstborn is one, as only one can be born at a time, even if we have twins....

Again, it is the same arguement of

If A=B, THEN B must =A.

Or
if A=B, AND B= (X*X + 1) [I can not do X squared on my computer :wink: ]

THEN A=(X+1) (X-1)

Same concept...Same logic. It appys to the bible as well.

I would add that there are passages in Is 53 which leave no doubt that they are referring to a collective unity since the Hebrew translation is plural :D

Based upon the above principal, no contest. :-D

 

[DivineNames]

Here we have Isreal, a corporate/collective unity refered to as "My son" , a singular enity...Notice, it is NOT My sonS, which would indicate a corporate enity, but rather "son".indicating one individual. It is emphasised by the next thought, that the firstborn is one, as only one can be born at a time, even if we have twins....

Again, it is the same arguement of

If A=B, THEN B must =A.

Referring to Jesus as a collection of individuals doesn't seem to make much sense. We aren't really talking "A=B", but rather, "A" can be appropriately referred to using "B".

The plain meaning of the text is about Israel. Anything else is speculation.

 

[einstein]

I agree with DM. Forget your equations. The example you chose simply demonstrates that Israel, a collective entity can also be described metaphorically as an individual. Show us an example where the Messiah is described in the Hebrew Bible as a collective noun which the dictionary defines as a collection of persons or things regarded as a unit.

 

[Admiral]

22And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

You guys have no problem with A=B. You are used to that...But it's that part about B=A that you are having a problem with.. [smile] ..You have been taught that, so that you can resist Christianity....

But, you refered to logic, Einstein, in one of your posts... Symbology and the rules of Algebra are very similiar...

The word "son" is defined by the following-

1. One's male child.
2. A male descendant.
3. A man considered as if in a relationship of child to parent: a son of the soil.
4. One personified or regarded as a male descendant.
5. Used as a familiar form of address for a young man.
6. Son Christianity. The second person of the Trinity.

In no place is it refered to as a plueral entity. And "first born " is always refered as the one who is born first. If there are many, only one child can come out at a time...

Isreal is my son
corporate entity= individual entity

IOWs, the corporate entity represents the indivual entity

My son is Isreal....

B represents A.....

Simple as that, guys... Simple as that....

Oh, and I am not refering to "Jesus as a collection of individuals ", I am refering to Jesus as Isreal.

 

[Admiral]

I would add that there are passages in Is 53 which leave no doubt that they are referring to a collective unity since the Hebrew translation is plural.

Go ahead and let's see the passages...

 

[einstein]

I will be pleased to discuss these passages once you have shown me a passage from the Hebrew Bible that demonstrates the Messiah is a collective entity. You have stated that Jesus is Israel and by this I assume you mean that Jesus is the same as the nation of Israel (collective noun). Whether one views Jesus as the messiah, the 2nd peson of the trinity or whatever, I find it difficult to comprehend how you can posit an individual to be a collective entity, so please show me your proof from the Hebrew Bible where the messiah is described as a collective entity.

 

[DivineNames]

22And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD, Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

You guys have no problem with A=B. You are used to that...But it's that part about B=A that you are having a problem with.. [smile] ..You have been taught that, so that you can resist Christianity....

OK.

We aren't really talking "A=B", but rather, "A" can be appropriately referred to using "B".

 

[Admiral]

You have stated that Jesus is Israel and by this I assume you mean that Jesus is the same as the nation of Israel (collective noun). Whether one views Jesus as the messiah, the 2nd peson of the trinity or whatever, I find it difficult to comprehend how you can posit an individual to be a collective entity, so please show me your proof from the Hebrew Bible where the messiah is described as a collective entity.

I think I posted that Jesus can represent Isreal...

On another, but related subject, how do you interpret this passage from Job 1:6?

6(L)Now there was a day when the (M)sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and [a]Satan also came among them.

Who are the "sons of God"? Why do they come before God?

Also please list the texts that you concider plural in meaning from Isa 53? And how do you mean that the passage is "plural" since the Hebrew translations to english do not indicate a plural passage...?

I would add that there are passages in Is 53 which leave no doubt that they are referring to a collective unity since the Hebrew translation is plural.

 

[Admiral]

It was said by Einstein-

Much of what you have stated is wholly subjective and speculative. Eg. Jesus=temple??? I thought most Christians think that Jesus=God. Why would God give commands for Solomon to build a temple of worship to God. This, by your reasoning is equivalent to God giving instructions to build God for the the worship of God!! Makes no sense!

This is true...Jesus did not equal the temple... What Jesus said was-

John 2:18-20 (New International Version)

18Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"

19Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."

20The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?"

Which bring me to the question....What do the Jews concider the temple to represent? What is the purpose of the lamb, slain at the hand of the one who brought the lamb?[/quote]