23 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAhhh… Robbie, I just want to say those are valid questions, and I want to let my opinion be a bit “unformed” for the moment. I really do get in these modes where I have to take it a bit slow—I also get in modes where the rough & tumble argument on here is just what I need to sort out my own thinking.
the problem with christian thinking is that certain aspects of the text are emphasized over others to support preconception and church doctrine, thus although the scripture clearly indicate that God is one, they state that there is three in one, or that there are different manifestations of the one, or whatever, why, because this is church doctrine a ...[text shortened]... requisite, is it not? if not how will they know? quite interesting, what are your own thoughts?
Just to get two birds with one stone, I don’t think divegeester’s input here is off –topic at all, given the question in the opening post. Trinitarianism (or non-trinitarianism) has everything to do with that. As a former (Trinitarian) Christian, I am interested in the non-Trinitarian arguments… (Now, don’t read into that too much, Robbie!!!) 😉
23 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRC: But Jehovah himself took delight in crushing him; he made him sick. If you will set his soul as a guilt offering, he will see his offspring,
you make many good points, if time permitted i would like to address at least some of them, however the similarity to the unicorn and the basis for its evidence and acceptance is to place the messiah in the same category as a type of mythical being, unless i misunderstood you, which is also probable, however i do not think is quite the same thing, a ...[text shortened]... rs which influence a persons accepting or rejecting this testimony, but for me, its good enough.
That's referring to Jesus in your theology?
Here's a site which gives a more logical interpretation: http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/Isaiah53.html
It summarizes:
Jesus doesn't fit several of the details in the chapter. a) As mentioned above, Jesus was never sick. Some say that he was sick during the crucifixion, but physical trauma (e.g. execution) is not considered sickness in the normal sense of the word. b) Jesus had no children. Some say this refers to disciples or spiritual children, but the word "zera" is common in the Tanach and, when applied to people, always means linear descendants, not someone's disciples or followers. c) Jesus was not buried with the wicked. One cannot even say he died with the wicked since the Hebrew "rashaeem" is plural and, according to the crucifixion story, one of the thieves next to him ended up in heaven and so was not wicked. d) Jesus did not have long life. Missionaries say he had long life in heaven, but that, again, is stretching the meaning of the word. e) verse 9 "Nor was there deceit in his mouth." doesn't apply because, according to the gospel accounts, Jesus lied to his family about going to Jerusalem. (John 7:8-10), and lied in saying that he never taught in secret (see John 18:20, vs. Matt. 16:20, Mark 8:30 and others).
The Jews for Judaism analysis of Isaiah 53 points out that a) contrary to verse 2, Jesus is never described as physically unattractive; b) far from being rejected and despised as verse 3 says, the Gospel writers describe him as being popular; c) contrary to verse 7, Jesus did a lot of talking; and d) instead of being non-violent (verse 9), Jesus overturned tables, chased people from their jobs, and promised to bring swords.
So then, while the first impression on reading a Christian translation of Isaiah 53 may be to think of Jesus, looking deeper shows that the Hebrew text does not sound like Jesus, and the context shows shows many differences from what the Christian Bible says about Jesus.
23 Dec 08
Originally posted by no1marauderOkay, you’re going to have to carry the brunt of this one, I see…
RC: [b]But Jehovah himself took delight in crushing him; he made him sick. If you will set his soul as a guilt offering, he will see his offspring,
That's referring to Jesus in your theology?
Here's a site which gives a more logical interpretation: http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/Isaiah53.html
It summ ...[text shortened]... context shows shows many differences from what the Christian Bible says about Jesus.[/b]
So then, while the first impression on reading a Christian translation of Isaiah 53 may be to think of Jesus, looking deeper shows that the Hebrew text does not sound like Jesus, and the context shows many differences from what the Christian Bible says about Jesus.
See, this is my problem: it is too easy to lapse into that ole “first impression” reading that one absorbed in a process akin to osmosis—or simply react against it, which still gives it centrality. As I say, that is still my problem. You might recall a time when it wasn’t, but I am now trying to regain some lost ground.
And, although I think these questions need to be addressed, it also needs to be realized that Judaism—as a valid religious/spiritual path (in my case, non-dualistic)—is not, not, not, not, not about what “Jews think about Jesus”.
Now, I don’t think that Robbie and others intend it that way—it’s just that, for Christians, it is all about Jesus. They don’t see any other way to look through the looking glass.
A note to Christians: Jews don’t have the “New Testament” as part of their Bibles. Perhaps just ponder on that fact a bit…
23 Dec 08
Originally posted by vistesdRC said on page 8: "as for myself, i have never seriously considered that Christ was not the messiah"
Okay, you’re going to have to carry the brunt of this one, I see…
[b]So then, while the first impression on reading a Christian translation of Isaiah 53 may be to think of Jesus, looking deeper shows that the Hebrew text does not sound like Jesus, and the context shows many differences from what the Christian Bible says about Jesus.
See, this is ...[text shortened]... t have[/i] the “New Testament” as part of their Bibles. Perhaps just ponder on that fact a bit…[/b]
You have to empty your cup in order to fill it.
23 Dec 08
Originally posted by vistesdone of the bibles that i have in my collection of about forty is the Holy scriptures, according to the masoretic text, published by the Jewish publication society of America, it contains none of the Greek scriptures that Christians hold so dear and also a copy of the Septuagint and a rather interesting bible, the Jerusalem Bible which contains not a few books of the apocrypha, including Maccabees etc etc.
Okay, you’re going to have to carry the brunt of this one, I see…
[b]So then, while the first impression on reading a Christian translation of Isaiah 53 may be to think of Jesus, looking deeper shows that the Hebrew text does not sound like Jesus, and the context shows many differences from what the Christian Bible says about Jesus.
See, this is ...[text shortened]... t have[/i] the “New Testament” as part of their Bibles. Perhaps just ponder on that fact a bit…[/b]
also for many Christians you are correct, its all about Jesus, however that they make him an object of idolatry is also fairly common, and thus they end up worshiping the creation rather than the creator, for that Christ was a created entity is without refute. colossians 1:15, yes he has a special place, but he is not God, never was, never will be, however that he holds the key to our understanding and fulfillment of scripture is for us fundamental, but more importantly, and i think that this cannot be overemphasized for a mutual understanding to take place, it is his example that is most important, the self sacrificing spirit that makes him so special for us, for we could argue for eons about doctrine, but a better example we cannot find as is emphasized in his actions and his teaching, for us anyway.
23 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderah yes but would you drink a cup of good wine if it had but one drop of poison in it? thus we must consider not only the source from which we drink but also why? whats the intent of what is being stated, the motives for it. for if we are to drink a poisoned chalice we may get ill and may never recover, thus i must ask, what is this information likely to do? will it strengthen my faith in the realities that i cherish, or will it poison them? will it make me a better person, more tolerant and loving or will it make me skeptical and distrustful of the scriptures, thus it is the course of wisdom to make an examination of these things before proceeding, however it is also true that a great amount of darkness cannot over power even a little light, but that a little light may illuminate even a great darkness.
RC said on page 8: "as for myself, i have never seriously considered that Christ was not the messiah"
You have to empty your cup in order to fill it.
23 Dec 08
Originally posted by no1marauderok, some good points, but ummm i think you are stretching it a bit to think that impalement would not make you unwell, after all does it not take you a considerable amount of time to die, and from suffocation in the end? if you don't regard that as being unwell then so be it.
RC: [b]But Jehovah himself took delight in crushing him; he made him sick. If you will set his soul as a guilt offering, he will see his offspring,
That's referring to Jesus in your theology?
Here's a site which gives a more logical interpretation: http://home.att.net/~fiddlerzvi/Isaiah53.html
It summ ...[text shortened]... context shows shows many differences from what the Christian Bible says about Jesus.[/b]
yes he had no children but the interpretation with regard to children we may hold to be a spiritual one, for example he states that who really are my brothers and sisters, those who do the will of God, not his immediate family, also if you do not accept this, then so be it.
the theory that one of the thieves never died is based on an erroneous assumption that he went to heaven, clearly Christ never went to heaven at that point, did he ?, no for he was dead, as was the thief, this may be traced to the doggedly persistent idea of the immortality of the human soul, not a biblical teaching.
sorry i cannot find the reference to his having a long life and as for deceit, it is not deceitful to withhold information from those to whom it is not owing, i doubt that you will accept this, but its good enough for me.
whether Christ or you or I or anyone is described as being physically attractive is a purely subjective matter, duck season, rabbit season, i hardly account being put to death by impalement as being popular, perhaps you might like to try it to increase your popularity, for considering how much you esteem him even now, you would think that he was the greatest thing since Bob Dylan! perhaps you were there when you heard him talking? in fact the scriptures indicate that he would withdraw from the crowds for meditation and prayer, and i may point this out that it was with reference to the manner of his death, when he remained quite silent with little exception before both Herod and Pilate, i mean you would think that a man on trial for his life would have at least attempted some defense, after all the talking he was doing! i need say nothing with regard to the money changers in the temple, there is quite a difference between righteous indignation and violence,
so if this is the best you got i must conclude that my initial thoughts remain, there being no real substantiating evidence to the contrary for me anyway, perhaps others may feel differently, who can tell?
23 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you don't want to even consider the possibility of error in your beliefs, then this Forum is the wrong place for you. You should just go talk to people who will nod their heads and exclaim "You're soooooooooooooooooo right, Robbie!" every time you speak.
ah yes but would you drink a cup of good wine if it had but one drop of poison in it? thus we must consider not only the source from which we drink but also why? whats the intent of what is being stated, the motives for it. for if we are to drink a poisoned chalice we may get ill and may never recover, thus i must ask, what is this information lik ...[text shortened]... ot over power even a little light, but that a little light may illuminate even a great darkness.
If you have no interest in the quest for knowledge and think you already have all the answers, then you are wasting your time here.
23 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere's little point to this; no matter how many obvious differences there are from the prophecy to Jesus some tenuous "well it's possible that X really means Y" "argument" can be made. It's clear that if you go into this with the unshakable preconceived notion that Jesus MUST be the Messiah and ALL passages in the OT MUST support that viewpoint, you will find some far-fetched rationalization and twisting of language to support such a belief. But the language and context of Isaiah 53 lends no support to such musings.
ok, some good points, but ummm i think you are stretching it a bit to think that impalement would not make you unwell, after all does it not take you a considerable amount of time to die, and from suffocation in the end? if you don't regard that as being unwell then so be it.
yes he had no children but the interpretation with regard to children w ...[text shortened]... ting evidence to the contrary for me anyway, perhaps others may feel differently, who can tell?
23 Dec 08
Originally posted by no1marauderoh no sir, i have had many an excellent discussion with others and have learned quite a lot and although i do not accept your 'reasons', i understand them, and this is why i come here, its not a big fat ego trip, i come to learn, about everything, sure the discussion can get heated but hey its not a license for people to say you better not post, or you better not come here, whats that? its a public forum is it not or does someone have a monopoly on it?
If you don't want to even consider the possibility of error in your beliefs, then this Forum is the wrong place for you. You should just go talk to people who will nod their heads and exclaim "You're soooooooooooooooooo right, Robbie!" every time you speak.
If you have no interest in the quest for knowledge and think you already have all the answers, then you are wasting your time here.
23 Dec 08
Originally posted by no1marauderlol, its nothing but duck season, rabbit season, duck season, rabbit season, for i feel the same with regard to your 'reasons', as you do with regard to my objections and assertions, perhaps jaywill has some perspective that may shed some more light on it, as for me, the fulfillment of the prophecy is cross referenced to more than 140 different passages in the Hebrew and Greek portions of the bible, some of which we have not even touched upon.
There's little point to this; no matter how many obvious differences there are from the prophecy to Jesus some tenuous "well it's possible that X really means Y" "argument" can be made. It's clear that if you go into this with the unshakable preconceived notion that Jesus MUST be the Messiah and ALL passages in the OT MUST support that viewpoint, you wil ...[text shortened]... uch a belief. But the language and context of Isaiah 53 lends no support to such musings.
23 Dec 08
Originally posted by robbie carrobieits nothing but duck season, rabbit season, duck season, rabbit season
lol, its nothing but duck season, rabbit season, duck season, rabbit season, for i feel the same with regard to your 'reasons', as you do with regard to my objections and assertions, perhaps jaywill has some perspective that may shed some more light on it, as for me, the fulfillment of the prophecy is cross referenced to more than 140 different passa ...[text shortened]... es in the Hebrew and Greek portions of the bible, some of which we have not even touched upon.
Okay—this must be some Scottish euphemism with which I am unfamiliar. (Would it help if I drank the whiskey with the e, instead of the whisky without the e?)
23 Dec 08
Originally posted by vistesdElmer: Now I got you, you - you - wabbit!
[b]its nothing but duck season, rabbit season, duck season, rabbit season
Okay—this must be some Scottish euphemism with which I am unfamiliar. (Would it help if I drank the whiskey with the e, instead of the whisky without the e?)[/b]
Bugs: Say Doc, are you tryin' to get yourself in trouble with the law? It's not Wabbit huntin' season!
Elmer: It's not?
Bugs: No, it's Duck huntin' season!
Daffy: That, sir, is an inmitigated frabrication! It's Wabbit season!
Bugs: Duck season!
Daffy: Wabbit season!
Bugs: Duck season!
Daffy: Wabbit season!
Bugs: Duck season!!
Daffy: Wabbit season!!
Bugs: Wabbit season!
Daffy: Duck season!!!
Bugs: Wabbit season!!!
Daffy: I say it's Duck season, and I say, FIRE!
BLAM!
23 Dec 08
Originally posted by vistesdEnjoy a mellow Glenlivet 15 for starters
[b]its nothing but duck season, rabbit season, duck season, rabbit season
Okay—this must be some Scottish euphemism with which I am unfamiliar. (Would it help if I drank the whiskey with the e, instead of the whisky without the e?)[/b]
when warmed in your palms it smells a bit peaty
smoked enough
with a memory of a vivid spring
and the spirit of fresh water
with a touch of caramel
and a glance of a lil crispy brown sugar
and at least but not at last
have a toast to the ones you love
😵
23 Dec 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOnelol, me and my little boy giggle away at this every time, awesome thanks for posting!
Elmer: Now I got you, you - you - wabbit!
Bugs: Say Doc, are you tryin' to get yourself in trouble with the law? It's not Wabbit huntin' season!
Elmer: It's not?
Bugs: No, it's Duck huntin' season!
Daffy: That, sir, is an inmitigated frabrication! It's Wabbit season!
Bugs: Duck season!
Daffy: Wabbit season!
Bugs: Duck season!
Daffy: Wabbit ...[text shortened]... on!!!
Bugs: Wabbit season!!!
Daffy: I say it's Duck season, and I say, FIRE!
BLAM!