Hi Dominic:

Let's not insult our friend Loading. Even though I feel he was a little misguided, I'm sure his intentions of helping any Jews who read this was sincere.

On the other hand, if Loading will spend the time and listen to the lectures on the page that I linked to in Post #14 above, I suspect he'll find that at least some of the material challenges his beliefs in a way that he'll find to be uncomfortable, and he'll have some soul searching to do (pun intended).

Best wishes,
Mason

IMO getting in to "bible codes" is not necessary since the Word of God is powerful enough in a plain reading/studying of the text.
However, i came across a video today (and i came across this thread last week) so i thought I'd come back here to post the link:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC5qf5I3sSI

You should watch the whole thing, the most relevant part starts @5:26 and lasts for a minute or two.

The most recent word is that Jews, Christians, and Muslims are welcome to continue following the revelations given each of them.

That's from the Q'oran, of course (I'm reading Gary Wills new book). The most up-to-date prophecy, carried by the messenger Muhammad, is that each of the Abrahamic faiths is legitimate and believers can stick with their original covenant. There's no need for Jews for Jesus to run around pestering Jews to convert. Sticking with Moses is fine.

If you skip every third word in the video it makes more sense, takes less time to digest, and you can see the hidden code more readily. Just saying.

How can Isaiah 53 not refer to a specific individual? You can read it yourself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TTnNYgRyrw

It may refer to a specific individual but who that specific individual actually is (or whether the prophecy has occurred yet at all) is subject to interpretation.

It seems like if you're going to be a skeptic, the best argument would be "well whoever wrote the Bible must have added that back in after Jesus died, and pretended like it was already there for 800 years or whatever." But it's interesting not many people try to make that argument. Potentially for the same reason no one doubts that George Washington was the first president of the United States. People don't realize how many things they already accept on faith. Accepting the Bible as historically reliable is not difficult to do, especially if you read it and see how credible and rationale the writers are. You can't say the same about the Bhagavad Gita.

As to whether this was actually referring to Jesus, read it through again, all of chapter 53, keeping in mind that this was written hundreds of years before crucificition existed.

I mean, specifically when you get to verses 11-12. He was clearly killed, yet "he will see the light of life and be satisfied." Who else could this be said of? "For he bore the sins of many, and made intercession for the transgressors." Who else in history can claim to have died as a "guilt offering" and come back from the dead in order to intercede for sinners? I mean, someone with historical credibility and millions of followers, not some frill mythical character from a document that doesn't even CLAIM to be historically reliable.

Who else proclaims the end from the beginning? Is he not a God to be feared?

I've read it, the common interpretation of the suffering servant with Israel seems plausible enough to me, certainly more plausible than that it was referring to Jesus specifically. We often speak of nations or peoples in the singular and personify the collecive as having human emotions or undergoing human trials.

"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." Sorry but how could this possibly be said of the nation of Israel? God himself continually testified against Israels wickedness through just about every prophet including Isaiah. So why all of a sudden would he be saying this suffering servant is blameless and without deceit?

Why don't you read the thread. You'll see very clearly that the Servant is defined as the Nation of Israel. Furthermore, in Isaiah 53, the kings of nations speak and they say that they can't believe their eyes because they now understand that God's Servant, the Jews, had it right all along.

Mason

He answered me, "The sin of the people of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great; the land is full of bloodshed and the city is full of injustice. They say, 'The LORD has forsaken the land; the LORD does not see.' Ezekiel 9:9.

How do we go from this ^, to suddenly "he had done no violence, nor was any deceit found in his mouth?"

The servant is indeed defined as the nation of Israel in different prophecies made by Isaiah, but not in this one. You are misrepresenting God's word Mason.

Again, read this thread. If you start around Isaiah 42, you'll see that the identity of the Servant is clearly defined on several occasions.

Best wishes,
Mason

Israel was majestic and exalted among the nations. This could not be said of Jesus of Nazareth until the Father exalted him above every name in heaven and on the earth. You have to ignore like 5-10 statements in Isaiah 53 to think he's talking about the nation Israel. For example, the very first one which says "he had no form of majesty that we should admire him."

I did read this thread, and I have read from Isaiah 42. So you think that the topic never changed over a period of years that took him to write all that? What makes you think the topic never changes over a period of 10 chapters??

Loading, I understand that your belief in Jesus is important to you and it's also important to you to spread the word. But there are many original versions of The Old Testament, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, that date to a much earlier time than Jesus.

Again, read this thread and starting reading at Isaiah 42. Also, are you even aware that the last part of Isaiah are known as the four Servant songs. It's a whole lot more than one paragraph.

MM

Because he could be talking about specific historical grievances where Israel was blameless rather than the entire sweep of history. Also, my understanding is that this passage is typically interpreted by Jews as being in the voice of Israel's oppressors, not God.

Ok, I'll just go through it one verse at a time.

Israel: "Beautiful in its loftiness, the joy of the whole earth, like the heights of Zaphon is Mount Zion, the city of the Great King." Psalm 48:2

Jesus of Nazareth: "Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us?" And they took offense at him." Mark 6:3

Which one was majestic and desirable?

Israel: "The fear of God came on all the surrounding kingdoms when they heard how the LORD had fought against the enemies of Israel." 2 Chronicles 20:29

Jesus of Nazareth: "and they twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand. Then they knelt in front of him and mocked him. "Hail, king of the Jews!" they said. Matthew 27:29

Which one was esteemed and which was despised?

Ok, I was going to do all of them but it would literally take so long. I mean anyone who is truly seeking this will see it. God bless.

And again, if you believed what was written in them you would believe in Jesus. But you don't believe because you are not his sheep. His sheep hear his voice, and follow him.

How can you believe in him when you don't even believe Moses or the prophets?

Anyone who is just observing this thread, before you believe the deceptive claims of these fake Jews please take the 7 minutes to watch this video and you will see that all throughout history the Jewish rabbis understood Isaiah 53 to be Messianic, and it was until the spirit of antichrist that they started claiming it wasn't. There is clearly many "servants" in the book of Isaiah, so when the antichrist has to go 10 chapters out of context to try to convince you "servant" ALWAYS refers to Israel, don't believe him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StS8LKLlEWk

Do we get to just pick whatever random passage we want here? Is that how we interpret the Bible?

I won't be persuaded by random passages from other books unrelated to what we're discussing. The Psalms are completely different from Isaiah and the New Testament has even less relevance in interpreting a book written hundreds of years before it.

We're talking about which one was more glorified in the eyes of men. Of course Jesus was later exalted by the Father, but overall he was clearly despised by men and had no form of majesty. He rode into town on a donkey. Contrast this with Israel, one of the wealthiest nations during the earlier days, which was basically envied by everyone.

Yes, Jesus was later exalted after his death and burial. But Isaiah 53 also mentions that.

Of course you shouldn't take the New Testament as being relevant if you don't accept the Bible as historically reliable. But then why are you taking the Old Testament as historically reliable?

Isaiah 20: Then the LORD said, "Just as my servant Isaiah

Isaiah 22: "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah.

Isaiah 37: "I will defend this city and save it, for my sake and for the sake of David my servant!"

Isaiah 45: "This is what the LORD says to his anointed, to Cyrus...

So there isn't only one servant in the book of Isaiah. Why would the one in chapter 42 be referring to the same one in chapter 53?

There's sort of two separate discussions. Original Position, this one might be more helpful regarding the arguments you're bringing up. He explains it well. It's less than 10 minutes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9J9ByB4UhY