Yuku free message boards

Quote:

---

1. Targum Jonathan says righteous Israel is the sufferer here, not the Messiah, until the time of redemption when Israel's sins are transferred to the gentiles and they suffer (based on Deut 7:15 and 30:7). So there's nothing to suggest the author of the Targum expected a suffering Messiah and everything to suggest that the suffering servant is none other than righteous Israel. Note that the Targum teaches theology and this is why the verses don't match up with the plain text.

---

Shalom Chaim,

As I have said. The topic of Isaiah 53 is the role of intercession of the Servant. This role of intercessionis not allotted to Israel by the Targum. It is the Messiah that atones. If Israel is to be portrait as the servant by its suffering, then why would the Targum allot some of the sufferings to the gentiles as well? That makes no sense. Whereas the only one doing any intercession of any kind is the Messiah. It is the Messiah who redeems his people and justifies them through intercession, just as it is layed out by the prophet.

Quote:

---

2. If Brachot 5 is about a righteous person in general, then it can certainly apply to ANY righteous person or group of righteous people. What a lame argument. When I say a person would have to be stupid to do something, it goes without question that anyone who does the same thing is stupid, whether one person or millions.

---

Which is my point exactly! This is a general rule and a couple of verses from Isaiah 53 are used. But does this mean that Isaiah 53 is about Israel according to Brachot? NO! That's not what Brachot is saying. It is just explaining a general rule, not explaining how Isaiah 53 is about a righteous remnant.

Quote:

---

3. When I quote midrash to support Israel being the servant, even if only one verse, this goes to show there is support for the view that Israel (the righteous) is seen as the servant and that Rashi didn't just invent something out of thin air.

---

This is exactly why Messianics do the same. And when they do that, you accuse them of misusing midrash, taking it literally when it shouldn't be taken literally and therefore irrelevant and hardly to be considered as proof. But here you go and do exactly the same, but now it's justified. Why can you use midrash as support for the Israel interpretation, but Messianics can't use it without being accused of misusing rabbinic sources? Eager to see your response on this.

Quote:

---

4. Rashi does speak of a righteous servant in his comments on 53:8 and 53:11. Just as the Targum does so in 53:2 and 53:10. There's nothing suggesting this wasn't the dominant view. Origen even quotes Jews of his day giving the Israel interpretation and says nothing to the effect that this was a minority view, with the Messiah being the majority Jewish view of the day. Evidence for your view that this was a minority opinion is severely lacking, and in fact doesn't exist. You only assume it wasn't a majority view based on the discredited Edward Pusey claim that Rashi made all this up.

---

Origen speaks of "some Jews" and is startled by this interpretation, because he obviously had never heard it before. That's how rare it was and that's why he mentions it with amazement. And yes, Rashi mentions the righteous in 2 verses, but his identification of the servant is "all of Israel". I really can't believe you missed the word "all". So my argument still stands. What do you make of the word "all"?

Quote:

---

5. Again, the Targum teaches theology - it's not a pshat rendering and if you think it is, compare it to any other clear pshat rendering of anything else you can find. But let's assume it's pshat as you do. The apostles, being clueless about a suffering Messiah, but apparently knowing Israel is the sufferer would still more than likely be more convinced that the subject of Isaiah 53 is Israel, given also your view that the Messiah cannot be used as validation from Tanakh to prove he's the subject. It is Israel who is blessed with children and long life in the Targum, not the Messiah. They are the sufferer, not the Messiah.

---

Answered this already. The Targum doesn't teach the Messiah suffering, that's why they wouldn't have known it from the Targum either. But the topic of the chapter isn't the suffering of itself. It is the intercessory role of the servant. And since the Targum didn't believe in a suffering Messiah, he writer obviously saw that the intercession made by the servant can only be done by the Messiah and allotted some of the suffering to Israel and some of the suffering to the Gentiles. If the main topic was the suffering of itself, then the Targum wouldn't allot any suffering to the Gentiles, but only to Israel. But it doesn't. So again, my agrument still stands. The servant is, per Targum, the Messiah. Look at the beginning of the Parashah: "My servant, Messiah, will prosper...". Not "My servant, Israel,..."

Quote:

---

As for Daniel 9, I have no problem with the Jewish view evolving over time. Your problem is that you have zero evidence to conclude that the Israel interpretation wasn't the majority view of that time. We have no evidence in Bar Kochba's time that anyone associated him as the suffering servant - much less as anyone who would intercede for sins using your personal Targum take.

---

Yes, we do have evidence of Jesus being associeted with the suffering servant. And by the way, do they have to associate Bar Kochba with the suffering servant? To demonstrate the weakness of this very claim, did they associate Bar Kochba with Zech 12:10, since this is supposed to be about the Messiah Ben Joseph, the suffering Messiah? NO! Does this mean that the association of Zech 12:10 with ben Joseph is post-Bar Kochba? Per your POV, YES!

Quote:

---

It's funny how you use Nakdimon's rehashed arguments. Are you a big fan of his, that you like his arguments so much? I ask because I just recently debated Nak, having seen all these arguments very recently.

---

I use these arguments, because any impatrial reader of the other forum could see that he had you going in circles with your claims, making claims at first and then contradicting them later. From claims like "the oppressors" in Isaiah 53 at first, to adjusting it to "the children of the oppressors" and later changing it again to "some of the surviving oppressors and their children". And claims of "relatively healing" of the gentiles, quoting verses to make a statement and he would have you admitting later that those verses actually said something else than you at first claimed they said and a lot more things like these, constantly adjusting your views. If you had that much trouble with him, can you imagine what damage dr Michael Brown would do if he was to discuss these things with you?

Shalom
Max

Shalom Chaim,

Quote:

---

How can you say from this chapter the Messiah atones? As you admit already, there is no evidence from Tanakh that this servant is the Messiah and the chapter never mentions "atonement". Where do you find atonement or forgiveness of individual sins, not corporate, in Isaiah 53? Atonement isn't here in Isaiah 53 - certainly not on the individual level and certainly not due to death or belief in such a death. So before you write again of an intercessory role here, think again about the lack of evidence you have for support of your claim. Jews intercede for gentiles in Jer 29:7, and this one verse alone is more evidence than you have for your point of view using Tanakh.

---

Dont go denying that there is any intercession or atonement in this chapter. Even Rashi agrees with this fact. And who was talking about individual sins? It is taught that the atoning sacrifice of Jesus is atones for the entire world. And just as the sacrifice of Yom Kippur atones for the entire nation of Israel but only has effect for the people who repented and acknowledged the atonement made by the High Priest, so does the sacrifice of Jesus only have effect for those who repent and acknowledge the atonement made by Jesus. So there is no individual level.

Quote:

---

The reason the Targum shows gentiles suffering is because this is an important teaching permeating the Tanakh about the end days when the gentiles pay for their ill treatment against the Jews (see Isaiah 60-66, Deut 7:15, 30:7, and Isa 51:22-23, etc....over and over throughout). The gentiles only suffer as a result, in the end days, of their treatment against Israel.

---

Which is yet another reason why Isaiah 53 cant be about Israel interceding for the Gentiles. You keep saying that the Gentiles will pay for the treatment of the Jews, yet you claim that Israel intercedes for the Gentiles in Isaiah 53. How can Israel supposedly make atonement for the gentiles on the one hand and yet the gentiles be punished for the same treatment against Jews on the other hand? The prophet says that the servant will intercede for many. Yet you turn around and claim that these oppressors will be punished. Yet another contradiction.

We disagree that Brachot teaches here that Israel is the servant. You want to have it both ways. You say it speaks about a righteous individual and because a righteous individual is part of a righteous remnant of Israel, it refers to the righteous remnant. This is circular reasoning of the worst kind. The slaying of a righteous person only has atoning power when God recognizes this atoning power to his death. This is not the rule per Torah. Torah never teaches that any righteous person atones for his generation.

Quote:

---

1. If it's okay for Messianics, then you must admit these midrashim for the Israel interpretation are just as strong evidence vs. your view than whatever you bring, right? To merely compare the frequency of these midrashim is childish, isn't it? The fact is that you cannot just summarily dismiss this as midrash since you do the same, right?

2. Missionaries go farther than Jews, and this is where the problem is. Do you realize Moses is used as the subject of several verses in Isaiah 53 many times? It's because the Rabbis who made midrash saw this servant as describing ANY righteous suffering Jew in general, whether Moses from the past (who cannot possibly be this future servant) or the Messiah of the future (who, while like Moses, can be described using many verses in I-53, but certainly not all). Hezekiah and Jeremiah are also used as subjects for these verses because they were righteous, not because Rabbis saw these men atoning for other people's individual sins (which isn't biblical so give the Rabbis some credit) but because all these people are part of the righteous remnant, to whom this really applies - as the Targum so clearly teaches.

---

1. So its childish for me to the frequency of the midrashim, but its not childish of you to compare the frequency of Israels sufferings in the Tenach? In addition, you at first disregard midrashim about the Messiah as irrelevant, but now you suddenly use midrashim to prove Israel as the servant? I only disregarded the midrashim, because you consider the midrashim as being irrelevant. But this also means that, if you accept midrashim as proof, you can no longer say that Isaiah 53 is NOT about the Messiah according to ancient rabbinic views. There is more support for this view in ancient rabbinic sources than for your Israel view.

2. I dont believe the Rabbis used Moses as an example of ANY righteous sufferer. I think they used Moses as an example of the texts. They interpreted it as of the Messiah and used examples from biblical characters to prove their point. And so it is with other biblical characters. But there are rabbis that have other opinions, namely, that indeed this literally speaks of Jeremiah, Hezekiah, etc., but thats ok, because everyone is entitled to their opinion. But to say that these rabbis thought about a righteous remnant is absurd and farfetched. There is nothing at all that indicates that and this is contrary to the scripture. The righteous remnant does not intercede for the gentiles for their oppression against Jews. Even Jer 29 doesnt prove your case, because the prophet is speaking to all of Israel and not only the righteous remnant. And this is not interceding for sins, but for peace, so that all Jews should have peace in the places they are scattered to. Also notice that Bamidbar Rabbah says nothing about intercession or atonement of sins.

Quote:

---

It doesn't apply to every person (since not all righteous Jews necessarily suffer) but nonetheless in general it can easily apply to any Jew. So two different midrashim, Origen, and the Targum spell big trouble for your view (really Mike Brown's).

---

And every righteous Jew that suffers isnt necessarily suffering to make intercession or atonement. It might be as a test to see if they remain true to God or other reasons. In fact, you will not be able to prove that the suffering of righteous Jews in the world throughout history has been for intercession of the Gentiles. Brachot is NOT about Israel being the servant (or the righteous remnant), since it teaches that the suffering must be with consent. Never has Israels suffering at the hands of the gentiles been with their consent. When did Israel suffer with consent at the hands of the gentiles? So I suggest you quit making these claims. Note also that your quote from Bamidbar Rabbah doesn't even say anything about atonement at all. The Targum teaches Messiahs intercessory role and Origen clearly says that some Jews held this view and is amazed by it. See below.

Origen speaks of "certain Jews" and is startled by this interpretation, because he obviously had never heard it before. That's how rare it was and that's why he mentions it with amazement. And yes, Rashi mentions the righteous in 2 verses, but his identification of the servant is "all of Israel". I really can't believe you missed the word "all". So my argument still stands. What do you make of the word "all"?

Quote:

---

Origen nowhere implies this was a rare view. Just look at Contra Celsus, book 1, chapter 55 (quoted below). Please tell me where you find any evidence whatsoever that this was the first time Origen heard this, since he "obviously never heard it before"? Also, how do you know from Origen's words this was a minority Jewish opinion or that most other Jews believed differently? I can't wait to hear this.

---

Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual, and as being in a state of dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained, on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations... Many arguments were employed on that occasion during the discussion to prove that these predictions regarding one particular person were not rightly applied by them to the whole nation But these matters have been treated at greater length, necessarily as I think, on account of the language of the Jew, as quoted in the work of Celsus.

I have shortened the text to the pieces that I find relevant to demonstrate that this was on this one occasion that he was presented with this weird interpretation. He starts with I remember, which indicates that this was a rare event due to the weird interpretation. Origen speaks of on one occasion debating with certain Jews. What is also evident is that he speaks of these Jews claiming this is about the whole people, so NO righteous remnant. We also see that this wasnt regarded as intercession, but in order that many proselytes might be gained. Also, this was reckoned as the language of the Jews, and thus Israel is speaking here and this was not seen as being the language of the gentile kings. This is a whole other interpretation than that of modern day Judaism.

Quote:

---

I've explained the word "all" several times now. By the time the gentiles are saying these words of Isaiah 53 in the future, all Israel is righteous, as we know from the rest of Tanakh too. They are speaking of this servant they see now (all Israel being righteous) and describing the righteous of the past as well (albeit in fewer numbers). The gentiles see the righteous of the future and then relate to the righteous of the past. Why is this so difficult for you that you're forced to forward the view that Rashi contradicts himself by saying all Israel in one place and then righteous Israel in another, as though he meant 2 different entities? My explanation is far more plausible than yours. It seems you just can't let your argument go no matter how illogical it's proven to be.

---

You cant attribute this to Israel in the end times, because Israel isnt being crushed in the end times. The language of the speakers is recalling the state of the servant at the time of the suffering of the servant. In addition, it is you that makes Rashi look like a fool, by thinking that he speaks of the righteous remnant in the end times as suffering from a plague (see v.8) since you claim that this is about righteous Israel in the future. Rashi, unlike you, doesnt see the righteous and the rest of Israel as two separate servants. He sees them as 1, but feels that some verses are particularly applicable to the righteous among Israel. So him identifying the servant as all of Israel at the time of persecution and seeing some verses as referring to the righteous among Israel is not a contradictory interpretation. So your argument lacks and you are still in contention with Rashi that doesnt speak of a righteous remnant being the servant.

Quote:

---

You don't realize how confused you seem to be by the Targum's rendering. The Targum teaches theology, not pshat. The Targum's theology about Isaiah 53 is in full 100% agreement with the rest of Tanakh and Judaism's view today (yes, even the part about the Messiah's intercessory role for Israel - as the patriarchs, Moses, and David were intercessors for us also). It is not in agreement with our pshat rendering, obviously, but theologically it's perfect. The Targum doesn't say the Messiah suffers because such a thing isn't taught in Tanakh anywhere, but also because in the end-days Tanakh teaches the Messiah is successful, as he is here in the Targum. The Targum only mentions that the gentile oppressors suffer and are destroyed because that's what happens to them in the end days after oppressing the Jews for so long. For you to argue that the Targum doesn't agree with the "modern" Jewish POV is absurd. It's 100% spot on! The Targum need not mention Israel's intercessory role with the gentiles because that much is obvious just in Jeremiah 29:7 alone. The Messiah is mentioned here because he's around at the time of redemption, and therefore he plays a role here in the theology of the end-days. What you won't find in the Targum is any nonsense about the Messiah interceding for each person's individual sins. The intercession here, like everywhere else in Tanakh, is at the national or corporate level and there is no indication or reason why we should believe differently. And this is why the disciples had no clue about a suffering Messiah based on Isaiah 53.

---

So since the Targum teaches the important theological points of the Tenach, it needs not to mention the strongly emphasized intercessory role of the servant because of 1 verse in Jeremiah that supposedly teaches Israel interceding for the gentiles? Are you kidding me? The Targum doesnt mention it because it doesnt exist! According to the theological standpoint of the Targum, there is no intercession for the gentiles at all. And you should quit making claims about individual intercession, cause I have never said this. As for Jeremiah 29, this speaks of all of Israel asking for peace in the places they are scattered to, because then they will get peace too. So there is no intercession for the Gentiles, but prayers for peace for them and their children.

Quote:

---

Look at Rashi's comments on Zech 12:10 based on the Targum's rendering. Both interpretations are valid, whether it's Israel or ben-Joseph being mourned, since ben-Joseph is part of Israel that is mourned. So the disciples rendered Zech 12:10, so far as we know, as pertaining to many Jews being mourned, of course including ben-Joseph.

---

Irrelevant. Your argument was that no one ever taught that Bar Kochba was the suffering servant in Isaiah 53, so therefore there was no view that Isaiah 53 was about the Messiah. My point is that, because there no one said Bar Kochba was Messiah ben Joseph, pointing to Zech 12:10, does that mean that people were unaware of the interpretation of Zech 12:10 being about Messiah ben Joseph? Per your reasoning, yes!

Quote:

---

You shouldn't have brought up Zech 12:10 since in John 19:37 this verse was already fulfilled somehow. Pretty lame prooftext since the context of Zech 12:10 clearly relates to a future war that never happened in Jesus' time. You're left groping with imaginary Jews mourning in John 19:37 and then Jews mourning again in the distant future. So there's mourning going on twice, and for what? Jesus dies again? Please.

---

Again, you look at the Targum, who teaches theology and see the theology it teaches in Zech 12:10 And they shall supplicate Me because of their wanderings. And they shall look to Me to complain about those of them whom the nations thrust through and slew during their exile. Where is the intercession for those that persecuted Israel, per Isaiah 53? Instead, the Targum says, that they will complain about their oppressors, instead of interceding for them. And if you would have looked at the text in John 19 you would see that he quotes only the part that they will look upon him, not the mourning part. The text in Zechariah doesnt say that the one that was pierced at the time of the mourning.

Quote:

---

I'd be delighted for many impartial readers to look at our exchanges, including Mike Brown. Anyone into honest and real substantive debate can see easily on whose side the overwhelming evidence lies. They could all see how there's overwhelming evidence for the Jewish POV of Isaiah 53 throughout the Tanakh along with historical fact. At the same time they would see that no Tanakh evidence exists to support the Messiah view here and no historical record can confirm that Jesus interceded successfully for even one single, solitary human being. The Christian POV here on Isaiah 53 is all smoke-and-mirrors with no Tanakh or historical confirmation or support. On the other hand, a powerfully strong case exists for the Jewish POV - both biblically and historically speaking.

---

I can play this game too, you know. There is not a stitch of support for the Israel view as the servant that intercedes for the gentiles either, nor is there any historical support or evidence that Israel healed anyone at anytime. So you can stop your cry for evidence since you lack that same evidence to affirm your position. Silly argument of leaders remaining at their position by using Israel as scapegoat is the best you can do, while there is no evidence whatsoever that those leaders benefited from using Israel as their scapegoat, because you cant prove that they wouldnt have remained in power without using Israel as scapegoat. The Israel view is contradictory to what the prophet says about the servant. Since you claim that it speaks of events such as the Holocaust and you claim that God wasnt pleased with such events, the prophet says that God was pleased with what happense to the servant in Isaiah 53 and He caused it to come upon the servant. So forget historical evidence. Look at the Tanach first.

Quote:

---

If you think there are still holes in any of my arguments, with "contradictions and adjustments galore", please feel free to point them out. I cannot help it if you don't like the fact that Isaiah 60:14 mentions these children of our oppressors. Let's look at it:

Isaiah 60:14. And the children of your oppressors shall go to you bent over, and those who despised you shall prostrate themselves at the soles of your feet, and they shall call you 'the city of the Lord, Zion of the Holy One of Israel.'

I'll leave it to you to keep laughing it up at the fact that this mentions both the oppressing gentiles and their children, even though we also read in Deut 7:15, Deut 30:7, Isa 51:22-23, etc...that the oppressive nations are destroyed. So which is it? Gentiles or their children? Are they destroyed like Tanakh says or not? Nations in general destroyed but not all inhabitants, or every single offending gentile, bar none? Look at Zech 14:16 for the answer. So I hope you hada good laugh in and enjoyed. I see nothing in Tanakh or in the historical record that would give me assurance if I were to take your position.

---

Yeah, I had a good laugh, because your initial argument was the oppressors are the speakers then you were shown Zeph 3:19 and you quickly switched to the children of the oppressors are the speakers and then you were pointed to the fact that the children couldnt say that they were healed because their fathers oppressed the Jews and then you switched to some of the surviving oppressors and their children are the speakers. Not you gotta admit thats somewhat funny, no? I encourage anyone to go to that forum and read all about it. I havent even mentioned all the text you quoted to support your view and then later having you admitting that they actually said something else.


Shalom
Max