Johnny Skeptic

Now that is cute since the notion that Jesus was the Messiah was quite astonishing to the vast majority of Jews themselves.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Well, I don't think that is required here, for the objection was that Jesus was refused by Jewish people when (by implication) the Messiah shouldn't have been, so the objection is answered if this was predicted for the Messiah, whether or not Jesus was really the one.

Well yes, it was, I agree. God might act in quite unexpected ways, as in, for example, the Exodus, or in refusing to be yet another fertility god, with condoning dissipation...

Isaiah 30:10-11 They say to the seers, "See no more visions!" and to the prophets, "Give us no more visions of what is right! Tell us pleasant things, prophesy illusions. Leave this way, get off this path, and stop confronting us with the Holy One of Israel!"

But my argument was from the passage itself, not from a comparison of parallels! Yes, there are parallels as well, but that was not my point in this answer.

Actually, this is a point from the very text of the passage, an implication there, so now we have to examine whether this implication is correct, regardless of the view people may have had of the overall passage.

First, the consistency I want most is a consistent view of the passage, as above. But here is a web page which even says that the predominant view, among Jewish rabbis until the 11th century C.E., was that Isaiah 53 was Messianic.

Well, Jamieson, Fausset, Brown is online.

And as you might expect, I don't find this passage so ambiguous!

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

Since there is not even one single piece of evidence that Jesus was the Messiah, it is quite natural that the vast majority of Jews would have rejected him. Micah 5:2 mentions that from Bethlehem Ephratah one would come who would be ruler in Israel, but Jesus did not become ruler in Israel. That alone would have been more than enough reason for most Jews to reject him.

Isaiah 53:3-5 say "He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed."

Regarding "we esteemed him not," the book of Acts mentions "many thousands" of Christians. The word we could reasonably be taken to mean all Jews, which obviously was not the case. If I said "We went to dinner," you would assume that everyone in the group went to dinner. Isaiah could easily have cleared up this matter by being more specific, but God has always gone out of his way not to be specific. For instance, God could easily have told Ezekiel that Alexander would conquer Tyre centuries later, but he much preferred to encourage dissent instead of discouraging dissent. In typical fashion, Isaiah did not mention anything at all about the resurrection of the Messiah.

What Exodus? What plagues? What parting of the Red Sea?

Lee, you said in another post that you did not find a certain Scripture to be ambigious. Does that go for all other Scriptures as well?

Skeptical

OK, but such a view, I hold, was still the considerable minority position in pre-Christian Jewish tradition.

But "correct" imples correct in relation to a standard. The only way this passage is a "correct" Messianic passage from the Christian POV is if it refers to a suffering savior who was to come ala Jesus since it clearly does not refer to a Davidic King.

My point was that since it clearly does not refer to a Davidic King it is therefore not consistent with the predominant traditional Jewish expectations. Anything else it refers to is irrelevant for purposes of my argument in this thread.

Consistency for purposes of my argument means consistency with the predominant pre-Christian Jewish tradition. I looked at the web site you listed and I am not convinced they are telling the whole story. Principally because I have read other sources that offer similar references that say the opposite.

For example, many of the references are far too late to be of use. Anything later than 200 CE cannot be of use in determining what the prevailing pre-Christian tradition was unless it incorporates earlier references. References to the 11th century and beyond for example are for all intents and purposes worthless. They tell us nothing about what the pre-Christian Messianic view was.

The article also doesn't address one of the primary problems with pre-Christian Messianic interpretations: there was a variety of expectations, often in disagreement with each other. The article is a Christian apologetic, so obviously the author is going to take that POV, but in doing so it doesn't really address my principle point.

Here is a quote from jewishencyclopedia.com that I think really highlights my main argument that the conception of Jesus as Messiah contradicted pre-existing Jewish traditions:

"In the rabbinical apocalyptic literature the conception of an earthly Messiah is the prevailing one, and from the end of the first century of the common era it is also the one officially accepted by Judaism. As proof of this may be given: (1) "The Prayer for the Coming of the Messiah," mentioned above, inwhich the Messiah is called "descendant of David." (2) The information given in the second century by Justin ("Dialogus cum Tryphone," ch. xlix.) and by the author of "Philosophumena" (ix. 30). Both writers state expressly that, contrary to the belief of the Christians, the Jews emphasize the human origin of the Messiah, and the author of "Philosophumena" adds that they expect him to be descended from David. (3) The liturgy of later times, which, like the Daily Prayer, calls him the descendant of David throughout. His mission is, in all essential respects, the same as in the apocalypses of the older period: he is to free Israel from the power of the heathen world, kill its ruler and destroy his hosts, and set up his own kingdom of peace"

You are of course entitled to your opinion. It's not ambiguous in terms that _someone_ is suffering, the only question is to who/what is referred. Like I said, I am not an expert on Isaiah, so I defer to those who are. I have seen scholarly commentary from both those who agree and disagree that is is Messianic, so I think it is legitimate to hold both positions.

However, from my POV, what is relevant is whether such a view was predominant in pre-Christian Jewish tradition. From my research, I would conclude that it defnitely was not. In fact, the whole Isaiah discussion has been a distractor from my main argument, but that is my fault for getting into it, I find it interesting.

All of the pre-Christian Messianic traditions I have seen have held that although there were disparate views, the predominant Jewish view was for a Davidic King, not a suffering servant. If this was the predominant view, as I hold that it was, then whether Is 53 is seen after that period as Messianic, however correctly, is simply irrelevant.

If the Jewish Messianic traditions of a Davidic King were wrong, as the Christian POV says, then I believe my argument that the Christians were rejecting much of the Jewish traditions wholesale holds and the rest of my argument follows naturally from this basis.

The only fatal flaw to my argument would be if:

1) Messianic expectations OTHER than for a Davidic King were widespread within pre-Christian Judaism

OR

2) My argument that the Davidic King expectations fits precisely into many other traditional Jewish traditions and therefore its rejection entails rejection of those related traditions, is wrong

Johnny Skeptic

So in the 11th century Jews finally got it right. My compliments to them. At any rate, the main issue is whether or not Jesus fulfilled prophecies that Christians claim are Messianic prophecies, and there is in fact no evidence that Jesus fulfilled even one single one of them. Jesus provably did not fulfill Micah 5:2, since the prophecy mentioned someone who would become ruler in Israel. Jesus did not become ruler in Israel, there is no evidence at all that he ever will, and there are not any New Testament Scriptures that I am aware of that say that Jesus will become ruler specifically in Israel. If there are any such Scriptures, I would like to know about them.

lee_merrill

Hi everyone,

Well, we can't have it both ways! If virtually no one accepted him, that is proof, and if many thousands accepted him, that will prove your view, then we have, I think, a question or two to ask about your view here.

Well, he did, actually:

Isaiah 53:11 After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied...

"Of life" is not in all the texts, but it is in the Dead Sea Scrolls, indicating that the phrased dropped out, not that it was added, and this rather clearly indicates resurrection.

Certainly not all Scriptures are equally clear, I think Isaiah 53 is clearly messianic, though.

But again, I'm not taking any point of view here in making this point about the passage, it does not require one view or another, for the point to be made. These points, actually:

These points need to be addressed specifically, they do not assume the Christian view.

But if the Jewish people held these references to be Messianic, through several centuries after Christ, surely that is a quite strong indication that they had considered them messianic previously.

This does not explain, however, why they seem to have considered Isaiah 53 messianic at one time. And whether Jesus was human or divine is not part of the point being discussed here, and Jesus also said clearly he would do the above things, fulfilling that aspect of the predictions of the Messiah, fulfilling all aspects, the suffering servant, and also "dividing spoil with the strong" (Isa. 53:11).

Well, the web site you quoted says "and from the end of the first century of the common era it is also the one officially accepted by Judaism," so I think this conclusion falls under your criticism! For it is not about Jewish belief before Christianity.

Regards,
Lee

Johnny Skeptic

If no one accepted him, that is proof of what? You need to understand that it doesn't make any difference whatsoever what people believed back then, only whether or not Jesus rose from the dead. Perception and reality are often two entirely different things. Just because Matthew perceived that Jesus fulfilled Micah 5:2 does not mean that Jesus did fulfill Micah 5:2. Of course, we know that Jesus did not fulfill Micah 5:2 because he did not become ruler in Israel as the prophecy promised. In addition, there is no evidence that he ever will.

Lee, when are you going to reply to my post #141 in the thread on the Babylon prophecy?

Skeptical

If you going to continue to selectively ignore much of the substance of my posts, I see not point in continuing to reply to you. You have not even attempted to reply to the substantive numbered points in my last 2 posts. Most of what you have replied to completely misses the point.

This response above is typical. First, you selectively quote only what you want. The part you left out is "In the rabbinical apocalyptic literature the conception of an earthly Messiah is the prevailing one". In case you didn't read the rest of the article, the "rabbinical apocalyptic literature" it refers to is pre-Christian. Hence, the "and" that starts your quote, as in "in addition to".

Additionally, I never said that this web site was my only source, that would be downright silly. I can give you lots of references if you want, you can start with "Jesus and Judaism" by Sanders. I can give you a half dozen more if you want. Also, I never said that anything post-Christian wasn't useful, I said anything from the 2nd century on would be suspect unless it incorporated earlier sources.

Honestly, if your going to continue to post it would be helpful if you didn't selectively filter only what you think you can answer. So far, you haven't even attempted to answer most of the substantive points of my posts.

Let's keep it simple, do you deny that the predominant pre-Christian Messianic belief in Judaism was for the return of a Davidic King?

TedM

According to this amazing piece of work http://philologos.org/__eb-lat/appen09.htm

I'm not up on the dates of these Jewish works, but you may find that this supports a pre-Christian Messiah found in Isaiah 53 by some.

I don't know enough about Judaism or early Jewish Christianity to say. My understanding is that perhaps the Jewish Christians believed that the kingdom of God the prophets wrote about had begun with Christ and that they should therefore get ready to rule the entire world from Jerusalem. As such, Gentiles would be welcome in some kind of fashion since the prophets talked of their acknowledgement of the Jew's God. HOW they were welcome appears to have been greatly debated, with Paul being the liberal one that eventually was most effective--helped no doubt by the destruction of many Jews in the 1st century..

Looks that way to me to, due in great part to Paul's ideas on salvation through faith as the way in which Gentiles would become part of the kingdom of God.

ted