• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Isaiah 53

I should share this response to Rabbi Singer.



 
Last edited:
The two had a debate in a radio program in the 1990's. The result was devastating for Singer.
Singer makes all his other debates available in his website......... except this one.




 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
I should share this response to Rabbi Singer.



Click to expand...


There is a big problem with Doctor Brown. He uses as his source a 19th century book written by an Anglican priest that lies.
 
tosca1 said:
The two had a debate in a radio program in the 1990's. The result was devastating for Singer.
Singer makes all his other debates available in his website......... except this one.


selectively edited debates don't mean a thing. Rabbi Singer is correct and speaking the truth.
Click to expand...
 
RAMOSS said:
There is a big problem with Doctor Brown. He uses as his source a 19th century book written by an Anglican priest that lies.
Click to expand...

What is the "lie?" Please explain, and be specific.
 
RAMOSS said:
tosca1 said:
The two had a debate in a radio program in the 1990's. The result was devastating for Singer.
Singer makes all his other debates available in his website......... except this one.
Click to expand...


selectively edited debates don't mean a thing. Rabbi Singer is correct and speaking the truth.
Click to expand...

What was "edited?' Please explain.
 
tosca1 said:
What is the "lie?" Please explain, and be specific.
Click to expand...

The lie he has done when it comes to Isiaah 53 is he give quotes 'from the rabbi's' that are either taken out of context (Quote mining), or totally manufactured (I.e, forgeries), The out of context quotes are where the lines before and after the sentence are ignored to give the line a different meaning than what actually was given. He also uses bad translations
 
RAMOSS said:
The lie he has done when it comes to Isiaah 53 is he give quotes 'from the rabbi's' that are either taken out of context (Quote mining), or totally manufactured (I.e, forgeries),

The out of context quotes are where the lines before and after the sentence are ignored to give the line a different meaning than what actually was given.
Click to expand...

Can you point out which particular issues are those you speak of? Be specific.




He also uses bad translations
Click to expand...

Examples. Be specific, please.
 
Last edited:
RAMOSS said:
This covers many of the points

sophiee's blog - Jesus is not for Jews
Click to expand...

I read the first few parts of it, and I stopped. Hers is an opinion. Like this one:



" He presents Jewish sages as if they endorse Christianity."
Click to expand...


Why should we take her word (and yours for that matter, after all you gave her as your source that backs your claim)?



Present-day rabbis disagree. Rashi (AD 1040-1105) might have been the first to deny that this incredible passage is Messianic. But many Jewish sages, before and after Rashi, saw the Messiah in Isaiah 53.

The highly regarded first-century Rabbi Shimon Ben Yochai stated: “The meaning of the words ‘bruised for our iniquities’ [Isaiah 53:5] is, that since the Messiah bears our iniquities, which produce the effect of his being bruised, it follows that whoso will not admit that the Messiah thus suffers for our iniquities, must endure and suffer them for them himself.”[1]

Rabbi Moshe Alshich, a famous sixteenth-century scholar, asserted: “[Our] Rabbis with one voice, accept and affirm the opinion that the prophet [Isaiah 53] is speaking of king Messiah.”[2]
Click to expand...
Isaiah 53 — Jews for Jesus






For example, Brown says that the Ramban (Nachmanides) agrees with Chrstians that the servant in Isaiah 53 is the messiah. Is this true?
Click to expand...


Apparently, YES!


According to the revered twelfth-century Jewish scholar Ramban (Nachmanides), the Redeemer is the Messiah:

Yet he carried our sicknesses, being himself sick and distressed for the transgressions which should have caused sickness and distress in us, and bearing the pains which we ought to have experienced. But we, when we saw him weakened and prostrate, thought that he was stricken, smitten of God. The chastisement of our peace was upon him – for God will correct him; and by his stripes we were healed.[3]
Click to expand...
Isaiah 53 — Jews for Jesus






And here's an explanation why Isaiah 53 refers to the Messiah:


Throughout Isaiah 53, the masculine singular pronoun “he” is used to designate the suffering servant. This pronoun is very rarely used in regards to Israel. More usually, Israel is referred to as “you,” “she/her,” and “they/them.” But there is no problem at all using “he” in reference to the Messiah.

Surely he took up our pain and bore our suffering, yet we considered him punished by God, stricken by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:4–6)

Just a quick read through the Prophets will show that Israel could not even bear its own sins, let alone those of others.

It was our Jewish people who had “gone astray” and “turned to our own way.”
Click to expand...
Isaiah 53 — Jews for Jesus



Surely the OT is the best source? How many times had Israel brought on the wrath of God???
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom