Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not [W:775]

[Mizzy22]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Yep, he just doesn't get that and keeps demanding evidence...like anyone can do his work for him...lazy is his name...lol...

We had a guy like that at Amazon forums,no matter what,he always cried show me evidence.
Might be the same guy.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

You won't find one Rabbi that is Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, reconstructionist , or humanistic that will agree.

So?

If you read the fourth servant song in it's entirety, it specifically states the servant is Israel. But, don't let context get in the way of your claims.

??? You'll have to show me that, because as I have read it, I have seen it describe Jesus... Israel didn't do any of these things listed in these songs; they failed time and time again... Jesus is the one who succeeded... The 4th Servant Song describes Jesus' suffering and triumph.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

If you had as much Biblical Knowledge as you think you have,you would know that at the End of the Age of the Gentiles.
When the Messiah is Spiritually revealed to the Jews.
Every Rabbi in Orthodox,Reform,and Conservative,will shout from the hill tops Isaiah 53,is about Jesus the Messiah!

That is a claim that you are not able to back up.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

We had a guy like that at Amazon forums,no matter what,he always cried show me evidence.
Might be the same guy.

Or, it might be, I know you are making false claims, because I know what the evidence actually shows.

 

[Daisy]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Did Isaiah here foretell a suffering, dying Messiah? Most modern Jewish commentators say no. Some claim that the Suffering Servant was the nation of Israel itself during its Babylonian exile. Others relate the suffering to periods such as the Crusades or the Nazi Holocaust.3 But does this explanation stand up to close scrutiny? It is true that in some contexts Isaiah does speak of Israel as God’s “servant.” But he speaks of Israel as a wayward, sinful servant! (Isaiah 42:19; 44:21, 22) The Encyclopaedia Judaica thus draws this contrast: “The real Israel is sinful and the Servant [of Isaiah 53], free of sin.”4

Some, therefore, argue that the Servant represents a ‘righteous elite’ in Israel that suffered on behalf of the sinful Jews.5 But Isaiah never spoke of any such elite. On the contrary, he prophesied that the whole nation would be sinful! (Isaiah 1:5, 6; 59:1-4; compare Daniel 9:11, 18, 19.) Besides, during periods of affliction, Jews suffered whether they were righteous or not.

Another problem: For whom did the Servant suffer? The Jewish Soncino commentary suggests the Babylonians. If so, who confessed that the Servant suffered ‘because of our iniquities’? (Isaiah 53:5) Is it reasonable to believe that the Babylonians (or any other Gentiles) would make such an astounding admission​—that the Jews suffered in their behalf?6

Interestingly, some first-century rabbis (and a number since then) identified the Suffering Servant with the Messiah.7 (See box on page 11.) Thousands of Jews came to see undeniable parallels between the Suffering Servant and Jesus of Nazareth. Like that Servant, Jesus was of humble origin. Ultimately, he was despised and shunned. Though he carried out no political conquest, he bore the diseases of others, miraculously curing their ailments. Though innocent, he died as a result of judicial miscarriage​—a fate he accepted without protest.

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/101991443?q=isaiah+53&p=par

 

[Daisy]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

We had a guy like that at Amazon forums,no matter what,he always cried show me evidence.
Might be the same guy.

I don't argue with him, I just post information that debunks what he says...and he ignores it...:mrgreen:

 

[Mizzy22]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

That is a claim that you are not able to back up.

There is a timeline of Prophecy,you're completely naive about!

 

[Logicman]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

You won't find one Rabbi that is Orthodox, Reform, Conservative, reconstructionist , or humanistic that will agree. If you read the fourth servant song in it's entirety, it specifically states the servant is Israel. But, don't let context get in the way of your claims.

Baloney.

You STILL haven't answered the objections I listed showing why the Messiah of Isaiah 53 cannot be Israel? You stumped (again)?

Why Isaiah 53 cannot refer to the nation of Israel, or anyone else, but must be the Messiah

"1. The servant of Isaiah 53 is an innocent and guiltless sufferer. Israel is never described as sinless. Isaiah 1:4 says of the nation: "Alas sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity. A brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters!" He then goes on in the same chapter to characterize Judah as Sodom, Jerusalem as a harlot, and the people as those whose hands are stained with blood (verses 10, 15, and 21). What a far cry from the innocent and guiltless sufferer of Isaiah 53 who had "done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth!

2. The prophet said: "It pleased the LORD to bruise him." Has the awful treatment of the Jewish people (so contrary, by the way, to the teaching of Jesus to love everyone) really been God's pleasure, as is said of the suffering of the servant in Isaiah 53:10 ? If, as some rabbis contend, Isaiah 53 refers to the holocaust, can we really say of Israel's suffering during that horrible period, "It pleased the LORD to bruise him?" Yet it makes perfect sense to say that God was pleased to have Messiah suffer and die as our sin offering to provide us forgiveness and atonement....

6. The prophet speaking is Isaiah himself, who says the sufferer was punished for "the transgression of my people," according to verse 8. Who are the people of Isaiah? Israel. So the sufferer of Isaiah 53 suffered for Israel. So how could he be Israel?"

More in the link / article.

https://www.chaim.org/nation.htm

Answer the objections, Ramoss.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

I don't argue with him, I just post information that debunks what he says...and he ignores it...:mrgreen:

No, you cut and paste from the JW web site without understanding, which makes quite a few claims (such as the Rabbi's idea it was the Messiah) that are false, based on a 19th century book written by an Anglican priest that lies.

 

[Daisy]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

No, you cut and paste from the JW web site without understanding, which makes quite a few claims (such as the Rabbi's idea it was the Messiah) that are false, based on a 19th century book written by an Anglican priest that lies.

Baloney...you can say anything but it doesn't make it true...as we already know...

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Baloney.

You STILL haven't answered the objections I listed showing why the Messiah of Isaiah 53 cannot be Israel? You stumped (again)?

Why Isaiah 53 cannot refer to the nation of Israel, or anyone else, but must be the Messiah

"1. The servant of Isaiah 53 is an innocent and guiltless sufferer. Israel is never described as sinless. Isaiah 1:4 says of the nation: "Alas sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity. A brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters!" He then goes on in the same chapter to characterize Judah as Sodom, Jerusalem as a harlot, and the people as those whose hands are stained with blood (verses 10, 15, and 21). What a far cry from the innocent and guiltless sufferer of Isaiah 53 who had "done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth!

2. The prophet said: "It pleased the LORD to bruise him." Has the awful treatment of the Jewish people (so contrary, by the way, to the teaching of Jesus to love everyone) really been God's pleasure, as is said of the suffering of the servant in Isaiah 53:10 ? If, as some rabbis contend, Isaiah 53 refers to the holocaust, can we really say of Israel's suffering during that horrible period, "It pleased the LORD to bruise him?" Yet it makes perfect sense to say that God was pleased to have Messiah suffer and die as our sin offering to provide us forgiveness and atonement....

6. The prophet speaking is Isaiah himself, who says the sufferer was punished for "the transgression of my people," according to verse 8. Who are the people of Isaiah? Israel. So the sufferer of Isaiah 53 suffered for Israel. So how could he be Israel?"

More in the link / article.

https://www.chaim.org/nation.htm

Answer the objections, Ramoss.

I did. a nuimber of times.. You ignore it, repeat and rinse. Your source lies, since it is a Presbyterian ministry to try to convert Jews. Here is the proper information about it

http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Isa53JP.pdf

 

[Logicman]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

I did. a nuimber of times.. You ignore it, repeat and rinse. Your source lies, since it is a Presbyterian ministry to try to convert Jews. Here is the proper information about it

http://thejewishhome.org/counter/Isa53JP.pdf

Nope. And it doesn't answer the following:

"The prophet speaking is Isaiah himself, who says the sufferer was punished for "the transgression of my people," according to verse 8. Who are the people of Isaiah? Israel. So the sufferer of Isaiah 53 suffered for Israel. So how could he be Israel?"

Answer the question?

 

[Logicman]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

What Jewish Rabbis said about Isaiah 53:

Babylonian Talmud: "The Messiah --what is his name?...The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, `surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted...'" (Sanhedrin 98b)

Midrash Ruth Rabbah: "Another explanation (of Ruth ii.14): -- He is speaking of king Messiah; `Come hither,' draw near to the throne; `and eat of the bread,' that is, the bread of the kingdom; `and dip thy morsel in the vinegar,' this refers to his chastisements, as it is said, `But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities'"

Targum Jonathan: "Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high and increase and be exceedingly strong..."

Zohar: "`He was wounded for our transgressions,' etc....There is in the Garden of Eden a palace called the Palace of the Sons of Sickness; this palace the Messiah then enters, and summons every sickness, every pain, and every chastisement of Israel; they all come and rest upon him. And were it not that he had thus lightened them off Israel and taken them upon himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel's chastisements for the transgression of the law: and this is that which is written, `Surely our sicknesses he hath carried.'"

Rabbi Moses Maimonides: "What is the manner of Messiah's advent....there shall rise up one of whom none have known before, and signs and wonders which they shall see performed by him will be the proofs of his true origin; for the Almighty, where he declares to us his mind upon this matter, says, `Behold a man whose name is the Branch, and he shall branch forth out of his place' (Zech. 6:12). And Isaiah speaks similarly of the time when he shall appear, without father or mother or family being known, He came up as a sucker before him, and as a root out of dry earth, etc....in the words of Isaiah, when describing the manner in which kings will harken to him, At him kings will shut their mouth; for that which had not been told them have they seen, and that which they had not heard they have perceived." (From the Letter to the South (Yemen), quoted in The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, Volume 2, pages 374-5)

More in the link.

https://www.chaim.org/rabbis.htm

 

[Daisy]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

What Jewish Rabbis said about Isaiah 53:

Babylonian Talmud: "The Messiah --what is his name?...The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, `surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted...'" (Sanhedrin 98b)

Midrash Ruth Rabbah: "Another explanation (of Ruth ii.14): -- He is speaking of king Messiah; `Come hither,' draw near to the throne; `and eat of the bread,' that is, the bread of the kingdom; `and dip thy morsel in the vinegar,' this refers to his chastisements, as it is said, `But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities'"

Targum Jonathan: "Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high and increase and be exceedingly strong..."

Zohar: "`He was wounded for our transgressions,' etc....There is in the Garden of Eden a palace called the Palace of the Sons of Sickness; this palace the Messiah then enters, and summons every sickness, every pain, and every chastisement of Israel; they all come and rest upon him. And were it not that he had thus lightened them off Israel and taken them upon himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel's chastisements for the transgression of the law: and this is that which is written, `Surely our sicknesses he hath carried.'"

Rabbi Moses Maimonides: "What is the manner of Messiah's advent....there shall rise up one of whom none have known before, and signs and wonders which they shall see performed by him will be the proofs of his true origin; for the Almighty, where he declares to us his mind upon this matter, says, `Behold a man whose name is the Branch, and he shall branch forth out of his place' (Zech. 6:12). And Isaiah speaks similarly of the time when he shall appear, without father or mother or family being known, He came up as a sucker before him, and as a root out of dry earth, etc....in the words of Isaiah, when describing the manner in which kings will harken to him, At him kings will shut their mouth; for that which had not been told them have they seen, and that which they had not heard they have perceived." (From the Letter to the South (Yemen), quoted in The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, Volume 2, pages 374-5)

More in the link.

https://www.chaim.org/rabbis.htm

You're wasting your time, LM...there are none so blind...

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Baloney.

You STILL haven't answered the objections I listed showing why the Messiah of Isaiah 53 cannot be Israel? You stumped (again)?

Why Isaiah 53 cannot refer to the nation of Israel, or anyone else, but must be the Messiah

"1. The servant of Isaiah 53 is an innocent and guiltless sufferer. Israel is never described as sinless. Isaiah 1:4 says of the nation: "Alas sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity. A brood of evildoers, children who are corrupters!" He then goes on in the same chapter to characterize Judah as Sodom, Jerusalem as a harlot, and the people as those whose hands are stained with blood (verses 10, 15, and 21). What a far cry from the innocent and guiltless sufferer of Isaiah 53 who had "done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth!

2. The prophet said: "It pleased the LORD to bruise him." Has the awful treatment of the Jewish people (so contrary, by the way, to the teaching of Jesus to love everyone) really been God's pleasure, as is said of the suffering of the servant in Isaiah 53:10 ? If, as some rabbis contend, Isaiah 53 refers to the holocaust, can we really say of Israel's suffering during that horrible period, "It pleased the LORD to bruise him?" Yet it makes perfect sense to say that God was pleased to have Messiah suffer and die as our sin offering to provide us forgiveness and atonement....

6. The prophet speaking is Isaiah himself, who says the sufferer was punished for "the transgression of my people," according to verse 8. Who are the people of Isaiah? Israel. So the sufferer of Isaiah 53 suffered for Israel. So how could he be Israel?"

More in the link / article.

https://www.chaim.org/nation.htm

Answer the objections, Ramoss.

Oh no, you want him to directly answer something?! The thing is, lots of these theological things that he argues with us are very simplistic and straight forward things...

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Nope. And it doesn't answer the following:

"The prophet speaking is Isaiah himself, who says the sufferer was punished for "the transgression of my people," according to verse 8. Who are the people of Isaiah? Israel. So the sufferer of Isaiah 53 suffered for Israel. So how could he be Israel?"

Answer the question?

I see you did not read my link. Ok.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

What Jewish Rabbis said about Isaiah 53:

Babylonian Talmud: "The Messiah --what is his name?...The Rabbis say, The Leper Scholar, as it is said, `surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God and afflicted...'" (Sanhedrin 98b)

Midrash Ruth Rabbah: "Another explanation (of Ruth ii.14): -- He is speaking of king Messiah; `Come hither,' draw near to the throne; `and eat of the bread,' that is, the bread of the kingdom; `and dip thy morsel in the vinegar,' this refers to his chastisements, as it is said, `But he was wounded for our transgressions, bruised for our iniquities'"

Targum Jonathan: "Behold my servant Messiah shall prosper; he shall be high and increase and be exceedingly strong..."

Zohar: "`He was wounded for our transgressions,' etc....There is in the Garden of Eden a palace called the Palace of the Sons of Sickness; this palace the Messiah then enters, and summons every sickness, every pain, and every chastisement of Israel; they all come and rest upon him. And were it not that he had thus lightened them off Israel and taken them upon himself, there had been no man able to bear Israel's chastisements for the transgression of the law: and this is that which is written, `Surely our sicknesses he hath carried.'"

Rabbi Moses Maimonides: "What is the manner of Messiah's advent....there shall rise up one of whom none have known before, and signs and wonders which they shall see performed by him will be the proofs of his true origin; for the Almighty, where he declares to us his mind upon this matter, says, `Behold a man whose name is the Branch, and he shall branch forth out of his place' (Zech. 6:12). And Isaiah speaks similarly of the time when he shall appear, without father or mother or family being known, He came up as a sucker before him, and as a root out of dry earth, etc....in the words of Isaiah, when describing the manner in which kings will harken to him, At him kings will shut their mouth; for that which had not been told them have they seen, and that which they had not heard they have perceived." (From the Letter to the South (Yemen), quoted in The Fifty-third Chapter of Isaiah According to the Jewish Interpreters, Ktav Publishing House, 1969, Volume 2, pages 374-5)

More in the link.

https://www.chaim.org/rabbis.htm

Ah. Out of context quotes and lies, taken from the late 19th century book from E.B *****. You do love to keep on using that debunked source, over and over gain.

This explains how the Sanhedrin 98B is being misused and abused. https://nojesus4jews.weebly.com/sop...ish-sources-on-isaiah-53-talmud-sanhedrin-98b

That page also addresses that fraud that book you quoted used. (By the way, it's not written in 1969, but 1876, by an Anglican priest who lied)

 

[Logicman]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

Ah. Out of context quotes and lies....

That's your standard cop out. Don't even bother posting that nonsense anymore. Just say "Ramoss Plea #1".

 

[Logicman]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

I see you did not read my link. Ok.

It's not in your stupid link. Print out the particular sentence or two when you get something.

 

[Hatuey]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

No, you cut and paste from the JW web site without understanding, which makes quite a few claims (such as the Rabbi's idea it was the Messiah) that are false, based on a 19th century book written by an Anglican priest that lies.

The easiest way to destroy Elvira's silliness is to ask her why JWs have a headquarter in the American East Coast, and where the bible tells them to set up shop in the Americas.

She disappears within minute. That, or she starts quoting bible passages as if they change the odd of a JW discussing politics as if they voted. That's what is happening here. Easier suggestion, challenge her to a logical discussion on the existence of god, then watch the thread die.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[Hatuey]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

When anti-theists wash off their overpowering stench of intellectual snobbery, and those proselytizing theists wash off their overpowering stench of moral sanctimony, that is the day when society gets more civilized. Both represent a form of stereotyping and obnoxious arrogance that we can best do without.


Yes atheists manage to find their moral center and formulate a set of values and ethical stances without a God's help.
Yes theists manage to think logically, weigh evidence and respond with reason every day, without throwing their faith based beliefs under the bus.

There is no logic in being a theist. If 100,000 kids claim to have an imaginary friend, one that cant be tested, examined, observed, or recorded that doesn't make him any more real than if 4 out of 5 adults say they have the same imaginary friend, but they call him god.

The theistic position is one that has had all of recorded human history to prove gods. Ra, Zeus, Allah, Chutlu, whatever they were called, not one not ONE group could say 'our proof of X god is real and can be tested and predicted by laws which we currently understand'. Instead it gambles on ignorance to explain literally everything which cannot be understood at that point. The god of the gaps isn't just a funny catch phrase, it's a literal description of the state of modern religion.

The overwhelming majority of people use to beg for 'gods Mercy's and protection until they died from horrible diseases that we can now get rid of with antibiotics. Today equally pious people will deny their kids antibiotics if their belief that their god will heal their kid is big enough. The kids almost always end up dead, the adults remain pious and declare that the kid dying was all a part of a plan. What plan? For a kid to never go to prom, drive a car, do all of the things kids want to do? That's gods plan? That all suggest that the more theistic one becomes, the less logical they are likely to be.


Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

That's your standard cop out. Don't even bother posting that nonsense anymore. Just say "Ramoss Plea #1".

My stand is against lying. That is what your sources do. Whiich makes me wonder, if fundamentalist Christianity is so great, why does it have to use dishonesty to promote itself?

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

It's not in your stupid link. Print out the particular sentence or two when you get something.

Yqwn. When you print out the particular phrases in your raw links and books you continually throw up.

 

[Daisy]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

The easiest way to destroy Elvira's silliness is to ask her why JWs have a headquarter in the American East Coast, and where the bible tells them to set up shop in the Americas.

She disappears within minute. That, or she starts quoting bible passages as if they change the odd of a JW discussing politics as if they voted. That's what is happening here. Easier suggestion, challenge her to a logical discussion on the existence of god, then watch the thread die.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

No, I merely ignore dumb post/questions...like yours...I don't waste my time on tomfoolery...

 

[Daisy]

Re: Taking the Bible Literally -- Or Not

That's your standard cop out. Don't even bother posting that nonsense anymore. Just say "Ramoss Plea #1".

Predictable rhetoric is all he''s got...