Rom 11:1-18 adresses your argument quite clearly.

Romans 11

1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.
8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?
13 For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office:
14 If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and might save some of them.
15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?
16 For if the firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root be holy, so are the branches.
17 And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee.
19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed in.
20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff them in again.
24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery,
lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Note:
1) God hath not cast away his people
2) There is a remnant of grace, not of works
3) They stumbled in part to allow the Gentiles to come in
4) If their stumbling helped the Gentiles, their reconciliation will be even better
5) We were grafted into their tree
6) God is able to graft the natural branches back into their own tree
7) There will be a reconciliation of Israel one day, which will bring all Israel back to God

Finally, notice I am not making arguments based on verses of scripture. I am simply restating here what the scripture actually says.

Given all this, what is this tripe about God “divorcing” the Jews? And how can all of Revelations, which refers to the Jews being reconciled, be already fulfilled when the Jews have not already been reconciled?

theregoestheneighborhood on March 30, 2008 at 9:26 AM

Isaiah didn’t teach that the Messiah’s purpose is to remove sin. Rather, Isaiah said that the Messiah will come to the Jewish people when they show themselves worthy by turning away from sin.

Oopsee. Another essential Christian concept, magic sin removal, down the drain, once again due to sloppy plagiarism and a lack of essential Hebrew language comprehension skills.

Once again, “The truth will set you free”.

Shy Guy on March 30, 2008 at 9:57 AM

Isaiah never taught that the Messiah had anything to do with saving people from their sins? Hmmm.

Isa 53:4-10

4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.
5 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.
6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
7 He was oppressed, and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth.
8 He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken.
9 And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.

Let’s see. He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities. The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all. For the transgression of my people he was stricken. He was made an offering for sin.

Note the use of the word “bruised” echoes the first Messianic promise of the Bible, Gen 3:15, where the seed of the woman would bruise the head of the serpent, and the serpent would bruise the heel of the seed of the woman.

And is it now your position that the “magic sin removal” of the sacrifices of Leviticus is worthy of ridicule, also? It’s the same principle, just with animal sacrifices rather than the sacrifice of a Messiah.

In fact, the whole scheme of sacrifices in the Torah shows pretty clearly that no one would ever be completely without sin while trying to keep the law. Otherwise, there would be no need for a sacrifice.

The key difference in the Christian faith is the belief that Jesus was that sacrifice. Which is why he said he came not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to fulfill. He fulfilled the law by fulfilling the sacrifices, as well as fulfilling the prophets in the more obvious way.

And really, applying the term “plagiarism” to what is an obvious reference to Isaiah is pretty silly. Or did you miss that, “as it is written” part?

theregoestheneighborhood on March 30, 2008 at 12:59 PM

Same mistake over and over again. And Isaiah 53 is the biggest classic Christian distortion of them all.

Or the biggest classic case of Jews ignoring their own scriptures of all.

Circular reasoning, ignoring context, blind to prior examples of the same language usage, pure unbridled mistranslation (intentional and unintentional)………

By “circular reasoning,” you mean anyone who reads that prophecy and sees it as referring to Jesus. This is not the typical meaning of “circular reasoning,” to say the very least. In fact, that interpretation of “circular reasoning” could be applied to essentially any prophecy ever made. Do you really want to negate the “prophets” part of “the law and the prophets?”

Read it again, and see if it doesn’t apply more clearly to Jesus himself than to the entire people of Israel. Israel is the sacrifice for Israel’s own sins? That wouldn’t be sacrifice, that would be punishment.

The essential reason you don’t believe Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus is because you don’t believe in Jesus. There. I found your circular reasoning.

Let’s see. He was wounded for our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities.

Unfortunately it says:

“”But he was wounded from (not “for”) our transgressions, he was crushed from (AGAIN: not “for”) our iniquities.”

Let’s move on….

Yes, please do. Unless you want to argue that all the translators of the King James Bible were ignoramuses as well.

Or were you saving that for your next post?

BTW, who told you that Genesis 3:15 relates to Messianic times? Oh. Some Christian theoligian.

That’s an odd statement. If it does not refer to the Messiah as the seed of the woman, then what does it refer to? Is God saying the human race as a whole will crush the head of Satan?

Sorry. No sale.

Ask yourself what you’ve been swallowing blindly a good part of your life.

Ad hominem.

And is it now your position that the “magic sin removal” of the sacrifices of Leviticus is worthy of ridicule, also? It’s the same principle, just with animal sacrifices rather than the sacrifice of a Messiah.

I think you might be surprised to learn that you don’t have an inkling of understanding of what the sacrifices (lousy word for it, go learn Hebrew to understand why) were all about. See One Way Street to Salvation?.

Well, I love your response: “Learn Hebrew, and then come talk to me.” That would certainly put an end to this particular thread.

Topped off, of course, with, “You don’t have an inkling of understanding.”

And really, applying the term “plagiarism” to what is an obvious reference to Isaiah is pretty silly. Or did you miss that, “as it is written” part?

You’re right in this instance. My oversight. Sorry. But does that make you feel any happier about the shoddy incorrect translation? For, after all, it turns out that it in NOT “as it is written.”

Shy Guy on March 30, 2008 at 1:39 PM

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, the New Testament in Greek. So a New Testament quotation of an Old Testament scripture is rarely the exact wording, since it was translated from Hebrew to Greek, and then again from Greek to Hebrew, while the Old Testament was translated directly.

This particular case isn’t as convincing as you might think, though, since the passage in Isaiah refers to them that “turn from transgression,” as in repentance, rather than those who have purged themselves from transgression, as in those who have made themselves worthy of the Messiah.

Repentance is the first step of God taking away our sins. If anything, it appears Paul was closer to the meaning of the verse than you are.

theregoestheneighborhood on March 30, 2008 at 2:51 PM

Last for the night.

Or the biggest classic case of Jews ignoring their own scriptures of all.

Our Hebrew has been quite well over the millenia. And yours? As I’ve shown you and will continue to, we don’t keep making the same sloppy mistakes as you folks do.

Multiple non sequiturs. I spoke of scriptures, not of Hebrew itself. Which makes your question about my Hebrew a double non-sequitur. Finally, “sloppy mistakes” should refer to more than just disagreeing with the translation.

By “circular reasoning,” you mean anyone who reads that prophecy and sees it as referring to Jesus.

It’s the year -1 BC. No one ever heard of a Jesus.

If they had heard of Jesus, it wouldn’t be a prophecy. Even though a Messiah was promised throughout the Old Testament, you won’t find where the Messiah was given a name. In fact, there are a lot of details unmentioned. You can find references to him being of the seed of David, but nothing about which generation.

No observant Jew ever heard of most Christian originated concepts except in the sphere of being easily defined as idol worship.

I must have missed the graven images somehow…

Go ack a few 100 years. Isaiah’s alive and well and telling the nation of Israel what’s been written down for eternity in this chapter. No one, from Isaiah himself, to other existing Jewish prophets then and later, to Jewish scholars then and onwards, to the people who studied the Torah and the words of the prophets, had no concept of what you here today are talking about.

As I said, your gods must be very cruel to have left out such supposedly pertinent information from our teachings and retributions at Isaiah’s times.

Since it was future, it would have been very hard for the people of Isaiah’s day to “have a concept.” Again, prophecy does not imply complete knowledge.

This is not the typical meaning of “circular reasoning,” to say the very least

I’ll quote:

Before engaging in an examination of Isaiah 53 itself, some preliminary issues must be considered. First is the issue of circular reasoning. Even if we interpret the chapter as the Christians do (forgetting for a minute the mistranslations and distortions of context which will be noted below), the most that could be said is this: Isaiah 53 is about someone who dies for the sins of others. People may have seen Jesus die, but did anyone see him die as an atonement for the sins of others? Of course not; this is simply the meaning which the New Testament gives to his death. Only if you already accept the New Testament teaching that his death had a non-visible, spiritual significance can you than go back to Isaiah and say, “see – the Prophet predicted what I already believe.” Isaiah 53, then, is in reality no “proof” at all, but rather a contrived confirmation for someone who has already chosen Christianity.

What’s so hard to understand? This?

And if you reject Jesus as the Messiah, you have to try to interpret Isaiah 53 as referring to … Israel itself. Your reasoning is every bit as circular, by your definition, as mine.

But that’s because you take something that is obviously open to at least some interpretation, like a prophecy, and apply the rules of “proof” to it. It can only be proof if there is no other reasonable interpretation.

Now, I don’t think the interpretation of Isaiah 53 as referring to Israel itself is reasonable. For example, “he” was wounded for “our” transgressions. Except “he” is the whole people of Israel, and they were wounded for the transgressions of … the whole people of Israel. And He (the whole people of Israel) was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he (my people?) stricken. There’s a constant shifting from “he” as “my servant” to “our” and “my people,” which just doesn’t make much sense if “my servant” IS “my people.”

In fact, that interpretation of “circular reasoning” could be applied to essentially any prophecy ever made. Do you really want to negate the “prophets” part of “the law and the prophets?”

On the contrary. The essential law of prophets is in Deteronomy 18:20. Jesus fails the test. We’re still waiting for Isaiah’s prophecy to come true.

To fail that test, Jesus would have to have prophesied something would happen that didn’t. Obviously, that excludes things that were prophesied to happen in the “end times” or “at the last day,” since we haven’t reached that point yet.

The link I just posted is also the reason why Isaiah himself would never have had a thought about an idolotrous belief of an in-the-flesh god.

But once again, instead of starting to read from Isaiah 53, try going back to Isaiah 52. Context. And again, my prior link about Isaiah 53, pointing out the numerous Christian mistranslations and oversights out of deparation to claim what the text itself simply does not say.

That would be where we read,

Isaiah 52:13-15

13 Behold, my servant shall deal prudently, he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high.
14 As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:
15 So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had not been told them shall they see; and that which they had not heard shall they consider.

Which, again, has a remarkable application to Jesus… But I’m sure it can all be put down to mistranslation again.

Yes, please do. Unless you want to argue that all the translators of the King James Bible were ignoramuses as well.

If the shoe fits. But many mistranslations occurred way way before anyone spoke the English language.

Or were you saving that for your next post?

Why wait?!

I’ve pointed out roughly half a dozen mistranslations so far, all well know and obvious to anyone with a semi-decent knowledge of even modern Hebrew. And all this from just a few of the verses quoted.

But I can guarantee you that if you could magically know Hebrew fluently in one hour’s time, you’d reconsider beofre posting many a verse you assumed until now meant something that they do not say.

Half a dozen mistranslations, all well-known and obvious to anyone with a semi-decent knowledge of even modern Hebrew. But I’m supposed to believe that even those acknowledged experts in Hebrew and Greek that translated the King James Bible, long recognized as a great work of scholarship, just couldn’t translate anything right.

But I get a taste of these alleged mistranslations when you claim “for” is an obviously wrong translation in Isaiah 53:5. Here is the Merriam Webster definition of “for”:

1 a—used as a function word to indicate purpose
b—used as a function word to indicate an intended goal
c—used as a function word to indicate the object or recipient of a perception, desire, or activity
2 a: as being or constituting
b—used as a function word to indicate an actual or implied enumeration or selection
3: because of
4—used as a function word to indicate suitability or fitness
5 a: in place of
b (1): on behalf of : representing (2): in favor of
6: in spite of —usually used with all
7: with respect to : concerning
8 a—used as a function word to indicate equivalence in exchange , equality in number or quantity , or correspondence or correlation
b—used as a function word to indicate number of attempts
9—used as a function word to indicate duration of time or extent of space
10: in honor of : after

But you would say that none of the above meanings can be anything other than an obvious mistranslation. I’m not buyin it. People who actually translate things know that sometimes there’s more than one way to translate the same thing, and that often it is only the context that determines the best translation. This is notoriously true of translating prepositions, which vary widely in meaning from one language to another. Such as for and from.

Topped off, of course, with, “You don’t have an inkling of understanding.”

Christianity’s claims of what sacrifices are about were never in line with what the Torah’s reason for them was in the first place. And hence the whole argument about blood sacrifices falls flat on its face. Let alone when there were flour meal offerings, too.

First sacrifice recorded in the Bible was Abel’s and Cain’s, long before the Torah was given. Abel’s was accepted, Cain’s was rejected. Abel’s was a blood sacrifice, Cain’s was not. Cain was told to redo his sacrifice, and it would be accepted. Instead, he killed Abel. This strongly suggests that a) not every sacrifice is acceptable to God, b) Cain and Abel both knew the kind of sacrifice they should give, c) Cain refused, and d) if Cain and Abel knew the kind of sacrifice to give, it was probably taught them by Adam and Eve. Unless it was taught by God himself.

Noah offered burnt sacrifices of clean animals after the Flood.

Abraham offered sacrifices, a heifer, a goat, a ram, a turtledove, and a pigeon, before getting the promise of an heir — Isaac.

Abraham being called to offer up Isaac was not only a blood sacrifice, but also a pretty good picture of the sacrifice of Jesus.

Sacrifice existed before the Torah was given. The law then gave extensive directions on how the sacrifices were to be done, and where.

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, the New Testament in Greek. So a New Testament quotation of an Old Testament scripture is rarely the exact wording, since it was translated from Hebrew to Greek, and then again from Greek to Hebrew, while the Old Testament was translated directly.

One would think that G-d would have been smart enough a second time around to employ those intelligent enough to get His holy scriptures right. We Jews don’t have this problem with the Torah, Prophets and Scriptures. You folks do. Doesn’t that lack of reliability tell you something?

Right. When you translate from Hebrew into Greek, then translate that Greek into English, it comes out exactly the same.

Except that a) you don’t do that sort of translation (why would you, outside of the context of translating scriptures in Greek that contain translations from Hebrew?) and b) if the two-step translation came out exactly the same as a direct translation from Hebrew, it would actually prove that you didn’t translate the Greek at all, you just replaced it with the original Hebrew.

This particular case isn’t as convincing as you might think, though, since the passage in Isaiah refers to them that “turn from transgression,” as in repentance, rather than those who have purged themselves from transgression, as in those who have made themselves worthy of the Messiah.

Which passage in Isaiah 53 refers to “turning” or “purging” from transgression? It doesn’t say that in verse 5.

Repentance is the first step of God taking away our sins.

A Torah concept from time immemorial.

That was in reference to what you said about Isaiah 59:20. I should have made the different context clearer.

Shy Guy on March 30, 2008 at 4:12 PM

But I’ll agree with you on this point: Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. It’s that knowing the truth that’s the tricky part.

theregoestheneighborhood on March 30, 2008 at 6:57 PM