If Jesus suddenly came to earth, would he approve of modern Christianity?

[Ahanu]

Ok, so for argument sake: where Isiaah uses the words adulterer and harlot, are the words meant literally -- or as seems obvious in the context of the passage metaphorically -- referring to adultery and harlotry with other gods?

What matters is how zer'a is to be understood in Isaiah.

"Christians claim that “he shall see seed” is symbolic and refers to the increase in number of those who believe in Jesus. Christians interpret certain verses in the Scriptures (Genesis 3:15, 38:8; Isaiah 1:4, 57:4; Malachi 2:15; Psalms 22:31; Proverbs 11:21) as referring only symbolicallyto “bodily seed.” The Christian interpretation is unwarranted, since in each of these verses “seed” is better taken in its usual literal physical sense. For example, Isaiah 57: There the prophet castigates certain individuals (not the nation as a whole) for perpetuating the idolatrous practices of their parents. These verses are a scathing denunciation of wicked offspring who uphold the sinful ways of their parents. Isaiah calls them “sons of the sorceress, the seed of adulterers and the harlot” (verse 3). He then asks: “Are you not children of transgression, a seed of falsehood?” (verse 4), that is, children of parents who live lives of falsehood. They are what the prophet has earlier termed a “seed of evil-doers” (Isaiah 1:4), that is, children of parents who do evil deeds. The people spoken to in Isaiah 57 were conceived in adultery and harlotry; they are the resultant products of transgression and falsehood. Literally, they are children born as a result of parental transgression, a seed born as a result of parental falsehood. When referring to the sins of the parents, the word zer‘a is used since they are literally the physical children of these transgressors."

 

[RJM]

What matters is how zer'a is to be understood in Isaiah.

"Christians claim that “he shall see seed” is symbolic and refers to the increase in number of those who believe in Jesus. Christians interpret certain verses in the Scriptures (Genesis 3:15, 38:8; Isaiah 1:4, 57:4; Malachi 2:15; Psalms 22:31; Proverbs 11:21) as referring only symbolicallyto “bodily seed.” The Christian interpretation is unwarranted, since in each of these verses “seed” is better taken in its usual literal physical sense. For example, Isaiah 57: There the prophet castigates certain individuals (not the nation as a whole) for perpetuating the idolatrous practices of their parents. These verses are a scathing denunciation of wicked offspring who uphold the sinful ways of their parents. Isaiah calls them “sons of the sorceress, the seed of adulterers and the harlot” (verse 3). He then asks: “Are you not children of transgression, a seed of falsehood?” (verse 4), that is, children of parents who live lives of falsehood. They are what the prophet has earlier termed a “seed of evil-doers” (Isaiah 1:4), that is, children of parents who do evil deeds. The people spoken to in Isaiah 57 were conceived in adultery and harlotry; they are the resultant products of transgression and falsehood. Literally, they are children born as a result of parental transgression, a seed born as a result of parental falsehood. When referring to the sins of the parents, the word zer‘a is used since they are literally the physical children of these transgressors."

Ok. So you don't like Jesus as the Christ and the annointed one of Israel?

 

[RJM]

Yet continually reference the Christ in the concept of Baha'u'llah as the new Christ update?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Ok. So you don't like Jesus as the Christ and the annointed one of Israel?

He is not saying that.

 

[RJM]

He is not saying that.

Ok. Perhaps a wrong choice of words. I mean he does not accept that Jesus was the annointed one, the Messiah of Israel?

That's fine, many do not. But then why reference Jesus and the New Testament in relation to Baha'u'llah as the new Christ?

 

[Ahanu]

He is not saying that.

I'm reminding @RJM that there is always going to be someone crying manipulation. Elsewhere he asked: "Do they [Christians] cherry-pick and manipulate the Old Testament?" The honest answer is that many Jewish commentators say just that about Christian interpretations of Isaiah 53. He acts like he doesn't know that. He said:

Also not really talking about translation problems, but deliberate quoting out-of-context and disregarding passages that don't suit the drift?

But that is exactly what many Jewish commentators say about Christian use of Isaiah 53. That they ripped the passage out of context.

 

[Ahanu]

I mean he does not accept that Jesus was the annointed one, the Messiah of Israel?

Here's my opinion.

"Was it not necessary that the Annointed One should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" (Luke 24.26) Jesus' knowledge of the Suffering Servant shows he probably knew the version of Isaiah found at Qumran, and it slightly differs from today's Hebrew text. In the version of Isaiah found at Qumran, there is an extra letter where "marred" is in Isaiah 52.14, making it read "anointed."

In their article on the interpretation of Isaiah 53 in the pre-Christian period, Martin Hengel and Daniel P. Bailey noted a striking messianic reading in the Great Isaiah Scroll for Isaiah 52:14. They wrote,

The first line agrees with the MT (though the MT’s עָלֶיךָ is here spelled with the final ה mater) and may be translated “Just as many were astonished at you.” But in the second line, instead of the MT’s unclear hapax legomenon מִשְׁחַת or מַשְׁחֵת, “marring,” “disfigurement,” 1QIsaa suffixes a yod to read the qal perfect first singular מָשַׁחְתִּי, “I have anointed.” To the last word אָדָם, 1QIsaa furthermore adds the article: “the human.” We may therefore translate:

Just as many were astonished at you, so have I anointed his appearance beyond that of any (other) man, and his form beyond that of the sons of humanity [lit., of the human].[26]
Because this reading indicates God anointed the servant "beyond that of any (other) man," it is likely that the scribe who penned the Great Isaiah Scroll interpreted the servant as Messiah.

It is yet another long list of examples of Jesus' knowledge of Qumran tradition. Probably nothing.

 

[RJM]

I'm reminding @RJM that there is always going to be someone crying manipulation. Elsewhere he asked: "Do they [Christians] cherry-pick and manipulate the Old Testament?" The honest answer is that many Jewish commentators say just that about Christian interpretations of Isaiah 53. He acts like he doesn't know that. He said:

But that is exactly what many Jewish commentators say about Christian use of Isaiah 53. That they ripped the passage out of context.

And through that discussion I came to accept Christian cherry picking of the OT and was referred by @TheLightWithin to Tovia Singer, thus learning from the discussion, or did you miss that part? I will look for it and post it here if you want.

Now, back to your response to my question to you?

If you do not believe Jesus was the Christ, why do Bahá’í reference Jesus in relation to Baha’u’llah as the new Christ?

 

[Ahanu]

And through that discussion I came to accept Christian cherry picking of the OT and was referred by @TheLightWithin to Tovia Singer, thus learning from the discussion, or did you miss that part? I will look for it and post it here if you want.

You can share if you like.

If you do not believe Jesus was the Christ, why do Bahá’í reference Jesus in relation to Baha’u’llah as the new Christ?

I never said I didn't. I was sharing my understanding of Jewish commentators.

 

[RJM]

You can share if you like.

It starts here:

If you were to listen to talks by Rabbi Tovia Singer, he would say, oh boy do they ever.

I have conceded Christian cherry picking above in the discussion we are having now. I've said I don't like it, and that Christ for Christians has gone beyond just the annointed Jewish Messiah.

I'm on my phone and need to get to the PC to dig up my previous comment on the subject.

However you have it from me here: I concede Christian cherry picking and I don't like it. I don't believe Jesus meets the requirements of the Jewish warrior Messiah.

The Christ is for all, not just the Jews

 

[RJM]

never said I didn't.

So you do?

 

[Ahanu]

However you have it from me here: I concede Christian cherry picking and I don't like it.

You concede Jesus cherry picked? "Was it not necessary that the Annointed One should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" (Luke 24.26) His understanding is based on his reading of Isaiah.

So you do?

Sure. I believe Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah here.

 

[RJM]

You concede Jesus cherry picked? "Was it not necessary that the Annointed One should suffer these things and enter into his glory?" (Luke 24.26) His understanding is based on his reading of Isaiah.

No I believe Jesus fulfills the Isiaah prophecy. But that was not how the Jewish Messiah was supposed to be. The Jews expected a warrior Messiah who would free them from their enemies.

 

[RJM]

In Luke Jesus explains that He is almost the opposite of what the Jewish Messiah was supposed to be -- that in fact the Isiaah suffering servant prophecies the Messiah.

But I'm not a scripture fundi. You will need to take it up with someone else. I don't care that much. I don't like scriptural manipulation. I think scripture and religion are the shell of the nut. I don't think the NT predicts Muhammad or Baha'u'llah.

It's my personal view

 

[Ahanu]

No I believe Jesus fulfills the Isiaah prophecy.

Okay, then. You do not concede cherry picking here.

But that was not how the Jewish Messiah was supposed to be. The Jews expected a warrior Messiah who would free them from their enemies.

Okay. Thanks for sharing.

I'm going to sleep.

 

[RJM]

Okay, then. You do not concede cherry picking here.

Not from the overall context of the passage in allusion to the suffering servant as the unexpected messiah of Israel, against the expectation of a warrior messiah -- which is the point being made in the Luke passage, imo

I'm going to sleep.

I'm getting up, lol