Dr. Vladimir Zelenko drops the reddest of red pills, and names names.
(media.communities.win)
💊 RED PILL 💊
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (144)
sorted by:
You should learn what the Jewish perspective is on those chapters. There's a two volume book set "Let's Get Biblical!" which explains it rather well. It's a wealth of knowledge that few people are aware of.
It's page is here: https://outreachjudaism.org/shop/lets-get-biblical-expanded-2-volume-study-guide/
Here's some details from its summary:
"In essence, Christians are dumbfounded. They don’t understand why the vast majority of Jews are unimpressed with their assertion that the central role of the messiah was to die for the sins of the world. Christians wonder: Why don’t passages in the ‘Old Testament’ such as Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 convince the Jews that the messiah was to suffer and die for the sins of mankind? Don’t these and other texts in the Hebrew Scriptures provide irrefutable proof that Jesus is the promised Jewish messiah? After all, these chapters appear prominently in their own Bible."
"There is a clear answer to this age-old question: The messiah is not mentioned in any of these passages. In fact, these texts do not refer to the messiah but to someone or something else."
"the Church, as well as later Christian ‘translators’ manipulated, misquoted, mistranslated, and even fabricated passages in the Hebrew Scriptures in order to make its verses appear to be speaking about Jesus. This exhaustive and eye-opening book probes and illuminates this thought-provoking subject."
"Tragically, over the past two millennia, the Church’s faithful have been completely oblivious to this Bible-tampering because virtually no Christian can read or understand the Hebrew Scriptures in its original language."
"Since time immemorial, earnest parishioners blindly and utterly depended upon manmade Christian ‘translations’ of the ‘Old Testament’ in order to understand the ‘Word of God.’ Understandably, churchgoers are deeply puzzled by the Jewish rejection of their religion’s claims. They wonder aloud why Jewish people, who are reared since childhood in the Holy Tongue, and are the bearers and protectors of the sacred Oracles of God, do not accept Jesus as their messiah. How can such an extraordinary people dismiss such an extraordinary claim? Are they just plain stubborn? Let’s Get Biblical! thoroughly answers these perennial questions."
Most of the earliest Christians were illiterate, and not biblical scholars. Anyone who is a native Hebrew speaker will tell you that the translations are highly inaccurate if not outright intentionally mistranslated. No one who understands Hebrew well is going to find any mention to the messiah in Isaiah 53 in the original language.
If you want to be honest with yourself, you'll get these two books and investigate the matter for yourself. You don't have to take my word for it.
If you're so sure of your convictions then read the other side. If you don't want to purchase any books, here's some less detailed sources you can read for an introduction: https://outreachjudaism.org/gods-suffering-servant-isaiah-53/ https://www.aish.com/sp/ph/Isaiah_53_The_Suffering_Servant.html
I didn't make a contention one way or the other as to the messiahship of Jesus. All I'm saying is that no one with a good knowledge of Hebrew who reads the original Isaiah 53 will find it is talking about any messiah.
Don't be afraid to go learn something. You can close your eyes and ears and scream "nyah nyah nyah, I'm not listening". But if you were honest with yourself, you would learn as much as you could regarding other interpretations, and why people understand things differently.
You might say I am supporting your point with a simple question I have had for years which is: How come The Eucharist is not mentioned in the Nicene Creed?
Such a pivotal belief that distinguishes Catholics from other Christian denominations and have never heard a satisfying answer to explain its absence. The most common answer is that "the Nicene Creed is not meant to be all encompassing". Just seems to be an odd thing to leave out since the year 325.
https://www.wcr.ab.ca/Columns/Columns/entryid/1735
I'm not familiar with the full history of the issue, but I think the idea of the eucharist being in a sense figurative instead of literal became more popular long after 325. In Nicea, during the proceedings, whether the body is literal as Catholics believe, wasn't an issue they were debating at the moment. If they didn't debate it, then there would be no reason for it to become part of the Nicene Creed. The creed itself would only cover issues that were being debated there. If there was agreement on an issue, or people were unaware of disagreement, then there's no reason to add it to the creed.
It's also possible at that time if there were disagreements, it didn't bother them as much, as they had much larger theological concerns bothering them than as to what the intention of the sacraments are.